Opened 7 weeks ago
Last modified 7 weeks ago
#8135 new defect (bug)
Non-GPL and incorrectly licensed/non-attributed images in themes/plugins
| Reported by: |
|
Owned by: | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Milestone: | Priority: | normal | |
| Component: | Plugin Directory | Keywords: | |
| Cc: |
Description
states that:
All code, data, and images — anything stored in the plugin directory hosted on WordPress.org — must comply with the GPL or a GPL-Compatible license. Included third-party libraries, code, images, or otherwise, must be compatible.
Unfortunately, it seems that over time enforcement of it for images was neglected (possibly bc https://wordpress.org/about/license/ links to https://www.drupal.org/about/licensing#non-code-assets which says that images don't have to be GPL, which is correct for GPL in general, but not for the WP plugin repository)
There are 1000s of plugins with that issue, but let's look at a single one e.g. https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce/trunk/assets/images contains many for example https://plugins.trac.wordpress.org/browser/woocommerce/trunk/assets/images/paypal.png
which is not licensed under a GPL-compatible license.
In fact, it seems that there very few plugins that correctly attribute/license images at all.
Conversely, an example that does it well is WP's default theme:
https://github.com/WordPress/wordpress-develop/blob/trunk/src/wp-content/themes/twentytwentyfive/readme.txt#L58
Honestly, since it's essentially impossible to get GPL compatible images in many cases, I was about to propose to drop this GPL requirement for images - until I came across the reason, why it was added initially by Matt:
https://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/
Even though graphics and CSS aren’t required to be GPL legally, the lack thereof is pretty limiting. Can you imagine WordPress without any CSS or javascript? So as before, we will only promote and host things on WordPress.org that are 100% GPL or compatible
Additionally, given the fact, that all plugins contain a license.txt and a readme.txt which prominently states "License:" (and not just the entry-point .php file that contains "License:"), I'd argue this isn't something that applies only to plugins hosted in the plugin directory, but all themes/plugins that use this "schema". This is because for the "consumer" (me included, I always thought bc of that License: specified all plugin content is bound by that license) it does create the appearance that the whole work and it's contents are licensed under the specified "License:"
I wanted to document this situation and the reasoning behind it as I understand it. I'm sure this will generate a lot of discussion, and I'm interested to hear different perspectives on how this should be handled going forward
Change History (4)
#2
@
7 weeks ago
Why would you assume that the PayPal logo image that you gave in your example is not freely available
I just took one image randomly, googled it, couldn't find a license anywhere and only found
Use of the PayPal Logo is governed by the PayPal User Agreement.
which isn't GPL compatible.
Usually, logos are freely available
Yes, but they aren't GPL licensed - in fact it generally is a revocable license too.
In fact, the very reason I ended up reading up on licensing is exactly this: I was made aware of a plugin having their rights of use for a logo, of a service that the plugin was developed for, terminated.
Phrasing it generically "Plugin to send emails using ABC" was contacted by "ABC" and had their rights of use for the logo of "ABC" terminated.
#3
@
7 weeks ago
Please, could you explain what exactly about that license agreement is not compatible?
Try to be specific, because I read through it and I can't see anything that's directly violating it. Mostly it talks about trademarks, not copyright or licensing.
#4
@
7 weeks ago
I really don't want to pin this down to Paypal, since this was just 1 example in many.
Neither, do I want to argue in favor of or against it, since it's WordPress that came up with this additional requirement and way to specify the license and if it were up to me, I'd probably think about making this more lenient and adjust or add an additional "Image Licenses:" header or something to the readme
Anyways, here we go:
https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/paypal/devterms-full
Use of the PayPal Logo is governed by the PayPal User Agreement.
I just chose 2 GPL incompatible things I saw at first glance:
5.1 PayPal may terminate this Agreement at any time upon advance notice based on its reasonable discretion.
Then looking at:
https://www.paypal.com/us/legalhub/paypal/useragreement-full
It applies to U.S. PayPal accounts only. If you are an individual, you must be a resident of the United States or one of its territories and at least 18 years old, or the age of majority in your state of residence to open a U.S. PayPal account and use the PayPal services. If you are a business, the business must be organized in, operating in, or a resident of, the United States or one of its territories to open a U.S. PayPal account and use the PayPal services.
Well, what if you're not in the US? Most likely there's an agreement for your country too. But what if you're in a country where Paypal does not/must not (US restrictions?) operate - you cannot fork and distribute whatever plugin contains that logo, bc you do not have the permission to do so, which isn't GPL compatible.
(at least GPLv2 would have allowed for geographical restrictions, but GPLv3, used by WooCommerce, had that explicitly removed)
Why would you assume that the PayPal logo image that you gave in your example is not freely available or GPL compatible?
It's most definitely a trademarked image, however that doesn't speak to licensing at all. Trademark and copyright are two entirely different things.
Usually, logos are freely available and those images are not hard copyrighted because they want the logo to be used in those situations. The logos can be trademarked, but copyright is a very different thing.