Yes, it’s very good news for users to download the plugins from WooCommerce, modify them, redistribute them and make a handsome amount of money. Now the questions arises,
Are these plugins copyright free?
Yes, all of WooCommerce’s plugins are free to redistribute and are covered by the GPL (General Public License). When a product is licensed under the GPL, the user has the freedom to sell it again without a licensing key, and the product is considered to be copyright-free. To ensure that a program remains free software for all of its users, the GNU General Public License is designed to guarantee your freedom to share and modify all versions of a program.
The work or any derivative version may be modified, copied, or redistributed by any licensee who complies with the terms and conditions.
What is GPU, how is it applied to products?
Open Source Software may be copied, modified, and redistributed under the provisions of the GNU General Public License, sometimes known as the GNU GPL or just the GPL. Richard Stallman developed the GPL to prevent the commercialization of GNU software.
Stallman wanted to create a license that could be applied to any project, allowing many projects to share code. When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price.
Our General Public Licenses are made to ensure that you are free to distribute copies of free software (and charge for them, if you so want), that you receive source code or can obtain it if you so desire, and that you are able to modify it.
VERSION 1
According to GPLv1, updated versions must be released in their entirety in accordance with GPLv1. Because the restrictions under which the combined work might be released would not change, software distributed under the provisions of GPLv1 could be coupled with software distributed under more lenient terms. Software released by the GPLv1 could not be integrated with software released under a more stringent license, as this would violate the condition that the entire work be released under the GPLv1 license.
VERSION 2
Richard Stallman claims that the “Liberty or Death” clause, or Section 7, was the primary modification in the GPLv2 license. According to the provision, regardless of any other legal duties they might have, licensees may only distribute a GPL-covered work if they can fulfill all of the license’s requirements. In other words, the licensee’s duties cannot be separated because they contradict with other commitments. This clause is meant to deter any party from trying to restrict users’ freedom under the license through a lawsuit or a claim of patent infringement.
When version 2 of the C library was released in 1990, it was becoming clear that a less restrictive license would be strategically advantageous for the C library and for software libraries that essentially performed the same functions as current proprietary ones.
VERSION 3
The FSF officially issued the GPLv3 on June 29, 2007. Richard Stallman drafted the GPLv3 with legal advice from the Software Freedom Law Center’s Eben Moglen and Richard Fontana.
The most significant changes, in Stallman’s opinion, concerned the meaning of “source code,” software patents, compatibility with free software licenses, and hardware constraints on program modifications, such as tivoization. Additional adjustments to internationalization, how licensing violations are addressed, and how the copyright owners may issue more licenses. The phrase “software propagation” was used deliberately to refer to the copying and replication of software.
Only GPLv2 software that had the optional “or later” clause could be coupled with and share code with GPLv3 software.
Terms and Conditions of GPL:
Anyone receiving a copy of a work with a GPL applied to it (“the licensee”) must be made aware of the GPL’s terms and conditions. The work or any derivative version may be modified, copied, or redistributed by any licensee who complies with the terms and conditions. The licensee is permitted to offer this service either for free or for a fee. The GPL differs from software licenses that forbid commercial redistribution due to the latter point. The GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price, and the FSF contends that free software shouldn’t prohibit commercial use.
A distributor is also prohibited from placing “further restrictions” under the GPL.A distributor may not impose “further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL,” according to the GPL. This prohibits actions like distributing the software while bound by a contract or non-disclosure agreement.
Programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries must be accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code through the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary, or a written offer to obtain the source code that the user received when they received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL, according to the fourth and seventh sections of the license for versions 2 and 3, respectively. Giving “all recipients a copy of this License along with the Program” is a requirement in both the second and fifth sections of versions 2 and 3, respectively. The seventh section of the license can be fulfilled by making the source code available in additional ways, according to version 3 of the license.
These include downloading the source code from a server on the same network as you or sending it over a peer-to-peer network, provided that the source code is available and that there are “clear directions” on where to find it.
The GPL expressly states that GPL software may be sold at any price, and the FSF holds that the commercial use of free software should not be restricted.
Except for programs that are a part of the GNU project, the FSF does not hold the copyright for a work released under the GPL unless an author explicitly assigns copyrights to the FSF. When a license violation is suspected, only the individual copyright holders have the legal right to file a lawsuit.
Why don’t you use the GPL for manuals?
It is possible to use the GPL for a manual, but the GNU Free Documentation License (GFDL) is much better for manuals.
The GPL was created with programs in mind; it has many intricate clauses that are necessary for them but would be overly complicated and unnecessary for a book or manual. For example, anyone printing the book on paper would need to either send a written promise to send the “source code” later or include machine-readable “source code” of the book with each printed copy.
While this is going on, the GFDL has provisions that enable publishers of free manuals to make money from copy sales, such as cover texts. The GFDL can be used as an official standard thanks to the unique rules for Endorsements sections. This would allow for modified versions, but they could not be referred to as “the standard”.
We allow modifications to a manual’s text that addresses its technical subject using the GFDL. The technical components must be able to be changed because when a program is modified, the documentation must also be updated. This freedom to act in this way is necessary for morality. Additionally, our manuals contain sections outlining our stance on the use of free software. These are designated as “invariant” so they cannot be altered or eliminated. The “invariant sections” are covered by the GFDL.