SK2 is no more
I just noticed on its website (I was checking for an update) that Spam Karma 2 is actually under an ‘all rights reserved’ license – which in theory could make it a violation of the GPL (Wordpress’ license). So I’ve given it the royal Deletion and replaced it with Bad Behaviour and Bad Behaviour Blackhole (a DNSBL plugin by the same guy). I really like SK2, it was one of the best things about Wordpress, but the possibility of it being a GPL violation means I have to count it out.
Correction: I re-read the GPL and discovered that I made a mistake – the GPL does NOT forbid using non-GPL plugins with GPL-licensed software, it only mandates that if you re-distribute a modified version of GPL software, your re-distribution/derivative work must be licensed under the GPL (to prevent a company from taking a GPL project and re-releasing it with a proprietary license). Since Spam Karma does not involve distributing a non-GPL version of Wordpress, it doesn’t violate this. For more information see http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html
January 27th, 2006 at 4:57 pm
This is a test comment - to see if:
a) Bad Behaviour has totally screwed up comment submission (hopefully not)
b) The AJAX commenting in K2 actually works (hopefully yes)
January 28th, 2006 at 10:48 am
You would have known, long before posting a comment, if Bad Behaviour had done anything bad…which really isn’t the point.
I still recommend using more than one anti-spam plugin (repeatedly, in fact). Though Bad Behaviour Blackhole is probably not the best choice; the list it uses hasn’t been updated in months.
Right now I use Bad Behaviour (of course!) and Akismet, a few small parts of which I wrote.
January 28th, 2006 at 11:15 am
I’m not actually interested in the Bad Behaviour Blackhole list, the main reason I use the plugin is to check against various RBL/DNSBL servers.
February 1st, 2006 at 12:43 pm
You probably should have contacted me with your issues regarding this licensing scheme.
As for the reasons why I chose not to license SK2 under the GPL, they are listed on SK2’s page (along with a clear statement regarding licensing). To be honest, I could probably find another OSS license that satisfies me, I just do not think it is worth my time (and to some extent: my legal competence) at the moment, and given the relatively small size of SK2, I prefer to deal with any licensing or user request on a case-by-case basis (I have so far answered favourably to all such requests).
Now, as for the implied notion that I would be violating WP’s own GPL license. This is 100% inaccurate and indicates only a very loose understanding of both copyright laws and GPL terms.
SK2 is a plugin for WP, that does not incorporate or even bind in any way any amount of WP code. As such, it certainly does not fall under the WP license. As far as I know, Matt (WP’s lead developer) is wholly aware of SK2’s licensing status and has never expressed any reservation during our many conversations.
Now regarding your use of SK2: if you feel that you do not want to be running any non-GPL software on your server, this is a choice you are entirely entitled to, of course. But if it is your opinion that software should always be unequivocally free (as in OSS-free), I sure hope you are donating to Michael and other people whose OSS software you use.
Anyway, good luck and good blogging!
February 1st, 2006 at 1:20 pm
I re-read the GPL and I’ve discovered that, as you said, I made a mistake - it DOESN’T actually forbid using non-GPL libraries/plugins etc. in GPL software, the ‘viral clause’ actually only applies when you are distributing a modified version of the GPL software, which by using SK2 I’m clearly not. In fact, I’ll put a correction on the article itself and write a new correction article - this could have caused confusion to other people reading the article.
February 1st, 2006 at 1:33 pm
CORRECTION: Spam Karma 2 is no more…
I have discovered a mistake in the post ‘Spam Karma 2 is no more‘ - my intrepretation of the ‘viral clause’ in the GPL (which requires that all derivative works be licensed under the GPL) was incorrect - I thought it meant that …