Is there a link from a legally entitled source re. WordPress license?

Thanks Jan but this is not an issue a lawyer can address nor is it a complicated question as per your “How many angels can dance on the head of a needle?”

I am simply asking a few questions of the copyright holders of WordPress that can only be answered by the copyright holders.

Although I appreciate your assurance that

“The included license.txt file in the ZIP or tar.gz file covers 100% of the files in the WordPress download. Without exception all the CSS, PNG, JPG, PHP, js etc. files are licensed under the GPL.”

, unless you are telling me you are one of “the contributors” it is just an opinion and has no legal weight. WIthout a manifest file linked to the GPL or references in the files to the GPL there is no legal reference to bind the software to the license.

If the forum is not the place for this question I would be most appreciative of the email address for a representative of “the contributors” to pose these questions.

Thanks for your assistance in this matter 🙂

Thanks again for your thoughtful assistance Jan. If it is ok with you, though, I would like to leave this forum post open as an open request for response from the WordPress copyright holders or their legal representative.

I have 35 years in the pointy end of commercial computing with: four multi-national patents to my name, one multi-national patent dispute defense, three corporate spin out attempts, one completed corporate spin-out, numerous multi-national contracts, supply agreements, NDAs,and Intellectual Property Agreements. As far as I am aware I have read all WordPress license material including supporting material. I am not a lawyer but I have a reasonable ability to differentiate a clearly expressed license from a less clearly expressed license.

Although I have an opinion about the WordPress license I am not a copyright holder so my opinion is of no legal consequence. I can ask a lawyer but, again, that is just another opinion.

I have put this request on the WordPress forum because the copyright holders who have the authority to address my questions are only identified in the license file as “the contributors”! This is not identified anywhere within the license file as a company or identified group of individuals with an expressed charter of legal delegation of authority for making changes to the license. So I have nowhere to send my query.

I considered emailing the WordPress Foundation but their site makes no reference to their position as a legal representative of the software, only the trademark. Additionally, I felt the answers to my question might be of interest to the general WordPress community and better served by a public forum posting than a private email.

What we do have at present is:

1) The WordPress license is granted by “the contributors” who do not have a legal contact or representative to address license questions or adjust the license terms. A contact is common in licenses.

2) The ReadMe.html file included with the WordPress software download refers to WordPress software being subject to the GPL as described in the license.txt file but the license section of the license.txt file ONLY “applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.” The files in the WordPress zip file do not contain a reference to the GPL only the ReadMe.html file does. There is also no back-reference in the license.txt file preamble or in the Readme.html file to the other files in the WordPress downloaded zipfile.

As a WordPress user it would make me feel more confident that I am using the software as “the contributors” intended if there was a manifest file included in the WordPress downloadable zipfile referred to in the ReadMe.txt file as constituting the WordPress software being subject to the GPL license as specified in the license.txt file.

That is a change only “the contributors” can consider and legally implement though…thus this post 🙂

Thanks for leaving it open Jan. Much appreciated 🙂

Regarding your concern that I am waiting for 298 people to respond…really…does my background sound like I am someone who wouldn’t get that!

Of course I don’t expect to hear from “the contributors” in the form of emails from 298 people…that’s the point of this being a post…if the rights holders had a contact identified in the license file, as is common practice in intellectual property agreements, I would be sending this query to them. In the absence of a legal contact I am forced to post it for general consideration.

I have tried to keep this post constrained to three queries to the copyright holders to avoid a subjective debate about the validity of the WordPress license by people who may have an opinion but no legal basis to clarify or enact change (me, you, non-contributors). Only the copyright holders can legally comment on and consider an alteration to the license.

So what do I expect to happen next…not sure.

A) Something
I might be pleasantly surprised to hear that a core contributor in consultation with the WordPress foundation legal agrees that individual past core contributors have the rights to alter the license and can alter the Readme.html file to reference a manifest file listing the files in the WordPress zipfile as being covered under the GPL. Maybe the lawyer scratches his / her head and decides that a unanimous agreement of all past contributors is required to alter the license. I wouldn’t want to speculate. I do know that the ReadMe.html license section and the license.txt file can’t be modified by just anyone in any legally binding sense.

Or

B) Nothing
This post might just remain as a cautionary tale for open source initiatives that do not follow standard intellectual property agreement conventions to ensure there is a legal representative authorised to address license queries and consider license alterations on behalf of the copyright holders AND to include with the distributed intellectual property a manifest file clearly referenced by the license as being covered by the license.

I leave it up to the readers of this post to be concerned or not concerned that the current WordPress license does not explicitly reference the files contained in the WordPress zipfile and that it is not clear who, if anyone, is legally in a position to alter the WordPress license to be more explicit or respond to license queries.

Thanks again for your patience and assistance in this matter Jan. Much appreciated 🙂

As I explained previously…

The GPL license states that it only applies to files that refer to the GPL. You needed to look further down in the license file from your quote above to line 0 “This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License.”.

None of the WordPress files refer to the GPL except for the Readme.html file. The ReadMe.html file refers to the GPL and license but does not refer to the other files in the wordpress zipfile. So there is no explicit statement directly binding the WordPress files to the GPL license.

Legally, it could be argued that the GPL clearly excludes files that do not reference it and since the WordPress files do not reference it, it could be argued that they are not covered by the GPL.

Please note that I’m not saying that the WordPress files are not covered by the GPL (the laws accepts some reasonable context for interpretation) but it puts the WordPress license into the implied coverage category rather than the safer explicitly stated coverage category. When it comes to the law specific is better than implicit.

Intellectual property licenses typically identify a contact legally responsible for a license even if it on behalf of a group of rights holders and a manifest file listing the items covered by the license.

This reduces the possible scope of interpretation.

The reason I said “I leave it up to the readers of this post to be concerned or not concerned” is that, as currently structured, the WordPress license can be interpreted to include or exclude GPL coverage for the WordPress files. I’m a cautious guy who reads T&Cs very carefully before deciding to commit and I am reluctant to commit to terms that are not explicit.

One possible fix (subject to lawyer approval) would be to modify the ReadMe.html to explicitly refer to the other files in the zipfile. A manifest file is a common unambiguous method for capturing that information.

The question is…who is legally authorised to modify the ReadMe.html file to make that reference. I certainly know I’m not legally entitled. The question is…who is? Legally it is “the contributors”…whoever that is from a legal perspective.

Thank you James.

I understand the WordPress philosophy and intention to be open under GPL, and I understand that the general WordPress membership are not in a position to discuss legal opinion. I am intimately familiar with all WordPress references provided in this post trail as I am an avid WordPress reader and have been providing a managed WordPress service to numerous clients for four years.

That is not the purpose of this post.

The purpose of this post is to highlight that the WordPres Readme.html / licence.txt does not explicitly state that the GPL applies to the files in the WordPress zipfile. In fact the GPL license states that GPL only applies to files that refer to the GPL and the WordPress files do not refer to the GPL with the exception of the Readme.html file.

I’m not asking for a legal opinion nor am I soliciting a legal debate. I am simply pointing out a gap in the implementation of the WordPress license that I am highlighting for consideration and outlining the legal aspect to addressing this type of change. Technically anyone can make the change but legally only “the contributors” representative can do so if it to have any legal weight.

Perhaps this would be simpler for you to consider as a feature enhancement request to add a manifest file to the WordPress zipfile with an adjustment to the Readme.txt file to explicitly apply the GPL to the manifest file entries. Caveat: only a legally authorised representative of “the contributors” can make this change with any legal weight.