6 Comments


  1. Ah, on reading that post again I understand what you meant. The text on WordPress.org is creative commons licensed, and the code in WordPress core is GPL licensed. The way you wrote it implied that text can never be GPL licensed.


  2. Ryan: It’s best to use the right license for the right purpose. The GPL is designed to be a license for code. It doesn’t make sense when interpreted for something like textual content, or images, or other types of creative works. For those, a different license might be more appropriate.

    Not that you can’t apply any license to any work, it’s just unclear as to intent in some cases. CC license are great for text/images/etc. They don’t make much sense for code though. A more code-specific license applies better in those cases.


  3. Otto got what I meant. It’s not that code can’t be CC, or that text can’t, but you’re not getting any benefit from having text be GPL.

    Basically I got a dummy telling me ‘You put your ebook out in CC! That’s against GPL! You can’t do that!’ and, frankly, that’s poppycock. If there’d been any code, I would have specified that the code was GPL2 or later. As there was no code, the text was CC. IIRC, so is the codex and WordPress.com (I asked Matt in passing once).


  4. @Otto – Yup, got that. I just thought Jeff was saying text couldn’t be licensed under the GPL.


Comments are closed.