plugin licensing was( Re: [wp-hackers] Plugin author stats )
davebytes at comcast.net
Tue Oct 24 17:56:31 GMT 2006
From: "Lloyd D Budd" <lloydomattic at gmail.com>
> On 10/24/06, David Chait <davebytes at comcast.net> wrote:
>> More importantly, what about dual licensing? I know of TONS of OSS
>> where there's a commercial-use license separate from the personal-use
>> GPL/et.al. license. Heck, isn't that how id licensed the Quake sources?
> I don't think your description reflects the licensing, or by
> definition of OSS the projects you describe are not OSS. For example
> mysql "commercial" licensing is for if GPL does not meet my (a user of
> mysql) distribution needs (basically).
Yes, that applies for most of the cases. So someone wanting to publish a
commercial product off of Q3 buys the closed-source commercial license.
i.e., the original code owner can release the code in multiple manners.
Though, there's also the case where a company will release a 'lite' version
of their program/code as OSS, and have a 'pro' version that is
But thanks for making that more clearly stated, as my original statement had
it twisted around the wrong way. ;)
>> I'm on the verge of either dropping support of many of my plugins or
>> to do commercial licenses for people with money-making (i.e., commercial)
>> websites. I'm glad WP is GPL, I'm fine with the fact that Matt has a
>> company making money off this project (and offshoots, not all of which
>> open source...), but GPL doesn't work for me. A dual-license scheme
>> potentially work, though admittedly I've never really looked into it.
> Depending on how your plugin interacts with WP core, all its licenses
> would have to be GPL compatible, if you wish to distribute it.
...and depending on your reading of the GPL. As there's been numerous
threads on that topic, I don't want to kick off another.. ;)
More information about the wp-hackers