solarpunk.moe is one of the many independent Mastodon servers you can use to participate in the fediverse.
Moé for Solarpunk is a small, friendly server run by a group of optimistically-utopian LGBT+ individuals. Registration is by invite only!

Administered by:

Community stats:

53
active punks

Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
Global

Hello @conservancy [mastodon.technology] - been spending a bit of time in the WordPress (GPLv2+) plugin/theme ecosystem & am amazed how most have "pro/premium licenses" (they use that term) on their code *in addition to the required GPL license*. They're all 'open core' rather than FOSS, from what I can see, contravening the GPL with an additional license. Is this something you're already aware of? Am I right that its a widespread contravention of the GPL? If so, is anything being done to redress it?

Athena L.M.
Global

@lightweight @conservancy@mastodon.technology The original author of a work has unlimited rights, including the right to license as they see fit to different groups. The developer of a GPLed program is not bound by the GPL and can combine the GPL code with non-GPL code and distribute it under a non-GPL license.

This would be a problem if you mean to accept contributions, as those contributions would be GPL and not your work, unless you make contributors sign a CLA that assigns copyright of the contributions to you

Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
Global

@alilly @conservancy [mastodon.technology] given that WordPress plugins/themes are 100% dependent on WordPress core, which is GPL'd, their works are derivative works and therefore obliged to also be GPL'd... I would've thought that'd restrict their ability to offer a second license on the same code - expressly prohibited by the GPL... Am I mistaken?

Athena L.M.
Global

@lightweight @conservancy@mastodon.technology Ah, that falls into the definition of "linking" which I am personally notoriously bad at interpreting

Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
Global

@alilly ok - yeah, as a longtime Drupal developer (which, like WordPress is GPL'd) the idea is that plugins and modules which have no useful function without the platform core (Drupal or WordPress core respectively), they are derivative works and must adhere to the GPL.

@conservancy [mastodon.technology]

Athena L.M.

@lightweight @conservancy@mastodon.technology I'm familiar with the argument, just not the nuances.

Non-GPL Linux modules exist and one would expect them to be in a similar situation, yet the kernel has express technical functionality to support them - maybe look for the existing legal debates about that?

Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
Global

@alilly Hmm - linked languages like C and levels of linking at, say, an API interaction level are much more loosely coupled. In PHP (in which both Drupal and WP are authored) plugins are, I believe, much more tightly integrated than that kernel-level integration, especially if some API-like linking is being employed to allow for the incompatibly licensed components to interact... @conservancy [mastodon.technology]

Dave Lane :flag_tino: 🇳🇿
Global

@Suiseiseki @alilly I agree that having a cost for a GPLv2 plugin isn't a problem. It's the fact that they talk about needing to purchase a "pro license". The license for that code is the GPLv2. The other thing they want people to buy can't be called a "license" if they want to comply... See GPLv2 #4: 1/2

Walter
Global

@alilly @lightweight, actually, Linux has a couple license exceptions, one of them is for code linked against the userspace API header files, Drupal and WordPress don't have something that is equivalent to it.

git.kernel.org/pub/scm/linux/k

@conservancy [mastodon.technology]

git.kernel.orgLinux-syscall-note « exceptions « LICENSES - kernel/git/torvalds/linux.git - Linux kernel source tree
Athena L.M.
Global

@walter @lightweight @conservancy@mastodon.technology the userspace API headers are not what I'm talking about, I am talking about /in-kernel/ modules under licenses under than the GPL