| Home | Forum | Advertise | Contact Me | About WPTavern | WPWeekly Show Info |
![]() |
| |||||||
| Plugins And Hacks Anything and everything related to plugins |
![]() |
| | Share | LinkBack | Thread Tools | Display Modes |
| ||||
|
Technically, any software that is a plugin/add-on of GNU-GPL software and is dependent on the parent software (WordPress) inherits the GNU-GPL license. For some reason people like to debate me on this, but it's stated very clearly in the license. Basically, if you make a WordPress plugin, IT IS GPL, you have no say in the matter. The license clearly states that but using/developing for the parent software, you're accepting its GPL license, which requires your add-on/plugin to inherit it's license. So he was in the wrong from the beginning, by erroneously claiming his plugin to be non-GPL. |
| ||||
|
@williamsba What I'm saying is that you can claim your plugin is non-GPL all you want, but it is. The developer has no say in the matter. According to the license, when you use a GPL software (like WordPress), or develop a plugin/addon for it, you are accepting its license, which states that the plugin/addon you're developing for it inherits that license. @conorp Oh it's a great plugin. The next best thing is Contact 7, which doesn't even come close. Download a copy of CForms and play around with it and you'll see what I mean. |
| ||||
|
Just for reference, here's a quote from gnu.org: If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in? It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the ‘main’ function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case. |
| ||||
|
Well sure. They can claim it all they want. It's still not the case, and if it is, they're in violation of the license they inherently agree to by using WordPress. For some reason there is a huge misconception out there about many aspects of the licensing. Some people think that he's allowed to have it under any license he wants: not true. Some people think that if it's open source, he's not allowed to include a link in the generated form: not true. Just like WordPress has many, many links back to their site, so can CForms, or any other open source software. And just like you can remove any or all links back to WordPress, you can do the same for CForms. Oliver didn't like people removing the links back to him, so he decided to claim it wasn't open source. When people had a problem with that, he nixed the plugin altogether. |
| ||||
|
I think people feel insecure about releasing projects under GPL, as if they're somehow giving up all rights to their software. If they read the agreement carefully they'll realize that they really aren't. Looks like the problem the cforms II author has with GPL is that people can repackage his software and make money from it. I could almost understand that if SHE was making money from it, but since she isn't it's really illogical (to me). Ahh well, Automattic has pretty much stated that they won't go after people who don't release GPL beyond removing them from the plugin repository. This actually makes sense to me. Why waste their time and effort when most of the community will shun the non-GPL guys anyway. Last edited by itsananderson; 01-25-2009 at 10:01 PM.. |
![]() |
| Thread Tools | |
| Display Modes | |
| |