5 ms·

Wix's library appears to be a wrapper for Wordpress's GPL library. I am not a GPL expert, but I believe that Wix has the right to publish their wrapper code usi

by zizee 10y ago

Wix's library appears to be a wrapper for Wordpress's GPL library. I am not a GPL expert, but I believe that Wix has the right to publish their wrapper code using any license they like. Publishing their code as MIT is not the same as them trying to change the license of someone elses code. Wix explicitly state it in their github repo: > Code in this git repo is licensed MIT, please consider the licenses of the dependencies separately. With a link to the Wordpress library. Regardless, reading Matt's original post, I see that his complaint was not about relicensing at all. It was more to do with whether Wix's app is allowed to use Wordpress's GPL'd code, without attribution or providing the source to their entire application. The whole thing (IMHO) boils down to whether you can use a GPL'd lib in a codebase without having to: 1. provide attribution 2. apply GPL your entire codebase I believe 1 is not required. A quick google says 2 is not "ok". If you use a GPL lib in your application, you must open source your entire application (LGPL is the GPL license created to allow you to use a GPL lib without "infecting" your codebase with the GPL). That said, I can understand someone misunderstanding the implications GPL and believing they don't have to open source their work that utilises a GPL library. What I believe should have happened is that Matt from WP should have reached out Tai from Wix and quietly informed them of their obligations WRT using their GPL'd license, giving Wix the opportunity to correct what could have been an honest mistake. Taking this public and accusing people of "stealing"[0], as a first step, is a selfish action will make people even more wary of using GPL'd code in their projects. [0] I hate it when people abuse the word "stealing" WRT intellectual property rights, it smacks of either dishonesty or ignorance.

toyg 10y ago
Mullenwegg sees Wix as a competitor, so he has no incentive to keep it on the quiet. If more people stay away from Wordpress code to build Wordpress competitors, that's a net win for him. The GPL is extremely protective of the code it covers. This protection can be used positively ("hey man, if you use my code it's only fair that you share yours, wanna collaborate?") or negatively ("dude, you used that code in ways you are not supposed to - stop immediately and stay away from it if you don't understand how it works"). This is why it's a bloody good license, for people who understand it and are ready to enforce it.
- toomuchtodo 10y ago
  > This is why it's a bloody good license, for people who understand it and are ready to enforce it. One of the direct intentions of the GPL was to prevent freeloading (which the MIT license allows).
- zizee 10y ago
  Oh, I understand what Mullenwegg/WP is doing, and where his incentives lie (hence my selfish comment). I also understand Wix/Kol are in the wrong and need to take corrective action. I just think (maybe incorrectly) that Mullenwegg's actions damage the perception of the GPL in the eyes of the developer community. But perhaps not, perhaps this is positive news and will get more people to produce GPL'd code as it does put more power into the hands of the author than MIT.
revelation 10y ago
I think the React native whatever wrapper comes with the Wordpress code and builds with it. So its a combined work. The MIT license gives less rights than GPL. So they are not compatible. As a result, this is a violation. I'm sure if you can somehow separate the Wordpress and wrapper code you can license the wrapper code as MIT, but the moment it's used in an actual app it obviously has to come with the Wordpress code. At that point the whole becomes GPL.
- zizee 10y ago
  Absolutely correct on all points. I do think it is worth clarifying your statement: > The MIT license gives less rights than GPL The MIT license gives less rights to end users than GPL. The GPL gives less rights to publishers than MIT.
falcolas 10y ago
> I hate it when people abuse the word "stealing" WRT intellectual property rights, it smacks of either dishonesty or ignorance. What do you call it when someone disregards an author's rights? Copyright makes it Matt's code, which he grants others the right to use, if they follow his provisions. If you're unwilling to follow those provisions, you have no right to use that code.
- greggman 10y ago
  I call it "copyright infringement" "Stealing" implies something is taken and by being taken the owner is deprived of that thing. "Jill had her bike stolen and now she has to walk to work". "Copyright infringement" is missing that loss to the owner which is why it's not called "stealing"
  - zizee 10y ago
    Exactly. I believe copyright infringement is wrong, but it is not stealing. Words have meanings! If you use the word "stealing" in these discussions, you either want to push your case dishonestly by ratcheting up the stakes, or you have been hoodwinked by those dishonest people.
giancarlostoro 10y ago
If Wix's library directly calls Wordpress code, that's a problem, WordPress isn't licensed under the LGPL which would allow for this. It's licensed under the GPL which would make his own code GPL'd. The reality though is that the GPL only applies to software you physically run yourself, unless WordPress becomes AGPL which would force Wix to share their code. Not sure how attribution applies to a service, but it would still be nice if they pushed that regardless. As for their work being GPL'd I agree, it doesn't mean you get access to it though. It's like asking Google for their Linux kernel code, there is no actual reason they have to give it to you unless the kernel is AGPL licensed. On the other hand, Apple using BSD licensed code never actually has to share any of it.
- zizee 10y ago
  Well, Wix does appear to be in the wrong here. I believe the code in question is for a mobile application, which means that they are distributing GPL'd code without GPL'ing the entire application. This is a clear infringement of the GPL. Wix needs to either: 1. Open source the application that uses the GPL code 2. Stop distributing their application until they can remove the GPL library

by zizee 10y ago

toyg 10y ago

Mullenwegg sees Wix as a competitor, so he has no incentive to keep it on the quiet. If more people stay away from Wordpress code to build Wordpress competitors, that's a net win for him. The GPL is extremely protective of the code it covers. This protection can be used positively ("hey man, if you use my code it's only fair that you share yours, wanna collaborate?") or negatively ("dude, you used that code in ways you are not supposed to - stop immediately and stay away from it if you don't understand how it works"). This is why it's a bloody good license, for people who understand it and are ready to enforce it.

toomuchtodo 10y ago
> This is why it's a bloody good license, for people who understand it and are ready to enforce it. One of the direct intentions of the GPL was to prevent freeloading (which the MIT license allows).
zizee 10y ago
Oh, I understand what Mullenwegg/WP is doing, and where his incentives lie (hence my selfish comment). I also understand Wix/Kol are in the wrong and need to take corrective action. I just think (maybe incorrectly) that Mullenwegg's actions damage the perception of the GPL in the eyes of the developer community. But perhaps not, perhaps this is positive news and will get more people to produce GPL'd code as it does put more power into the hands of the author than MIT.

revelation 10y ago

I think the React native whatever wrapper comes with the Wordpress code and builds with it. So its a combined work. The MIT license gives less rights than GPL. So they are not compatible. As a result, this is a violation. I'm sure if you can somehow separate the Wordpress and wrapper code you can license the wrapper code as MIT, but the moment it's used in an actual app it obviously has to come with the Wordpress code. At that point the whole becomes GPL.

zizee 10y ago
Absolutely correct on all points. I do think it is worth clarifying your statement: > The MIT license gives less rights than GPL The MIT license gives less rights to end users than GPL. The GPL gives less rights to publishers than MIT.

falcolas 10y ago

> I hate it when people abuse the word "stealing" WRT intellectual property rights, it smacks of either dishonesty or ignorance. What do you call it when someone disregards an author's rights? Copyright makes it Matt's code, which he grants others the right to use, if they follow his provisions. If you're unwilling to follow those provisions, you have no right to use that code.

greggman 10y ago
I call it "copyright infringement" "Stealing" implies something is taken and by being taken the owner is deprived of that thing. "Jill had her bike stolen and now she has to walk to work". "Copyright infringement" is missing that loss to the owner which is why it's not called "stealing"
- zizee 10y ago
  Exactly. I believe copyright infringement is wrong, but it is not stealing. Words have meanings! If you use the word "stealing" in these discussions, you either want to push your case dishonestly by ratcheting up the stakes, or you have been hoodwinked by those dishonest people.

giancarlostoro 10y ago

If Wix's library directly calls Wordpress code, that's a problem, WordPress isn't licensed under the LGPL which would allow for this. It's licensed under the GPL which would make his own code GPL'd. The reality though is that the GPL only applies to software you physically run yourself, unless WordPress becomes AGPL which would force Wix to share their code. Not sure how attribution applies to a service, but it would still be nice if they pushed that regardless. As for their work being GPL'd I agree, it doesn't mean you get access to it though. It's like asking Google for their Linux kernel code, there is no actual reason they have to give it to you unless the kernel is AGPL licensed. On the other hand, Apple using BSD licensed code never actually has to share any of it.

zizee 10y ago
Well, Wix does appear to be in the wrong here. I believe the code in question is for a mobile application, which means that they are distributing GPL'd code without GPL'ing the entire application. This is a clear infringement of the GPL. Wix needs to either: 1. Open source the application that uses the GPL code 2. Stop distributing their application until they can remove the GPL library