[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection
andycharrington at gmail.com
Sun Dec 12 09:21:26 UTC 2010
Please correct me if I'm wrong but
Seems to imply that a plugin has to be gpl compatible to be hosted on .org. It does not say that a plugin not hosted on .org has to be gpl compatible. Does it?
I suppose it is difficult to monitor a plugin not hosted on the repository but I feel there should be better definition of the guidelines for plugins in general.
It seems that profiting from plugins is a bit of a taboo subject. Is this because it is genuinely frowned upon by the community or because it is actually against the ethos of wordpress. Which may be the same thing.
It is interesting to me that there is little online regarding premium plugin development.
Should wordpress (matt) simply take a stance on premium plugins? Has he already?
Sent from my iPhone
On 12 Dec 2010, at 08:59, Michael Torbert <mrtorbert at gmail.com> wrote:
> First result mentions GPL:
> First result links to plugin submission about page which mentions GPL:
> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 3:51 AM, Ryan Bilesky <rbilesky at gmail.com> wrote:
>> I'm sorry I wasn't trying to start any argument about this. As such an
>> argument wouldn't really accomplish anything, plus I think we all know
>> way the majority leans. As I said, i don't even necessarily agree with the
>> point that plugins do not have to be GPL, I was simply stating that the GPL
>> requirement wasn't exactly self-evident, at least no more so than the
>> chicken coming before the egg is. A (legitimate?) argument can be made
>> ways, which really isn't the point of this discussion.
>> On Sun, Dec 12, 2010 at 12:01 AM, Mike Schinkel <
>> mikeschinkel at newclarity.net
>>> On Dec 12, 2010, at 2:45 AM, Ryan Bilesky wrote:
>>>> On Sat, Dec 11, 2010 at 6:38 PM, Mike Schinkel
>>>> <mikeschinkel at newclarity.net>wrote:
>>>>> I'm going to start with the postulate that all plugins for WordPress
>>>>> be GPL. Matt has taken that position, many people in the WordPress
>>>>> community have agreed, and the SFLC has backed him up with their
>>>>> So we'll run with that as a given.
>>>> I am going to disagree with you on this point. plugins in the
>>>> must be GPL per the repo terms, however the argument can be made that a
>>>> plugin (or a theme, because alot of themes choose Creative Commons
>>>> License to require an attribution link to be displayed in the footer)
>>>> a derivative work. Now that's not to say I think that GPL isn't a
>>>> requirement, I personally have no idea as I don't know enough about GPL
>>>> the law to say.
>>> LOL! If you read what I wrote that you quoted again you'll see I worded
>>> so as to bypass that entire issue!!! Note the use of the term
>>> i.e. "a postulate's truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting
>>> point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths":
>>> So basically you've disagreed with my "for argument's sake" assumption.
>>> Seriously, I wasn't stating an opinion on that, I was skirting that
>>> so that I could discuss the assertion Michael Tolbert made that putting
>>> functionality on a server in order to bypass distribution was wrong. I
>>> trying to hold to that issue off to the side otherwise it opens an whole
>>> 'nuther can o' worms. :-)
>>>> Now I'm not trying to start an argument about this or anything, I just
>>>> wanted to point out that it's not necessarily a given.
>>> And I didn't say it was. On the contrary, I was careful to say I wasn't
>>> saying so as to avoid that debate. :)
>>> (but if I *were* to open discussion on that topic you might be surprised
>>> one of the legal opinions I've gotten on the subject... :)
>>> wp-hackers mailing list
>>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>> wp-hackers mailing list
>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers