[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection

[Mike Schinkel]

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 must
>> be GPL.  Matt has taken that position, many people in the WordPress
>> community have agreed, and the SFLC has backed him up with their opinions.
>> So we'll run with that as a given.
>> 
> I am going to disagree with you on this point.  plugins in the repository
> 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) is not
> 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 and
> the law to say.

LOL!  If you read what I wrote that you quoted again you'll see I worded it so as to bypass that entire issue!!! Note the use of the term "postulate", i.e. "a postulate's truth is taken for granted, and serves as a starting point for deducing and inferring other (theory dependent) truths":

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Postulate

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 issue so that I could discuss the assertion Michael Tolbert made that putting functionality on a server in order to bypass distribution was wrong. I was 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 by one of the legal opinions I've gotten on the subject... :)

-Mike