[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:  markjaquith
     Type:  defect (bug)        |      Status:  accepted
 Priority:  high                |   Milestone:  Awaiting Review
Component:  WordPress.org site  |     Version:
 Severity:  normal              |  Resolution:
 Keywords:                      |
--------------------------------+------------------------------

Comment (by hakre):

 Replying to [comment:25 markjaquith]:
 > First, regarding the MIT license for swfupload. We don't include an MIT
 license file with it because '''the project does not do so itself'''.

 Otto from wordpress.org explicitly explained above that original copyright
 owners can do whatever they want, which includes to let users of their
 codebase download the terms from a link on their homepage that's to be put
 next to the files if they want to use it.

 This ''might'' even include that those statement is expected to be visible
 in the program where you make use of the swf. Just for your imagination.

 I do see that this is not an ideal situation for users of that swfupload.
 But a non-ideal situation does not mean that worpdress.org should not take
 care.

 > So that's an upstream issue.
 > We could add that file, at which point our handling of their license
 file would be better than theirs (they just link out). It might be better
 to reach out to them and ask them to update their project with a
 license/copyright file of their creation, which we can then incorporate
 downstream. It's a bit presumptuous to create that for them without
 reaching out first.

 No-one has ever prevented you from doing so but yourself. As known, we
 already had this similar discussion about the IXR library and their three
 term BSD license. In the end we reached out the project, they made
 everything crystal clear, even wordpress.org did took the license in then.

 Please just fix this. There are other users downstream we should think
 about first. Wordpress.org was the first one who did not provide the terms
 even the swfupload project made this mandatory. I was worpdress.org who
 downloaded swfupload from the googlecode homepage and who did not download
 the license text from the googlecode homepage. It's visibly placed on the
 left of the page.

 >
 > Second, regarding the GPL, please refer to the following:
 >
 > > [... (§3 GPL excerpt)].
 >
 > We aren't doing (a). We're going to do (b) (this is being worked on
 now).
 >
 > Right now, we're doing (c), but not very well

 Thanks for making the current position of worpdress.org visible.

 Please keep in mind that c) refers to b) and as you continue to write:

 > , because swfupload isn't doing (b) very well (they're not required to).

 So this is two times not very well. Probably because you are mixing two
 licenses which each other.

 Let's review b):

 > '''b) ''Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
 years'', to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of
 physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable
 copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms
 of ''Sections 1 and 2'' above on a medium customarily used for software
 interchange'''

 As everybody can see, b) is referring to Sections 1 and 2 of the GNU GPL.
 From what it's known, swfupload is being distributed under MIT, not GNU
 GPL.

 Swfupload therefore can not met b) not only not very well, it can not met
 b) at all.

 Which brings your argument to a dead end and I hope you don't call that a
 nuance or pedantry any longer.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/16517#comment:26>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software