What's the GPL? WordPress and PEAR Cache Problems

Ben Ramsey explores some of the issues when you write GPLed code that uses code from the PEAR library.
I had forgotten about the differing licenses used by PEAR and WordPress. They’re unfortunately incompatible and you can’t ship PHP licensed code in a GPL project without an “exception clause” in your GPL license. A change to the license of WordPress would require the agreement of *all* copyright holders of code in the project AFAIK.
Thankfully, I don’t ship PEAR Cache with WordPress MU. I use it if it’s installed already, WPMU isn’t dependant on PEAR Cache being available to work.
I think that gets around the incompatibility. Doesn’t it?

4 thoughts on “What's the GPL? WordPress and PEAR Cache Problems

  1. What is the status of WordPress MU?
    Is the current MU based off 1.5? Or is it based off B2?
    Is it stable enough now to test? Where may I find the install instructions specific to WordPress MultiUser?

  2. It works, there’s an alpha quality registration page but that hasn’t been tested much yet. Content is cached. It’s fast.
    It’s obviously based off WordPress, and tracks the bleeding edge CVS version which has been very stable. (ask anyone who uses the nightly releases!)
    It’s stable enough to test, it’s been running this site since September 15th. Go try it out for yourself.
    Install instructions are on the download page.

  3. Here’s the deal with GPL compatibility. I’m not a lawyer, but I am a Debian developer, and thus have been steeped in this stuff for years. And I’ve helped write free and GPL-compatible licenses. But for a definitive answer, hire your own lawyer. This isn’t legal advice, and I’ll remind the judge of that should you sue me because you took my advice and lost out. Not that you would, of course; you don’t look that gullible. 🙂

    In the following, I’m going to assume that the PEAR license and the GPL are not compatible. I haven’t read them, though, so I can’t say for sure.

    First of all, people who just use GPL software don’t have anything to worry about, period. They can use their GPL software with PEAR, OpenSSL, Oracle, Microsoft Word, whatever. (At least, that’s true from the perspective of the GPL; you’ll have to check the licenses of the other software to see what they allow, especially if the “license” is actually a contract that imposes restrictions beyond copyright.)

    So what’s the problem? The problem comes up when people do things that invoke copyright law, such as modifying software, or creating new copies of software (outside of fair use), or distributing those copies to other people. When you do those things, you have to respect the copyright licenses on all of the items you’re modifying/distributing/whatever.

    Now, the GPL says that you have to give all of the freedoms of the GPL to anyone you distribute to. So, if you add some code to the GPL software that, say, doesn’t allow commercial use, you aren’t allowed to distribute that modified software, because the GPL allows commercial use.

    This is pretty cut and dried when it comes to software you must have to run other software. So, for example, if the PHP license were incompatible with the GPL, you couldn’t license PHP code with the GPL, period. (It isn’t incompatible, as far as I know, BTW.)

    What’s fun is when you don’t absolutely need other software to work, but you can use other software if it’s present, like what you’re describing with PEAR. In that case, the GPL doesn’t allow you to distribute the two things together. But remember that rule for end-users: they can’t get in trouble (under the GPL) for combining, say, WPMU and PEAR, because they’re not doing anything that steps on anyone’s copyright by just using the code.

    So, in summary, yes, your users should be OK.

    Incidentally, you can modify your code in WPMU and add PEAR support all you want, because you’re the copyright holder. But if you’ve modified original WordPress code and added PEAR support, you might want to talk to Mark about it, because technically there’s a contradiction in the licenses, and Mark could sue you over it for violating his copyright. (I’m not implying he would; just making an observation about the law.)

Leave a Reply

%d bloggers like this:

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this.