WordPress.org

Make WordPress Core

Opened 4 years ago

Closed 4 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

#14685 closed defect (bug) (fixed)

Correct license notice

Reported by: hakre Owned by:
Milestone: 3.0.2 Priority: normal
Severity: normal Version: 3.0.1
Component: General Keywords: has-patch
Focuses: Cc:

Description

The copyright notice has been tainted in [13516] on 28 Feb 2010. The commit action was executed by Andrew Nacin.

The change of the copyright notice has licensing implications and should be considered as an act under the copyright law. From what I know, the copyright owners were not notified about that change nor was there a consent about making that change by the copyright holders.

I suggest that the change gets reverted immediatly (for all affected branches/packages) and it's dealt with it as if the change has never been made. To reduce the damage potential, an immediate release for all tainted packages is worth to consider in my eyes.

Attachments (3)

14685.patch (834 bytes) - added by hakre 4 years ago.
Restore of original Copyright message
14685.2.patch (832 bytes) - added by hakre 4 years ago.
Restore of original Copyright message - after [15529]
14685-wording-add-ons.patch (6.0 KB) - added by hakre 4 years ago.

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (53)

comment:1 hakre4 years ago

Tag: FIXIPO

comment:2 nacin4 years ago

  • Milestone Awaiting Review deleted
  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from new to closed
		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
		       Version 2, June 1991

 Copyright (C) 1989, 1991 Free Software Foundation, Inc. 
              51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA 02110, USA

 Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
 of this license document, but changing it is not allowed.

			    Preamble

  The licenses for most software are designed to take away your
freedom to share and change it.  By contrast, the GNU General Public
License is intended to guarantee your freedom to share and change free
software--to make sure the software is free for all its users.  This
General Public License applies to most of the Free Software
Foundation's software and to any other program whose authors commit to
using it.  (Some other Free Software Foundation software is covered by
the GNU Library General Public License instead.)  You can apply it to
your programs, too.

  When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price.  Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things.

  To protect your rights, we need to make restrictions that forbid
anyone to deny you these rights or to ask you to surrender the rights.
These restrictions translate to certain responsibilities for you if you
distribute copies of the software, or if you modify it.

  For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether
gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that
you have.  You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the
source code.  And you must show them these terms so they know their
rights.

  We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software.

  Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software.  If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations.

  Finally, any free program is threatened constantly by software
patents.  We wish to avoid the danger that redistributors of a free
program will individually obtain patent licenses, in effect making the
program proprietary.  To prevent this, we have made it clear that any
patent must be licensed for everyone's free use or not licensed at all.

  The precise terms and conditions for copying, distribution and
modification follow.

		    GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE
   TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION

  0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains
a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed
under the terms of this General Public License.  The "Program", below,
refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program"
means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law:
that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it,
either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another
language.  (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in
the term "modification".)  Each licensee is addressed as "you".

Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not
covered by this License; they are outside its scope.  The act of
running the Program is not restricted, and the output from the Program
is covered only if its contents constitute a work based on the
Program (independent of having been made by running the Program).
Whether that is true depends on what the Program does.

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and
you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee.

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

  3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for
making modifications to it.  For an executable work, complete source
code means all the source code for all modules it contains, plus any
associated interface definition files, plus the scripts used to
control compilation and installation of the executable.  However, as a
special exception, the source code distributed need not include
anything that is normally distributed (in either source or binary
form) with the major components (compiler, kernel, and so on) of the
operating system on which the executable runs, unless that component
itself accompanies the executable.

If distribution of executable or object code is made by offering
access to copy from a designated place, then offering equivalent
access to copy the source code from the same place counts as
distribution of the source code, even though third parties are not
compelled to copy the source along with the object code.

  4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program
except as expressly provided under this License.  Any attempt
otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is
void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License.
However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under
this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such
parties remain in full compliance.

  5. You are not required to accept this License, since you have not
signed it.  However, nothing else grants you permission to modify or
distribute the Program or its derivative works.  These actions are
prohibited by law if you do not accept this License.  Therefore, by
modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the
Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and
all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying
the Program or works based on it.

  6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the
Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the
original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to
these terms and conditions.  You may not impose any further
restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein.
You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to
this License.

  7. If, as a consequence of a court judgment or allegation of patent
infringement or for any other reason (not limited to patent issues),
conditions are imposed on you (whether by court order, agreement or
otherwise) that contradict the conditions of this License, they do not
excuse you from the conditions of this License.  If you cannot
distribute so as to satisfy simultaneously your obligations under this
License and any other pertinent obligations, then as a consequence you
may not distribute the Program at all.  For example, if a patent
license would not permit royalty-free redistribution of the Program by
all those who receive copies directly or indirectly through you, then
the only way you could satisfy both it and this License would be to
refrain entirely from distribution of the Program.

If any portion of this section is held invalid or unenforceable under
any particular circumstance, the balance of the section is intended to
apply and the section as a whole is intended to apply in other
circumstances.

It is not the purpose of this section to induce you to infringe any
patents or other property right claims or to contest validity of any
such claims; this section has the sole purpose of protecting the
integrity of the free software distribution system, which is
implemented by public license practices.  Many people have made
generous contributions to the wide range of software distributed
through that system in reliance on consistent application of that
system; it is up to the author/donor to decide if he or she is willing
to distribute software through any other system and a licensee cannot
impose that choice.

This section is intended to make thoroughly clear what is believed to
be a consequence of the rest of this License.

  8. If the distribution and/or use of the Program is restricted in
certain countries either by patents or by copyrighted interfaces, the
original copyright holder who places the Program under this License
may add an explicit geographical distribution limitation excluding
those countries, so that distribution is permitted only in or among
countries not thus excluded.  In such case, this License incorporates
the limitation as if written in the body of this License.

  9. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions
of the General Public License from time to time.  Such new versions will
be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to
address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number.  If the Program
specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation.  If the Program does not specify a version number of
this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

  10. If you wish to incorporate parts of the Program into other free
programs whose distribution conditions are different, write to the author
to ask for permission.  For software which is copyrighted by the Free
Software Foundation, write to the Free Software Foundation; we sometimes
make exceptions for this.  Our decision will be guided by the two goals
of preserving the free status of all derivatives of our free software and
of promoting the sharing and reuse of software generally.

			    NO WARRANTY

  11. BECAUSE THE PROGRAM IS LICENSED FREE OF CHARGE, THERE IS NO WARRANTY
FOR THE PROGRAM, TO THE EXTENT PERMITTED BY APPLICABLE LAW.  EXCEPT WHEN
OTHERWISE STATED IN WRITING THE COPYRIGHT HOLDERS AND/OR OTHER PARTIES
PROVIDE THE PROGRAM "AS IS" WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND, EITHER EXPRESSED
OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING, BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES OF
MERCHANTABILITY AND FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  THE ENTIRE RISK AS
TO THE QUALITY AND PERFORMANCE OF THE PROGRAM IS WITH YOU.  SHOULD THE
PROGRAM PROVE DEFECTIVE, YOU ASSUME THE COST OF ALL NECESSARY SERVICING,
REPAIR OR CORRECTION.

  12. IN NO EVENT UNLESS REQUIRED BY APPLICABLE LAW OR AGREED TO IN WRITING
WILL ANY COPYRIGHT HOLDER, OR ANY OTHER PARTY WHO MAY MODIFY AND/OR
REDISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM AS PERMITTED ABOVE, BE LIABLE TO YOU FOR DAMAGES,
INCLUDING ANY GENERAL, SPECIAL, INCIDENTAL OR CONSEQUENTIAL DAMAGES ARISING
OUT OF THE USE OR INABILITY TO USE THE PROGRAM (INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED
TO LOSS OF DATA OR DATA BEING RENDERED INACCURATE OR LOSSES SUSTAINED BY
YOU OR THIRD PARTIES OR A FAILURE OF THE PROGRAM TO OPERATE WITH ANY OTHER
PROGRAMS), EVEN IF SUCH HOLDER OR OTHER PARTY HAS BEEN ADVISED OF THE
POSSIBILITY OF SUCH DAMAGES.

		     END OF TERMS AND CONDITIONS

comment:3 hakre4 years ago

  • Resolution invalid deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Nacin, I'm not talking about the license file that ships with wordpress but the copyright notice. I thought that was clear. Next to that as you were the comitting Developer I kindly ask you to step back a bit and handle this with a little bit more respectful.


Niall Kennedy has provided the original patch with the copyright notice change.

comment:4 follow-up: jacobsantos4 years ago

Nacin is right on this. It wasn't a copyright change, it was a clarification on the license. WordPress has always been version 2 of the GPL and saying GPL might incorrectly imply v3 as well to those simply reading the license or wonder why the v3 wasn't included or applicable as well.

comment:5 in reply to: ↑ 4 ; follow-up: hakre4 years ago

Replying to jacobsantos:

In the event that I start to repeat myself: This is not about the license file that ships with worpdress, It is about the wordpress copyright notice.

You say it yourself

it was a clarification on the license.

Which implies a change. This becomes totally clear because you name the consquences immediatly the change of the copyright notice:

... saying GPL might incorrectly [sic!] imply v3 as well.

So as it's totally visible here, this has licensing implications. It's not a minor change that has no meaning.

comment:6 in reply to: ↑ 5 ; follow-up: westi4 years ago

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

Replying to hakre:

Replying to jacobsantos:

In the event that I start to repeat myself: This is not about the license file that ships with worpdress, It is about the wordpress copyright notice.

You say it yourself

it was a clarification on the license.

Which implies a change. This becomes totally clear because you name the consquences immediatly the change of the copyright notice:

... saying GPL might incorrectly [sic!] imply v3 as well.

So as it's totally visible here, this has licensing implications. It's not a minor change that has no meaning.

It has no licensing implications.

When WordPress was first forked from b2 it inherited the GPLv2 licenced.

It never had the "GPL v2 or later" style statement which would allow it to be re-licensed (sic) under a later version of the GPL e.g. GPL v3.

The changed referenced is just making the explicitly clear.

comment:7 in reply to: ↑ 6 hakre4 years ago

Replying to westi:

It has no licensing implications.

Let's skip licensing for a moment and focus on this ticket topic: The copyright notice and the unlawful changing of it.

You're refering to b2 with your answer. Wordpress has taken over the copyright notice from b2 if I remember correctly.

It never had the "GPL v2 or later" style statement

As far as I remember it even did not specifiy any specific GPL version.

which would allow it to be re-licensed (sic) under a later version of the GPL e.g. GPL v3.

Your words.

The changed referenced is just making the explicitly clear.

Oh, so? And if we leave the licsense implications (existant or inexistant) aside, you still speak about a changed copyright notice, right?

So was there a consensus of the copyright holders to change the copyright notice?

comment:8 hakre4 years ago

  • Resolution invalid deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

comment:9 follow-up: demetris4 years ago

@hakre:

The option in the notice that the GPL authors recommend, “either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version”, is NOT implied. It must be stated explicitly.

As far as I know, and as Peter says above, that was never stated in any WP files. If that is the case, then it is not possible to apply the terms of the GPLv3, or any future version of the GPL, to WordPress without the agreement of the copyright holders. So, the change in the readme file is simply a clarification.

+1 invalid

hakre4 years ago

Restore of original Copyright message

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 9 hakre4 years ago

Replying to demetris:
You, together with jacobsantos and wesit all say, that this has been done to clarify the license that ships with wordpress. Clarification is a process, so you all three admit that changing the wording of the copyright notice does make something more clear. But with that you already wrote that there was space for reading the copyright notice in some other direction.

And that's exactly why it's important that before such changes are done the copyright holder must be notified. That was not done.

It was not me who was putting GPL v3 on topic here. Read my words. My report only covers the change of the copyright message. And as an author of this software I have some dedicated rights. Do you want to take those away from me?

comment:11 Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

Based on http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-1.0.html it doesn't matter much:

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program
specifies a version number of the license which applies to it and "any
later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions
either of that version or of any later version published by the Free
Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of
the license, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software
Foundation.

comment:12 follow-up: Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

Hold, it actually does matter. Considering that v2 "any later version" wasn't specified, the last sentence applies. In other words, WP was originally released under GPL v1, and the changeset changes its licensed.

comment:13 in reply to: ↑ 12 ; follow-up: scribu4 years ago

Replying to Denis-de-Bernardy:

Hold, it actually does matter. Considering that v2 "any later version" wasn't specified, the last sentence applies. In other words, WP was originally released under GPL v1, and the changeset changes its licensed.

Can you point to the license file in the b2 version that was used by WordPress? If it states it's GPL V1, you have a point.

comment:14 in reply to: ↑ 13 hakre4 years ago

Replying to Denis-de-Bernardy:
I really need to repeat myself: This is not about the license, it's about the copyright message. Sacre Bleu (WTF en anglais)!


Replying to scribu:
for you the same, the GPL version has been introduced in the copyright statement w/o consent of the copyright owners. So this should not be the thing councerned about here right now. But you all put the GPL version on topic. I really wonder why ;)

comment:15 follow-up: demetris4 years ago

@hakre:

The part you are complaining about says nothing about copyright. It only says what is the licence under which the work is published.

So, if there is something that needs correction there, it is the heading. It should be “Licence”, not “Copyright”.

@scribu:

b2 0.6.1 came with the GPLv2 text. Its readme says just “GPL” and then points to the license.txt file. See end of the readme, last sentence: http://cafelog.com/readme.html

comment:16 in reply to: ↑ 15 hakre4 years ago

Replying to demetris:

@hakre:

The part you are complaining about says nothing about copyright. It only says what is the licence under which the work is published.

Says nothing about copyright? Well, it's just the copyright statemnet. Maybe you can explain what exactly you want to say... .

So, if there is something that needs correction there, it is the heading. It should be “Licence”, not “Copyright”.

Sorry to attack you that much, but please do your homework in the copyright/licensing class.

@scribu:

b2 0.6.1 came with the GPLv2 [sic!] text. Its readme says just “GPL” and then points to the license.txt file [which is GPL license in version two]. See end of the readme, last sentence: http://cafelog.com/readme.html

Thanks for documenting it here. You could just have quoted the last sentence in full as well (it does not even contain a link to the file). You didn't, so I do it for the intent reader:

b2 is released under the GPL (see license.txt).

Enjoy the raw words. Can you tell me of what Wordpress forked from? Westi or so named that word by word ... .

comment:17 follow-up: scribu4 years ago

Thanks demetris.

If it says "b2 is released under the GPL (see license.txt)" and that license.txt contained the GPL v2, it means that WP was also licensed under GPL v2.

Since it didn't say "b2 is released under the GPL v2 or any later version (see license.txt)", it follows that the "copyright message" is exactly as before, only more explicit.

If the change would have affected the licensing terms, I would be concerned too.

comment:18 in reply to: ↑ 17 ; follow-up: hakre4 years ago

Replying to scribu:

If it says "b2 is released under the GPL (see license.txt)" and that license.txt contained the GPL v2, it means that WP was also licensed under GPL v2.

Please read the GPL (v2) in full first, before you jump to conclusions.

comment:19 follow-ups: markjaquith4 years ago

  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

That sentence was not and is not a copyright notice. It was an abbreviated licensing notice. Nacin merely updated that licensing notice to correctly indicate the precise license used (GPL version 2). That is not a licensing change, because the license has always specified GPL version 2, and it is not a copyright change, since that sentence was not a copyright notice, but a licensing notice.

I updated the header to read "License" instead of "Copyright," to clarify this point. [15529]

This ticket is invalid. Nothing has changed or been tainted about WordPress' copyright or its license.

comment:20 in reply to: ↑ 19 Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

  • Milestone set to 3.1
  • Resolution invalid deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened
  • Version set to 3.0.1

Replying to markjaquith:

That sentence was not and is not a copyright notice. It was an abbreviated licensing notice. Nacin merely updated that licensing notice to correctly indicate the precise license used (GPL version 2). That is not a licensing change, because the license has always specified GPL version 2, and it is not a copyright change, since that sentence was not a copyright notice, but a licensing notice.

I beg to differ. If you take it in court, I would take the bet that whichever lawyer takes care of it in front of you will look into the WP license, and ask which it is using. This ticket will only serve his purpose, in that the copyright was changed outright without explicit consent, to v.2.

The fact of the matter is, the copyright notice says GPL without any version. Without any version, regardless of hyperlinks, means v1, v2, v3, etc. Anything one choses, basically.

In changing it to v2. you need explicit consent from every single patch contributor, regardless how minor. Regardless how you thing of this garbage. Hakre is totally right here.

comment:21 Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

  • Milestone changed from 3.1 to 3.0.2
  • Priority changed from normal to highest omg bbq
  • Severity changed from normal to blocker

comment:22 Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

I would add that this is an insult to WP contributors if this gets changed without they getting consulted. They've contributed patches, they've contributed to WP, the license then was clear, it suddenly gets changed without consent. They've the right to know, and they've a right to object to it. And the committed patch should only have been committed with their content. (And I, FYI, sure as hell will deny mine, for the sake of making this point.)

comment:23 Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

And if you don't agree, please be so kind to revert patches proped to me, in the past 5 years.

comment:24 scribu4 years ago

The fact of the matter is, the copyright notice says GPL without any version. Without any version, regardless of hyperlinks, means v1, v2, v3, etc. Anything one choses, basically.

Another fact is that that same notice points to a license file, which does specify a version.

comment:25 Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

It does indeed, but it's not worth much in a european court, where copyright trumps very much everything else.

As an aside, this changeset is a huge precedent -- wp changing the license without explicit consent of contributors. And not the best of them either...

comment:26 scribu4 years ago

Which part of the license.txt file included in WordPress states that you can choose whichever version you want?

comment:27 scribu4 years ago

(version of the GPL that is)

comment:28 jacobsantos4 years ago

The problem I have is that it doesn't appear to be a copyright notice [1]. It is specifying the license and the version, which has always been GPLv2 and the license has always been part of WordPress. Saying something is GPL is to say that is the license. It is not to say that it can be any version.

As an aside, there isn't any copyright notice in the WordPress source that is itself core of WordPress (not a third-party library).

I think that is where my confusion lies. I do not see a copyright notice. The change appeared to be a clarification of the license as it has always been. The readme.html matters little, I would believe in the terms of specifying copyright of WordPress.

[1] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_notice

comment:29 follow-up: markjaquith4 years ago

  • Milestone 3.0.2 deleted
  • Resolution set to invalid
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

Self-replying:

That is not a licensing change, because the license has always specified GPL version 2

I'm going to back off this statement for now. Let me explain:

It has been our stance that we cannot guarantee "or any later version" GPL licensing for WordPress as a whole, and that in order to license WordPress completely under the GPL version 3, it would require the consent of all copyright holders. It's a bit historically murky, as there are b2 and early-WP references to GPL v2 as well as just GPL and GPL v2 or any later version. GPL v2 seemed like the one we could absolutely guarantee was valid to use, as it was specifically mentioned, and that was the license that has always been included in both b2 and WordPress.

But Denis has a point: just because it's valid to use doesn't necessarily mean that it's the only version of the license that is valid to use. It's just the one we know you can use. The reality is that there are conflicting statements about the version of the GPL that b2/WordPress were intended to use. It's safe to use WordPress under the terms of the GPL version 2, but other versions are an open question.

I'll chat with some of the other leads and core contributors about this. Trust me when I say that I care deeply about finding the right answer — one which respects the contributions of the WordPress copyright holders.

But Trac isn't the right place for that conversation — this is for fixing and developing WordPress, not licensing discussions.

comment:30 in reply to: ↑ 18 ; follow-up: demetris4 years ago

Replying to hakre:

Replying to scribu:

If it says "b2 is released under the GPL (see license.txt)" and that license.txt contained the GPL v2, it means that WP was also licensed under GPL v2.

Please read the GPL (v2) in full first, before you jump to conclusions.

hakre, I suppose you refer to this paragraph:

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version

This paragraph is indeed part of the full text of the GPLv2, but it is not a part of the licence itself. It is part of “Appendix: How to Apply These Terms to Your New Programs”. So it has no effect unless it is somehow included in the files of your program.

comment:31 in reply to: ↑ 29 hakre4 years ago

  • Keywords has-patch added
  • Resolution invalid deleted
  • Status changed from closed to reopened

Until this has been properly sorted out - which should have been done in the first place - I'm still willing to revert the noted changes and don't see my issue in this ticket fixed.

It's not my fault that others start to discuss here, I always stated that this ticket is about a change that needs a revert. And it's not my fault either that the project let pass the chance to clarify such at a time it would have been possible to do so.

For me as a contributing developer and author, I have not given consent to change the context of the license file which has been introduced in [13516] by #10835. As this change can be seen as a licensing related one, the copyright owner of the work must have been given consent to such a change.

This did not happen.

To my best knowledge the add of the GPL version number has been proposed (opening a ticket and providing a patch) by Niall Kennedy (niallkennedy) in September 2009. The change got committed into the Wordpress codebase by Andrew Nacin (nacin) on 28 Feb 2010.

The license file and the reference to it has always been the location we as free software user referred to prior using the code.

The unauthorized change of the license reference that slipped in does not only violates the rights of the copyright holders, it has the potential to tinker with the users rights. This change needs to be reverted immediatly to no longer extend the ongoing violation.

Affected files on wordpress.org are:

and their zip version.

I urge the project to stop the violation now.

comment:32 in reply to: ↑ 30 ; follow-up: hakre4 years ago

Replying to demetris:

Replying to hakre:

Please read the GPL (v2) in full first, before you jump to conclusions.

hakre, I suppose you refer to this paragraph:

No. You somehow misread me, you could/should have read the file that ships with the program. But I must kindly ask you to discuss that in some other place to prevent clutter in this ticket.

hakre4 years ago

Restore of original Copyright message - after [15529]

comment:33 in reply to: ↑ 19 hakre4 years ago

Updated the patch against current trunk, for reference:

Replying to markjaquith:

I updated the header to read "License" instead of "Copyright," [...] [15529]

comment:34 in reply to: ↑ 32 demetris4 years ago

Replying to hakre:

Replying to demetris:

Replying to hakre:

Please read the GPL (v2) in full first, before you jump to conclusions.

hakre, I suppose you refer to this paragraph:

No. You somehow misread me, you could/should have read the file that ships with the program. But I must kindly ask you to discuss that in some other place to prevent clutter in this ticket.

I see now.

You must be referring to this section of the licence:

  1. The Free Software Foundation may publish revised and/or new versions of the General Public License from time to time. Such new versions will be similar in spirit to the present version, but may differ in detail to address new problems or concerns.

Each version is given a distinguishing version number. If the Program specifies a version number of this License which applies to it and "any later version", you have the option of following the terms and conditions either of that version or of any later version published by the Free Software Foundation. If the Program does not specify a version number of this License, you may choose any version ever published by the Free Software Foundation.

Emphasis mine.

This seems to imply that the addition of “v2” in readme.html changes the licencing terms and, for that reason, it should require the consent of the copyright holders.

comment:35 scribu4 years ago

  • Milestone set to 3.0.2

In that case, I agree that the change should be reverted.

comment:36 Denis-de-Bernardy4 years ago

+1 to revert.

comment:37 jacobsantos4 years ago

Wow, what people don't know about the GPL! I learned something new today. I learned that yes, WordPress can be GPLv3 simply because someone didn't have the foresight or understanding to ensure that the proper version number was applied somewhere in the code.

comment:38 Utkarsh4 years ago

  • Cc admin@… added

comment:39 follow-ups: markjaquith4 years ago

I'm going to revert. Here's my reasoning:

b2 stated that its license was "GPL." No version specified. WordPress has always (until recently) stated that its license is "GPL." No version specified.

The fact that version 2 of the license is included does not mean that the code is only available under version 2, as the license (version 2, as well as 1 and 3) says that if no version is stated, the code is available under any published version of the GPL.

Later, some code was introduced that was licensed under the GPL version 2 (i.e. "only"). Some code was introduced that was licensed under the GPL version 2 or any later version. So while WordPress as a whole cannot currently be redistributed under the GPL versions 1 or 3, that does not change the fact that the code that does not have a version-specific GPL applied to it can be presumed to be released under the GPL, generally (any version).

As such, we can't change the license of that code. It has to be just "GPL." Whether we should say that WordPress is GPL, generally, but certain portions are GPL version 2 (only) and some portions are GPL version 2 or any later version is uncertain. Rolling back is the first step, in any case. According to the GNU FAQ, it's fine to combine the code as we have, with the caveat: "If you do this, as long as the project contains the code released under GPLv2 only, you will not be able to upgrade the project's license to GPLv3 or later."

It wouldn't take much work to contact the authors of the code that is specifically marked GPL v2 only. Doing so would give people the ability to use WordPress under the terms of the GPL version 3 (or any version 2 or higher). With a little more work, we could get the "GPL v2 or higher" code licensed as simply GPL. One could make an argument that the licensing of that code as "GPL v2" or "GPL v2 or later" was erroneous, but I'd rather contact the authors, just to be certain.

As long as we have a mix of "GPL" code and "GPL v2" code and "GPL v2 or later" code, the only license that applies to every part of WordPress is version 2, as it is the only one that fits all three of the licenses. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of WordPress code is GPL in in general, not GPLv2, and we can't change the license on that code without permission from relevant copyright holders.

comment:40 markjaquith4 years ago

  • Resolution set to fixed
  • Status changed from reopened to closed

(In [15534]) We cannot say that WordPress as a whole is GPLv2 (i.e. "GPLv2 only"). Go back to saying just "GPL." Reverts [13516] for 3.0. props hakre. fixes #14685

comment:41 in reply to: ↑ 39 hakre4 years ago

Thanks for the movement. There is also [15533] for trunk.

What you write in your comment, last night I also had the feeling that there are some other implications around. It seems that in the past some points were missed. I hope this can be fixed now.

Any plans on the version bump and updating the package files on worpdress.org?

comment:42 in reply to: ↑ 39 hakre4 years ago

Replying to markjaquith:

As long as we have a mix of "GPL" code and "GPL v2" code and "GPL v2 or later" code, the only license that applies to every part of WordPress is version 2, as it is the only one that fits all three of the licenses. But that doesn't change the fact that the majority of WordPress code is GPL in in general, not GPLv2, and we can't change the license on that code without permission from relevant copyright holders.

So far the theory. Infact we have a mix of code with incompatbile license, e.g. the BSD. I created a new ticket regarding that show-stopper: #14703

comment:43 Mrmist4 years ago

Pushing a version bump just for this seems excessive to me. You'd be essentially imposing an upgrade on the user base for a reason that only a tiny percentage of users would even care about. By all accounts there are issues relating that have been around for a while, so waiting a while until there's progress that warrants a release wouldn't seem overly bad to me.

comment:44 markjaquith4 years ago

Any plans on the version bump and updating the package files on worpdress.org?

No. I applied it to 3.0 and trunk. It'll go out with the next release from each of those branches. The package files are historical, and I don't feel the need to whitewash them.

comment:45 hakre4 years ago

Related: [15536]

comment:46 hakre4 years ago

Related: #14727

comment:47 in reply to: ↑ 19 hakre4 years ago

Replying to markjaquith:

That sentence was not and is not a copyright notice.

I respectfully disagree. The revisions of the file are publicly visible. Maybe changes like r48 have a highly misleading potential and stand for what's missing: a better copyright statement.

Until such one I strongly suggest to not drop the term "Copyright" in the readme for the moment. Because this is the last place of which the whole wordpress codebase has a reference to any sort of copyright.

comment:48 hakre4 years ago

For reference and to make it easier to review, I now listed all changes in this history of the WordPress Copyright Statement.

comment:49 nacin3 years ago

  • Priority changed from highest omg bbq to normal
  • Severity changed from blocker to normal
  • Summary changed from Copyright Notice Tainted to Correct license notice
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.