[kwlug-disc] Wordpress themes must be GPL
kb at 2bits.com
Thu Jul 29 13:31:35 EDT 2010
On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:22 PM, R. Brent Clements <rbclemen at gmail.com>wrote:
> If I distribute the source with the object code to a second party, I
> have met my obligations. If they then distribute it to a third party
> without the source code, then they are not complying with the license,
> not me.
But if the third party ask you, the first party, for the source, you have to
make it available.
If the second party modified the code, obviously you are not under any
obligation, since that code is not even in your possession.
Think about router vendors modifying BusyBox or OpenWRT. The source
for both is already downloadable. But normally those vendors have made
changes to it. By buying the router, you have come into possession of the
binary form, and they can't just say : go to OpenWRT.org and download
it. They have to make their modifications available.
> The second party needs to either include the source (which
> they received) or provide it at their own expense. The second party
> cannot contractually obligate the first party to the third party.
> That would never hold up in law. The part about not needing to accept
> the license in order to propagate it would imply that the source is
> still included.
The GPL is not an EULA. You don't have to accept it just to run the
software or study it.
But if you distribute the software, the GPL automatically comes in effect,
and you are obliged to distribute under the same rights that you received
the software under.
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:02 PM, Khalid Baheyeldin <kb at 2bits.com> wrote:
> > On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 12:50 PM, R. Brent Clements <rbclemen at gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> I just re-read the GPL v3 quickly, and I see nothing about being
> >> obligated to anyone other than the entities I directly conveyed the
> >> work to. I understand that in a feel-good, share-and-share-alike
> >> world that is all very feel good and all, but it is the line that
> >> divides. If RMS was required to give away copies in order to have the
> >> right to sell them that would be completely different. In my example
> >> above the nominal cost of receiving a copy of my source from me is
> >> $100, and I will throw in a free copy of the binaries and related
> >> data.
> >> >From the licence:
> >> --begin cut
> >> 6. Conveying Non-Source Forms.
> >> You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of
> >> sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable
> >> Corresponding Source under the terms of this License, in one of these
> >> ways:
> >> a) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
> >> (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by the
> >> Corresponding Source fixed on a durable physical medium customarily
> >> used for software interchange.
> >> b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product
> >> (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written
> >> offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you
> >> offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give
> >> anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the
> >> Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
> >> covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used
> >> for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable
> >> cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access
> >> to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
> >> --end cut
> >> Key part there is obligated to give the source to those who possess
> >> the object code
> >> And from what I can tell including the source only with the original
> >> distribution is perfectly legit under the GPL
> >> Obviously my 10 customers could decide to redistribute the contents of
> >> the medium in any way they see fit, but if they don't copy the whole
> >> package including the source to their "customers" they are modifying
> >> the work and would have to cover the cost of distributing the source
> >> themselves.
> > Look at this:
> > "... to give ANYONE WHO POSSESSES THE OBJECT CODE either (1) a copy
> > of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is
> > covered by
> > this License, ... , or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from
> > network server at no charge."
> > First, if you are distributing PHP or Ruby or Python, then it is already
> > source code.
> > But regardless, if you sell the binary form to anyone, the license allows
> > that person
> > to give the binary to anyone they want to share with. Then that third
> > can ask
> > you for the source code and you are obliged to give it to them.
> > So, third parties can ask for the source code, and you have to make it
> > available.
> > If you are using the GPL code internally only for tools and such, then
> > is not
> > distributing, and you are not obliged to give anyone access to it. The
> > trigger is
> > "distribution", including selling, sharing, ...etc.
> > --
> > Khalid M. Baheyeldin
> > 2bits.com, Inc.
> > http://2bits.com
> > Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.
> > Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. -- Edsger W.Dijkstra
> > Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. -- Leonardo da Vinci
> > _______________________________________________
> > kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> > kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
> > http://astoria.ccjclearline.com/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
Khalid M. Baheyeldin
Drupal optimization, development, customization and consulting.
Simplicity is prerequisite for reliability. -- Edsger W.Dijkstra
Simplicity is the ultimate sophistication. -- Leonardo da Vinci
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the kwlug-disc