CForms II removed from Repository.

[hallsofmontezuma]

"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. "

I don't see how I'm misreading that. Jacob is saying that the GPL states that requiring a commercial key gets in the way of distribution and therefore violates the license. As you pointed out, that's not the case. Not only is this nowhere in the text of the license nor in the FAQ that I can see, it's just not accurate. 1) Paying for the key doesn't have anything to do with it. 2) Just because a redistributed version may not work without buying a key from the original developer doesn't make it not compliant.
What am I misreading?

[Ryan]

Isn't that a reference to the Shopp FAQ? Not the GPL FAQ?

My understanding of what Jacob said, is that GPL software can not require a key to work. I haven't pointed out that that isn't the case. I don't know whether that is true or not.

Maybe Jacob can clarify. It's late and I can't be bothered sifting through the old posts to figure out what he did and didn't say.

[Jacob Santos]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....llowRequireFee
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....bilityToPublic

http://www.fsf.org/licensing/license...llowRequireFee <------ This is my version that I read.

If you force people through use of a key to purchase from the original distributor, then you are in violation of the GPL. I think the first two deal with v3, which the third deals with v2 of the GPL. You can interpret it how you want, but if I have to purchase the software from the original distributor then it becomes commercial and should have a commercial license preventing it. If it has a commercial license, then it obviously isn't free and therefore incompatible with the GPL.

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.

[hallsofmontezuma]

Thank you for providing the link. I think you're confusing free speech vs. free beer. The "free" in the license refers to the freedom/liberty to redistribute. This does not mean that the software can't be sold. GPL software certainly can be commercially sold, however, the restriction you're referring to prevents the original developer/license holder to require a royalty be given to him whenever other people redistribute it. The license certainly does not prohibit that original developer from selling it.

If you force people through use of a key to purchase from the original distributor, then you are in violation of the GPL. I think the first two deal with v3, which the third deals with v2 of the GPL. You can interpret it how you want, but if I have to purchase the software from the original distributor then it becomes commercial and should have a commercial license preventing it. If it has a commercial license, then it obviously isn't free and therefore incompatible with the GPL.

[Ryan]

My small mind is about to explode again! Brain overload.

[Jacob Santos]

My issue with you and your issue with me has been up from the beginning that you are either putting words in my mouth that I'm just not saying or adding interpretations to my words that I'm not meaning.

No interpretation should be needed. I've never stated that you can't sell the software, that is fine with the GPL and I've stated as much many times before. We have no disagreement there.

I'm saying that, for example. If I buy Shopp and get the key. However, if I make some cool feature enhancement, I would 1) send it back to the developer of Shopp and 2) redistribute it myself. In this instance, I would have to update the system for the update of the plugin through the use of the key. If that code is encrypted and I can't change it, then the plugin is in violation of the GPL, because not all of the source is available, or if two, if there was some wall put in place that requires that the user of my plugin to go back to the original developer. Not my choice and nothing I could remove from the code that forces the user to not be able to use my key, but force the user to buy from the original user, then yes, that would be akin to asking royalties, because it is asking a fee of the user that received the distribution of a secondary from the primary.

However, since this is NOT the case with Shopp, I think it is time we stop arguing over it. I think at some point, I'm just going to set your username to ignore and be done with it. Nothing against you, but I don't feel like explaining myself everytime you put words in my mouth and have to come back and say, "No, no no, this is what I meant." If you have issue with what I've stated, then either ask for references, or ask me to explain. Do not attempt to "read between the lines," because you've done so inaccurately so far and I'm becoming annoyed. Well, actually, I'm moving past being annoyed, I'm becoming angered.

It seems the problem is more or less with me, because you aren't the only person who seems to not understand or attempts to read between the lines of what I've stated. I don't like arguing with someone when both of us are mostly saying the same thing, albeit it in different ways. It is unproductive and I grew tired of it.

If you want to reply to this, do so as a PM.

Thank you for providing the link. I think you're confusing free speech vs. free beer. The "free" in the license refers to the freedom/liberty to redistribute. This does not mean that the software can't be sold. GPL software certainly can be commercially sold, however, the restriction you're referring to prevents the original developer/license holder to require a royalty be given to him whenever other people redistribute it. The license certainly does not prohibit that original developer from selling it.

If you force people through use of a key to purchase from the original distributor, then you are in violation of the GPL. I think the first two deal with v3, which the third deals with v2 of the GPL. You can interpret it how you want, but if I have to purchase the software from the original distributor then it becomes commercial and should have a commercial license preventing it. If it has a commercial license, then it obviously isn't free and therefore incompatible with the GPL.

[Kathy]

I think it's a terrible shame to stop developing a great plugin over this. I would understand if it was just withdrawn from the repository. But to quit developing over this? That's childish. Hopefully someone will take over, and give the original author credit.
I'm pretty sure the plugin does help make a profit by drawing people to his site.

[Ryan]

The plugin developer has changed their mind and will be continuing the development of this plugin as a GPL project. It won't be hosted on WordPress.org anymore though.

[hallsofmontezuma]

He claims that it's GPL, but it's not open source.

[Ryan]

He claims that it's GPL, but it's not open source.

No. It's definitely open source ... http://www.deliciousdays.com/wp-cont...forms.10.4.zip