When the US Congress last year voted overwhelmingly to cut off federal funding of ACORN, one may have believed that Congress was exercising its constitutional authority to legislate the appropriation of government funds. According to activist liberal District Judge Nina Gershon, one would be wrong.

ACORN sued the US Government, claiming that the de-funding legislation constituted a bill of attainder, the issuance of which, per Article I Section 9 of the US Constitution, Congress is expressly prohibited. Unsurprisingly, Judge Gershon agreed, and in December issued a temporary injunction against the congressional ACORN funding ban. Yesterday, she made that injunction permanent.

Historical and Constitutional Context

First, some background on bills of attainder. Here is the general definition:

attainder n. The loss of all civil rights by a person sentenced for a serious crime. [< OFr. attaindre, to convict]

TechLawJournal goes into more detail:

“The Bill of Attainder Clause was intended not as a narrow, technical (and therefore soon to be outmoded) prohibition, but rather as an implementation of the separation of powers, a general safeguard against legislative exercise of the judicial function or more simply – trial by legislature.”  U.S. v. Brown, 381 U.S. 437, 440 (1965).

“These clauses of the Constitution are not of the broad, general nature of the Due Process Clause, but refer to rather precise legal terms which had a meaning under English law at the time the Constitution was adopted.  A bill of attainder was a legislative act that singled out one or more persons and imposed punishment on them, without benefit of trial.  Such actions were regarded as odious by the framers of the Constitution because it was the traditional role of a court, judging an individual case, to impose punishment.”  William H. Rehnquist, The Supreme Court, page 166.

Bills of Attainder and The Supreme Court

The Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS) has construed several cases as representing bills of attainder.

• In Ex Parte Garland (1866), SCOTUS held that a law that prohibited Civil War opponents from holding public office constituted a bill of attainder.
• In Cummings v. Missouri (1866), SCOTUS held that the amendment of the Missouri Constitution to require an Oath of Loyalty constituted an ex post facto law that prohibited the plaintiff from practicing his profession, and constituted a bill of attainder as punishment without trial.
• In US. v. Lovett (1946), SCOTUS held that the withholding of appropriation of salaries of government workers because of their involvement with the Communist party constituted a bill of attainder. Interestingly, the concurring opinion, which concludes that the section in question is not a bill of attainder, discusses the historical meaning and context of bills of attainder, and includes this statement:
  

  “There was always a declaration of guilt either of the individual or the class to which he belonged.”

  And again:

  “But if it is not an ex post facto law, the reasons that establish that it is not are persuasive that it cannot be a bill of attainder. No offense is specified and no declaration of guilt is made.”

  And finally:

  When the framers of the Constitution proscribed bills of attainder, they referred to a form of law which had been prevalent in monarchial England and was employed in the colonies. They were familiar with its nature; they had experienced its use; they knew what they wanted to prevent. It was not a law unfair in general, even unfair because affecting merely particular individuals, that they outlawed by the explicitness of their prohibition of bills of attainder.

  (I quote extensively from Lovett, as it is largely upon this decision that Judge Garshon bases her opinion.)

• In US v. Brown (1965), SCOTUS held that a law that prohibited members of the Communist party from holding office in labor unions constituted a bill of attainder. In issuing his decision, Chief Justice Warren included several other historical examples of bills of attainder, including capital punishment, confiscation of property, corruption of blood (confiscation of one’s estate such that it cannot be passed on through inheritance), banishment, disenfranchisement, and exclusion from holding public office. Warren also expressed that the historical context of the Bill of Attainder clause was intended to enforce the separation of powers and to prevent tyranny by preventing trial by legislature and punishment without trial.
• In Nixon v. Administrator of General Services (1977), SCOTUS held that a law requiring former president Richard Nixon to preserve certain presidential papers and effects did not constitute a bill of attainder, finding that:
  

  While the Bill of Attainder Clause serves as an important bulwark against tyranny, it does not do so by limiting Congress to the choice of legislating for the universe, or legislating only benefits, or not legislating at all.

  Further that:

  The Act’s specificity in referring to appellant by name does not automatically offend the Bill of Attainder Clause.

  (These providing useful limits on the constitutional scope of the Bill of Attainder clause.)

• In Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG (1984), SCOTUS held that a law requiring proof of registration with Selective Service in order to be eligible for federal student aid did not constitute a bill of attainder. An important finding:
  

  Section 12(f) does not inflict punishment within the meaning of the Bill of Attainder Clause. It imposes none of the burdens historically associated with punishment. It does not even deprive appellees of Title IV benefits permanently, since it leaves open perpetually the possibility of qualifying for aid.

  Note that this finding includes limiting the scope of attainder to “the burdens historically associated with punishment”.

Summary of SCOTUS Definition and Scope of the Bill of Attainder Clause

Thus, one can readily understand the five-pronged test applied to determine applicability of the Bill of Attainder clause:

1. A legislative act of Congress (or of a State)
2. Specifying a readily identifiable individual or group
3. Declaring the guilt of the person or group regarding a specific offense
4. Enacting an attainder – or punishment – against the person or group specified
5. For which that person or group has not been convicted in a judicial trial

To offend the Bill of Attainder clause, a law must declare the guilt of a person or group regarding  a specific offense, and must then enact an attainder in response to that guilt. As is demonstrated in the above-referenced SCOTUS decisions, the concept of “attainder” consists of “the burdens historically associated with punishment” – those burdens being generally the deprivation of life, liberty, or property; corruption of blood; disenfranchisement; prohibition from holding public office; or prohibition from earning a living by practicing one’s profession.

Further, SCOTUS holds that the mere act of calling out a specific person or group does not offend the Bill of Attainder clause.

These points are crucial to understanding the constitutionality (or lack thereof) of Judge Gershon’s ruling.

The ACORN Ruling

Returning to the ACORN ruling, the crux of the plaintiffs’ argument can be found on page 9:

Plaintiffs acknowledge that HUD, pursuant to the OLC memorandum, has paid, or has agreed to pay, for work already performed under existing contracts. They contend that congressional suspension of existing contracts and the denial of the opportunity to obtain future contracts amounts to punishment that violates the Bill of Attainder clause.

Gershon quotes from Nixon v. Administrator of General Services to define a bill of attainder as:

…a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial.

She then explains the three-pronged test to determine if a statute “directed at a named or readily identifiable party” is punitive:

[F]irst, “whether the challenged statute falls within the historical meaning of legislative punishment”; second, “whether the statute, viewed in terms of the type and severity of burdens imposed, reasonably can be said to further non-punitive legislative purposes,” an inquiry sometimes referred to as the “functional test”; and third, “whether the legislative record evinces a legislative intent to punish.”

Of course, in quoting these criteria from Consolidated Edison Company of NY, Inc. v. Pataki, (Con. Ed.) she gives herself an out. Further quoting:

A statute “need not fit all three factors to be considered a bill of attainder, rather, those factors are the evidence that is weighed together in resolving a bill of attainder claim.”

(Notice that Gershon quotes not from SCOTUS – from which ample clarification of the definition and scope of the Bill of Attainder clause have come – but rather from a Second Circuit Court of Appeals decision.)

Historical Meaning of Legislative Punishment

Having laid the groundwork, Gershon then proceeds to explain how the ACORN defunding constitutes a bill of attainder. To do so, she quotes liberally from Lovett, in an attempt to conflate the denial of duly earned salary of a government employee to the prohibition of issuing federal contracts to ACORN.

The first problem with this conflation is that, in Lovett, the plaintiffs were duly employed government workers, and the law in question effectively fired them against the wishes of their employing agencies. On the other hand, ACORN is simply a government contractor: an agency attempting to procure government grants and contracts. Thus, the government-employee plaintiffs in Lovett had a reasonable expectation not to remain employed – even a right not to be fired without cause, while ACORN has no reasonable expectation of being granted future government grants or contracts – much less a right to the same.

Gershon attempts to avoid this obvious distinction by invoking a future opportunity claim:

The government attempts to distinguish Lovett on the ground that the plaintiffs in that case had a “vested property interest” in their jobs, whereas here, as plaintiffs unequivocally acknowledge, the have no right to the award of a grant or contract from the federal government. but the Court in Lovett did not base its decision on property rights analysis. The Supreme Court found a deprivation amounting to punishment under the Bill of Attainder clause, not only because plaintiffs were derived of their earned income from existing government jobs, but also because they were deprived of any future opportunity to serve the government. As the Court stated, “[t]his permanent proscription from any opportunity to serve the Government is punishment, and of a most severe type.” Id That plaintiffs had no right to any particular job was of no moment.

Gershon’s reasoning here is faulty. The government employees in Lovett were clearly “serving the government” in their employment. ACORN clearly was not. If anything, the government was providing a benefit to ACORN, through the awarding of grants and contracts.  Further, the government work in which the Lovett plaintiffs were employed constitutes a chosen vocation, from which the statute in question effectively barred the plaintiffs. The ACORN defunding in no way can be construed to have, effectively or otherwise, barred ACORN from its chosen vocation – that vocation ostensibly being voter advocacy, and low-income housing and mortgage counseling.

Gershon then attempts to explain how Selective Service Administration v. Minnesota PIRG is not applicable:

Further, unlike the plaintiffs affected by the statute at issue in Selective Service, plaintiffs here cannot avoid the restrictions imposed upon them. Nothing in the challenged provisions affords plaintiffs an opportunity to overcome the ban.

Again, Gershon’s reasoning is faulty. The federal funding ban imposed upon ACORN does not prevent ACORN from engaging in its chosen vocation. ACORN still retains the same rights of every other business in the country, to secure funding or to solicit funds through any other means in the private sector. The inherent implication in Gershon’s argument here is that ACORN has a right to government funding. To wit, Gershon then quotes from Nixon and makes the following assertion:

“[I]t has been held permissible for Congress to deprive Communist deportees, as a group, of their social security benefits, but it would surely be a bill of attainder for Congress to deprive a single, named individual of the same benefit…The very specificity would mark it as a punishment, for there is rarely any valid reason for such narrow legislation[.]”

Accordingly, a close reading of the cases indicates that a deprivation of the opportunity to apply for funding in fact fits comfortably within the definition of “punishment” for bill of attainder purposes.

Quite to the contrary, the referenced cases are quite explicit regarding the scope of a “punishment” for bill of attainder purposes. That scope includes deprivation of life, property, or liberty (for example, to pursue a chosen vocation, to vote, to hold public office). Deprivation of the opportunity to apply for public funding in no way resembles the clear scope of a bill of attainder punishment as determined by SCOTUS.

If anything, deprivation of the opportunity to apply for public funding as a claim not against the Bill of Attainder clause, but rather the Due Process clause. However, the plaintiffs have not raised a Due Process claim. In fact, as quoted from Lovett (upon which Gershon relies heavily in her decision) above, the Bill of Attainder clause specifically excludes the sort of general, broad matters encompassed in the Due Process clause [emphasis added]:

When the framers of the Constitution proscribed bills of attainder, they referred to a form of law which had been prevalent in monarchial England and was employed in the colonies. They were familiar with its nature; they had experienced its use; they knew what they wanted to prevent. It was not a law unfair in general, even unfair because affecting merely particular individuals, that they outlawed by the explicitness of their prohibition of bills of attainder.

Thus, plaintiffs may argue that deprivation of the opportunity to apply for public funding is unfair, and a violation of Due Process and/or Equal Protection – but that deprivation is clearly and explicitly not a legislative punishment as evinced by the Bill of Attainder clause.

Functional Test and Legislative History

Next, Gershon moves on to explaining why the statute is punitive. I see no need to discuss either the functional test or the legislative history, as without a justifiable bill of attainder punishment, the question of the punitive nature of the statute is irrelevant. Without a legislative punishment, the statute by definition cannot be punitive.

Failing the Bill of Attainder Test

The ACORN defunding ban fails the Bill of Attainder test on two counts:

1. Declaring the guilt of the person or group regarding a specific offense
2. Enacting an attainder – or punishment – against the person or group specified

The matter of legislative punishment has been discussed already. However, Gershon’s decision doesn’t even address that the statute in question neither names an offense committed by ACORN nor declares ACORN’ guilt with respect to such offense. The historical and constitutional context of the Bill of Attainder clause is quite clear that declaration of guilt of a specified offense is required for a statute to be considered to be a bill of attainder. Recall the statement from the concurring opinion in Lovett, upon which Gershon relies heavily in her opinion:

“There was always a declaration of guilt either of the individual or the class to which he belonged.”

This point is quite clear – and that the ACORN statute fails to meet this criterion is equally clear. Had the government, as a result of the ACORN statute, not fulfilled its current contractual obligations to ACORN, then plaintiffs would have had an ex post facto argument; however, as Gershon explains at the beginning of her decision, the government has agreed to fulfill all contractual obligations, and ACORN is not pursuing an ex post facto argument.

Over-Stepping Separation of Power

Having ruled in favor of ACORN, Gershon then issues her ruling, which essentially permanently enjoins all listed plaintiffs (HUD, OMB, Treasury, Commerce, DOD, and EPA) against enforcing (or instructing their subordinates to enforce) the ACORN statute. As a reminder, this statute reads:

None of the funds available by this joint resolution or any prior Act may be provided to the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN), or any of its affiliates, subsidiaries, or allied organizations.

Essentially, as the order is written, if any of the listed government agencies denies any future grant or contract to ACORN, it can be accused of violating Judge Gershon’s order. In other words, Gershon has just granted ACORN a constitutional right to public funds.

Unfortunately for Judge Gershon, the Constitution grants the right of appropriation of public funds to the Legislature, not to the Judiciary.

BigGovernment.com explains further:

It’s noteworthy that in discussing the Bill of Attainder Clause of the Constitution, the district court failed to discuss at all the Appropriations Clause. That provision states that, “No money shall be drawn from the Treasury, but in consequence of appropriations made by law.” In other words, only Congress can dole out federal dollars.

The court fails to consider whether it has the authority to order the executive branch (the Treasury Department) to continue giving federal dollars to ACORN after the legislative branch (Congress) with sole possession of the power of the purse has specifically passed a law barring any such appropriation. This opinion doesn’t even raise the separation-of-powers issue of a court dictating federal spending.

By enjoining every government agency with any contact with ACORN against denying ACORN any public funds, Gershon has compelled the Legislature to appropriate funds against the expressed prerogative of the Legislature. Further, this ruling sets the precedent for any other government contractor for whom a contract (or grant) is cancelled, or not renewed, to petition the courts on a Bill of Attainder claim.

This ruling is a clear case of liberal judicial activism and malfeasance, and represents a frontal assault on the Constitution. Surely SCOTUS will vacate this decision and put Judge Gershon in her place – although, after such a decision, her place is off the federal bench entirely.

A recent RedState post detailed the valiant efforts of conservative students at Goshen College (Goshen, IN) to reverse the school’s decision to ban the National Anthem. Apparently, the President’s Council at the school deemed the lyrics of the song (“the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air“) to be incompatible with the school’s pacifist Mennonite beliefs.

Fortunately, the story has a happy ending, as the students, led by Sophomore Ryan Troyer, convinced the President’s Council to reconsider its stance. The school will now allow an instrumental version of the song to be played before sporting events. However, I take issue with the views expressed by the school’s president, Jim Brenneman. I believe Mr. Brenneman is in need of a history lesson.

The statement announcing the decision of the President’s Council to permit instrumental versions of the National Anthem includes the following statement:

One concern that many Mennonites have had with the playing of the national anthem has been that it places love for country above love for God. But, Brenneman said, “we believe playing the anthem in no way displaces any higher allegiances, including to the expansive understanding of Jesus – the ultimate peacemaker – loving all people of the world.”

As I will demonstrate, the concern that the playing of the national anthem “places love for country above love for God” belies an ignorance of both the historical context and the religious connotation in the content of the anthem.

Regarding the lyrics of The Star Spangled Banner, I remind Mr. Brenneman of the backstory of the poem that would become our National Anthem:

Meanwhile, Britain’s naval force, buoyed by its earlier successful attack on Alexandria, Virginia, was poised to strike Fort McHenry and enter Baltimore Harbor.  At 6:30 AM on September 13, 1814, Admiral Cochrane’s ships began a 25-hour bombardment of the fort. Rockets whistled through the air and burst into flame wherever they struck. Mortars fired 10- and 13-inch bombshells that exploded overhead in showers of fiery shrapnel.  Major Armistead, commander of Fort McHenry and its defending force of one thousand troops, ordered his men to return fire, but their guns couldn’t reach the enemy’s ships. When British ships advanced on the afternoon of the 13th, however, American gunners badly damaged them, forcing them to pull back out of range. All through the night, Armistead’s men continued to hold the fort, refusing to surrender. That night British attempts at a diversionary attack also failed, and by dawn they had given up hope of taking the city.  At 7:30 on the morning of September 14, Admiral Cochrane called an end to the bombardment, and the British fleet withdrew. The successful defense of Baltimore marked a turning point in the War of 1812. Three months later, on December 24, 1814, the Treaty of Ghent formally ended the war.

The Star-Spangled Banner: the flag that flew over Ft. McHenry the morning after the Brittish bombardment during the War of 1812, inspiring Francis Scott Key to write the poem that would become our national Anthem

Because the British attack had coincided with a heavy rainstorm, Fort McHenry had flown its smaller storm flag throughout the battle. But at dawn, as the British began to retreat, Major Armistead ordered his men to lower the storm flag and replace it with the great garrison flag. As they raised the flag, the troops fired their guns and played “Yankee Doodle” in celebration of their victory. Waving proudly over the fort, the banner could be seen for miles around—as far away as a ship anchored eight miles down the river, where an American lawyer named Francis Scott Key had spent an anxious night watching and hoping for a sign that the city—and the nation—might be saved.

…

Friends of Dr. Beanes asked Georgetown lawyer Francis Scott Key to join John S. Skinner, the U.S. government’s agent for dealing with British forces in the Chesapeake, and help secure the release of the civilian prisoner.  They were successful; however, the British feared that Key and Skinner would divulge their plans for attacking Baltimore, and so they detained the two men aboard a truce ship for the duration of the battle. Key thus became an eyewitness to the bombardment of Fort McHenry.

This flag – the Stars and Stripes, the Star-Spangled Banner – whose against-all-odds presence inspired Francis Scott key that fateful morning, represented the triumph of freedom over the forces of war. See the third verse:

And where is that band who so vauntingly swore
That the havoc of war and the battle’s confusion,
A home and a country should leave us no more!
Their blood has washed out their foul footsteps’ pollution.
No refuge could save the hireling and slave
From the terror of flight, or the gloom of the grave:
And the star-spangled banner in triumph doth wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave.

Thus, in its mention of “the rocket’s red glare, the bombs bursting in air,” the poem is not romanticizing the war, but rather celebrating the triumph of America – and the freedom our contry represents – against the onslaught of its attackers. Far from glorifying war, Key is praising God for defending “the land of the free and the home of the brave” with which He has blessed us. See the fourth verse:

O! thus be it ever, when freemen shall stand
Between their loved home and the war’s desolation!
Blest with victory and peace, may the heav’n rescued land
Praise the Power that hath made and preserved us a nation.
Then conquer we must, when our cause it is just,
And this be our motto: ‘In God is our trust.’
And the star-spangled banner in triumph shall wave
O’er the land of the free and the home of the brave!

In fact, it is from this poem in which are rooted not only our national anthem and the symbolism of Old Glory, but also our national motto: “In God We Trust.” Far from placing love of country before love of God, the song glorifies God as “the Power that hath made and preserved” our nation, and who has blessed our nation with victory and peace.

If history has proven anything, it has proven that peace requires constant vigilance and struggle against those who would oppress. In the words of Thomas Jefferson, “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants. It is its natural manure.” Even as peacemakers, war can be imposed upon us – and as reprehensible as we may find war to be, those who fight on our behalf do so with a just cause.

The Goshen statement further reads:

In addition, the national anthem is one way that is commonly understood to express an allegiance to the nation of one’s citizenship. The college has shown that in the past in other ways: flying a flag on campus, praying for all men and women serving our country, welcoming military veterans as students and employees, annually celebrating the U.S. Constitution and encouraging voting.

It is counter-productive to pray for all men and women serving our country, while at the same time decrying any and all reference to the means they must emply to protect our country and our freedoms – including our freedom to worship God and to live as peacemakers.

Further, I have problem with this statement [emphasis added]:

Finally, the decision was made with the belief that “playing the anthem opens up new possibilities for members of the Goshen College community to publicly offer prophetic critique – if need be – as citizens in the loyal opposition on issues of deepest moral conviction, such as war, racism and human rights abuses,” according to the statement by the President’s Council announcing their decision.

While the intrinsic tie between the national anthem and war is understood, what, pray tell, does the national anthem have anything to do with racism and human rights abuses? What opportunity does the playing of the national anthem provide for prophetic critique in loyal opposition to racism and human rights abuses? This statement implies that the national anthem represents such matters – an implication that I find to be abhorrent.

The national anthem represents the best of America: a nation founded on the principle that our rights derive from our Creator, and that all men are created equal, and have equal right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. More American blood has been shed protecting and defending those rights – not only of Americans, but of all people the world over – than that of any other nation in history.

In closing, Mr. Brenneman, I applaud both your willingness to hold open dialogue on the matter of the playing of the national anthem, and your willingness to reconsider your stance. I urge you, however, to temper similar decisions in the future with the sober remembrance of the unique blessing of God that is our great nation, as well as the great sacrifices of our forefathers that have given us the freedoms we exercise – and often take for granted – today.

Often, proponents of nationalized health care will cite statistics indicating that the US lags with respect to life expectancy as compared with other industrialized nations that have some form of nationalized health care. Such comparisons are largely meaningless; life expectancy is not a meaningful metric of the quality of health care in a given country. As this white paper points out, in order to provide meaningful statistical analysis, a given metric must meet three criteria:

Any statistic that accurately measures health-care systems across nations must satisfy three criteria.  First, the statistic must assume actual interaction with the health care system.  Second, it must measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect.  Finally, the statistic must be collected consistently across nations.

To summarize, a meaningful statistic must:

1. Assume actual interaction with the health care system
2. Measure a phenomenon that the health care system can actually affect
3. Be collected consistently across nations

Life expectancy statistics do not satisfy this three-pronged requirement; in fact, it fails at least two out of three.

Assume Actual Interaction With the Health Care System

Life expectancy cannot be assumed to have actual interaction with the health care system.

Consider the 15 leading causes of death in the US (note: the order changes slightly from year-to-year, especially after the top 5 or so; however, the composition remains essentially the same):

1. Heart Disease
2. Cancer
3. Stroke
4. Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease
5. Accidents
6. Diabetes
7. Alzheimer’s Disease
8. Influenza/Pneumonia
9. Kidney Disease
10. Septicemia
11. Suicide
12. Chronic Liver Disease/Cirrhosis
13. Hypertension
14. Parkinson’s Disease
15. Homicide

Note that Accidents (including motor vehicle accidents), Suicide, and Homicide cannot be assumed to have actual interaction with the health care system (with suicide being a possible exception). In fact, when adjusting for such non-health-related fatal injuries, the US ranks #1 in the world in Life Expectancy – indicating that, for those causes of death that can be assumed to have actual interaction with the health care system, the US health care system is the best in the world.

Measure a Phenomenon that the Health Care System Can Actually Affect

Given the leading causes of death, life expectancy does not measure phenomena that the US health care system can actually affect.

Consider the three leading causes of death: Heart Disease (30%), Cancer (23%), and Stroke (7%) cause 60% of all deaths in the US. These diseases are almost entirely caused by behavioral/lifestyle choices (diet, exercise, smoking, etc.). Including Chronic Lower Respiratory Disease (4%), which is caused almost entirely by smoking, and Diabetes (3%), which is caused almost entirely by diet, and fully 2/3 of all deaths in the US are caused by lifestyle and behavior choices over which the US health care system has no control or impact. Also including accidents (5%), the US health care system has no control over or impact on more than 70% of all deaths in the US.

And what impact do these behavioral/lifestyle choices have on life expectancy? According to one study, the listed criteria have the following (negative) impact on life expectancy:

1. Smoking, Hypertension, High Cholesterol: 10 years
2. Smoking: 6.3 years
3. Employment Grade: 5.4 years
4. Diabetes: 3.6 years
5. Cholesterol: 1.9 years

Other studies have concluded that eradicating cancer deaths would increase life expectancy by 2.7 years, and eradicating risks from heart disease, stroke, and diabetes would increase life expectancy by 14 years.

Efficacy of US Health Care System: Cancer Survival

Further, to the extent that the US health care system may impact the leading causes of death, the US health care system proves its efficacy. Consider cancer: the US dominates Europe with respect to 5-year survival rates for overall cancer, as well as for specific cancers:

And apparently, the Europeans didn’t include cancers discovered only upon death – which further skews the disparity. Clearly, to the extent that the health care system has an impact on diagnosis and treatment of cancer, the US health care system far surpasses the health care systems in Europe – and Canada, too, for that matter.

Recall, the argument in question here is whether or not life expectancy is a meaningful measurement of quality of health care. To preempt some arguments:

1. It is a matter of efficacy, not of efficiency; thus, health care spending per capita or as a percentage of GDP is irrelevant. The point is that the US health care system is more efficacious with respect to diagnosis and treatment of cancer – a result that provides one argument to refute the assertion that life expectancy is a valid metric of quality of health care.
2. Presumably, some of that increased spending in the US health care system goes to earlier and more frequent testing, which leads to commensurately earlier and more frequent diagnosis. Thus, the argument that the increased efficacy merely represents increased diagnosis rather than a quantifiable difference in quality of health care is tautological; as an argument, it is specious. With respect to cancer, timing of diagnosis is critical to successful treatment.

Meaningful Metrics of Life Expectancy

As has already been demonstrated, behavioral/lifestyle choices such as diet, exercise, and smoking are the primary contributors to the leading causes of death in the US. Other studies show a correlation between life expectancy and sanitation, clean water, income, and literacy rate. The CDC indicates that improvement in life expectancy in the 20th century can be partially attributed to vaccination, motor vehicle safety, safer workplaces, control of infectious diseases, decline in CHD deaths, safer/healthier foods, healthier mothers/pre-natal care, family planning, fluoridation of drinking water, reduction of tobacco. Yet other studies have identified marriage, religious involvement, optimism, and cleaner air as having positive impact on life expectancy.

Conclusion

Life expectancy is not a meaningful metric of quality of health care.

The health care system cannot be assumed to have an actual interaction with several of the leading causes of death in the US. More than 70% of the deaths in the US result from causes stemming from behavioral and lifestyle choices over which the health care system has no control or impact. For those causes of death upon which the health care system has some impact, the US health care system proves to be far more efficacious than the nationalized health care systems with which it is compared.

As my mother has always said: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it – especially when the “fix” is government-controlled health care.

Reilly Anzovino

Recently, an 18-year-old Canadian girl died in an ambulance en-route to the hospital, due to injuries suffered in a car accident.

The ambulance ride apparently took approximately 30 minutes to reach the Welland hospital, during which time the ambulance was rumored to have run out of oxygen. Ms. Anzovino, desparately in need of a blood transfusion, died shortly before arrival, due to internal bleeding.

Distance of three hospitals from the site of Reilly Anzovino's fatal car accident (click for larger image)

Local authorities have opened an inquiry into the situation, because the girl died while en-route to the emergency room – an emergency room at a hospital two towns away, because the emergency rooms at the two nearest hospitals had been closed.

For reference, see the map to the right.

Local authorities are defending the decision to close the emergency departments at the two hospitals nearest the accident, even though they were warned in advance that just this type of occurrence would result from the decision. The Fort Erie hospital was closed in September 2009. A concerned, retired doctor ardently protested the decision, and months prior, in June 2009, gave the following warning [emphasis added]:

At this point it might be helpful to clarify the different categories of medical emergencies. Basically, an emergency is a threat to life or limb. There are ordinary everyday emergencies and then there are time-critical emergencies. Time-critical emergencies require rapid attention, else death is an imminent risk. Along with all other emergencies, the time-critical ones routinely came directly to the ER where they were promptly moved to the head of the line and dealt with, within minutes, without fanfare. Hence they were next to ‘invisible’ as a type. By downgrading and bypassing ERs, forcing these problems out onto the highway in an ambulance, the non-medical managers have ‘created’ a new and visible time-critical type of emergency. These new time-critical emergencies are really bureaucratic artifacts.

Specifically, people with gunshot wounds in vital areas, unconscious people with difficulty breathing, people in shock bleeding massively, people with drug overdoses, people in anaphylactic shock, people with head injuries, and many more (I cant list them all), are the ones that would ordinarily be those moved to the head of the ER line. If they cannot be put at the head of the line because they are on an ambulance that has bypassed the hospital and is out there somewhere on the highway on a trip to a place too far away, they may just die in that ambulance. And that is in spite of all the good intentions of fine paramedics, for there are still certain things that only a doctor at a hospital can do.

In a statement that perfectly epitomizes the potentially life-threatening bureaucracy of nationalized health care, in response to questioning regarding the impact of the emergency department closures on the death of Ms. Anzovino, the Minister of Health had this to say [emphasis added]:

We are building a health care system in Ontario where every person in Ontario has access to the very best possible care as close to home as possible. Having said that, the reality is that sometimes people will have to travel to another community to be able to access the highly specialized care that is part of today’s health care system. I think people understand that we cannot provide highly specialized care in every community hospital. When it comes to emergency care, it’s vitally important, absolutely essential, that people get to where that specialized care is available as quickly as possible.

And adding insult to inury, regarding the closing of the emergency departments at the two hospitals in question (one of which he promised in 2002 to keep open), the Minister also stated the following:

I am absolutely convinced that the people in Niagara have better quality health care now than they did before.

Tell that to the family of Reilly Anzovino.

Nevermind that the closures are causing a quantifiable delay in emergency care. According to this article, the ambulances, paramedics, and patients are delayed an average of eight hours daily, and hours of wait-time have increased from 130 to 240 hours per month at the Niagra Falls Hospital, due to the shortage of emergency departments in the months since the closures. And the closures were supposedly necessary due to budget shortages, despite a 42% spending increase on health care in the Niagra Region in the past six years.

Aside from the emergency department closures, the region has experienced increased emergency-room wait times, delay and cancellation of surgeries (including serious cancer surgeries), increased hospital-bed closures, and an above-average death rate.

And liberals in the U.S. still wonder why the vast majority of Americans oppose nationalized health care?

Special note: Anzovino’s parents have established a memorial scholarship for paramedic students, in their daughter’s name. Details here.

Custom category list with RSS feed links and post counts

In my sidebar, I have displayed lists of categories and tags, but wanted to have greater control over these lists than what is offered by the currently available template tags. Namely, I wanted to be able to display each category/tag with a link to the RSS feed on the left, and a post count on the right. So, based on a helpful blog post, my own meanderings in this WPTavern forum thread, and help from DD32 and mfields in this WPTavern forum thread, I have custom category and tag lists, complete with links to the RSS feeds and total post counts for each category and tag.

Here’s how:

Custom Category List

Add the following code to your sidebar, or into a widget:

<ul class=”leftcolcatlist”>
<?php
$catrssimg = “/images/rss.png”;
$catrssurl = get_bloginfo(‘template_directory’) . $catrssimg;
$customcatlist =”;
$customcats=  get_categories();
foreach($customcats as $customcat) {
$customcatlist = ‘<li><a title=”Subscribe to the ‘.$customcat->name.’ news feed” href=”‘.get_bloginfo(‘url’).’/category/’.$customcat->category_nicename.’/feed/”><img src=”‘.$catrssurl.’” alt=”feed” /></a><a href=”‘.get_bloginfo(‘url’).’/category/’.$customcat->category_nicename.’/”>’.$customcat->name.’</a> (‘.$customcat->count.’)</li>’;
echo $customcatlist;
}
?>
</ul>

Custom Tag List

Add the following code to your sidebar, or into a widget:

<ul class=”leftcolcatlist”>
<?php
$tagrssimg = “/images/rss.png”;
$tagrssurl = get_bloginfo(‘template_directory’) . $tagrssimg;
$customtaglist =”; $customtags =  get_tags();
foreach($customtags as $customtag) {
$customtaglist = ‘<li><a title=”Subscribe to the ‘.$customtag->name.’ feed” href=”‘.get_bloginfo(‘url’).’/tag/’.$customtag->slug.’/feed/”><img src=”‘.$tagrssurl.’” alt=”feed” /></a><a href=”‘.get_bloginfo(‘url’).’/tag/’.$customtag->slug.’/”>’.$customtag->name.’</a> (‘.$customtag->count.’)</li>’;
echo $customtaglist;
}
?>
</ul>

Modifications

You will need to modify $tagrssimg and $catrssimg depending on which RSS image you choose to use, and where you upload that image. If you use an image outside of your theme directory, you will also need to modify $tagrssurl and $catrssurl accordingly.

Yet To Come

Eventually, I will release a series (and/or collection) of widgets, including the above two custom lists.

The Free Software Philosophy

The philosophy behind the free software movement is noble and well-intentioned. Projects that have chosen to operate under this philosophy have been wildly successful and have produced outstanding products. In many ways, I enjoy the fruits of free-software projects. My laptop runs Kubuntu Linux. OpenOffice.org is my office suite of choice. Firefox is my default browser. WordPress is my blogging platform of choice. Rockbox is my MP3 player firmware.

Having benefitted so greatly from using free software products, I have even done what I am able to contribute to free software projects, from introducing others to the software, to writing tutorials, to attempting to help other users in support forums, and even trying my hand at contributing code in the form of plugins and themes.

One of the fundamental principles of free software philosophy is the right of users to form a community, to use, share, change, improve, and help others to use software. This philosophy states that users should be free to use, to study, to modify, and to redistribute both the original and modified copies of software.

Thus, the free software philosophy inherently encourages those who might not otherwise choose to do so, to get involved with the project. This involvement  from the users’ sense of altruism (for the good of others/the project), sense of belonging (to be part of the group/project), or sense gratitude (to give back to a project from which one has benefitted).

Unfortunately, I have seen those who espouse this free-software philosophy also exemplify stifling closed-mindedness and attitudes that actively drive would-be contributors away from, rather than bring them into, the project community. A few recent cases in the WordPress community belie close-mindedness, arrogance, condescension, and nepotistic hypocrisy – attitudes that are counter-productive to building free-software communities.

The Unforgivable Prodigal Son

In the first case, a WordPress plugin author was using some practices that are clearly unacceptable within the WordPress community. This plugin author was allowing users to download and install his plugins, but upon attempting to use the installed plugin, the plugin forced the user to register his email address with the plugin author, and was also forced to double-opt-in subscribe to the plugin author’s internet-marketing-focused email list – an email list that many users complained of being “spam”-like, due to its frequency and lack of focus on the users’ installed plugins from the author.

Clearly, these practices are outside the acceptable bounds for the WordPress community – and, especially, the wordpress.org plugin repository. Thus, the author’s plugins were removed from the repository.

However, after weeks of back-and-forth discussion with this plugin author, he decided that being a part of the WordPress community and having his plugins listed in the wordpress.org plugin repository was more important than forcing users to subscribe to his email list. He decided to modify his plugins to make the email-list subscription optional.

What was the response of the wordpress.org repository? Rather than welcome him with open arms, and celebrate that a “prodigal son” would embrace even a bit of the free-software philosophy, the response was instead, “Thanks, but no thanks.” This plugin author was told that, no matter what changes he made, his plugins would never again be accepted into the repository.

As one might expect, this response discouraged the plugin author to the point that he decided that pursuing making his plugins repository-acceptable not worth his time and effort. Further, he decided that he would no longer continue to develop free-cost plugins.

While I question the widespread usefulness of most of this author’s plugins, he did develop several very useful plugins. So, not only did the response from the WordPress project actively push a developer away from the WordPress community and away from free-software philosophy, but it also reduced the availability of plugins to end users of WordPress.

And what was the reaction of many in the WordPress community? In essence: good riddance; once a spammer, always a spammer.

This response assumes that the plugin author’s only intent was to be a “spammer” – that he was up to no good whatsoever. In reality, the plugin author’s intent – misguided and completely unacceptable as it was – was to support his free plugin development and free plugin support by driving traffic to his profitable email list.

Such a response is both unacceptable and unwarranted.

First, the author’s plugins were not “spammy” or otherwise harmful. They provided value and usefulness to those who use them. While the author’s tactics for forcing subscription to his email list were wrong, the author fully and appropriately complied with un-subscribe requests. While the email newsletter is not useful to many users, it does not meet any of the accepted definitions of “spam”.

Second, it is important to understand that, prior to his plugins being removed from the repository, the plugin author was given no official warning whatsoever that his plugins violated the repository guidelines. Several users complained about the plugins in the wordpress.org support forums (to which the plugin author responded), but he was never formally notified that he would need to modify his plugins or face their removal from the repository.

Third, regardless of his reasoning, the plugin author relented, and decided to accept the terms specified in the repository guidelines. Whether or not he agreed with them, he willingly chose to modify his plugins so that they would conform.

So, this plugin author was given no warning in the first place, and then was given no opportunity to resolve the problems with his plugins: no warning, no forgiveness, and no attempt to bring this plugin author into the WordPress community or the free-software philosophy.

As a result, a potential community member was actively driven away from the community, and the community has less code contributions to show for it.

No Learning Curve Allowed

In the second case, a new developer decided to develop and release a WordPress plugin. This developer, being new to the GPL and to developing for WordPress – and thus mostly ignorant of GPL requirements and the free-software philosophy of WordPress – made a mistake.

This plugin author noticed that users were removing or replacing a public-facing attribution link he had put into his plugin. So, in response, he base64-encoded this attribution link – not realizing that he was, in effect, thwarting the user’s intent in using his plugin. This author also had not explicitly declared in his plugin that it was released under the GPL.

This plugin author – also without warning or notice – found that his plugin had been removed/disabled from the repository. He inquired at the WPTavern Forum, and was told that the reasons for his plugin being removed were primarily the base64-encoding of the attribution link, and secondarily the lack of license disclosure.

The plugin author confirmed this information with the wordpress.org plugin repository moderator, and based on this information, demonstrated his understanding for why the encoding was unacceptable and immediately made the necessary changes to his plugin.

(Side note: kudos to the repository moderator, for working with this plugin author and for restoring the plugin once the changes were made.)

Again, it is important to understand the context. This plugin author did nothing that explicitly (or implicitly) violated the stated repository guidelines. His plugin was removed, he inquired as to why, received – and accepted – an explanation, and immediately made the necessary changes.

This situation – primarily the assertion that not disclosing license information in the plugin would result in the plugin being removed from the repository – caused me to take a look at how well the plugins from some of the more high-profile plugin authors conformed to that (unpublished) requirement.

What I found astounded me. Only 26% of the repository-hosted plugins written by Matt Mullenweg, Mark Jaquith, Peter Westwood, Ozh, and Viper007Bond explicitly disclosed license information – yet none of these plugin authors was under threat of having his plugins removed from the repository.

I published my results (in a blog post that was generally well-received by the authors whose plugins I audited), which led to Peter Westwood (Westi) adding to the upcoming dev chat a discussion point regarding proper means of license disclosure for plugins.

What I soon discovered was that some of the core developers – including Matt Mullenweg and Viper007Bond – dismissed the concerns out of hand, claiming that the plugin author in question clearly must be a “dirty” (or “lame”) “spammer”, and thus up to no good, due to his use of base64 encoding.

Once again, apparently the WordPress project would rather actively drive away a potential community member, rather than accept that he made an honest mistake and that he resolved the problem once he understood it. Likewise apparently, the project would prefer arrogantly and condescendingly to declare that, “with regard to the GPL and WordPress, ignorance isn’t an excuse,” and that “no good intention could ever come from code obfuscation,” rather than show any patience with a developer new to the GPL and free software or to offer any forgiveness for mistakes that he made.

Membership Has Its Privileges

In the third case, a plugin author decided to fork an existing, very popular plugin. The plugin author intended to write a case study on ”creating a clean plugin, with emphasis in source code’s good practices.” This author also discovered that his plugin had been removed from the repository without warning.

Upon inquiring, this author learned that his plugin had been removed because an unnamed source alleged that his plugin contained certain security vulnerabilities. (Note: I discuss the handling of this issue elsewhere.)

As it turns out, the alleged security vulnerabilities in question originated not with this author’s plugin, but rather with the original plugin he forked. Not only that, but the same alleged security vulnerabilities were propogated into other forks of the same original plugin.

On the positive side, the author was able to fix the alleged security vulnerabilities in his own plugin as well as alert the authors of both the original and the other forks regarding those vulnerabilities. Further, in the end, the author’s plugin was restored to the repository.

However, the case demonstrates a double standard applied to this plugin author. His plugin was removed merely on the word of an unnamed informant. As far as I could tell, neither the other forks nor – more importantly – the original plugin were ever treated similarly by being removed from the repository until the same vulnerabilities were fixed.

In fact, to date, the original plugin is still available in the repository, without the now-known security vulnerabilities still not fixed. What is the difference? Usage and Popularity.

The author in question had only several hundred downloads of his plugin. The original plugin is currently the #2 Most Popular plugin in the repository, with over four million downloads. The author in question was relatively unknown, while the author of the original plugin is one of the most well-known.

If the security vulnerabilities were severe enough and the risk sufficiently high to remove from the repository a plugin downloaded a few hundred times, then the risk posed to users by the original plugin must be immesurable – and yet, the plugin remains in the repository, with severe security vulnerabilities intact. The unknown author’s plugin was removed immediately and without warning, while the well-known author’s plugin remains, after weeks of notice of the vulnerabilities. The well-known author was informed directly regarding the security vulnerabilities before any action was taken, while the unknown author was never contacted directly before or after action was taken.

This practice is a nepotistic double standard, applied based on the relative popularity of both plugins and authors. It is also hypocritical: the plugin that – by far – posed the greatest risk was left, unpatched, in the repository, likely due to the very reason that it posed the greatest risk (sheer number of downloads), while the plugin that posed little-to-no risk (both because of its miniscule number of downloads, and because it didn’t actually call the functions that contained the vulnerable code) was removed from the repository without warning, hesitation, or question.

Leading By Example

While all of the scenarios I have mentioned deal with the wordpress.org plugin repository, my statements are in no way intended to reflect upon the repository moderator, whose responsibilities are as arduous as they are thankless. MarkR works incredibly hard moderating the repository, and has been one of the lone bright spots in each of these scenarios. He was the one who worked with the plugin authors in the latter two cases, to help them restore their plugins to the repository.

I would also like to point out that Mark Jaquith has also been nothing but helpful, both in helping the plugin authors correct the problems with their plugins and also in helping to explain to the community the actions that were taken and the reasoning behind them. He has shown patience, understanding, and respect in dealing with the WordPress community regarding these issues.

Perhaps more of the WordPress community needs to follow the example set by MarkR and Mark Jaquith.

Conclusion

This is no way to build a community.

All of these actions, behaviors, and attitudes are damaging to the WordPress community. Because of them, would-be community members are driven away, less code that might benefit the community is contributed, and WordPress users are left exposed to security vulnerabilities. Because of them, new and non-expert developers are discouraged from attempting to contribute. Because of them, opportunities to reach out and to bring others into both the WordPress community and the free-software philosophy are squandered.

Free software projects (and the communities built upon and around them) are best-served by attracting to the community all who would participate – whether that participation is contributing code, just using the software, or somewhere in-between – by encouraging contributions from all who would contribute, and by displaying patience, understanding, and a willingness to help such contributors when they make mistakes as they are learning how to contribute.

Rather than close-mindedness, display acceptance, understanding, and tolerance. Rather than arrogance and condescension, display respect, humility, and a willingness to forgive.  Rather than hypocrisy, display openness and truth. It is in an environment that displays such attitudes that a free-software community can best thrive, and in which the most noble and well-intentioned principles of free-software philosophy are exemplified and promoted.

When I first started blogging many years ago, I used the Blogger platform, which I imported to my own domain using FTP (so that anyone reading my blog would see it as www.chipbennett.net). At the time, Blogger’s commenting system was rather rudimentary, so I opted to use a third-party comment management system called Haloscan.

Interestingly, due to developments over the past couple of months, had I stuck with this arrangement, I would be in serious trouble. Recently, Haloscan was bought by Echo, which has announced that Haloscan is being discontinued in a matter of days. Likewise, Blogger has recently announced that it is discontinuing support for FTP importing of Blogger-hosted blogs to third-party domains.

Fortunately, I long ago left Blogger for the infinitely better self-hosted WordPress. Thus, even though Blogger has implemented a replacement service – their Custom Domains feature – and therefore the change would be minor, I don’t have to worry about it at all.

More problematic, however, is the announced discontinuation of the Haloscan commenting system. When I first moved to WordPress, I continued to use Haloscan, which I had been using on Blogger. At some point, I decided to make the jump to native WordPress comments – but I still had several hundred comments hosted by Haloscan.

At the time, I was unable to export those comments from Haloscan, as such exports required the purchase of a Haloscan Pro account. So, I modified my blog theme to account for the old Haloscan comments, and kept a hybrid system.

Now, however, with the announced discontinuation of Haloscan, my hand was forced. Fortunately, Echo offered the option of converting to a (paid) Echo account, or exporting Haloscan comments. I quickly exported my comments, as I had no desire to pay for something that I was doing natively from within WordPress.

Thus, the problem became one of how to import several hundred comments into my WordPress database? Fortunately, this script came to the rescue, with a slight modification provided by the script developer. Using the provided script and the export.xml file provided by the Haloscan export, I seamlessly pulled all of my several hundred Haloscan comments into my WordPress database.

If you find yourself facing the same situation, the above script should help you as well.

Importing Blogger-Integrated Haloscan Comments

If you need to import Blogger-integrated Haloscan comments into your WordPress installation, follow the instructions provided by the script author, at the above link.

Importing WordPress-Integrated Haloscan Comments

If you, like I did, integrated your Haloscan comments directly into your WordPress installation, do the following:

1. Download the script.
2. Replace lines 77-81 of the script with the following code:
   

   $meta_records = $wpdb->get_results(“select * from $wpdb->posts”);

   foreach ($meta_records as $meta_record) {
   $blogger_to_wordpress[$meta_record->ID] = $meta_record->ID;
   }

3. Upload the modified script file to www.domain.com/wordpress/wp-admin/ (where domain.com is your domain name)
4. Export your existing Haloscan comments by logging into your Haloscan account and following the instructions provided.
5. Upload the resulting export.xml file to www.domain.com/wordpress/
6. Using your browser, go to www.domain.com/wordpress/wp-admin/import-haloscan.php
7. Click the “OK” button to perform the import.

If your experience is like mine, you may get an error regarding a malformed XML file, due to its encoding. There are various options for rectifying the problem, but in my case, I just went to the line in export.xml indicated by the error message, and replaced the non-UTF-8 characters (in my case, fancy quote marks) with valid characters, and re-ran the script. Everything worked flawlessly at that point.

The wordpress.org Plugin Repository requires adherence to a few simple guidelines in order for plugin authors to have their plugins hosted there:

Your plugin must be GPL Compatible.

The plugin most not do anything illegal, or be morally offensive (that’s subjective, we know).

You have to actually use the subversion repository we give you in order for your plugin to show up on this site. The WordPress Plugins Directory is a hosting site, not a listing site.

The plugin must not embed external links on the public site (like a “powered by” link) without explicitly asking the user’s permission.

Lately, however, those guidelines have apparently been interpreted somewhat more strictly (emphasis added):

(13:27:03) KnxDT: By the way: Is the GPL header necesary?
(13:27:18) markr: very.
(13:27:28) KnxDT: because WP didn’t mention in the standar readme.txt
(13:27:37) markr: Ideally you would include the gpl in a gpl.txt file
(13:27:57) markr: not including the declaration will get it removed
(13:28:10) markr: users have to know what they can do if they wish

I find the assertion that not including explicit license information with a plugin would result in the plugin being removed from the repository to be at odds with the current state of plugins in the repository. To confirm my suspicion that a significant number of plugins hosted at the wordpress.org Plugin Repository did not conform to this requirement, I did a quick audit of both my own installed plugins, and the current Top Ten Most Popular plugins in the repository. I posted my findings in the WPTavern forum. In short:

• Almost 2/3 of the plugins I personally have installed don’t have GPL information in the plugin
• 2 of the Top Ten most popular plugins at Extend don’t have GPL information in the plugin
• 1 of the Top Ten most popular plugins at Extend violates the requirement that the entire plugin be distributed under a GPL-compatible license

Based on these findings, I decided to audit a few well-known and influential plugin authors – not to pick on the more high-profile developers per se, but rather to determine the state of license inclusion in plugins developed by those who, ideally, should be leading by example.

Here’s what I found:

Matt Mullenweg

Plugins:

• bbPress: License File: YES. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• HyperDB: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Akismet: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Close Old Posts: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• SyntaxHighlighter Plus: License File: YES. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Yahoo Autotag: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Twitter Friends: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Top Comments: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Matt’s Community Tags: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Random Redirect: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Hello Dolly: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Sympathy For The Devil: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Google AdSense for Feeds: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Cache Images: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Advanced Caching: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• fauxML: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Admin IP Watcher: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• No WWW: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Firefox Counter: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• WYSIWYG Editing: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Staticize Reloaded: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Blogtimes: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Protect Old Posts: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.

Notes:

• bbPress was originally a stand-alone script, that included a license.txt file.
• SyntaxHilighter Plus was written by Viper007Bond, but credited to Matt.
• Top Comments was written by Andrew Ozz.
• Sympathy For The Devil was written by Jeff Schult

Summary:

(0/19) of Matt Mullenweg’s plugins written as a plugin and maintained by him have license notice of some kind. Shockingly, the majority of Matt’s plugins lack even a readme.txt file.

Mark Jaquith

Plugins:

• Quiz: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• I Make Plugins: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Page Links To: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Woopra Analytics Plugin: License File: YES. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Bad Behavior: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Category Checklist Expander: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Gravatar Signup: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Forget User Info: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Antispam Collateral Condolences: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• WordPress Version Check: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Comment Inbox: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Age Verification: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Subscribe to Comments: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Subpage Listing: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Redirect Old Slugs: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Kramer: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Clutter Free: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Multiple Authors: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Page Hover Titles: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Identify External Links: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Nice Categories: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.

Summary:

(13/21) of Mark Jaquith’s plugins have license notice of some kind (including one with both a license.txt file and plugin header license notice).

Ozh

Plugins:

• YOURLS: WordPress to Twitter: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Admin Drop Down Menu: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Liz Comment Counter by Ozh: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Better Plugin Page: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Absolute Comments: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Better Feed: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• No Login: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Who Sees Ads: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Random Words: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ FAQ Auto Responder: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh & COLOURlovers’ Admin CSS Designer: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Click Counter: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Auto Moderate Comments: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ IP To Nation: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Correctly Spell WordPress: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Ozh’ Avatar Popup: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.

Summary:

(0/16) of Ozh’ plugins have license notice of some kind.

Peter Westwood (westi)

Plugins:

• wp smtp contact form: License File: YES. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• WordPress Beta tester: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• PJW JS Hotkeys: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• PJW Mime Config: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• WP Contact Form: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• PJW Blogminder: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• WordPress Version Check: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• PJW Query Child Of: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• PJW Page Excerpt: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.

Summary:

(4/9) of Westi’s plugins have license notice of some kind (including one with both a license.txt file and plugin header license notice).

Viper007Bond

Plugins:

• WordPress Admin Bar: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• SyntaxHighlighter Evolved: License File: YES. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Enable oEmbed Discovery: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• jQuery Lightbox for Native Galleries: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• YOURLS: Short URL Widget: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Local Time: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Breadcrumb Titles for Pages: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Viper’s Video Quicktags: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Regenerate Thumbnails: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Clean Archives Reloaded: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• oohEmbed: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Dashboard: Pending Review: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Twitter Tools: bit.ly Links: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• WordPress Download Counter: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• WordPress.org One-Click Install: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Registered Users Only: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Phone: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• SyntaxHighlighter Plus: License File: YES. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Dashboard: Scheduled Posts: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Disable Trackbacks: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Dashboard Widget Manager: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Direct Image URLs for Galleries: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Disable Theme Preview: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• More To The Top: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Allow Numeric Stubs: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Dashboard: Latest Spam: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• BBCode: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Dashboard: Draft Posts: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Chili Code Highlighter: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: YES.
• Global Plugin Update Notice: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Dashboard Fixer: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Templatedia: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Battlefield 2 Stats: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Templatedia Chess: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.
• Viper’s Plugins Used: License File: NO. Plugin Header License Notice: NO.

Notes:

• SyntaxHighlighter Evolved includes license.txt file from original SyntaxHighlighter written by Andrew Ozz
• SyntaxHighlighter Plus includes license.txt file from original SyntaxHighlighter by Alex Gorgatchev

Summary:

(11/33) of Viper007Bond’s plugins have license notice of some kind.

Overall Summary

Overall, for the plugin authors listed, only 28 out of 107 plugins (26%) have license notice of some kind (including two plugins that have both a license.txt file and a plugin header license notice). And the number is only that high thanks to Mark Jaquith, without whom the percentage of plugins with license notice of some kind would drop to less than 18%. Only 2 out of 107 plugins (<2%) include both a license.txt file and license information in the plugin header.

I find these numbers to be downright shocking, considering the unwritten rule now being enforced regarding removal from the repository of plugins that lack license disclosure, as well as the assertion that plugins should “ideally” include a license.txt file.

Let me be clear: I fully support the effort to ensure that plugin authors explicitly disclose license information in their plugins, either in the plugin header or in a separate license.txt file. The assertion that users need to be given explicit explanation of their rights to use, modify, and distribute plugins.

That said, perhaps those in the WordPress project leadership, and the plugin developers whom others look up to, should ensure that they are leading by example before a more-strict interpretation of the Plugin Repository guidelines is enforced against plugin developers at large.

Further, since new plugin developers will likely refer to the official wordpress.org Plugin Repository Readme File standard (which currently is silent on the matter of license disclosure) when determining what information needs to be included with their plugins, I would recommend that the standard be modified to include a License section – perhaps something like such:

== License ==

This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version.

This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful, but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the GNU General Public License for more details.

This way, new plugin authors would have a standard means of disclosing license information in their plugin – and also, users searching Extend for new plugins would have a known means of determining the license of any given plugin.

What are your thoughts?