[kwlug-disc] Wordpress themes must be GPL

[Khalid Baheyeldin]

On Thu, Jul 29, 2010 at 2:02 PM, R. Brent Clements <rbclemen at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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.


It does not say that. It just says that you have to give the source code for
those who ask for it.


> 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 does not say anything about selling or not selling.

But in effect, it makes the business model of selling pressed copies of
software impractical.

The reason is that anyone that you sell the software to can legally give
it away for free to anyone else, including the source code. So if your
software is popular you will only sell a few copies, then nothing.

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.
>

Agreed it is ambiguous.


>
> 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
> >
>
> _______________________________________________
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org mailing list
> kwlug-disc_kwlug.org at kwlug.org
> http://astoria.ccjclearline.com/mailman/listinfo/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org
>



-- 
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
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://kwlug.org/pipermail/kwlug-disc_kwlug.org/attachments/20100729/3b5ec9ed/attachment.htm>