Another plugin removed from WP.org extend directory [Me too]

[chipbennett]

EDIT:

By the way. To create the readme.txt file I use this standar readme.txt:

http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/readme.txt

And there isn't anything about GPL. I checked the All in One SEO Pack readme.txt and it doesn't have anything with GPL either.

Anyway, I'll add those lines. If you have any other advices, thank you very much :)

I really appreciate your help.

The licensing information generally goes in the plugin.php header. Here is what I use:

 /**
 * Plugin Name: cbnet Twitter List Display
 * Plugin URI: http://www.chipbennett.net/wordpress/plugins/cbnet-twitter-list-display/
 * Description: A widget that displays tweets from any user's Twitter list.
 * Version: 0.3.1
 * Author: Chip Bennett
 * Author URI: http://www.chipbennett.net/
 *
 * License:       GNU General Public License, v2 (or newer)
 * License URI:  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 *
 * Thanks to Justin Tadlock, as well as Otto and the other fine folks at
 * the WPTavern forum (www.wptavern.org/forum) for help with this plugin
 */ 
  

If you're looking in readme.txt, you're looking in the wrong place. Not to worry, though; I made the same mistake initially, too.

[chipbennett]

Hi aldenml, thanks for the answer.

I put it in that form because other sites put my plugin to download, but the code was so simple that they edited the credits and they replaced my plugin link with theirs.

I can almost guarantee that it is this encoding that got your plugin removed.

If your plugin is released under GPL, then those other sites have every right to do exactly what they are doing (they are required, by the GPL, to retain your copyright in the plugin.php file - but are not required to retain any output that links to or credits you).

So, you will need to decide whether you want to restore the encoded content and thus allow your plugin to reside in the wordpress.org repository, or keep the encoded content, and distribute your plugin from outside the repository.

[KnxDT]

@KnxDT, I recommend you follow these links for get into the IRC

http://codex.wordpress.org/IRC
http://codex.wordpress.org/WordPress_IRC_Live_Help

The tag for the mailing list is not necessary.

Your plugin must be GPL Compatible (http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/) with a strong bias toward GPL.

The license header must be located inside the PHP code. I suggest you make these changes: license inclusion and base64 removal.

Thank you very much, I read those links you gave me and I'm waiting for Mark (#wordpress.com channel right?)

EDIT: I'm now with MarkR. I hope he responds me.

That would explain it then. You should report it to the powers that be that you weren't notified of the removal, but if you had that code in there then that would definitely explain why it was removed.

Anything that uses base64 encoding to obfuscate it's content from the site owner is not acceptable for the plugin repository and should be removed immediately.

Not mentioning the GPL is also going to get you removed as well. It's clearly outlined in the repository rules that everything submitted must be GPL. I'm not sure they mention anything about obfuscating code, but I think that's a given.

Yep, having the base_64 code in their is the most likely reason your plugin was removed. There are tons of plugins that do not contain the GPL license within them as I guess they naturally inherit the license stuff if no specific one is mentioned but I could be wrong. They don't do a good job of making sure plugins maintain the license text within the plugin before approval. I doubt that had much to do with the removal.

You are definitely wrong. If no explicit license is present, then the code is deemed copyright to the author(s).

All in One SEO Pack was an example. I don't see the GPL license anywhere in the code. Thanks for that tip with the base_64 function.

The licensing information generally goes in the plugin.php header. Here is what I use:

 /**
 * Plugin Name: cbnet Twitter List Display
 * Plugin URI: http://www.chipbennett.net/wordpress/plugins/cbnet-twitter-list-display/
 * Description: A widget that displays tweets from any user's Twitter list.
 * Version: 0.3.1
 * Author: Chip Bennett
 * Author URI: http://www.chipbennett.net/
 *
 * License:       GNU General Public License, v2 (or newer)
 * License URI:  http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
 *
 * This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
 * it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
 * the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
 * (at your option) any later version.
 *
 * This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
 * but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
 * MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.
 *
 * Thanks to Justin Tadlock, as well as Otto and the other fine folks at
 * the WPTavern forum (www.wptavern.org/forum) for help with this plugin
 */ 
  

If you're looking in readme.txt, you're looking in the wrong place. Not to worry, though; I made the same mistake initially, too.

Thanks Chip. I didn't know that thing about the GPL license... well I guess I prefer to insert my plugin in the repository besides others can remove or change the credits.

Thanks to all of you. I already made the changes. Removed the base_64 encoding and now I'm using the plain html text. I also included the GPL header license.

If I'm missing something, please let me know. I commited the svn files so you can check it from the repository to see the changes if you want to.

Thank you ver much, again. Time to wait.

[chipbennett]

Thanks Chip. I didn't know that thing about the GPL license... well I guess I prefer to insert my plugin in the repository besides others can remove or change the credits.

Thanks to all of you. I already made the changes. Removed the base_64 encoding and now I'm using the plain html text. I also included the GPL header license.

If I'm missing something, please let me know. I commited the svn files so you can check it from the repository to see the changes if you want to.

Thank you ver much, again. Time to wait.

No hay de que, y mucho gusto!

[KnxDT]

Chat:

(12:44:15) KnxDT: I have a problem related with my plugin. It was removed from WP.org extend repository
(12:44:51) KnxDT: and nobody notifies me so I read some forums and they recommend me this channel so I'm here :)
(12:45:24) KnxDT: by the way: I speak spanish. Please excuse me if my english isn't good enough.
(12:50:20) KnxDT: In another forum the people told me that maybe it was because in the code I used the base64 encoding or maybe because I didn't include the GPL header.
(12:51:28) KnxDT: I removed the base64 encoding function and I included the GPL header. Now I need to know if that's all... because nobody notifies me about a problem with the plugin.
(12:51:48) KnxDT: This is the SVN link if you want to check the code: http://svn.wp-plugins.org/feedburner...iption-widget/
(13:18:39) markr: KnxDT, the plugin was removed because you hid an encoded link to your site in the footer. That is completely unacceptable. Access can be restored but you must bump the version number and remove that footer code. If other links are introduced the plugin would be permanently removed.
(13:20:51) KnxDT: I replaced the encoded link with the plain HTML text now.
(13:22:59) sivel: KnxDT: in addition you have to allow the user to remove the "advertisement" using an option in admin
(13:24:02) KnxDT: Ok, If I introduce links I should add options to remove it. Is that ok?
(13:24:10) KnxDT: to remove them*
(13:24:41) markr: yep - that is part of the requirements.
(13:25:19) markr: please bump the version number too.
(13:25:24) markr: that is important
(13:25:49) KnxDT: Ok, I can introduce links but with the disable option (to remove them). That's ok?
(13:25:53) KnxDT: And bump the version
(13:26:04) markr: that would be good, yes
(13:26:41) KnxDT: I'll do it now. Thank you.
(13:27:03) KnxDT: By the way: Is the GPL header necesary?
(13:27:18) markr: very.
(13:27:28) KnxDT: because WP didn't mention in the standar readme.txt
(13:27:37) markr: Ideally you would include the gpl in a gpl.txt file
(13:27:57) markr: not including the declaration will get it removed
(13:28:10) markr: users have to know what they can do if they wish
(13:28:40) markr: back in ~30
(13:28:52) KnxDT: http://svn.wp-plugins.org/all-in-one...unk/readme.txt No GPL :S
(13:30:02) KnxDT: I'll make the necesary changes in my plugin code and bump the version in the meantime.

I already made the changes and added a couple of links (removable links).

No hay de que, y mucho gusto!

De todas maneras tu ayuda me fue bastante útil así que reitero las gracias. Un gusto también para mi :)

[chipbennett]

Chat:

(13:27:03) KnxDT: By the way: Is the GPL header necesary?
(13:27:18) markr: very.
(13:27:28) KnxDT: because WP didn't mention in the standar readme.txt
(13:27:37) markr: Ideally you would include the gpl in a gpl.txt file
(13:27:57) markr: not including the declaration will get it removed
(13:28:10) markr: users have to know what they can do if they wish

I already made the changes and added a couple of links (removable links).

For the record, I don't think a single one of my installed plugins has a "gpl.txt" file.

Even Akismet and Hello Dolly (the two pre-packaged plugins) do not have such a file.

Further - and even worse - neither of these two plugins even includes a notice of licensure in the plugin header.

(In other words, Matt Mullenweg's own plugins violate this (yet another) unwritten rule of the wordpress.org repository.

Looking through my plugins, the following authors have placed GPL language in their plugin.php header:

• Me
• Mark Jaquith (in I Make Plugins plugin)
• Otto (Samuel Wood)
• Alex King
• Justin Tadlock (who also includes license.txt as a separate file)
• Andy Skelton (wordpress.com stats plugin)
• Lester 'GaMerZ' Chan
• Johan Eenfeldt
• Michael Woehrer
• DiSo Development Team
• Andrea BelvedereBlogplay (and, by extension, Joost de Valk)
• Fernando Briano

And note: that is out of 46 plugins that I have installed.

Notable authors with no license information in plugin.php header:

• Matt Mullenweg
• Ozh
• Mark Jaquith (in incredibly popular Subscribe to Comments plugin)
• Viper007Bond

That's not a great track record for the show-stopping requirement that plugin authors must include GPL wording in plugin.php header.

Taking a look at the Top Ten most popular plugins in Extend:

1. Contact Form 7: GPL wording in plugin header
2. AIO SEO Pack: GPL wording in plugin header
3. Google XML Sitemaps: No license information
4. WP-PageNavi: GPL wording in plugin header
5. WPTouch iPhone Theme: GPL wording in plugin header (but is dual-licensed, CSS/design copyrighted)
6. Simple Tags:GPL wording in plugin header
7. WP Super Cache: GPL wording in plugin header
8. Akismet: No license information
9. NextGEN Gallery: GPL wording in plugin header
10. WordPress.com Stats: GPL wording in plugin header

So, that's:

• Almost 2/3 of the plugins I personally have installed, that don't have GPL information in the plugin
• 2 of the Top Ten most popular plugins at Extend, that don't have GPL information in the plugin
• 1 of the Top Ten most popular plugins at Extend, that violates the requirement that the entire plugin be distributed under the GPL

Again, not a great track record.

De todas maneras tu ayuda me fue bastante útil así que reitero las gracias. Un gusto también para mi :)

De nada. Lo ayuda a otros es mi placer, porque otros me han ayudado muchas veces!

[KnxDT]

Yes, I can see that. Nice and interesting post, Chip.

I included this txt file in my plugin directory now:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-3.0.txt

I'll include this txt in my other plugins when all this situation ends.

PS: The (WP.org Dev Team) should inform about this GPL license txt like something "very necesary".

[Ryan]

Even Akismet and Hello Dolly (the two pre-packaged plugins) do not have such a file.

Further - and even worse - neither of these two plugins even includes a notice of licensure in the plugin header.

Since they're bundled with WordPress then they don't need to. The whole of WordPress is GPL and stated in the license.txt file that comes in the zip file.

(13:22:59) sivel: KnxDT: in addition you have to allow the user to remove the "advertisement" using an option in admin

This surprised me. Does that apply to advertisements in the admin panel? Or is it just to advertising on the front-end?

[andrea_r]

They can start coming down stricter on new plugins in the repo without going back and making sure every single one complies in every single case.[

QUOTE] Quote:
Originally Posted by chipbennett
Even Akismet and Hello Dolly (the two pre-packaged plugins) do not have such a file.

Further - and even worse - neither of these two plugins even includes a notice of licensure in the plugin header.

Since they're bundled with WordPress then they don't need to. The whole of WordPress is GPL and stated in the license.txt file that comes in the zip file.[/QUOTE]

ditto this.

[KnxDT]

Since they're bundled with WordPress then they don't need to. The whole of WordPress is GPL and stated in the license.txt file that comes in the zip file.

I don't think so... because WP "IS" GPL so the other plugins installed are not specifically GPL. In fact, you can use other plugins (not GPL) for Wordpress. The difference is that they NEED to be GPL if they want to store in the repository, but not necesarily if the plugin was developed outside WP.

Even though I still thinking that all the plugins developed using WP as main CMS are GPL (I remember that I read that in somewhere).

This surprised me. Does that apply to advertisements in the admin panel? Or is it just to advertising on the front-end?

He was talking about my front-end link so I suppose is only applicable to that situation, but I'm not sure.