4 ms·

This was a separate agreement from their GPL license, which of course allows them to fork. Sorry it's not clear from the term sheet, but this was about them for

This was a separate agreement from their GPL license, which of course allows them to fork. Sorry it's not clear from the term sheet, but this was about them forking our Stripe extension to replace the attribution from us to them for WooCommerce sites hosted on WP Engine. Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy.

deleted 2y ago
[deleted]
DannyBee 2y ago
I think you missed the point. They (i know it's you but easier to not personalize it here) do not own all the rights to the software themselves. For the parts they do not own, they have no rights other than what they got through GPLv2. Those rights are conditioned upon them not trying to sublicense/etc the software in a way that conflicts with GPLv2. Which this term sheet purports to do.
- photomatt 2y ago
  The agreement wasn't about their license to the code, it was about their license to the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. They could agree to not do things allowed under the GPL, like replacing our Stripe attribution, it's their right to. Or not.
  - DannyBee 2y ago
    "The agreement wasn't about their license to the code," Maybe you misread it (or miswrote it i guess)? it says: "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying any of Automattic’s, WooCommerce’s, or its affiliates' software (including, but not limited to plugins and extensions) ..." It could not more plainly say that they cannot fork or modify software.
    - deleted 2y ago
      [deleted]
    - jasonlotito 2y ago
      "The agreement wasn't about their license to the [GPL] code," And "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying [non GPL code]" You are misreading it.
      - greyface- 2y ago
        > License: GPLv3 https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gateway-stripe/trunk/readme.txt https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gatew...
        the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
        How can a plugin be GPLv3 when the core is GPLv2? //edit: apparently the core is v2 or later.
        DannyBee 2y ago
        Correct, it's gplv2 or later. v2/v3 GPL compatibility is also sort of an abstract thing - it gets talked about a lot (IE do the terms have to actually conflict as applied to a given situation or only conflict in theory) , but you also can't file a lawsuit with a claim of "GPL incompatibility". You'd have to file a claim for breach of contract or infringement (or both). This matters because if, for example, your main incompatibility is around the patent pieces (that's one of them), and there are no patents anywhere involved, you may have a hard time convincing a judge that there is really a breach of contract.
        throwlicense 2y ago
        I do not believe it is legally "GPL v2 or later" at all. The original b2 license was GPL v2. There was no or later version option in the original b2 license. Given that WordPress is a derivative work, it has to keep the same or compatible license. Which "GPL v2 or later" is not. Note how the original license is GPL v2 at [0], then the "or later" header is added much later at [1] seemingly out of nowhere. [0] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cbd39b36173b0097d1fb77b98db/license.txt https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cb... [1] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a424e26b6cb08516905d77c944b https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a...
  - duskwuff 2y ago
    Let's be clear about who did what here. WP Engine didn't agree to anything. You demanded that they not do these things.
numbsafari 2y ago
[flagged]
FireBeyond 2y ago
> Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy. Stripe thinks that an affiliate using their affiliate link is spammy, but that you, another affiliate, publishing yours with WordPress is not? Also, I'm sure you think they entirely agree with you, but maybe consider they may not (don't) want you to speak for them while you're being sued...

deleted 2y ago

[deleted]

DannyBee 2y ago

I think you missed the point. They (i know it's you but easier to not personalize it here) do not own all the rights to the software themselves. For the parts they do not own, they have no rights other than what they got through GPLv2. Those rights are conditioned upon them not trying to sublicense/etc the software in a way that conflicts with GPLv2. Which this term sheet purports to do.

photomatt 2y ago
The agreement wasn't about their license to the code, it was about their license to the WordPress and WooCommerce trademarks. They could agree to not do things allowed under the GPL, like replacing our Stripe attribution, it's their right to. Or not.
- DannyBee 2y ago
  "The agreement wasn't about their license to the code," Maybe you misread it (or miswrote it i guess)? it says: "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying any of Automattic’s, WooCommerce’s, or its affiliates' software (including, but not limited to plugins and extensions) ..." It could not more plainly say that they cannot fork or modify software.
  - deleted 2y ago
    [deleted]
  - jasonlotito 2y ago
    "The agreement wasn't about their license to the [GPL] code," And "WP Engine will cease and desist from forking or modifying [non GPL code]" You are misreading it.
    - greyface- 2y ago
      > License: GPLv3 https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gateway-stripe/trunk/readme.txt https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce-gatew...
      - the_mitsuhiko 2y ago
        How can a plugin be GPLv3 when the core is GPLv2? //edit: apparently the core is v2 or later.
        DannyBee 2y ago
        Correct, it's gplv2 or later. v2/v3 GPL compatibility is also sort of an abstract thing - it gets talked about a lot (IE do the terms have to actually conflict as applied to a given situation or only conflict in theory) , but you also can't file a lawsuit with a claim of "GPL incompatibility". You'd have to file a claim for breach of contract or infringement (or both). This matters because if, for example, your main incompatibility is around the patent pieces (that's one of them), and there are no patents anywhere involved, you may have a hard time convincing a judge that there is really a breach of contract.
        throwlicense 2y ago
        I do not believe it is legally "GPL v2 or later" at all. The original b2 license was GPL v2. There was no or later version option in the original b2 license. Given that WordPress is a derivative work, it has to keep the same or compatible license. Which "GPL v2 or later" is not. Note how the original license is GPL v2 at [0], then the "or later" header is added much later at [1] seemingly out of nowhere. [0] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cbd39b36173b0097d1fb77b98db/license.txt https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/blame/04c9051a7d765cb... [1] - https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a424e26b6cb08516905d77c944b https://github.com/WordPress/WordPress/commit/8cbd92f9f8269a...
- duskwuff 2y ago
  Let's be clear about who did what here. WP Engine didn't agree to anything. You demanded that they not do these things.

numbsafari 2y ago

[flagged]

FireBeyond 2y ago

> Stripe is also looking into this, as it's spammy. Stripe thinks that an affiliate using their affiliate link is spammy, but that you, another affiliate, publishing yours with WordPress is not? Also, I'm sure you think they entirely agree with you, but maybe consider they may not (don't) want you to speak for them while you're being sued...