CForms II removed from Repository.

[jond]

Yes Ryan, you are correct. Shopp's only use of the key is for auto-updates. The operational aspects of Shopp do not require a key - only getting the updates automatically requires a key. Manual updates require a download link from your order receipt.

You don't purchase a "license" since the license is GPL. The fee charged for Shopp is a distribution/update subscription fee.

None of this violates the GPL. Believe me, I researched the license (and other GPL-compatible licenses) very thoroughly before deciding on this approach.

[Jacob Santos]

Unless I'm mistaken, paying has nothing to do with this.
I can't find anything in the GPL license or in their FAQ that says you can't have GPL software require a key to access hosted (non-GPL) software. The code that WP Stats, Akismet, all the Google plugins that require keys, etc access isn't GPL. We have no freedom to modify that code. However, we do have the freedom to modify Akismet, WP Stats, Shopp, etc. I really don't see a difference.

The FAQ makes mention to requiring a key for execution that can only be purchased from the original distributor. It specifically mentions that this makes it non-free as in neither beer nor speech and therefore violates the GPL. It isn't about execution per say, as not allowing anyone else to distribute it, because if they did, then the people that use it would have to purchase a key from the original developer, which is not the intention of the GPL. It basically violates the distribution part by forcing users to require a key for execution from the original distributor.

It appears this is not the case with the Shopp plugin, I could get it from one else, I just would not be able to upgrade from the original distributor, which is reasonable. That does not mean I couldn't provide the same functionality with my updates.

In fact, I could very well keep purchasing Shopp and providing a way for others to update their system through mine instead of the official Shopp. The only problem would be my "free" version will be supported by sponsored links. Cue evil laugh.

[hallsofmontezuma]

You're seeing something there that I'm not then. The only mention I'm aware of is in the "Conveying Non-Source Forms" section and has nothing to do with what we're talking about.
So do you assert that Red Hat, WP Stats, Akismet, and all other open source software that requires an activation key to use are actually violating the license?
Requiring a key for activation or to access some external database doesn't prevent someone from distributing the software. Let's forget this whole free as in free beer thing, that has nothing to do with it. If Akismet now costs $100, I can buy it, and still modify/redistribute the code as I please.

The FAQ makes mention to requiring a key for execution that can only be purchased from the original distributor. It specifically mentions that this makes it non-free as in neither beer nor speech and therefore violates the GPL. It isn't about execution per say, as not allowing anyone else to distribute it, because if they did, then the people that use it would have to purchase a key from the original developer, which is not the intention of the GPL. It basically violates the distribution part by forcing users to require a key for execution from the original distributor.

It appears this is not the case with the Shopp plugin, I could get it from one else, I just would not be able to upgrade from the original distributor, which is reasonable. That does not mean I couldn't provide the same functionality with my updates.

In fact, I could very well keep purchasing Shopp and providing a way for others to update their system through mine instead of the official Shopp. The only problem would be my "free" version will be supported by sponsored links. Cue evil laugh.

[Ryan]

So do you assert that Red Hat, WP Stats, Akismet, and all other open source software that requires an activation key to use are actually violating the license?

AFAIK, Jacob didn't say that in any of his posts. Apart from maybe Shopp, but it looks like he's backtracked on that now.

[hallsofmontezuma]

AFAIK, Jacob didn't say that in any of his posts. Apart from maybe Shopp, but it looks like he's backtracked on that now.

"The FAQ makes mention to requiring a key for execution that can only be purchased from the original distributor. It specifically mentions that this makes it non-free as in neither beer nor speech and therefore violates the GPL."

Aside from the fact that I sure can't find this in the FAQ, the software that I listed (among others) would qualify for this.

Regardless, I maintain that none of these prohibit distribution or access to the source, and are completely compliant with the GPL. This includes CForms and Shopp. The fact that Red Hat and Shopp charge a fee and/or require activation doesn't make them non GPL compliant. The source code is still available and can be freely modified/distributed.
So yes, you could buy Shopp, modify it, and redistribute it. Obviously, this is done with RHEL. Depending on your hosting company, there's a good change that you're using a version of Linux that was made from the RHEL source (CentOS).

[Ryan]

You missed the next bit where Jacob said:

It appears this is not the case with the Shopp plugin, I could get it from one else, I just would not be able to upgrade from the original distributor, which is reasonable. That does not mean I couldn't provide the same functionality with my updates.

And Akismet etc. work without a key, you just need to find/create another service that works with it. The software doesn't require the key, the service you plug into does. Which is the point Jacob is trying to get at I assume.

[hallsofmontezuma]

You missed the next bit where Jacob said:


And Akismet etc. work without a key, you just need to find/create another service that works with it. The software doesn't require the key, the service you plug into does. Which is the point Jacob is trying to get at I assume.

You're exactly right, Akismet and all work with no key, it's just the external service that requires one (not that there's anything I'm aware of in the GPL that states requiring a key goes against the terms of the license). That isn't at all what he was saying.

The FAQ makes mention to requiring a key for execution that can only be purchased from the original distributor. It specifically mentions that this makes it non-free as in neither beer nor speech and therefore violates the GPL. It isn't about execution per say, as not allowing anyone else to distribute it, because if they did, then the people that use it would have to purchase a key from the original developer, which is not the intention of the GPL. It basically violates the distribution part by forcing users to require a key for execution from the original distributor.

[improvingtheweb]

Regardless of any legalities, I think people should just respect whatever restrictions the plugin author has put in place.

It is the plugin author that has put in time and effort to create the plugin in the first place.

If people were to just redistribute premium themes and plugins (which I think is allowed under GPL), this would mean the total destruction of that market and would be disastrous for the wordpress community as a whole.

I also think that's the reason Matt and the rest of the folks at Automaticc have not pursued this any further.

[hallsofmontezuma]

I agree with you 100%, unfortunately you can't force people to have good morals. People are going to redistribute plugins and themes. While some will use them, those will generally not last, as they won't have the updates, support, etc. Then it's just a matter of doing the right thing. I have copies of many commercial themes, but I still make all of my clients who want to use them purchase them from the developer. Someone worked hard on that plugin or theme, people should just pay the $50 or whatever it costs.

Regardless of any legalities, I think people should just respect whatever restrictions the plugin author has put in place.

It is the plugin author that has put in time and effort to create the plugin in the first place.

If people were to just redistribute premium themes and plugins (which I think is allowed under GPL), this would mean the total destruction of that market and would be disastrous for the wordpress community as a whole.

I also think that's the reason Matt and the rest of the folks at Automaticc have not pursued this any further.

[Ryan]

@hallsofmontezuma I think you are misreading what Jacob has written.