BuddyPress

Hi there,

Apologies if this sounds either uninformed or inflammatory, but I have a few queries regarding the correct license to release the group wiki plugin under.

I want the code to be under a license that:

a) Makes sure that if the code is re-used anywhere, it is done so only for free (not ‘premium’) plugins. For instance, I wouldn’t want somewhere like WPMU Dev Premium to be able to package it up with a few tweaks and then start charging users for it…

b) Complies with the requirements for WordPress & BuddyPress licensing. I believe that this is a simple “Must be GPL if you’re using WordPress functions) but I’d happily take advice on this.

c) The usual/obvious one where I want credit for myself and the other plugin authors to be maintained.

I’m sure to most people on here that the answer is blindingly obvious and I should be using GPL, but I just wanted to double-check that I’ve not made any incorrect assumptions.

here is the best place for you to choose your license: http://creativecommons.org/choose/

That looks really useful, thanks. Is it as ‘legal’ as the GPL? i.e. enforceable?

edit: *reads the FAQ/etc* I need to stop being lazy

i didn’t want to insult you at first, but yeah, stop being lazy… ROFL…

IANAL. But http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ#Can_I_use_a_Creative_Commons_license_for_software.3F

I think (though IANAL!!) that CC licenses are generally more restrictive than the GNU under which WP is released. Because GNU licenses apply to derivative works, I think that applying a more restrictive license to a WP plugin would be a violation of the WP license.

Yeah, I just noticed that also. GNU GPL appealed to me at first anyhow, so that sounds good unless anyone is aware of anything else that will cause issues

This seems to cover point a:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyUseGPL

GPL has nothing to do with code being free (as in beer). Anyone can take code published under the GPL (WordPress for example) and start charging for it as long as all necessary conditions are met.

Right, Travel-Junkie – the only restriction is that they have to respect GPL. So WPMU Dev can wrap up and sell any plugin they want, as long as the work continues to be under the original license.

Doesn’t the point I link to in the GNU GPL preclude people releasing ‘improved’ versions of the software and charging for it?

If no, it seems almost worth using a more restrictive license and charge people 1 pence to download the plugin or something.

Hi DCartwright. I would say that the GPL even allows anyone to take WordPress core and release an ‘improved’ version and charge for it as long as it’s released under GPL as well. You know that the WP plugin repo requires GPL, but whatever you decide, you’ve got my 1pence or more

The whole point of the GPL is that the code will always be available, even if the developer has given up on it. A more restrictive license might mean that people will not improve on what you have worked on and that your code might just go dormant.

If someone takes your code, improves it a bit and then sells it, the improved code will still have to be GPL. This means that you could then take all the changes made and incorporate it back into your plugin. You wouldn’t even have to buy the improved plugin, just get the code from somewhere. Or just reproduce any new features.

That sounds reasonable.. I’m more than happy for people to modify it as much as they like, so long as they release those improvements to the community.

Apologies if it sounded like I was being pedantic and/or overly-demanding. I guess I’ve just been burned by ‘premium’ plugins in the past and wanted to make sure I could avoid the issue.

You will have to license your work under some version of the GPL that at minimum offers the freedoms that the WP GPL offers.

What others have said above is basically correct. The GPL does not say anything about free as in cost. It is about freedoms of the end user. In fact, the GPL does not discourage developers or theme designers from making money off of their work or someone else’s work.

However, the GPL is very specific in how this is to be done: either by charging a distribution fee, a support fee, or both. So, in effect, you are not charging for the code itself. The vast majority of Premium plugin shops simply charge a distribution and support fee. If their plugins are not GPLed, then something is wrong.

Here are two great links from the GNU website that explain this very clearly:

Selling Free Software
The Free Software Definition

By the way, IMO there should not be a double standard in the WordPress community. Premium theme designers abound. Premium plugin developers should also be afforded the same respect and opportunity. The crucial point is that their work, like premium themes, must remain licensed under the GPL.

Of course, as Matt Mullenweg has stated on numerous occasions when discussing the issue of premium themes, although the PHP must be GPLed, the CSS and JS of the theme can be copyrighted. The same holds true with plugins. But, in my opinion, doing so is just too picky. I prefer to GPL everything–the PHP, CSS, JS, etc.

Now, you could choose to license your work under the AGPL, which is considered to offer more freedoms to the community. The basic difference from the GPL is that any changes made to your plugin, even if for private use, must be returned back to the community. Under GPLv1 through GPLv3, it is acceptable for any code changes to a plugin to remain private if the plugin is never distributed.

One final thought. I’ve stated this before in other places. Many people in the WordPress community seem to be moving beyond the spirit of the GPL, to a more utopian, share and share alike vision. There’s nothing wrong with that if it happens. But the GPL has never been about free as in cost.

AGPL sounds good to me. Thanks for that, Jeff Sayre.

I have nothing against the idea of premium plugins (despite what I said earlier, lol) but my experiences with WPMU Dev Premium have perhaps unfairly prejudiced me against them.

Either way, AGPL sounds good to me.