[wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code

[Iain Cambridge]

Not being a lawyer I am not sure and high chance I am very wrong. But
aren't those requirements like a legal requirement for using it and by
using the svn hosting you have subsequently agreed to there for that
clause would affected the licensing of and copyrighting of public
domain items such the plugin previously discussed? If not then can
that clause be removed to remove confusion?

Iain


On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 1:08 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 4:08 AM, Iain Cambridge <wackiebackie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>>
>> If you look at http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/ You will see
>> clause 5 of the requirements being if no license is specified it is
>> GPLv2.
>>
>> Indeed it does say that, but that statement doesn't make it so.
>
> Only the *copyright holder* can specify the license of a copyrighted work.
> So, if no license is specified, then *there is no license*.
>
> (It's the reason that Themes submitted for inclusion in the Theme Repository
> are required to declare their license.)
>
> Chip
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
>