4 ms·

Since you call the GPL a "virus" I doubt you're trying to start an honest debate here, but maybe responding anyway will be useful to readers. This drama actual

Since you call the GPL a "virus" I doubt you're trying to start an honest debate here, but maybe responding anyway will be useful to readers. This drama actually has nothing to do with the GPL. The theme authors are complying fully with the GPL, and there is nothing legally or morally wrong with distributing a plugin containing separately-licensed code or assets. The exact same issues could arise even if Wordpress was released under the BSD/X11/Expat/etc licenses. The problem is that Wordpress is trying to maintain a very high level of control over their community. One of the tools WP has is the ability to ban theme authors they don't like (i.e. those who sell themes on third-party sites) from attending official events. Then WP throws in a few words about the GPL as a smokescreen to deflect anger at someone else.

forrestthewoods 14y ago
The GPL is explicitly designed to be viral and I didn't know the source. Below Dan Grossman said the Automattic released WordPress itself under the GPL license. It sounds like they did so because they wanted to, but they could have released it under any license they wanted. That would make WordPress the source. Alternatively Automattic may be forced to release WordPress under GPL due to being a derived work of other code. This may or may not be true. Based on their behavior it does not seem to be a contributing factor either way.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? It's a common lie that someone might be forced to open-source their code because they accidentally copied some GPL'd code. This is not true. In a typical case of copyright infringement, the infringer must stop distributing the copied code and possibly pay damages. The GPL merely offers a additional choice, it doesn't force anything.
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    > The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your code, then you're free to licence the result under any license you choose. However, if you include GPL code in your code, the result must be under GPL or any other license that is compatible (AGPL for example). In that sense, the GPL is viral - it does not only cover the code that's licensed, but also "infects" other code.
    - jmillikin 14y ago
      > BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your > code, then you're free to licence the result under any > license you choose. No, you're not. You are not permitted to change the license of someone else's code. Their code remains under the BSD license, and you have to comply with it when you distribute the combined work (e.g. keeping copyright notices intact).
      - Xylakant 14y ago
        Let's see. This is MIT, but 3-clause BSD is pretty much equivalent: > Copyright (c) 2013 Felix Gilcher > > MIT License > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND > NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE > LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION > OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION > WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. The important part is: > to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: All I need to do is retain the copyright notice, but only if I use substantial portions. So as long as I retain the notice, stating that some specified part of the code is licensed under MIT, I'm in the clear. The permission to sub-licence is explicitly granted, no further restriction is placed on the combined work. I don't have to provide the source code either. The end result can be whatever I choose, the license does not spread to the combined work. WTFPL is even more liberal: > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, December 2004 > > Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified > copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long > as the name is changed. > > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > > 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. No restrictions at all - effectively placing the code in the public domain, but a valid copyright waiver in jurisdictions where code cannot be placed in the public domain (e.g. in Germany, where copyrights cannot be waived)
- pekk 14y ago
  The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is the author's decision and right what license to apply (GPL or not), and it is their right to decide that development on that project and its derivatives should never be taken closed-source and to choose the GPL as the mechanism of ensuring this. Otherwise, we are saying that Linus was doing something wrong to license his work under the GPL... Please stop attacking people for applying GPL to their own work by their own choice. You are NEVER forced to use someone else's work in violation of their license. If you want to use their work, you must comply with their license. If you can't comply with the license, find an alternative or build your own. Then you will be able to license it as you wish. End of story.
  - biot 14y ago
    > The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license "spreads" to the resulting combined work. It is in that sense that some people call it "viral" though, unlike most viral infections, choosing to incorporate a GPLed work into a larger work is done so willingly, even if sometimes those making the choice don't fully understand the ramifications. For example, as Torvalds notes [0] it's sometimes a gray area; kernel modules may or may not be considered derived works. As you correctly note, it's the author's choice to adopt the license for a new project or to combined works licensed under the GPL into an existing project. That it is a choice doesn't preclude an analysis of the license's effect on any given work. [0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
    - jmillikin 14y ago
      > It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work > that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license > "spreads" to the resulting combined work. This is true for all popular software licenses under current US copyright law.
      - bigiain 14y ago
        And this is a freedom, not a restriction. If you _dont_ license your code under the GPL or some similar license which explicitly allows others to build on your code, copyright prohibits anyone from doing so. You can't, in general, "create a work that makes use of" somebody else's song, or movie, or novel. Because copyright says you need their permission, and there's not a culture of songwriters, filmmakers, or authors; who explicitly grant the freedom to use their work without asking. I find it difficult to understand people who intentionally use negative language like "viral" about the GPL. It's remarkable there so much high quality software available where the authors have said "here, you can use it inspite of the fact that it's copyrighted to us, the only condition we require is that you offer that freedom to everybody else if you build something new using our copyrighted work."

forrestthewoods 14y ago

The GPL is explicitly designed to be viral and I didn't know the source. Below Dan Grossman said the Automattic released WordPress itself under the GPL license. It sounds like they did so because they wanted to, but they could have released it under any license they wanted. That would make WordPress the source. Alternatively Automattic may be forced to release WordPress under GPL due to being a derived work of other code. This may or may not be true. Based on their behavior it does not seem to be a contributing factor either way.

jmillikin 14y ago
The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? It's a common lie that someone might be forced to open-source their code because they accidentally copied some GPL'd code. This is not true. In a typical case of copyright infringement, the infringer must stop distributing the copied code and possibly pay damages. The GPL merely offers a additional choice, it doesn't force anything.
- Xylakant 14y ago
  > The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your code, then you're free to licence the result under any license you choose. However, if you include GPL code in your code, the result must be under GPL or any other license that is compatible (AGPL for example). In that sense, the GPL is viral - it does not only cover the code that's licensed, but also "infects" other code.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    > BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your > code, then you're free to licence the result under any > license you choose. No, you're not. You are not permitted to change the license of someone else's code. Their code remains under the BSD license, and you have to comply with it when you distribute the combined work (e.g. keeping copyright notices intact).
    - Xylakant 14y ago
      Let's see. This is MIT, but 3-clause BSD is pretty much equivalent: > Copyright (c) 2013 Felix Gilcher > > MIT License > > Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining > a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the > "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: > > The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be > included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software. > > THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, > EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF > MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND > NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE > LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION > OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION > WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE. The important part is: > to deal in the Software without restriction, including > without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, > distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to > permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to > the following conditions: All I need to do is retain the copyright notice, but only if I use substantial portions. So as long as I retain the notice, stating that some specified part of the code is licensed under MIT, I'm in the clear. The permission to sub-licence is explicitly granted, no further restriction is placed on the combined work. I don't have to provide the source code either. The end result can be whatever I choose, the license does not spread to the combined work. WTFPL is even more liberal: > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > Version 2, December 2004 > > Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net> > > Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified > copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long > as the name is changed. > > DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE > TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION > > 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO. No restrictions at all - effectively placing the code in the public domain, but a valid copyright waiver in jurisdictions where code cannot be placed in the public domain (e.g. in Germany, where copyrights cannot be waived)
pekk 14y ago
The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is the author's decision and right what license to apply (GPL or not), and it is their right to decide that development on that project and its derivatives should never be taken closed-source and to choose the GPL as the mechanism of ensuring this. Otherwise, we are saying that Linus was doing something wrong to license his work under the GPL... Please stop attacking people for applying GPL to their own work by their own choice. You are NEVER forced to use someone else's work in violation of their license. If you want to use their work, you must comply with their license. If you can't comply with the license, find an alternative or build your own. Then you will be able to license it as you wish. End of story.
- biot 14y ago
  > The GPL is not designed to be "viral". It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license "spreads" to the resulting combined work. It is in that sense that some people call it "viral" though, unlike most viral infections, choosing to incorporate a GPLed work into a larger work is done so willingly, even if sometimes those making the choice don't fully understand the ramifications. For example, as Torvalds notes [0] it's sometimes a gray area; kernel modules may or may not be considered derived works. As you correctly note, it's the author's choice to adopt the license for a new project or to combined works licensed under the GPL into an existing project. That it is a choice doesn't preclude an analysis of the license's effect on any given work. [0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.html http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    > It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work > that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license > "spreads" to the resulting combined work. This is true for all popular software licenses under current US copyright law.
    - bigiain 14y ago
      And this is a freedom, not a restriction. If you _dont_ license your code under the GPL or some similar license which explicitly allows others to build on your code, copyright prohibits anyone from doing so. You can't, in general, "create a work that makes use of" somebody else's song, or movie, or novel. Because copyright says you need their permission, and there's not a culture of songwriters, filmmakers, or authors; who explicitly grant the freedom to use their work without asking. I find it difficult to understand people who intentionally use negative language like "viral" about the GPL. It's remarkable there so much high quality software available where the authors have said "here, you can use it inspite of the fact that it's copyrighted to us, the only condition we require is that you offer that freedom to everybody else if you build something new using our copyrighted work."