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

[WordPress Trac]

#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 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:
 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatDoesCompatMean

 >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
 copy
 of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to
 deal
 in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the
 rights
 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
 THE
 AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER
 LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING
 FROM,
 OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN
 THE SOFTWARE.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16517#comment:19>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software