[UPHPU] (WP) GPL License vs. Commercial use?

[Lonnie Olson]

Mike Smullin wrote:
> I've been considering WordPress for commercial use,
> but one big problem I'm afraid of is that the GPL says
> I need to redistribute the source code if I
> redistribute my app (incl. any proprietary
> plugins/add-ons, etc.)

If you write a WP plugin or add-on, this FAQ entry sounds like you do
have to use GPL.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense

> I've gotten two different attorney's opinions and they
> both say, "anyone we let have access to the software
> for use, in any way, on our server or theirs, via any
> manner, has the right to the code."

This issue is confusing and debatable.  The current version of the GPL
focuses on binary redistribution.  This doesn't really make sense when
talking about the web.  In general, most people believe that running the
application on the web server is *not* redistribution.

However, since this is not clear, you might want to listen to your
attorney friends just in case.

> This means if I set up a WordPress blog, I don't even
> have to allow you to login and post. If you even post
> a comment on my blog, you are entitled to view the
> source code.
> 
> Am I misinterpreting something? That seems pretty
> lame. There are a lot of WordPress [based] blogs out
> there. Does this mean any time I notice someone adding
> something new or customizing any way, I can demand to
> see their source code?

Sure, but is it a big deal?  Anyone can download the WP source code.
Source code does not include application data.  If someone reads your
blog and asks for the source code, just point them at wordpress.org.
Problem solved.

Now if you write your own modules, or customize WP heavily, you might
actually care.  Now it comes down to the debate about the web loophole.
 If using a GPL web app *is* redistribution, then you have to provide
the source code including your changes.  If using a GPL web app is *not*
redistribution, then you can tell them to F*** OFF!

GPL 3 may clarify all of this.
http://tinyurl.com/s4wpu
This seems to mean that using WP is *not* redistribution, and any
modifications can be held privately.

> That would mean the same is true for any other GPL
> licensed open-source project.
> 
> For me, this raises concerns about the license even
> from a personal usage standpoint.
> 
> Can someone clarify this for me?
> 
> Additionally, I know PHP is open-source, but it
> doesn't have anything like that in it I hope. People
> use PHP for commercial applications, right? Or am I
> wrong? 

Yes, there are a great deal of commercial PHP applications.  Even Yahoo!
and Google use PHP.

> They say "The PHP developers decided to release PHP
> under a much more loose license (Apache-style), to
> help PHP become as popular as possible."
> 
> http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt
> 
> If that is the full license, it appears very short and
> succinct.

Because it only covers redistribution of the PHP source code itself, it
has absolutely nothing to do with application you write in PHP.  But it
still is loose enough to allow you to bundle the interpreter into any
distribution you wish.

--lonnie