[wp-hackers] anyone looked at Chameleon closely?

[David Chait]

Doug Stewart wrote:
| David Chait wrote:
| > themselves in all cases), there's no GPL issue?  But if they are 
actually
| > selling it as a purchasable 'shrinkwrap' package for people to install
| > themselves, then Flip would need to make modified code (at least the 
core,
| > I'll leave plugins out of this) available, no?  Again, the difference is
| > between 'use' of code yourself, vs 'sale' of code (or binary) to others,
| > right?
| >
|
| They're only obligated to pass on code changes to those they distribute
| the software to, i.e., their customers.

Huh.  Really.  Okay...

I just re-read the GPL stuff.  That was a point I didn't quite understand, 
an now do.  I'll explain my confusion and the 'resolution' as I see it. ;)

I thought if you sold GPL code/binary you had to make sources available to 
the public.  THAT WAS WRONG.  You do NOT have to make modded sources 
available to just anyone who asks.

HOWEVER, you DO have to make sources freely available to anyone who 
purchased the GPL-based 'product' from you -- in fact, there must be a 
'written offer' accompanying any GPL binary offering to provide source code 
for free.  AND, since it is GPL, those people may then freely distribute the 
source code all they want.

| I will allow, though, that their fairly blatant rip of WordPress and
| their failure to acknowledge this in their documentation IS pretty skeevy.

That's something I can't really find covered in GPL.  I mean, I believe that 
original license and copyright must come with sources -- though, it might 
only NEED to exist in the license/copyright file itself.  I can't find any 
particular rules of attribution (like that original copyright notices should 
be in every source file, or a modified source file must contain some 
attribution to the original copyright, etc.).

Ah well, this is a good learning experience. ;)

-d