[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection
chip at chipbennett.net
Tue Dec 14 17:23:25 UTC 2010
As the copyright holder, you can distribute code under whatever terms you
choose. However, in order to license code *validly* under GPL, you have to
make the human-readable code available. Otherwise, your code isn't really
On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:17 AM, Iain Cambridge <wackiebackie at gmail.com>wrote:
> The key word there is opinion, I just did a quick search for "GPL
> Violations obfuscated code" to see if there has been a test case to
> make this not just an opinion but fact. Again, the license doesn't
> apply to the copyright holder therefore they can distribute the item
> in any way they like.
> I do agree tho that not having GPL code in open plain human readable
> freely available code is lame. I just don't agree with people saying
> you can't GPL obfuscated code when there seems to be nothing within
> the GPL itself that explictly says so and there seems to be no test
> case stating so.
> On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 4:38 PM, Andrew Nacin <wp at andrewnacin.com> wrote:
> > On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 11:06 AM, Iain Cambridge <wackiebackie at gmail.com
> >> By decrypting it. Since it's got to be machine readable (modifications
> >> & distrubitions only) it will have a decrypting method within the code
> >> somewhere.
> >> The terms and conditions only apply to "COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND
> >> MODIFICATION" and not to the ability to attach the license to code.
> >> Simply put if I wanted to encrypt all my code and put it into a
> >> seperate file and then run it thought mcrypt and eval there is no
> >> valid reason that I can see I can't GPL that code. It would just be
> >> silly.
> >> Iain
> > The Free Software Foundation is very clear in their opinion that
> > or obfuscated source code is not source code.
> > That's not to say you can't ship encrypted, compressed, obfuscated, or
> > minified source code, only that you need to make the unencrypted,
> > uncompressed, unobfuscated, or unminified source available. Preferably in
> > the distribution, but that's not required.
> > Not doing so is just lame, frankly. :-)
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-hackers mailing list
> > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
More information about the wp-hackers