MaxBlogPress Plugins Removed From WP Repository

[Jeffro]

I don't have any objections to them taking down his plugins that contain the forced opt-in. That's not the way to go about marketing :P

[chipbennett]

"If the plugins required "activation" in order to use, then such a use restriction seems to be incongruent with the GPL - and if the plugins aren't GPL, then they cannot be hosted at the WP.org repository."

Just wanted to clarify that these plugins are in fact GPL compliant, regardless if they ask for your email address before allowing you to activate the plugin... that doesn't mean it isn't in line with the GPL.

If the code is released under the GPL there is nothing to stop you from editing the code and removing this functionality and changing the plugin as you see fit. Thats where the GPL's involvement comes into play and the plugin author doesn't tell you that you can't do that and has released the code as GPL.

So as far as the GPL issue goes... it's not doing anything wrong.

Obviously how these plugins operate isn't in line with what many in the community and those running the WordPress.org repository feel is acceptable. That's fine, but nobody should be making this a GPL issue... it's not.

I'm not defending them or taking sides, I just wanted to point out that this most certainly isn't a GPL issue.

Sorry, but I must disagree.

From the GNU.org website GPL FAQ:

See the definition of free software. The GPL is a free software license...

And from that linked definition of free software [my emphasis]:

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

Thus:

1. Requiring "registration" or "activation" in order to use an MBP plugin is clearly a violation of this principle.
2. Requiring email-list subscription (forced opt-in) in order to use an MBP plugin is clearly a violation of this principle.

Thus, as written and distributed by MBP, the plugins in question do not conform to the GPL, which by its own definition is a free software license.

[chipbennett]

Icky! What a horrible way to build a plugin.

Thanks for taking on the task of rewriting them Chip.

You are going to have a lot of plugins under your belt very shortly :p

The process has been informative. I'm a bit worried, though, about trying to maintain them.

(Maybe some enterprising person should just write a "enable all MaxBlogPress plugins without activation/opt-in" plugin. It really would just be a matter of identifying all of the MBP plugin xyz-activate options, and setting them all to a value of '2'.)

[chipbennett]

I don't have any objections to them taking down his plugins that contain the forced opt-in. That's not the way to go about marketing :P

Agreed. GPL-compliant or not (and I still argue that they're not), they don't belong in the repo.

[chipbennett]

I think I'm going to limit myself to four of them. The rest are pretty much internet-marketing crap.

I've submitted forks for the Favicon plugin and the Ping Optimizer plugin. Two others are on deck (Multi-Author Comment Notification and Stripe Ad).

Of course, if anyone thinks any of the others would be useful, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

Looks like I won't be forking Stripe Ad. It's released under a non-GPL-compliant license.

[chipbennett]

I think I'm going to limit myself to four of them. The rest are pretty much internet-marketing crap.

I've submitted forks for the Favicon plugin and the Ping Optimizer plugin. Two others are on deck (Multi-Author Comment Notification and Stripe Ad).

Of course, if anyone thinks any of the others would be useful, I'd be happy to take a look at them.

And now Multi Author Comment Notification is forked, and repo request submitted.

(Though, repo request approvals for these plugins seems to be going much more slowly than for my Twitter widgets. Wonder why?)

[carlhancock]

Sorry, but I must disagree.

Ahhh but you see you are incorrect. The software works just fine without "registering" or "activating". You simply have to remove that code, which you are completely entitled to since it is released under the GPL.

If the plugin was encrypted and was unable to work at all without entering an email address, that would be violating the GPL. But the email opt in is just a setup step that the author has added to the plugin. It is removable by editing the code, something any user can do as it was released under the GPL.

It isn't the authors fault that most users won't or can't take the time to remove this feature. It isn't his duty under the GPL to make code that everyone will agree with or find user friendly.

If the code wasn't GPL compliant and wasn't truly GPL then you wouldn't have been able to fork it like you have. The author can't do anything about you forking the plugin because... it's GPL.

We can just agree to disagree on this because neither one of us is going to change our mind. That being said, if you felt this wasn't GPL compliant then you shouldn't have forked them because if they weren't GPL compliant... they aren't GPL.

For the record I disagree with how this plugin author executed things, but I think it is an ethics issue and not a GPL issue.

[chipbennett]

Ahhh but you see you are incorrect. The software works just fine without "registering" or "activating".

No, in fact, it doesn't. The user cannot use the code, as provided by the developer, without the registration/activation/email subscription. See your own answer:

You simply have to remove that code, which you are completely entitled to since it is released under the GPL.

You're talking modification, not use. Once it's modified, it is a different work (a derived work, to be sure, but a different work nonetheless).

The user's right of modification of free (GPL) software is completely separate from the user's right of use of that software.

If the plugin was encrypted and was unable to work at all without entering an email address, that would be violating the GPL. But the email opt in is just a setup step that the author has added to the plugin. It is removable by editing the code, something any user can do as it was released under the GPL.

It isn't the authors fault that most users won't or can't take the time to remove this feature. It isn't his duty under the GPL to make code that everyone will agree with or find user friendly.

I return again to what GNU.org has to say [emphasis mine, again]:

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

It is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose.

The burden is on the developer - not the user - to provide code that complies with the GPL; that is, code that does not compel the user to communicate with the developer or any other specific entity regarding the user's use of that code.

So, yes, it is the fault of the developer.

If the code wasn't GPL compliant and wasn't truly GPL then you wouldn't have been able to fork it like you have. The author can't do anything about you forking the plugin because... it's GPL.

We can just agree to disagree on this because neither one of us is going to change our mind. That being said, if you felt this wasn't GPL compliant then you shouldn't have forked them because if they weren't GPL compliant... they aren't GPL.

Er, no.

They're GPL, because they are explicitly released under GPL.

Failure to comply with the license doesn't render that license moot.

For the record I disagree with how this plugin author executed things, but I think it is an ethics issue and not a GPL issue.

Ugh, let's not get into ethics-vs-GPL again. ;)

[andreasnrb]

I can't see how MBP plugins violates the GPL license.
As far as I understand it is the not necessary activation steps that got it removed. There are also some non written rules on ease of use or something like that.

[chipbennett]

I can't see how MBP plugins violates the GPL license.
As far as I understand it is the not necessary activation steps that got it removed. There are also some non written rules on ease of use or something like that.

Certainly, there were extraneous issues as well, but the GPL issue is valid.

To summarize from my previous post:

The GPL defines itself as a free-software license (see above link/quote), and defines the term "free software" (linked above also). The salient part of that definition:

The freedom to run the program means the freedom for any kind of person or organization to use it on any kind of computer system, for any kind of overall job and purpose, without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity. In this freedom, it is the user's purpose that matters, not the developer's purpose; you as a user are free to run the program for your purposes, and if you distribute it to someone else, she is then free to run it for her purposes, but you are not entitled to impose your purposes on her.

So, compelling the user to register/"activate" software is a violation of the GPL - much less, requiring the user to opt-in, and to maintain a subscription, to an email list. Such functionality clearly violates the user's freedom of use of the software without being required to communicate about it with the developer or any other specific entity.

Seems pretty cut-and-dry to me.