[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #16517: What about / Whom to ask for full/missing wordpress source-code?
wp-trac at lists.automattic.com
Fri Feb 18 23:26:55 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:
Comment (by Otto42):
Replying to [comment:18 hakre]:
> Otto, the worpdress.org homepage states that the package I can download
is licensed under GNU GPL.
The package is GPL, yes. The individual files do not have to be, as long
as they're under less restrictive licenses.
See, you're correct in that the GPL provides for including files from
multiple sources. This is what is meant by GPL-Compatible. A GPL-
Compatible license is one that is less restrictive than the GPL itself.
The MIT license can be found on GNU's license compatibility page as the
"X11 License": http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
So in fact, while the SWFUpload code is not licensed under the GPL, it is
licensed under something that is even *less* restrictive than the GPL. The
MIT license does not require you to distribute sources. It also does not
require you to make modifications available. You may note that on that GNU
page, it mentions that it is a non-copyleft license.
Take it another way: What if we only had the binary? No sources available.
Well, the binary is still free to use for any purpose. It's still under a
less restrictive license than the GPL. It is still GPL-Compatible, even as
a binary alone. Because it's GPL-compatible, it can be repackaged and
included with GPL software. Nobody says it better than here:
>What does it mean to say a license is “compatible with the GPL?”
>It means that the other license and the GNU GPL are compatible; you can
combine code released under the other license with code released under the
GNU GPL in one larger program.
Now, somebody did point out this clause in the MIT license which I had not
noticed before: "The above copyright notice and this permission notice
shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software."
So we do need to include a copy of the license along with the
SWFUpload.swf file. But that's all their license requires. Here's what the
MIT license says, in full:
Copyright (C) <year> by <copyright holders>
Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a
of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell
copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is
furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:
The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in
all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EXPRESS OR
IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF MERCHANTABILITY,
FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL
AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16517#comment:19>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software
More information about the wp-trac