[wp-trac] [WordPress Trac] #6663: Wordpress source files do not correctly mark themselves as GPL

[WordPress Trac]

#6663: Wordpress source files do not correctly mark themselves as GPL
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------
 Reporter:  mattlgnu     |        Owner:  anonymous
     Type:  enhancement  |       Status:  closed   
 Priority:  lowest       |    Milestone:           
Component:  General      |      Version:           
 Severity:  trivial      |   Resolution:  wontfix  
 Keywords:  needs-patch  |  
-------------------------+--------------------------------------------------

Comment(by hakre):

 Replying to [comment:14 jacobsantos]:
 > I think the debate is not settled. The issue is how to go about linking
 to the license.

 This is not only about linking. The recommendation to put a
 copyright/license notice into a file has it's reasons in the legal matters
 of copyright. It's a general practice to do so.

 @license says not much in that domain, it's for automated documentation
 needs mainly (PHPDOC). So this can be helpful for programmers and systems
 (e.g. to generate the appropriate header(s) in build systems). But it is
 less helpful in the sense of legal matters.

 > If you were going to put the GPL summary in each file, what would be the
 copyright holder?

 The copyright holder for each file are the authors of the code in that
 file that is significant to copyright.

 > Also, the GPL FAQ that the copyright is only required if it exists prior
 to the forking of the web application.

 A copyright existed prior to forking and was removed in r48. Full History:
 [http://codex.wordpress.org/User:Hakre/Core/Wordpress_Copyright WordPress
 Copyright].

 > I'm not sure what it means for the copyright to add it in after the
 project has already been forked. As far as the GPL (from the FAQ) is
 concerned, the terms have been upheld.

 I was unable to located that in the FAQ, please share the link.

 >
 > It is difficult barring from the fact that we have no idea to whom the
 original copyright was beholden. Was it to Mike? B2/CafePress Community,
 some company before Automattic? Given the difficulty of knowing who to
 specify the copyright holder, it makes it extremely difficult to use the
 summary GPL in each file.

 That wouldn't be for each file. For the time of fork, the named copyright
 was:

    b2 is (c) 2001, 2002 Michel Valdrighi - m at tidakada.com -
 http://tidakada.com


 > Which is why {{{@license GPL}}} is probably the best you'll be able to
 do to satisfy this ticket.

 To mark something under a license, copyright must be clear first. It's not
 a need in all countries to explicitly name the copyright, but for
 international distribution you should have at least the term copyright in
 there.

 If copyright is clear then first, licensing can apply as licensing is
 build on top of copyright.

 Not to repeat everything, the GNU folks have a How-To which is helpfull to
 help users who get the code to reuse it: [http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
 howto.html How to use GNU licenses for your own software]

 I'm pretty sure they went through a lot of discussions why or why not to
 do it that way.

-- 
Ticket URL: <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/ticket/6663#comment:15>
WordPress Trac <http://core.trac.wordpress.org/>
WordPress blogging software