Proper Redistribution of GPL Plugins & Protection of Addional Code

  • Resolved SeanBanksBliss

    (@seanbanksbliss)


    11 years ago

    Hi Everyone :),
    So I would like to create a plugin which uses other plugins. Those plugins have GNU GPL V.2 licenses, which as I understand it means that even if we sell it (OR ITS MODIFICATIONS?) we have to also provide the source-code for free. Is that right?

    The thing is that I hope to develop this into a much more significant plugin which, while utilizing those GPL source codes, would NOT be GPL but instead would be copy-protected.

    Is there a way to protect the modifications or additional coding?

    Does it make a difference how the code is used? Examples:

    #1. If the the whole plugin is one file, but the GPL code is marked and labeled with PHP comments that include its license, can the surrounding new code be considered separate if it references those functions?

    #2. What if the new code is created in a separate file but part of the same plugin? Could the GPL plugin files be GPL and my own additional files be copyright protected?

    OR #3. What if the GPL plugins are only used in small sections, for example I create my new plugin and only copy out specific functions which are relevant to the new plugin? Do I have to label them in the file as GPL, or do I have to make the WHOLE file GPL?

    I understand that GPL is about freedom, but is it freedom for the software to always remain free NO MATTER HOW MUCH IT’S MODIFIED? At what point does using GPL code become freedom for developers to protect their works?-(Does it ever?).

    Aside Note: I’m all for sharing until it becomes detrimental to the projects development (which means that I think money is an important factor in allowing professional programmers & myself to develop the project continuously on a full-time basis). Are there paid plugins out there that use parts of prior GPL plugins? If so, do they provide the full source codes somewhere for people to just copy and past into their own plugin files and therefor avoid paying for it??

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • Moderator Ipstenu (Mika Epstein)

    (@ipstenu)

    ?????? Advisor and Activist

    Not for FREE no.

    Check out https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html which states:

    “Free software” does not mean “noncommercial.” A free program must be available for commercial use, commercial development, and commercial distribution. Commercial development of free software is no longer unusual; such free commercial software is very important. You may have paid money to get copies of free software, or you may have obtained copies at no charge. But regardless of how you got your copies, you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

    So. Legally, yes, you can resell free (as in no money) GPL products. SHOULD you? I would say no, but that’s just my personal opinion. I find the karamatic retribution of selling someone else’s code wholesale tantamount to theft, and I won’t endorse anyone’s use of it, but I certainly will defend your right to do it ??

    Thread Starter SeanBanksBliss

    (@seanbanksbliss)

    That’s not what I’m talking about. I’m not just taking something and rebranding it for cash. I’m talking about heavy HEAVY modification. Is there anybody whom can respond to the actual questions I asked?
    The link you posted is about whether or not software is free. It barley mentions modification and only says…

    you always have the freedom to copy and change the software, even to sell copies.

    Whether a change constitutes an improvement is a subjective matter. If your right to modify a program is limited, in substance, to changes that someone else considers an improvement, that program is not free.

    The whole link is about defining free software or what rights have to be in place to keep it free. It says nothing about a developers right to change the license when modifying; nor does it mention maintaining a non-free license over code that is cooperating with (but not included in) the original GPL release.

    The core concept here is combining free GPL code with protected code.

    Can it be done in a way that the copyprotected code falls under its own license and not that of the GPL?

    If so… where is the line drawn? Can you simply mark each GPL code snippet with a comment identifying it as GPL? Or do you have to place copyprotected code in a separate file?

    OR, more restrictive… is the act of bundling paid-private code with GPL a violation of the GPL’s concept of opensource modifications?
    –Is using it like a library (not sure if that is the appropriate use of the term) a violation?
    —What are the appropriate methods for bundling copyprotected code with GPL code (if there are any)?

    Thank you.

    Thread Starter SeanBanksBliss

    (@seanbanksbliss)

    UPDATE:This link provides some excellent information (the best I’ve found yet), for anyone interested in figuring all this out: …www.remarpro.com violating the GPL?… I especially like his two “update” links at the bottom; one of which happens to be from this very forum which the author calls “an interesting discussion, and an enlightening final comment”.

Viewing 3 replies - 1 through 3 (of 3 total)
  • The topic ‘Proper Redistribution of GPL Plugins & Protection of Addional Code’ is closed to new replies.