[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection

[Ryan Bilesky]

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 which
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 both
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
> wrote:

> 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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>