Thesis's Chris Pearson vs WordPress' Matt Mullenweg - The world cup of GPL

[hakre]

Some fresh thoughts worth reading: http://www.brandonsavage.net/some-th...are-licensing/

[andrea_r]

Venting here instead of twitter. ;P

I'm kind of tired of seeing people trot out the whole "shakespeare is public domain" analogy. Not sure what they're getting at, that Chris can charge for his theme? NO ONE is disputing that. You are allowed to charge money for GPL code.

You are not allowed to restrict what a person does after they recieve that code.

In the Shakespeare example, you can create a work based on any of Shakespeare's works. So can I. I can even purchase that work from you. But you cannot come after me or charge me extra from using that work elsewhere as I see fit.

To make it even clearer - you can make a book of your favorite Shakespeare play (or sonnets, I like them too), and I can purchase that book. You cannot stop me from photocopying that book and selling it or giving it away. It's perfectly legal. The public domain is probably as close to GPL for print as you can get.

[andreasnrb]

The public domain is probably as close to GPL for print as you can get.

No. Its not even close.

[chipbennett]

Venting here instead of twitter. ;P

I'm kind of tired of seeing people trot out the whole "shakespeare is public domain" analogy. Not sure what they're getting at, that Chris can charge for his theme? NO ONE is disputing that. You are allowed to charge money for GPL code.

You are not allowed to restrict what a person does after they recieve that code.

In the Shakespeare example, you can create a work based on any of Shakespeare's works. So can I. I can even purchase that work from you. But you cannot come after me or charge me extra from using that work elsewhere as I see fit.

To make it even clearer - you can make a book of your favorite Shakespeare play (or sonnets, I like them too), and I can purchase that book. You cannot stop me from photocopying that book and selling it or giving it away. It's perfectly legal.

I'm not quite sure that's true. The creator of the derivative work holds the copyright for that derivative. That the original work is in the public domain is what gives the derivative-copyright owner the right to distribute that work. (If it weren't in the public domain, he would only be able to distribute his derivative work if the original-work copyright holder licensed him to do so.)

For example: the Bible is in the public domain. But Zondervan Publishers own the copyright to the New International Version. Their act of translating the original-language texts into a unique, English-language version in 1978 constituted a copyright-able, derivative work.

The public domain is probably as close to GPL for print as you can get.

I have to agree with Andreas here. The GPL is viral, in that it imposes its own inheritance on derivatives of GPL works. The public domain doesn't impose itself on derivatives of public-domain works.

[hakre]

In Public Domain, the Public is the works owner. So no need to pass on rights, they have been already passed.

And as for Shakespear: If we are all dead for long enough time, WordPress becomes freely available. The copyright owners do not have the power any longer to dictate the usage license.

[chipbennett]

In Public Domain, the Public is the works owner. So no need to pass on rights, they have been already passed.

And as for Shakespear: If we are all dead for long enough time, WordPress becomes freely available. The copyright owners do not have the power any longer to dictate the usage license.

I'm not sure of the point you're trying to make...?

[andrew]

I wonder if it is possible under the terms of the GPL to change the WordPress license to one that is no more restrictive than the GPL (restrictive in the sense meant within the GPL) but written specifically with WordPress in mind to clear up these points going forward?

It is clearly a problem that using a template license creates ambiguities where the license appears to be written with a compiled mindset and it is applied to non-compiled world.

[Rarst]

I wonder if it is possible under the terms of the GPL to change the WordPress license to one that is no more restrictive than the GPL (restrictive in the sense meant within the GPL) but written specifically with WordPress in mind to clear up these points going forward?

Possible - you only have to go over all of code and get rid of all possible relation to b2 and all contributions that developers who made them are not ok to change license for. Not happening. It is easier and more practical to write new version from scratch than do something like this.

[andrew]

So there is no provision in GPL to apply an alternative license provided that license is no more restrictive than the original? Shame.

[Rarst]

So there is no provision in GPL to apply an alternative license provided that license is no more restrictive than the original? Shame.

It is possible to put GPL product under additional license(s), but as I understand you have to be sole copyright holder for such.