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

[Mac Newbold]

Sorry if this is a dupe, I just relized it went out from the wrong address 
and might have been rejected for a post by a non member or something. 
Weird, cause I didn't hear back from mailman either.

Mac

---------- Forwarded message ----------
Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2006 14:37:21 -0600 (MDT)
To: Mike Smullin <mike_smullin at yahoo.com>
Cc: UPHPU List <uphpu at uphpu.org>
Subject: Re: [UPHPU] (WP) GPL License vs. Commercial use?

Today at 1:08pm, Mike Smullin said:

> 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.)
> 
> 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 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?
> 
> 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?

My understanding of the GPL (which is pretty good I think) is that if you 
redistribute a modified version of GPL'd code, you have to make the source for 
it availble to anyone who gets a binary version. If you don't change the GPL'd 
code, there's no problem of course. If you make changes, you have two choices: 
open up the source to your changes to the GPL'd code, at least to people who 
can get the binary, or don't redistribute it.

Web apps are a great thing in this regard: if the code runs only on your 
server/hosting acct. etc., then you're not redistributing it, so you could 
modify the code and not make it public. The GPL isn't about _using_ your code, 
it is about distributing it in binary-only form. It doesn't matter who uses it, 
it just matters if you distribute binary-only versions that have been modified.

If you take GPL code, modify, and sell that as a product, you've got to make 
the source available to anyone who buys it from you, but not necessarily to the 
general public (i.e. people that didn't buy it). But anyone who gets your 
source has it under the GPL, so they can publish it if they wanted, which might 
make you not sell as many.

I am not a lawyer, and I don't play one on television, but I humbly submit that 
your two lawyers' opinions are either overly conservative, or just plain wrong. 
You'd have a very hard time getting anyone to release modified source to you 
just because you used their program via their web site.

One thing that is important to understand about the GPL is what constitutes a 
modified version of the GPL'd code, and what constitutes your app using an 
unmodified version of the GPL'd code. If I take a GPL app, and change it, it's 
the first, and it's still got to be under the GPL unless I have another license 
agreement with it's authors. If I make an app that uses an unmodified GPL app 
to implmement part of its functionality, usually this means you don't have to 
distribute your source nor license it under the GPL. You may have to make 
available the unmodified GPL source, but usually it will already be out there 
for them to get just like you did. In traditional languages, this is usually 
determined in terms of how the GPL'd code is compiled and linked to your code 
(statically linked, dynamically linked, etc). But in PHP, that doesn't really 
apply. Often the way I use libraries from within PHP is either as an extension 
in PHP or via a shell execution etc, neither of which makes me take the GPL on 
my code.

Note that the LGPL is different from the GPL in that it has a looser definition 
of what counts as modifying the GPL'd code or when a derivative work has to be 
GPL'd also. With LGPL, if you change the library itself, it has to be LGPL'd if 
you redistribute it. If you write an app that uses, links with, etc. an LGPL 
library, you don't have to use LGPL for your app.

> 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?
> 
> 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.

Yes, PHP is open source. That license says you can distribute modified binaries 
as long as you keep the copyright, license, and acknowledgement. But you don't 
have to distribute source if you don't want. (I don't know if Zend uses this 
license or has other rights to PHP outside of this.)

Using PHP as the language for your app doesn't tie you in any way to the PHP 
license. You can make a closed-source app in PHP, though to distribute PHP in 
binary form without distributing source, you've got to encrypt it somehow, like 
IonCube or Zend Optimizer.

In similar fashion, my app may depend on PHP, Apache, MySQL, and Linux, but 
that doesn't force my app to be under the PHP, Apache, MySQL or GPL open source 
licenses, even if I don't pay the MySQL commercial license fees.

I hope that helps, and I hope that if/where I'm wrong, inaccurate, or 
incomplete, that someone else wil fill in the gaps.

Mac

--
Mac Newbold			Code Greene, LLC
 				1440 S. Foothill Dr. Suite #250
Office:	801-438-0142		Salt Lake City, UT  84108
Cell:	801-694-6334		www.codegreene.com