[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Josh Pollock]

@chip- as far as I can tell by clicking through multiple pages of links
after someone challenged me on this earlier, is that because the author has
selected the  100% GPL license, the download would include a copy of the
GPL not the Envanto regular license. I conceded the argument under the
logic of Otto's tricky marketing language argument.

On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Chip Bennett wrote:

> Josh,
>
> Am I missing something? The Theme you linked is distributed under the
> Envato Regular License, not the 100% GPL license.
>
> It also includes this statement:
>
> Moreover PurePress is 100% GPL so you are free to use it on as many sites
> as you like!
>
>
> If I had to guess (because I'm really not highly involved with
> ThemeForest): that pre-dates the existence of the 100% GPL license. The
> developer was (at the time) forced to distribute under the Envato Regular
> License, but wanted to distribute under GPL - and so, added statements to
> the effect of a "poor man's dual license".
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:06 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
> @chip-
>
> We allow developers who sell through Themeforest into the theme repo if
> they meet the "100% GPL" standard on Themeforest right?
>
> First GPL licensed WordPress theme I could find on themeforest:
>
> http://themeforest.net/item/purepress-responsive-retina-ready-portfolio/4720197?WT.ac=search_item&WT.seg_1=search_item&WT.z_author=Dream-Theme
>
> Terms- "Use, by you or one client, in a single end product which end users
> are not charged for"  "This item is licensed 100% GPL." We've agreed that
> Themeforest's authors who choose their GPL license option can be listed in
> the theme repo. How is this different? The themeforest page says I can only
> use it on one site. If you read the details link on that page it says "You
> can’t Sell the End Product, except to one client."
>
> What's different between that restriction, which I would never agree to,
> and the restrictions on Pagelines, which I also think suck and would never
> agree to?
>
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Justin Tadlock <justin at justintadlock.com>wrote:
>
>  I'm not sure why you've been so confrontational with me.  I don't care to
> argue about the license.  I wanted something clarified because I kept
> getting a bunch of op-ed pieces in my inbox.  I simply wanted a factual
> answer to a single question that I raised.  This question has nothing to do
> with an opinion either way on the matter.
>
> If you want my personal opinion on what I can see from their site, I'm not
> a fan of what they're doing.  I don't think it's a site that should be
> promoted on WordPress.org.
>
>
> On 10/9/2013 7:32 PM, Bryan Hadaway wrote:
>
>   *@Whoever doesn't like my answers...*
>
> I've answered Justin a couple times now, I'm sorry if you don't like the
> answer or are trying to manipulate the conversation to get the answer you
> want to hear, but I'm not sure what more you want.
>
>  Take the time to read through the entire conversation starting here:
>
>
> http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2013-September/thread.html#15341
>
>  And then followed up in this email discussion and make your own informed
> opinion on the entire issue.
>
>  Yeah, it sucks, it's a lot of reading. But, if you don't like my
> summations of the issues covered, sorry, I can't do it for you.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20131009/a752b30b/attachment-0001.html>