[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #16517: What about / Whom to ask for full/missing wordpress source-code?

Thu Feb 17 14:29:49 UTC 2011

#16517: What about / Whom to ask for full/missing wordpress source-code?
--------------------------------+------------------------------
 Reporter:  hakre               |       Owner:
     Type:  defect (bug)        |      Status:  reopened
 Priority:  normal              |   Milestone:  Awaiting Review
Component:  WordPress.org site  |     Version:
 Severity:  normal              |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                      |
--------------------------------+------------------------------

Comment (by chipbennett):

 Replying to [comment:10 Otto42]:
 > Replying to [comment:9 chipbennett]:
 > > Wait, what? I find this response confusing. Either WordPress is
 distributed 100% GPL or it is not. If WordPress is 100% GPL, then the
 source-code provision applies to 100% of the code (including erstwhile
 MIT-licensed code that has been re-licensed as GPL for distribution with
 WordPress). If WordPress is ''not'' 100% GPL, then don't we have a bigger
 problem?
 >
 > You both misunderstand the nature of the GPL, GPL-Compatible, and how
 licensing works.
 >
 > Code '''cannot''' be "relicensed" by anybody other than the copyright
 holder. You cannot put licensing terms on code that you do not own,
 period.
 >
 I realized after I hit "submit" that I used a poor choice of phrasing
 there. I meant "GPL-compatible".
 >
 > So we can't "relicense" the SWFUpload code any more than I could take
 code you released and put my own terms on it and then re-release it.
 That's theft.
 >
 > The term "GPL-Compatible" means that the code has licensing terms on it
 that are equal to or less restrictive than the GPL itself. This means that
 we can release it as part of a larger work which is GPL. The individual
 pieces can have their own terms, but the work-as-a-whole is GPL'd.
 >
 > The terms in section 2 make this clear:
 >
 > ''These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If
 identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and
 can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves,
 then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you
 distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same
 sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the
 distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose
 permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to
 each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
 > ''
 >
 > So the GPL applies to WordPress as-a-whole, but not to the individual
 and independent parts of it, such as SWFUpload, when they are separated
 out. SWFUpload has not be "re-licensed", it's been included in another
 work which has a more restrictive license than it itself has.
 >
 I think you're misreading that clause. Let's parse:

   If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
 and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
 themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
 sections '''when you distribute them as separate works'''

 The binary in question is not being distributed by WordPress ''as a
 separate work'', but rather as a component of the whole package. Thus, we
 must consider the next clause:

   But '''when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is
 a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
 terms of this License''', whose '''permissions for other licensees
 extend''' to the entire whole, and thus '''to each and every part'''
 regardless of who wrote it.

 That's pretty clear: GPL ''permissions for other licensees extend... to
 each and every part [of the whole]''.
 >
 > > Bottom line: whomever is responsible for distributing WordPress (i.e.
 the WordPress Foundation, or currently more accurately, Matt Mullenweg, as
 the owner and responsible party for the wordpress.org web site), ''is
 under obligation'' to provide full source code for 100% of WordPress.
 >
 > No, he is not. GPL, Section 3:
 >
 > ''If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
 access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent access to
 copy the source code from the same place counts as distribution of the
 source code, even though third parties are not compelled to copy the
 source along with the object code.
 > ''
 >
 So where is this "designated place" from which WordPress offers for
 licensees to download source files for the binary in question?
 >
 > And that is for the case where the code was GPL to begin with. Which, as
 I stated before, does not apply to the SWFUpload code as it is not GPL,
 but MIT licensed. Furthermore, the files accompanying the SWFUpload code
 give its URL and the place to download it. SWFUpload is included in
 WordPress in an unmodified format. There are no changes to it that need
 their source code included.
 >
 *Runs off to check core...*

 Okay, so the link provided goes to the SWFUpload project website, which
 itself links to a googlecode repository for the code itself. Is the
 swfupload.swf source file
 [http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/source/browse/swfupload/trunk/core/Flash
 somewhere in here]?
 >
 > > WordPress is being distributed, ostensibly licensed 100% under GPL -
 and whomever is responsible for that distribution is responsible for
 fulfilling the terms of the GPL, including full source disclosure.
 >
 > The GPL makes absolutely no such requirement to begin with. You are
 misunderstanding the terms.

 No, I'm not. Let me quote them again:

   But '''when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is
 a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the
 terms of this License''', whose '''permissions for other licensees
 extend''' to the entire whole, and thus '''to each and every part'''
 regardless of who wrote it.

 SWFUpload is being distributed as part of the whole of a work that is
 licensed under GPL, and is itself derived from another GPL-licensed work.
 Thus, the license of the work as a whole, in order to conform to the terms
 of the license, must extend to the entire whole, and ''thus to each and
 every part'' of the whole.
 >
 > Let's say I write a work and release it in object form only. An
 executable. I then say that that executable is licensed under the GPL. Do
 I now have to release the source code for it? Absolutely not. It's my
 work, I wrote it, I own it. I am not under the terms of the GPL, I am
 making it available to *other people* under those terms.
 >
 That's nice, but not germane. WordPress itself is a derived work. The
 copyright holder for SWFUpload did not directly contribute the work to
 WordPress, but rather the work is being ''redistributed''. So, none of
 what you just said has any bearing whatsoever on the matter at hand.
 >
 > I'll state it one more time: WordPress.org (the group doing the
 releasing of WP) is under no obligation to provide the source code for a
 work that they have not modified,  and when they have given the location
 where it may be obtained from the original source, and when it is not GPL
 licensed to begin with.

 I will 100% agree that WordPress is in the clear, ''if someone can point
 out where the swfupload.swf source file is made available''. I assume
 that, if it's available,
 [http://code.google.com/p/swfupload/source/browse/swfupload/trunk/core/Flash
 it's here somewhere]?

 Which, really, would put a quick end to this ticket.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16517#comment:11>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software