Changes between Version 2 and Version 3 of Ticket #16525, comment 22
- Timestamp:
- 07/14/2011 12:40:26 PM (14 years ago)
Legend:
- Unmodified
- Added
- Removed
- Modified
-
Ticket #16525, comment 22
v2 v3 6 6 I find it fruitless to just exchange arguments, will write more to that at the end. But for the sake of the arguments, they still need to be correct in the details: 7 7 8 From what I can see is that Ellias Torres wrote an "An Atom Publishing Protocol implementation for WordPress" (app.php). [http://dev.torrez.us/public/2006/wp-app/trunk/app.php That] code was released under '''GPL v2 or later''' and has been put into Wordpress while wordpress still was released under '''GPL (not version restricted)'''. That means the original commit already technically violated the license. So much for the "originally written version" and assumed it was released under GPL v2 or later. Keep in mind that Torrez had anSVN of it's own to develop the code.8 From what I can see is that Ellias Torres wrote an "An Atom Publishing Protocol implementation for WordPress" (app.php). [http://dev.torrez.us/public/2006/wp-app/trunk/app.php That] code was released under '''GPL v2 or later''' and has been put into Wordpress while wordpress still was released under '''GPL (not version restricted)'''. That means the original commit already technically violated the license. So much for the "originally written version" and assumed it was released under GPL v2 or later. Keep in mind that Elias Torres had a SVN of it's own to develop the code. 9 9 10 10 The later version you talk about has been published on google code under an incompatible license and has been "brought in" '''as the changeset states'''. In case it was brought in - which is the documentation about what was done - there ''technically'' ''is'' a violation. Please mind the technically. … … 19 19 > The fact the link directs to a copy of the code under a different license is not a valid point to call the file Apache licensed, as, because as noted, it isn't exactly an "External Library" It's a core part of WordPress released as a seperate entity. 20 20 21 The link in there is merely a note of the file's source and putting it under the domain of the Atomlib project. That the file has been brought into wordpress does not mean that it has been coded for wordpress . The fact alone that it has come from some implementation for wordpress into a library of it's own with it's own name "atomlib", a definition of a project "atomlib" and a website of it's own on google-code is specifically a sign that it's not part of wordpress core but an external library.21 The link in there is merely a note of the file's source and putting it under the domain of the Atomlib project. That the file has been brought into wordpress does not mean that it has been coded for wordpress and more specifically under wordpress's license. The fact alone that it has come from some implementation for wordpress into a library of it's own with it's own name "atomlib", a definition of a project "atomlib" and a website of it's own on google-code is specifically a sign that it's not part of wordpress core but an external library. 22 22 23 23 Not to forget, that the commit explicitly states, that it brings that library in. 24 24 25 As you can see, there are just contradicting arguments. I never said there aren't any contradictions. And I can perfectly see that Torrez was actively working with the wordpress community. But as much as for everybody within the worpdress community licensing things were unclear, I can not assume that all details were clear for Torrez. Instead I'm actively suggesting to just ask to clarify this because we can not '''document''' that the code was given under GPL (not version restricted).25 As you can see, there are just contradicting arguments. I never said there aren't any contradictions. And I can perfectly see that Elias Torres was actively working with the wordpress community. But as much as for everybody within the worpdress community licensing things were unclear, I can not assume that all details were clear for Elias Torres. Instead I'm actively suggesting to just ask to clarify this because we can not '''document''' that the code was given under GPL (not version restricted). 26 26 27 27 The easiest thing I can imagine is to contact the original author and ask if the code then and now is available under GPL. Things solved. The problem is only complicated as long it has not yet been clarified. That's the best answer to all open questions as well, instead of making assumptions what was or was not. I think no-one of us can do so but the original author. Really.