[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection

Iain Cambridge wackiebackie at gmail.com
Tue Dec 14 15:53:46 UTC 2010

I belive the phrase your are using to say obfuscated/encrypted code
can't be GPL is just a defination of what they mean by "source code".
Also I see no reason within the GPL that obfuscated/encrypted code
can't be GPL'd by the original Copyright holder or by anyone modifying
it, as the source code has to be "machine-readable" not human


On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 3:22 PM, Eric Mann <eric at eam.me> wrote:
> On Mon, Dec 13, 2010 at 8:11 PM, Vid Luther <vid at zippykid.com> wrote:
>> Just to be a pedantic ass... it's open source, that's why you can do it,
>> not because it's GPL :).
>> It could be BSD license, or Apache, or PHP, or MIT.. and you could still
>> do it... technically speaking of course.
> Open Source != GPL and that's important to remember.
> GPL'd code requires that the original source be made available to all
> recipients in "the preferred form of the work for making modifications to
> it."  I've quoted this before, but perhaps you've missed it.  So let me say
> this as clearly as possible: *obfuscated/encrypted code is NOT the preferred
> form of the work for making modifications to it!*
> *
> *
> Code that is licensed under the terms of and compliant with the GPL must
> have the non-obfuscated version available.  Themes being distributed by
> organizations who refuse to respond to email, send support requests to a
> black hole, and use obfuscated/encrypted code to install malware on your
> site are *not following the terms of the license they're claiming gives them
> the right to re-distribute these themes.  Any attempt to defend that
> practice is, frankly, insulting to those of us who actually do follow the
> GPL.*
> *
> *
> *But you are right, you do have the right to remove this code under the GPL
> and because the project is open source.  However, there are open source
> licenses that allow for code modification and redistribution without requiring
> that you make the non-obfuscated versions available.  The MIT is actually a
> very good license in that situation because you can use it for JavaScript,
> distribute only the minified version, and still use the code in GPL projects
> (the MIT license is GPL compatible).*
> *
> *
> *Please remember, though, that GPL'd software follows a much more
> restrictive license and set of rules than generic "open source."  *
> _______________________________________________
> 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