[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection

[Ken (WraithKenny)]

I hear you Doug (nice Chip-Bennett reference! Chip's a nice guy, btw ;-)

Yeah, I guess the model I mentioned (GravityFroms and BackupBuddy)
play on what you say: Support includes "Easier" access via automatic
updates, while the GPL only requires source delivery on request.

I didn't take you as advocating for obfuscation, I was simply offering
an explaination why it'd be bad in practice. :-)

On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:36 PM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 6:27 PM, Michael Torbert <mrtorbert at gmail.com> wrote:
>> That's not at all how that was intended in GPL. You can view PHP code when
>> you download the software, but obviously this isn't the case for compiled
>> code written in other languages. That's what the license is referring to. I
>> write x software for you in Clarion, license it as GPL, distribute it, but
>> you don't automatically have the source code since it's compiled. However,
>> if it's GPL, you can ask me for the source code.
>> This wasn't intended as a way for you to try and limit access to your
>> source. That completely goes against what the license (and open source in
>> general) is trying to do.
>> Stop trying to make open source adapt to you.
>
> I certainly hope you're not hearing  me as advocating for this
> approach. I'm arguing, rather, that it is possible to do so.
>
> ...And the whole point of open source software IS to allow me to adapt
> it to me. I can take the software, modify the ever-loving heck out of
> it and never redistribute a single byte and still be in compliance
> with the license. It's only when I go to make a business out of it (or
> even just start giving away the end product) that the GPL comes into
> effect.
>
> --
> -Doug
> @zamoose
> http://literalbarrage.org/blog/
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>