[kwlug-disc] Wordpress themes must be GPL

[R. Brent Clements]

That is what I thought.  I cannot find anything in the license that
states that one has to provide the source code separate from the
object code.  And if the license stated that you MUST give your
software away for free, that would indeed make it impossible to make
money in the open source world.  It only ensures that the software you
get comes with the rights you deserve.  And it is really sad that the
word free is overloaded here to have two applicable but different
meanings.

Brent

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 1:46 PM, Chris Frey <cdfrey at foursquare.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 01:31:35PM -0400, Khalid Baheyeldin wrote:
>> 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.
>
> I believe Brent is correct here.  Third parties only get to claim access
> if you choose the "written offer" option of distribution.  In the
> section on Conveying non-source forms, you have the option of chosing
> only one of those methods, and the first method is giving the objects
> along with the source code.  If you pick that option (A), it looks to
> me like the transaction is finished, and third parties have no claim on you.
>
> GPL v2 is a bit less verbose, but seems to say the same thing.
>
> In other words, as long as binary and code are not separated in the
> transaction, then it is just one transaction which has completely
> filled the GPL's requirements.
>
> - Chris
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
> http://astoria.ccjclearline.com/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>