You might wonder: Source for wordpress – it’s already there, right? So what are you asking for hakre?
That’s why I clearly wrote upfront in the ticket that source-code is mostly available – but there are places for which not. Which has been confirmed by others in that ticket quickly.
I think this deserves a special mention, not because of incompetencies (we all have them), but because it shows licensing attitude and can help to understand dissent and difficulties:
Firstly, the only binary file I can find any reference to is SWFUpload, and that is MIT Licensed, not GPL. The MIT License has no requirement for providing source code.
As for the GPL, we [the wordpress project] are under no obligation to provide anything at all. [emphasis added] Understand that the people here wrote the code and share a joint ownership of it. The GPL places no obligation whatsoever on the actual copyright holders of the code. They can release it anyway they like. The GPL only applies to licensees of the code in question; the downstream people using and redistributing that code.
There is no requirement for WordPress to release the source code for a single binary file which they did not write and which is not GPL licensed to begin with. [emphasis added] [...]
Otto; 16 Feb; in answer to “Whom to ask for missing wordpress source-code?” (Source)
I could not believe to read these words. To read this from a person who is important for the website dedicated for distributing the package is hurting me as both – a user and a contributor.
That is especially in the context of asking for source. It could have been any user that is asking that question.
I as a developer make use of the GPL to ensure that users of my software will get the freedom they deserve.
Even hours later I have problems to find words, back in October last year I wrote:
this deserves a special mention.
Looks like it still stands.
Opinions vary among each other
But more importantly, the question of the ticket still needs to be answered.
I’m confident, that the WordPress project will distance itself from anything close to such statements and instead will offer sources for the packages. As the simple fact to not offer sources has licensing implications.
Another important suggestion still stands: The wordpress team should pro-actively take care of licensing. E.g. by getting some professional legal or otherwise useful consulting or help from outside. Like getting in contact with the SFLC as Matt Mullenweg did when he needed help with theme licensing.
You can find some documentation about known licensing issues on a codex wiki page of mine.
Previous: b2/cafelog is GPL
Series: WordPress Licensing Issues