[wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code

[Otto]

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:08 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> 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*.

The copyright holder did specify the license. They did it by uploading
it to the repository without an explicit license attached.

The plugin is assumed to be GPLv2 when it lacks a specific
declaration. This is because the author (and copyright holder) of the
plugin took affirmative action to not only submit it for inclusion but
also to upload it to the repository using SVN. Given that the
requirements are known, this action makes it implicitly  licensed, and
as it states on http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/, the lack
of a stated license makes it GPLv2.

You *can* declare a license on a work through an implicit action. You
do not need to specify it outright. Look at the Terms and Conditions
for many different sites, for example. Usually they contain a clause
to the effect of "you grant us a perpetual, non-revocable, license to
publish any material you submit to the service in whatever media we
choose" or similar. This is a *license*, and by using the service, you
agree to the terms. Yes, you retain copyright to your work, but the
act of submitting it somewhere can indeed put a license on it.

We require explicit licensing in the themes directory not because it's
necessary, but because we want to make theme authors aware of
licensing and what it means.


BTW, the plugin in question is not obfuscated, that's just newline idiocy.

-Otto