[wp-hackers] wp-hackers Digest, Vol 70, Issue 74

Thu Nov 25 16:49:27 UTC 2010

Hi,
NEW TOPIC :  *wp_nav_menu*
I have a question to all of gurus of wp,
Can I use different wp_nav_menu In different  pages , Or after sign on the
members will get a new menu or different  menu .

Is that possible ?

On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 9:04 PM, <wp-hackers-request at lists.automattic.com>wrote:

> Send wp-hackers mailing list submissions to
>        wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>        http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>        wp-hackers-request at lists.automattic.com
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>        wp-hackers-owner at lists.automattic.com
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of wp-hackers digest..."
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. Re: meenews: obfuscated code (Chip Bennett)
>   2. Re: meenews: obfuscated code (Iain Cambridge)
>   3. Re: meenews: obfuscated code (Chip Bennett)
>   4. Re: meenews: obfuscated code (Otto)
>   5. Re: meenews: obfuscated code (Otto)
>   6. Re: meenews: obfuscated code (Chip Bennett)
>   7. Re: meenews: obfuscated code (Chip Bennett)
>   8. Re: <!DOCTYPE html> (Haluk Karamete)
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:08:28 -0600
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Iain Cambridge <wackiebackie at gmail.com>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 13:41:15 +0000
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code
> 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
> >
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:56:53 -0600
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code
> That statement isn't legally binding.
>
> The most obvious reason is the utter lack of
> privity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity>.
> For example, that statement is found
> here<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/>,
> but the request for SVN access is on a completely different
> page<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/add/>.
> I suppose there must be a legally binding way for WPORG to claim a
> non-exclusive right to distribute all repository-hosted code under GPL
> (which is essentially what they are attempting to claim with that
> statement), but the current setup certainly doesn't suffice.
>
> Chip
>
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:41 AM, Iain Cambridge <wackiebackie at gmail.com
> >wrote:
>
> > 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
> > >
> > _______________________________________________
> > wp-hackers mailing list
> > wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> > http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> >
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:56:21 -0600
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code
> 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
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:00:26 -0600
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
> > That statement isn't legally binding.
>
> I'm sorry, but I disagree. Consult a quality copyright lawyer.
>
> > The most obvious reason is the utter lack of
> > privity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity>.
> > For example, that statement is found
> > here<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/>,
> > but the request for SVN access is on a completely different
> > page<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/add/>.
>
> Meaningless. Sites all over the web have their terms and conditions of
> use on separate pages.
>
> > I suppose there must be a legally binding way for WPORG to claim a
> > non-exclusive right to distribute all repository-hosted code under GPL
> > (which is essentially what they are attempting to claim with that
> > statement), but the current setup certainly doesn't suffice.
>
> Thank you for your opinion, however, I must point out that this is
> only your opinion. Until it's backed up by a legal authority, it's
> meaningless. Mine too, I will add. ;)
>
> -Otto
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:24:33 -0600
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
> > 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.
> >
>
> No. The failure to specify the license is what causes WPORG to *claim*
> certain rights, primarily, the right to redistribute the code under the
> terms of GPLv2.
>
> If the copyright holder, for whatever reason, disagreed with that claim, he
> could very easily get a court to rule in his favor. (Not that it would
> matter; to my knowledge, if such a person were to request to WPORG that the
> code be removed from SVN entirely, that request would be granted, anyway.)
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> But *assuming* a license is not the same as being *granted* that license.
>
> You likewise cannot *assume* that "the requirements are known" to the
> copyright holder - especially for the reason that I pointed out already.
> The
> SVN request page *does not include the requirements*, and does not require
> any affirmative action on the part of the copyright holder that submitting
> that form is in any way tied to acceptance of the "requirements". Likewise
> for SVN-commit access.
>
> There's nothing legally binding in any of this.
>
> I'm not saying that it *couldn't* be done in a legally-binding way (in
> fact,
> I'm sure it can - and in fact, I think it *should* be). I'm just saying
> that
> the way it's implemented currently, it's not legally binding.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
>
> Indeed such sites exist, with such terms and conditions. But they do so in
> a
> way that is entirely different from what WPORG does with Plugins. WPORG
> doesn't even contain even a semblance of the above-stated clause. WPORG
> doesn't claim that the site has a particular license, it claims that the
> copyrighted code is "explicitly" a certain license.
>
> >
> > 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.
> >
> > And because it ensures that the end user knows the license under which he
> has rights for the Theme.
>
> But, I would treat explicit licensing of third-party code as a necessity.
> It
> is beneficial to copyright holders and end users alike, because it
> eliminates the possibility of ambiguity or confusion for all parties.
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 08:40:11 -0600
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] meenews: obfuscated code
> On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 8:00 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, Nov 25, 2010 at 7:56 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> > wrote:
> > > That statement isn't legally binding.
> >
> > I'm sorry, but I disagree. Consult a quality copyright lawyer.
> >
>
> What matters here is not so much *copyright* law, as it is *contract* law,
> as the transaction between WPORG and the Plugin developer (copyright
> holder)
> is a *contractual* relationship. Thus, if there is no privity, there is no
> contract. And with no contract, nothing that WPORG claims is legally
> binding.
>
> >
> > > The most obvious reason is the utter lack of
> > > privity<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Privity>.
> > > For example, that statement is found
> > > here<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/>,
> > > but the request for SVN access is on a completely different
> > > page<http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/add/>.
> >
> > Meaningless. Sites all over the web have their terms and conditions of
> > use on separate pages.
> >
>
> Yes, and none of them is analogous to Plugin submission to WPORG.
>
> >
> > > I suppose there must be a legally binding way for WPORG to claim a
> > > non-exclusive right to distribute all repository-hosted code under GPL
> > > (which is essentially what they are attempting to claim with that
> > > statement), but the current setup certainly doesn't suffice.
> >
> > Thank you for your opinion, however, I must point out that this is
> > only your opinion. Until it's backed up by a legal authority, it's
> > meaningless. Mine too, I will add. ;)
> >
>
> Of course, if you stepped back, and took the time to realize that our
> objective here is the same (ensuring that WPORG has a legally enforceable
> right to distribute repository-hosted code under a GPL-compatible license),
> perhaps you would be less dismissive about my point.
>
> At the most basic level, I've pointed out that a Plugin developer can get
> to
> the Plugin upload page directly
> <http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/add/>(i.e. without ever
> navigating to/through the page that includes the
> "requirements" and the license claim). Once SVN-commit access is granted,
> connecting to SVN does not include any statement or verification regarding
> acceptance of any terms or conditions.
>
> Thus, *WPORG cannot prove* that a Plugin developer has read, understood, or
> agreed to the stated "requirements" or license claim. If that cannot be
> proven, then privity has not been established. Without privity, the
> contract
> is invalid. And without a valid contract, the "requirements" and license
> claim are not legally binding.
>
> Now, IANAL, so I couldn't say with any certainty what *would* meet the
> legal
> standard. I'm pretty sure that what would qualify in the US very possibly
> would *not* qualify in the EU (which, IIRC, does not look too kindly on
> "click-through" license agreements).
>
> But, at least add a "I have read and agreed to the Terms and Conditions"
> checkbox to the Plugin add-request form. If SVN allows for a MOD, add a
> message that says something like "by committing code to the WPORG SVN, you
> indicate your acceptance of the Terms and Conditions here: [url]"
>
> But just putting the statement "If you don’t specify a v2-compatible
> license, what you check in is explicitly GPLv2." (which is semantically
> incorrect to begin with; it should say "implicitly" rather than
> "explicitly") on an arbitrary page on the WPORG site doesn't cut it.
>
> Chip
>
>
>
> ---------- Forwarded message ----------
> From: Haluk Karamete <halukkaramete at gmail.com>
> To: wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> Date: Thu, 25 Nov 2010 07:34:34 -0800
> Subject: Re: [wp-hackers] <!DOCTYPE html>
> The reason I got into this was to leverage my asp programming skills
> right into wordpress/php realm. I know it is long shot but when all
> you get is a hammer, everything looks like a nail.
>
> When writing a post, right within the WYSIWYG editor, I go <script
> src='/library/runasp.js'></script><script
> runasp("/myasppage.asp","")</script>
>
> And then boom, when you look at the post, right where I mentioned
> runasp("/myASPpage.asp",""), i get an iframe with no scroll bars
> regardless of how short or tall the output coming from that asp page,
> basically a perfectly sized iframe. Since there are no borders and
> scroll bars, I can do whatever I want to do in the myasp.asp page and
> the reader won't know a difference. That's a very convenient trick for
> me to get going.
>
> Of course, this trick has nothing to do with ASP per se. This is a
> general iframe resizing matter which opens up some wordpress
> hack/extension possibilities for the rest of us. When I do <script
> runasp("/myPHPpage.php","")</script> or <script
> runasp("/myHTMpage.htm","")</script>, the code still works, regardless
> of how many times I use the trick within a given post.
>
> It's a shame IE spoils the whole experience.
>
> I think some of the js calls I use do not work with IE properly.
>
>
>
>
> On Wed, Nov 24, 2010 at 10:06 PM, Ryan McCue <lists at rotorised.com> wrote:
> > Haluk Karamete wrote:
> >> The 2010's header.php has this ( <!DOCTYPE html> ) as the first thing.
> >>
> >> If I remove this or comment it out, what are the harms? How important
> >> is it to keep it?
> >
> > This is more a HTML question than a WordPress question, as it's
> > independent of WordPress.
> >
> > That said, having a DOCTYPE in the document forces the browser into
> > standards mode. Without this, the browser will render in quirks mode,
> > which for IE is the equivalent of IE 5.5.
> >
> > Most likely, your problem could be solved in a different way (using the
> > aforementioned html5shiv, or IE9.js), enabling you to keep standards
> mode.
> >
> > --
> > Ryan McCue
> > <http://ryanmccue.info/>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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
>
>