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

[Lamont R. Peterson]

NOTE:  IANAL, I don't play one on TV, either, but I've been involved with a 
lot of code over the years and have had to deal with these kinds of things on 
several occasions.

On Monday 18 September 2006 02:08pm, 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.)
>
> 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."

Running a GPL'd application that provides access to content is not 
redistribution, whether it's a webapp or not.  It's running the application.  
Even if you run a modified form of the application, the GPL does not require 
you to make the modified source available or to contribute it back to the 
original author(s), though, there will be big benefits to contributing back 
fixes/customizations you have made, like not having to maintain those 
fixes/enhancements.

So, using WordPress commercially is perfectly acceptable.

Another thing to think about here is the licensing of the content.

> 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.

Yes & no.  Again, *using* the application is not *redistributing* the code.  
Users can create accounts and write posts & pages or can simply post 
comments.  You have to decide how to license your content.  For example, you 
might want to make sure that anyone posting a comment will see a notice that 
anything (content) they submit here (write/post) will be considered as part 
of your content (copyright will be assigned) and will be under the terms of 
your chosen license.

Take a look at [ http://creativecommons.org/ ] for one commonly used set of 
content licenses.  I use the Attribution-Share-Alike [ 
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/2.5/ ] license on some blogs, 
websites and wikis that I run.  Another nice thing about the Creative commons 
website is the discussions of how these licenses work/are used.

Another common license is the Gnu FDL (Free Documentation License) [ 
http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/fdl.html ].

> 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 is not a correct interpretation.

> 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?

I hope my comments are helpful.

> 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?

Yup.  I've even written several such application, myself.

[snip]
-- 
Lamont R. Peterson <peregrine at OpenBrainstem.net>
Founder [ http://blog.OpenBrainstem.net/peregrine/ ]
GPG Key fingerprint: 0E35 93C5 4249 49F0 EC7B  4DDD BE46 4732 6460 CCB5
  ___                   ____            _           _
 / _ \ _ __   ___ _ __ | __ ) _ __ __ _(_)_ __  ___| |_ ___ _ __ ___
| | | | '_ \ / _ \ '_ \|  _ \| '__/ _` | | '_ \/ __| __/ _ \ '_ ` _ \
| |_| | |_) |  __/ | | | |_) | | | (_| | | | | \__ \ ||  __/ | | | | |
 \___/| .__/ \___|_| |_|____/|_|  \__,_|_|_| |_|___/\__\___|_| |_| |_|
      |_|               Intelligent Open Source Software Engineering
                              [ http://www.OpenBrainstem.net/ ]