Comments on: More on Number 10’s website fiasco http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/ The Magic of Open Source Thu, 18 Mar 2010 11:17:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: The Open Sourcerer » Number 10, Wordpress and The Commons http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8547 The Open Sourcerer » Number 10, Wordpress and The Commons Thu, 21 Aug 2008 05:19:35 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8547 [...] story so far, for any new readers. can be found here, here and here and do follow the links in those posts to the various other sources to get a broader [...] [...] story so far, for any new readers. can be found here, here and here and do follow the links in those posts to the various other sources to get a broader [...]

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8541 Alan Lord Wed, 20 Aug 2008 17:04:22 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8541 @Dave, Thanks for the link. I had just started reading it. @Dave,

Thanks for the link. I had just started reading it.

]]> By: dave smith http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8539 dave smith Wed, 20 Aug 2008 15:28:14 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8539 I've written up the facts around the copyright issue here if you're interested: http://www.newmediamaze.com/index.php/antbags-theme-the-facts/ I’ve written up the facts around the copyright issue here if you’re interested: http://www.newmediamaze.com/index.php/antbags-theme-the-facts/

]]> By: Did Gordon Brown really steal a Wordpress theme? http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8537 Did Gordon Brown really steal a Wordpress theme? Wed, 20 Aug 2008 14:40:58 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8537 [...] As if Mr Brown didn’t have enough to deal with at the moment it appears that the shiny new website he paid £100,000 for might have been based on a free Wordpress theme. [...] [...] As if Mr Brown didn’t have enough to deal with at the moment it appears that the shiny new website he paid £100,000 for might have been based on a free Wordpress theme. [...]

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8529 Alan Lord Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:38:19 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8529 @Jack, well put. As for the Government angle, I totally agree. In fact on the GPL FAQ again, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd, in the USA at least, they seem to have a reasonably clear position on all works created being in the public domain: <i>"If the program is written by US federal government employees in the course of their employment, it is in the public domain, which means it is not copyrighted. Since the GNU GPL is based on copyright, such a program cannot be released under the GNU GPL. (It can still be free software, however; a public domain program is free.)</i> Shame we aren't so transparent... @Jack,

well put.

As for the Government angle, I totally agree. In fact on the GPL FAQ again, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLUSGovAdd, in the USA at least, they seem to have a reasonably clear position on all works created being in the public domain:

“If the program is written by US federal government employees in the course of their employment, it is in the public domain, which means it is not copyrighted. Since the GNU GPL is based on copyright, such a program cannot be released under the GNU GPL. (It can still be free software, however; a public domain program is free.)

Shame we aren’t so transparent…

]]> By: Jack http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8528 Jack Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:19:01 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8528 @Alan - I think there is a difference between what is a legal requirement via the GPL licence and what is "best" practice. I don't believe that you are required under the GPL to release your changes publicly...you are only required under the licence to release the changes to your customer. Your customer may release them publicly if they wish... As for the government angle, I believe they should be obliged to make just about everything public but that's just my political views getting in there... @Alan – I think there is a difference between what is a legal requirement via the GPL licence and what is “best” practice. I don’t believe that you are required under the GPL to release your changes publicly…you are only required under the licence to release the changes to your customer. Your customer may release them publicly if they wish…

As for the government angle, I believe they should be obliged to make just about everything public but that’s just my political views getting in there…

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8527 Alan Lord Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:12:10 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8527 @Jack, "I ain’t a lawyer…". Me neither - thankfully ;-) Isn't the whole idea of the GPL and copyleft that it is "viral"? So, IIUC, as the Wordpress code is distributed and available freely to anyone, modifications made to it (if the modifier distributes them to anyone) must be also? I was pondering also just how "public" is a Government owned web site... After all, where did the money come from in the first place? Interesting... Thanks for questioning Jack. @Jack,

“I ain’t a lawyer…”. Me neither – thankfully ;-)

Isn’t the whole idea of the GPL and copyleft that it is “viral”? So, IIUC, as the Wordpress code is distributed and available freely to anyone, modifications made to it (if the modifier distributes them to anyone) must be also?

I was pondering also just how “public” is a Government owned web site… After all, where did the money come from in the first place?

Interesting… Thanks for questioning Jack.

]]> By: Jack http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8525 Jack Tue, 19 Aug 2008 09:04:34 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8525 @Alan - Yes, I agree. Presumably the second clause above is to cover the case if your customer decides to make available your modifications public that you the licensee won't have a problem with third parties using your modifications. So far as I am aware that doesn't obligate either the customer or the licensee to make those modifications public. Of course the customer can make the changes public any way they like. Usual disclaimers apply...I ain't a lawyer... @Alan – Yes, I agree. Presumably the second clause above is to cover the case if your customer decides to make available your modifications public that you the licensee won’t have a problem with third parties using your modifications. So far as I am aware that doesn’t obligate either the customer or the licensee to make those modifications public. Of course the customer can make the changes public any way they like. Usual disclaimers apply…I ain’t a lawyer…

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8524 Alan Lord Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:50:14 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8524 @Jack, That sounds about right, according to this bit of the FAQ, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic, at least: <i>"Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public? ... But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL."</i> This bit however, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions, says something different and is more in line with my humble understanding: <i>"GPLv2 says that modified versions, if released, must be “licensed ... to all third parties.” Who are these third parties? Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version."</i> @Jack,

That sounds about right, according to this bit of the FAQ, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic, at least:

“Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
… But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program’s users, under the GPL.”

This bit however, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TheGPLSaysModifiedVersions, says something different and is more in line with my humble understanding:

“GPLv2 says that modified versions, if released, must be “licensed … to all third parties.” Who are these third parties?

Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to *do* anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.”

]]> By: Jack http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/18/more-on-number-10/comment-page-1/#comment-8523 Jack Tue, 19 Aug 2008 08:40:47 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=309#comment-8523 My understanding of the GPL may well be incorrect but all the wordpress modifyers have to do is make the changes available to their customer (ie the government.) Presumably they have done so because they are running it. :) As far as I am aware they are not obliged to make the changes publicly available to everyone. My understanding of the GPL may well be incorrect but all the wordpress modifyers have to do is make the changes available to their customer (ie the government.) Presumably they have done so because they are running it. :) As far as I am aware they are not obliged to make the changes publicly available to everyone.

]]>