[jwebb99]

Wait. What's going here?

I've been reading some of the HN comments in response to this story and it seems you guys are saying that ANY codebase built on WP must be visibly released to the public.

So does that mean, millions of WP sites with custom mods must relase release their code in some capacity? If so, where? And how am I supposed to declare where the sourcecode can be found--a dedicated page on my site, a comment in my HTML?

I'm really struggling to understand how the guys at Wix are the villains in this story. It seems every year Mullenweg issues a Fatwa in response to some imagined violation of WP's GPL licence. He's really becoming quite belligerent over this crusade of his.

Seriously, do we all need to release our source code if we build stuff on WP? If not, why the hell is Wix getting so much shit?

[firasd]

It's more about distribution. So if you make some changes and keep it on your server you don't have to show the code to everyone, but if you release a plugin for third parties to download, then everyone who gets the download should be able to read, modify and distribute the plugin code under the same license. In this case the app is distributed to phones.

[ceejayoz]

That gets a little iffy, though. If your custom plugin distributes CSS/JS/HTML to browsers, does that count?

[delinka]

If your custom plugin distributes its output, no. Generally speaking, the output of a GPL'd program is not also subject to the GPL (quines notwithstanding.)

[ceejayoz]

WordPress's JS (and I'd argue its CSS/HTML) is much more integral part of the code for the system than mere "output", IMO.

[delinka]

Indeed. I was hoping to elicit some clarification and left out some of my own: if JS, CSS & HTML are part of the GPL'd product, I'd agree that those parts qualify as being 'distributed' to users.

[barkingcat]

It's about "distribution" of the software - which means that if a WP site is modified, and then given out to people to serve on their own servers (like a product that is based on Wordpress that contains for example, a ready made/installed curated set of plugins + themes), then this entire product must be opensource with the GPL.

If you are a person just running a WP site, using some custom plugins, BUT are not "Distributing" it, then you are ok.

The loophole of course is deciding whether sending out the html/css/js output of the site over the web to a visitor of your site counts as "distribution" (which is current "Not" by usual readings / interpretations of the GPL)

[icelancer]

>So does that mean, millions of WP sites with custom mods must relase release their code in some capacity?

Yes. WP plugin developers who charge for their plugins cannot reasonably attack people who bundle and resell/redistribute those plugins. GPLclub and other "resellers" of the plugins get a lot of crap from WP developers for pirating their work but it's very clear that this is not how it works.

EDIT: This is assuming you distribute/sell your plugin.

[yaur]

The controversy here is over a mobile app where distribution is much more clear cut. My understanding is that "visiting a site" doesn't count as distribution and and that the AGPL was created to close that loophole.

[alexbecker]

If they distribute the code, then yes. However, hosting an application on a webserver you control is not considered "distributing" for the purposes of the GPL, AFAIU (this is the loophole the AGPL was created to fix).

[disordinary]

If you modify wordpress then yes, if you write an external add-on then no akaik.

[tonmoy]

If you modify wordpress and distribute it as a software, right? Correct me if I am wrong but, if you modify wordpress and host it on your own server and serve it as a service you should not need to share all your code.

[brazzledazzle]

Yes, there are GPL licenses that apply to SaaS but the vanilla GPL (at least v2) doesn't as far as I know.

[tonmoy]

And wordpress does seem to have the vanilla v2 license