4 ms·

The WordPress-Editor-iOS GPL license should be invalid, because it includes the sources from the ZSSRichTextEditor project which is MIT licensed. Which specifi

by edsouza 10y ago

The WordPress-Editor-iOS GPL license should be invalid, because it includes the sources from the ZSSRichTextEditor project which is MIT licensed. Which specifically has a clause: The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. edit: reading the readme.md in the WordPress-Editor-iOS project, they list the following projects that were used in the codebase: ZSSRichTextEditor (License MIT) CYRTextView (License MIT) HRColorPicker (License BSD) jQuery (License MIT) JS Beautifier (License MIT) Instead of retaining of the licenses for the projects. They removed the licenses, and replace it with the GPL license. IANAL - I think that is not how you re-license someone elses project.

protomyth 10y ago
Are you saying that someone took MIT licensed source code, removed the copyright, and then licensed it under GPL? [edit: I guess with your edit that is exactly what you are saying, so how can it be legal to pull that stunt?]
- firasd 10y ago
  You can include MIT & BSD libraries in a GPL-licensed app but you can't include the resulting GPL work back into an e.g. BSD-licensed app. Same as you can include jQuery in a proprietary app which has its own license.
  - protomyth 10y ago
    You cannot remove someone else's copyright and license.
    - firasd 10y ago
      The MIT/BSD licenses are explicitly compatible with re-licensing derived works in this way. The GPL is not.
      - protomyth 10y ago
        They may be compatible but you cannot remove someone else's copyright and license from their source code. They specifically say you must include the license.
        newjersey 10y ago
        Wix is still in the wrong though. Saying your vendor is in violation of their license doesn't give you any right to violate their license. I anal but I don't think this nullifies WordPress' GPL.
        protomyth 10y ago
        Wix may still be in the wrong, but WordPress is definitely in the wrong for removing copyright and license. IANAL but both of these companies would look awful funny in court because disregard for other people's licenses doesn't help your case when someone disregards your license.
        webmink 10y ago
        As far as I can see the files that were originally under MIT still have their original copyright statements intact, as comments above illustrate. Which files are you alleging have had their credits removed from?
  - edsouza 10y ago
    In this case the WordPress-Editor-iOS retained the copyright notice in the file copies from the ZSSRichTextEditor project. But did not include the LICENSE file. Also the wordpress-mobile developers mixed their source code with the MIT licensed one. Just one LICENSE file I can find in the WordPress-Editor-iOS. The MIT/BSD projects are not separated out. I think they can claim GPL license on their created code, but that has to been clearly identified. Easier if they removed the MIT/BSD components, and make them git submodules. In addition, the wordpress-mobile developers created code do not contain a copyright notice.
    - carussell 10y ago
      > The MIT/BSD projects are not separated out. I think they can claim GPL license on their created code, but that has to been clearly identified. Easier if they removed the MIT/BSD components, and make them git submodules. Using MIT licensed projects doesn't require you to keep the code for the parts you've adopted eternally isolated from your own. If that were a requirement, that would entail an inability to make any improvements without also distributing those improvements under the MIT license―which is directly antithetical to the permissiveness that the MIT license aims for. The parts do not have to be easily separable.[1] To be clear: mixing MIT source into a project (whether by copying files, or by copying snippets) and distributing the result under a license that is not MIT is something that is absolutely kosher. The only requirements are that you have to reproduce the MIT license text and any corresponding copyright notice somewhere when you start distributing the thing to other people. Look into what Google and Apple do with Android and iOS or type about:license into Firefox for three really great examples of how to satisfy the requirements of third-party projects when incorporating others' code into a project with a license that differs from the original. The only thing Automattic is in the wrong with here is to have linked to the licenses and copyright notices of the original project rather than include a copy of if inside their own distribution, which is arguably a faux pas in some circumstances and in some circles, but it's easy enough to remedy and no court would ever award past damages for it. 1. For a license that does work like that, i.e., a weak, file-based copyleft, you can look at the MPL. http://mozilla.org/MPL/ http://mozilla.org/MPL/
- timdorr 10y ago
  Yes, that is exactly what they did: https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/commit/3fb089aec656f99e35447ca21ace89eea254181a https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/com...
  - edsouza 10y ago
    Good find. Any source file found before Mar 20, 2015 should be covered by Neil Stoker's copyright and the MIT license. This includes WordPress derived code.
    - vbernat 10y ago
      MIT license doesn't cover derived code. Only attribution is needed.
      - jacquesm 10y ago
        But that doesn't mean you can strip out the license either.
        smarx007 10y ago
        Well, you can relicense the MIT-licensed code. They might have had to include the text of the MIT-licensed component license, but that would still have no effect on the license of the derivative work - it would be GPL.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        That license change would only apply to the changes and additions, any of the original code would still be MIT licensed, also if the changes are trivial then the whole re-license might fall through. Copyright would still lie with the original authors as well, after all sub-licensing allows you to pass on the rights that you already have, but does not give you any new rights. Since the MIT license is mostly a super-set of the GPL you will lose some of the MIT parts if you sublicense but if you wish to gain more rights than what the MIT license already provides you with it will likely not work when tested in court. The best way to deal with stuff like this is to stick to the original license unless you have consulted with an IP lawyer that signed off on your plan, it is very easy to get these things subtly wrong.
icebraining 10y ago
The WordPress-Editor-iOS GPL license should be invalid If the license is invalid, then default copyright terms apply, which means nobody can use the editor at all. Remember that licenses - yes, even the GPL - grant rights, they don't take them away.

by edsouza 10y ago

protomyth 10y ago

Are you saying that someone took MIT licensed source code, removed the copyright, and then licensed it under GPL? [edit: I guess with your edit that is exactly what you are saying, so how can it be legal to pull that stunt?]

firasd 10y ago
You can include MIT & BSD libraries in a GPL-licensed app but you can't include the resulting GPL work back into an e.g. BSD-licensed app. Same as you can include jQuery in a proprietary app which has its own license.
- protomyth 10y ago
  You cannot remove someone else's copyright and license.
  - firasd 10y ago
    The MIT/BSD licenses are explicitly compatible with re-licensing derived works in this way. The GPL is not.
    - protomyth 10y ago
      They may be compatible but you cannot remove someone else's copyright and license from their source code. They specifically say you must include the license.
      - newjersey 10y ago
        Wix is still in the wrong though. Saying your vendor is in violation of their license doesn't give you any right to violate their license. I anal but I don't think this nullifies WordPress' GPL.
        protomyth 10y ago
        Wix may still be in the wrong, but WordPress is definitely in the wrong for removing copyright and license. IANAL but both of these companies would look awful funny in court because disregard for other people's licenses doesn't help your case when someone disregards your license.
        webmink 10y ago
        As far as I can see the files that were originally under MIT still have their original copyright statements intact, as comments above illustrate. Which files are you alleging have had their credits removed from?
- edsouza 10y ago
  In this case the WordPress-Editor-iOS retained the copyright notice in the file copies from the ZSSRichTextEditor project. But did not include the LICENSE file. Also the wordpress-mobile developers mixed their source code with the MIT licensed one. Just one LICENSE file I can find in the WordPress-Editor-iOS. The MIT/BSD projects are not separated out. I think they can claim GPL license on their created code, but that has to been clearly identified. Easier if they removed the MIT/BSD components, and make them git submodules. In addition, the wordpress-mobile developers created code do not contain a copyright notice.
  - carussell 10y ago
    > The MIT/BSD projects are not separated out. I think they can claim GPL license on their created code, but that has to been clearly identified. Easier if they removed the MIT/BSD components, and make them git submodules. Using MIT licensed projects doesn't require you to keep the code for the parts you've adopted eternally isolated from your own. If that were a requirement, that would entail an inability to make any improvements without also distributing those improvements under the MIT license―which is directly antithetical to the permissiveness that the MIT license aims for. The parts do not have to be easily separable.[1] To be clear: mixing MIT source into a project (whether by copying files, or by copying snippets) and distributing the result under a license that is not MIT is something that is absolutely kosher. The only requirements are that you have to reproduce the MIT license text and any corresponding copyright notice somewhere when you start distributing the thing to other people. Look into what Google and Apple do with Android and iOS or type about:license into Firefox for three really great examples of how to satisfy the requirements of third-party projects when incorporating others' code into a project with a license that differs from the original. The only thing Automattic is in the wrong with here is to have linked to the licenses and copyright notices of the original project rather than include a copy of if inside their own distribution, which is arguably a faux pas in some circumstances and in some circles, but it's easy enough to remedy and no court would ever award past damages for it. 1. For a license that does work like that, i.e., a weak, file-based copyleft, you can look at the MPL. http://mozilla.org/MPL/ http://mozilla.org/MPL/
timdorr 10y ago
Yes, that is exactly what they did: https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/commit/3fb089aec656f99e35447ca21ace89eea254181a https://github.com/wordpress-mobile/WordPress-Editor-iOS/com...
- edsouza 10y ago
  Good find. Any source file found before Mar 20, 2015 should be covered by Neil Stoker's copyright and the MIT license. This includes WordPress derived code.
  - vbernat 10y ago
    MIT license doesn't cover derived code. Only attribution is needed.
    - jacquesm 10y ago
      But that doesn't mean you can strip out the license either.
      - smarx007 10y ago
        Well, you can relicense the MIT-licensed code. They might have had to include the text of the MIT-licensed component license, but that would still have no effect on the license of the derivative work - it would be GPL.
        jacquesm 10y ago
        That license change would only apply to the changes and additions, any of the original code would still be MIT licensed, also if the changes are trivial then the whole re-license might fall through. Copyright would still lie with the original authors as well, after all sub-licensing allows you to pass on the rights that you already have, but does not give you any new rights. Since the MIT license is mostly a super-set of the GPL you will lose some of the MIT parts if you sublicense but if you wish to gain more rights than what the MIT license already provides you with it will likely not work when tested in court. The best way to deal with stuff like this is to stick to the original license unless you have consulted with an IP lawyer that signed off on your plan, it is very easy to get these things subtly wrong.

icebraining 10y ago

The WordPress-Editor-iOS GPL license should be invalid If the license is invalid, then default copyright terms apply, which means nobody can use the editor at all. Remember that licenses - yes, even the GPL - grant rights, they don't take them away.