3 ms·

Derivative works are specifically mentioned in GPL. There are websites that distribute paid WordPress plugins for free and Automaticc was only able to go after

Derivative works are specifically mentioned in GPL. There are websites that distribute paid WordPress plugins for free and Automaticc was only able to go after them for trademark violations. This issue is probably more complex, but the project I'm dealing with definitely clarifies that this private repository is the same project with additional features enabled, and not a separate project. Perhaps these are just warning signs of the project maintainers, telling me to not contribute and find alternatives. If they are using a platform that does not allow me to even make my request and continue pulling in profits because of it, that surely seems like an issue. But IANAL. I just find it ironic and moronic that a code repository business is fascillitating this problem.

remram 4y ago
Here is an exact excerpt from the license text: > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: (...) The only requirement is that people who get the product (not the public, not the owners of the work it's based on, not anybody else) are also able to get the source code under the same license. You can totally have a private fork, you just: * Have to give the source to the people who get the binaries (for example by giving people access to the private fork when they pay) * Those sources have to be under the GPL too (which means in particular that those people can put it in a public repo if they want but don't owe anybody anything) So the situation you describe is NOT a violation, unless anyone is withholding source code, changing to an incompatible license, or going after people exercising the rights they were granted by the license.
- throwawayKiwi9 4y ago
  Yikes, now I feel dumb. I actually never knew you could sell private access to GPL code, but that makes freedom-respecting sense. Thank you! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...

remram 4y ago

Here is an exact excerpt from the license text: > You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these ways: (...) The only requirement is that people who get the product (not the public, not the owners of the work it's based on, not anybody else) are also able to get the source code under the same license. You can totally have a private fork, you just: * Have to give the source to the people who get the binaries (for example by giving people access to the private fork when they pay) * Those sources have to be under the GPL too (which means in particular that those people can put it in a public repo if they want but don't owe anybody anything) So the situation you describe is NOT a violation, unless anyone is withholding source code, changing to an incompatible license, or going after people exercising the rights they were granted by the license.

throwawayKiwi9 4y ago
Yikes, now I feel dumb. I actually never knew you could sell private access to GPL code, but that makes freedom-respecting sense. Thank you! https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMoney https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#DoesTheGPLAllowMon...