3 ms·
I thought this piece did a good job of summarizing the issues, and an especially good job diving into the technical details of this specific example. Those deta
by andrewpbrett 16y ago
I thought this piece did a good job of summarizing the issues, and an especially good job diving into the technical details of this specific example. Those details are sadly lacking from much of the "noise" being made on the topic - the mixergy interview, for example. This post is signal.
- tzs 16y agoThe problem is that the technical details it dove into aren't particularly relevant to the underlying copyright question. They show that the user who choses to use a given theme is creating a derivative work, but no one has seriously questioned that. That derivative work is authorized by the copyright holders (GPL allows users to freely mix GPL and non-GPL code on their own systems). Hence, the important legal question is whether or not the theme, AS DISTRIBUTED, is a derivative work of WordPress. This is a code authoring question, not a code execution flow question. There was little or no insight on that question in the article.
- tomjen3 16y agoThat is a really, really interesting question and there is actually some history behind that - the original developers of Clisp had used GNU readline to implement their REPL. Readline was (and still is) GPL, while Clisp was proprietary. Anyhow RMS wrote to them and complained, so they asked an interesting question: what would happen if they simply had their software download and link Readline when it was installed on the customers computer? RMS talked with a lawyer, and came to the conclusion that it would properly not be against the law. They made some sort of agreement and Clisp is GPL today.