[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection

Michael Torbert mrtorbert at gmail.com
Mon Dec 13 23:37:05 UTC 2010

What is your point exactly? Yes, obviously that's in the letter of the
license, but clearly isn't the intention.
If you're entering open source development and trying to figure out ways to
make your code not open, you're missing the point, and open source
development likely isn't for you.

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:33 PM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:30 PM, Ken (WraithKenny)
> <ken.adcstudio at gmail.com> wrote:
> > I'd think that encrypted/obfuscated code would provoke someone to
> > request the readable code, then post it (legally, if it's GPL) on
> > their blog, thus increasing your "potential [negative] exposure" ...
> > just as a practical consideration, it makes better sense to charge for
> > support and encourage more positive forms of exposure.
> >
> Once again, don't hear me as arguing for the practice -- I'm against
> it in both principle and in practice. However, what I AM saying is
> that the GPLv2 allows for such a [mis]use of the "make available"
> clause and, if you feel like your business is worth taking a
> reputation hit, you can press ahead with that sort of scheme.
> Not trying to get Chip-Bennett-licensing-literal on the whole thing
> here, but you CAN do what has been suggested. That's not to say it's
> wise, nice, or in the "spirit" of the GPL.
> --
> -Doug
> @zamoose
> http://literalbarrage.org/blog/
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list