Posted 9 months ago #
This text is into the files of this plugin:
// This file is protected by copyright law and provided under license. Reverse engineering of this file is strictly prohibited.
To Wordpress core: please, don't allow those types of "contributions" here. If some developers want advertising for them paid/propietary products, then they should NOT use WP platform as free promotion resource.
Posted 9 months ago #
Whether that message is in the file or not doesn't alter the license it is released under. Is there a copy of the GPL or other open license in the addon package? What license does the author(s) specify the addon is under? I have done a number of open source work / projects where the other scripters would use a similar line in the actual code, not realizing the language and intent of them...
Personally, I have no problems with commercial addons being listed in the addon directory, so long as they are marked as such, and authors are honest about it. The amount of work that goes into developing some projects is immense. It's only fair that people have the right to choose between commercial and non-commercial addons, so forbidding one or the other is akin to denying a person's right to free speach, as you try to "sweep them under the carpet". If you don't like the license something is released under, why not either write an addon / plugin yourself, or find one that does the same thing, but is released under a license you are comfortable with?
Even now, I am working on both open source and closed source addons and mods for WP. Just because some are released with a commercial license versus an open source license does that make them any less relevant, or useful to some? Why can't an addon for WP be commercial, and not open source? Trying to say that an addon can only be open source or closed source, takes away an author's or artist's god given right to choose how to license their creation. Censorship stinks... Ask that things be honestly marked? Yes... Tell people they can only develop for WP or list their work if they are open source? No... Don't need people trying to dictate to others what they can and can't do with their work. But that's just my two cents as an end user, scripter, graphics artist, and programmer who works in a number of languages on a number of different platforms.
*Gets down off of his unintended soap box...*
BTW: If you can read the line, and there is a GPL or similar license included to cover the addon, what would you have to reverse engineer? The code wouldn't be encrypted if you could read the notice in it in plain text...
Posted 9 months ago #
Is there a copy of the GPL or other open license in the addon package? What license does the author(s) specify the addon is under?
There is not a copy of license. Only this in pageFlip.php file:
/*
*Plugin Name: FlippingBook Wordpres Gallery Plugin
*
*Description: FlippingBook Photo gallery plugin with page flip effects.
*Author: FlippingBook WP team
*Author URI: http://pageflipgallery.com
*Version: 0.4.1
*
*License:
*End User License Agreement
*Copyright (c) 2008, http://pageflipgallery.com
*All rights reserved.
*
*By using the software, you agree to be bound by the terms of this license.
*This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
*it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
*the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(*at your option) any later version.
*This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
*but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
*MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
*GNU General Public License for more details.
*/Even now, I am working on both open source and closed source addons and mods for WP. Just because some are released with a commercial license versus an open source license does that make them any less relevant, or useful to some? Why can't an addon for WP be commercial, and not open source? Trying to say that an addon can only be open source or closed source, takes away an author's or artist's god given right to choose how to license their creation.
In understand and agree you @InfiniteKnight, but the claim is pointing to broken rules. Your proposal about a special paid section don't sounds bad, but giving a free product and then discover that any file is -at least- readable (and in addition with a restrictive warning), it is a dishonest act. All that the developer is offering now, is a kind of demo of the real paid product.
If you can read the line, and there is a GPL or similar license included to cover the addon, what would you have to reverse engineer? The code wouldn't be encrypted if you could read the notice in it in plain text...
Yes, the code have been encrypted in all php files. And these have the restriction line above the encrypted code. Only one of those files is readable (pageFlip.php).
Posted 9 months ago #
The license provided is GPL 2.0, so technically you have the right to hold them to it...
By using the software, you agree to be bound by the terms of this license.
*This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
*it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
*the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or
(*at your option) any later version.
As for the code to it being encrypted, it would have to be a JS or B64 based cypher, an ionCube style encryption like I use for closed source work won't leave any readable text, and renders the file a binary file... Which means it's a straight text cipher, and commonly availible on a number of sites to open up for you, if they won't give clear text copies, not that I advocate breaking the DMCA, which is stupid in the first place, but the license provided states it is GPL, which technically means the DMCA no longer applies to the encryption, since the GPL specifically grants you rights to mod the code / addon...
Posted 9 months ago #
TNX for all. I sort out a lot of GPL questions.
In fact we just upload wrong version, now we've fix that.
Posted 9 months ago #
TNX for all. I sort out a lot of GPL questions.
In fact we just upload wrong version, now we've fix that.
In fact I just discovered this discussion. ¬¬
Come on man...
Posted 9 months ago #
When we've upload first version, we don't know a lot of GPL.
That discussion was the first introduction. We've fix all questions and plugin meet with GPL license.
Yesterday we've upload wrong version (0.4.1) today we've fix that and upload correct one. That's just a mistake, we don't camouflage really :)
Posted 9 months ago #
You're right @flipper, I downloaded the plugin again (0.4.2) and noted all code is readable now. Well done, and thanks.
You must log in to post.
