[wp-hackers] Apache 2.0 License?

Chip Bennett chip at chipbennett.net
Sun Mar 20 03:33:24 UTC 2011

I infer from his comment that he was referring to such downstream
distributors doing their homework regarding what they could and could not
bundle with a WordPress derivative. (In other words, I think he's 100% in
agreement with you on this point.)

Regardless, I don't at all understand why it would be the responsibility of
WordPress.org to act as a clearinghouse for Plugins that are or are not
eligible to be bundled with a distributed WordPress derivative, nor do I
understand why WordPress.org would even *want* to assume that
responsibility, especially considering that to do so would be to consider
that responsibility more important than the opportunity to provide otherwise
completely legitimate, useful Plugins to the tens of millions of end users
of WordPress, the vast majority of whom will never know about a Plugin
unless it is included in the Plugin repository.*

So, I am quite happy to hear that you are reconsidering this policy.


* I'm also quite certain that's the longest sentence I've ever written.

On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 9:17 PM, Mark Jaquith <markjaquith at gmail.com> wrote:

> On Sat, Mar 19, 2011 at 8:39 PM, scribu <mail at scribu.net> wrote:
> > Denying inclusion of plugins just so that other third-parties can make
> > bundles without doing their homework seems even less of a legitimate
> reason
> > than the "would prevent inclusion in core" one.
> It would make certain bundles *impossible*, no matter how much
> homework you did. GPLv2-only and GPLv3+ can't be combined. But I'm not
> sure that outweighs the benefit that would be realized by allowing
> GPLv3 and GPLv3-compatible code.
> --
> Mark Jaquith
> _______________________________________________
> 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