[wp-hackers] Premium plugin protection

[Eric Mann]

"the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it" ... I'd love
to know how you are able to make modifications to encrypted code ...

On Tue, Dec 14, 2010 at 7:53 AM, Iain Cambridge <wackiebackie at gmail.com>wrote:

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