WordPress.org

Make WordPress Core

Opened 3 years ago

Closed 3 years ago

Last modified 3 years ago

#16269 closed defect (bug) (fixed)

Give correct license information on GPL code

Reported by: hakre Owned by: markjaquith
Milestone: 3.2 Priority: normal
Severity: normal Version: 3.1
Component: General Keywords: 2nd-opinion has-patch
Focuses: Cc:

Description

After in [17301] the wordpress package licensing terms have been specified as GPL v2+, code under GPL needs to be marked as such.

Tag: FIXIPO

Attachments (4)

16269.patch (1.9 KB) - added by hakre 3 years ago.
Pattern
16269.that-pattern-in-version-php.patch (2.7 KB) - added by hakre 3 years ago.
16269.003.diff (2.3 KB) - added by markjaquith 3 years ago.
16269.diff (1.7 KB) - added by aaroncampbell 3 years ago.
Uses license.txt

Download all attachments as: .zip

Change History (21)

comment:1 hakre3 years ago

Compare to #16078 / [17312] which is for an external library, same for code contributions to core under GPL (any contribution until 01/14/11 19:26:45 to my best knowledge in lack of a code contribution policy).

Last edited 3 years ago by hakre (previous) (diff)

comment:2 in reply to: ↑ description ; follow-up: nacin3 years ago

Replying to hakre:

After in [17301] the wordpress package licensing terms have been specified as GPL v2+, code under GPL needs to be marked as such.

Please point to the code you are referring to.

comment:3 in reply to: ↑ 2 hakre3 years ago

Replying to nacin:

Replying to hakre:

After in [17301] the wordpress package licensing terms have been specified as GPL v2+, code under GPL needs to be marked as such.

Please point to the code you are referring to.

All code contributed under GPL (no version specified) while not identifying it as so.

Last edited 3 years ago by hakre (previous) (diff)

comment:4 nacin3 years ago

I will ask again.

Please point to the code you are referring to. Preferably in the form of a patch.

hakre3 years ago

Pattern

comment:5 hakre3 years ago

I added some exemplary patch which is more or less a suggestion only to demonstrate about what this is about. I've taken the code in functions.php as an example, as written, this is for any code contributed under GPL and no version specifically named by that until Jan 14 2011.

This file might be hard to read for those who do not like legal comments in files ;)

The point is more or less only to make prominent which terms apply to the code in the file. As Jan 14th introduced a change to it, this should be made prominent as the IIRC the original licensing terms asked for that.

I don't want to say it must be in that form, but this should be the job of the project to care about in detail as far as legal matters are concerned, I can't do the job of a lawyer here.

Version 2, edited 3 years ago by hakre (previous) (next) (diff)

comment:6 markjaquith3 years ago

We can be more specific in version.php — we don't want to add that text to every file (nor are we required to do so). Can you do a patch against version.php?

comment:7 hakre3 years ago

Yes I can apply that pattern on the file version.php as well, no problem.

But you can be more specific in any file that counts. What's so special about version.php?

And keep in mind, that I can't write the legal comments for the project, so this is just my feedback as a layman. If the project provides the terms those can be reflected in the patch.

Last edited 3 years ago by hakre (previous) (diff)

comment:8 follow-up: nacin3 years ago

We chose version.php for the license text.

General note: Please don't edit comments beyond fixing typos or improper formatting. Many of us consume Trac through the mailing list, and making major changes to a comment's content makes this much more difficult.

markjaquith3 years ago

comment:9 markjaquith3 years ago

There's my swing. Recognizes the GPL (no version specified) pedigree of both b2 and WordPress (2003-2010).

comment:10 in reply to: ↑ 8 ; follow-up: hakre3 years ago

Replying to nacin:

We chose version.php for the license text.

Why version.php?

comment:11 in reply to: ↑ 10 markjaquith3 years ago

Replying to hakre:

Why version.php?

It's a central file, included on every WordPress load, that already contained version information. It seemed like a perfectly acceptable central location.

comment:12 markjaquith3 years ago

  • Milestone changed from Awaiting Review to Future Release
  • Owner set to markjaquith
  • Status changed from new to accepted

That said, it's not the easiest thing for people to find. In 3.2 cycle, I'll investigate working it into the readme.txt or just doing a standard COPYING file.

comment:13 hakre3 years ago

Can we to reduce fuzz take the changes that were introduced in version.php and move them to the top of license.txt already for trunk / 3.1 branch?

comment:14 jane3 years ago

  • Milestone changed from Future Release to 3.2

Said we'd hit these in 3.2, now's the time.

comment:15 aaroncampbell3 years ago

  • Keywords 2nd-opinion has-patch added; needs-patch removed

It looks like our license.txt is our equivalent to COPYING, so I'm thinking we could just add Mark's text to the top of that? I'm attaching a patch.

aaroncampbell3 years ago

Uses license.txt

comment:16 markjaquith3 years ago

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

In [18201]:

Move copyright notices to license.txt. props hakre. props aaroncampbell. fixes #16269

comment:17 hakre3 years ago

Thanks for making this more visible inside license.txt.

I'm just wondering how to comply with this section of the GNU GPLv2#SEC3:

  1. 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.

In specific how to find out if a line of code is licensed under GPL (any version) or under GPL v2 or later?

Next to that, in license.txt it's written about contributors. Who are they? As a software is a copyright-able work, it must have concrete authors. Contributors sounds like a placeholder. How can that placeholder be filled?

Ryan once mentioned to credit contributors via SVN log messages, and Matt proposed to do it the subversion-way - however this has not been done so far in a consistent manner (Related: #12366, #6663).

Last edited 3 years ago by hakre (previous) (diff)
Note: See TracTickets for help on using tickets.