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

[Cais]

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

My BNS Support plugin falls into the gray on this note. I noticed this after the fact and it will be "corrected" with the next update. I was re-reading the WP Plugin Hosting information when I read that "rule".

I believe they may also be changing the submission process. I actually had to submit a link to a working version of my newest plugin for the repository ... and I'm sitting at 5 days awaiting approval on it. Much longer than I have ever had to wait in the past.

[chipbennett]

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 buy this argument.

Both Akismet and Hello Dolly are hosted in the repository.

Do they get some special dispensation or something? They're still plugins (thus not part of core, regardless of being "bundled" with the default download), and they are still repository-hosted.

Further, when both are un-bundled in future releases (as has already been reported to be happening), what then?

You see, that's the problem with unwritten, subjective rules: nobody knows for certain when they change, and it's difficult to hold everyone accountable to them.

If the plugin.php header requires an explicit GPL statement, then add that to the repository requirement list.

And if we are going to start holding all the other plugin authors accountable to such rules, then we had darn-well better make sure that the plugins authored by core devs adhere to those rules first, don't you think?

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

I'm fairly certain it only applies to public-facing output of the plugin.

[KnxDT]

Well... Now I have to wait, Mark is sleeping.

I have a newbie question: Markr is Mark Jaquith? (Because of the "r" at the end of the nickname)

[Utkarsh]

Well... Now I have to wait, Mark is sleeping.

I have a newbie question: Markr is Mark Jaquith? (Because of the "r" at the end of the nickname)

Nope, both are different.

[KnxDT]

I hope that today, the problem could be fixed.

Nope, both are different.

Thank you Utkarsh. So, Who is Markr? Another WP Developer?

[Utkarsh]

I hope that today, the problem could be fixed.



Thank you Utkarsh. So, Who is Markr? Another WP Developer?

Yep. I don't know anything else about him though, just know that these two are different people. He probably works with the WordPress.com team. Maybe someone else can throw some light on this.

[Ryan]

I don't buy this argument.

Both Akismet and Hello Dolly are hosted in the repository.

Oh, I didn't realise that. In that case yeah, that is kinda odd.

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.

I was referring to Akismet and Hello Dolly which are part of WordPress.

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).

You probably did read it somewhere, but that is 100% definitely incorrect. The GPL states that derivative code is required to be GPL licensed, which is not the same as derivate coding being GPL licensed. Derivative code which is not GPL licensed is in violation of that license, but it still doesn't make the code GPL.

If you took code which is in violation of the GPL license and slapped a GPL license on it and gave it away, you would be breaking the law just as much as the person infringing on the license.

[KnxDT]

You probably did read it somewhere, but that is 100% definitely incorrect. The GPL states that derivative code is required to be GPL licensed, which is not the same as derivate coding being GPL licensed. Derivative code which is not GPL licensed is in violation of that license, but it still doesn't make the code GPL.

If you took code which is in violation of the GPL license and slapped a GPL license on it and gave it away, you would be breaking the law just as much as the person infringing on the license.

Yeah, maybe I did (and I was wrong).

Even so WP.org doesn't mention that terms in a specific way (or maybe I need to learn more the GPL license according to WP), and Chip already show us the Top Ten WP plugins mistakes.

[Ryan]

Even so WP.org doesn't mention that terms in a specific way

No, it doesn't. That's basic copyright law though. The copyright of a unique piece of work is owned by the author unless the author chooses otherwise.

[chipbennett]

I just finished an audit of some of the highest-profile plugin authors, to determine conformance to this newly interpreted rule that if plugins don't explicitly disclose license information then they are subject to removal from the repository.

The results aren't pretty.

I'll be commenting more on it, later this evening.