[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Dane Morgan dane at danemorganmedia.com
Fri Sep 20 21:38:59 UTC 2013


Brilliant. Thank you @Justin.

> Justin Tadlock <mailto:justin at justintadlock.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 16:33
>
> I think some of you are misunderstanding what the GPL is about. It's 
> about licensing what you're allowed to do with the code, not about 
> licensing what happens when you actually run the code. Here's a quick 
> theme for you:
>
> |style.css|:
>
> |/*
> Theme Name: Test
> License: GPL v2+
> */|
>
> |index.php|:
>
> |<?php wp_die( 'Your site broke!' ); ?>|
>
> That would restrict a user's ability to use WordPress, but I licensed 
> it under the GPL. Therefore, it does not restrict the user's ability 
> to use, copy, modify, or distribute the code.
>
> When we talk about the ability to "use" the code, it's not about 
> whether the code works in a certain way for whatever application. You 
> have the ability to use it (the code) how you see fit with no added 
> restrictions.
>
> Just to make things a little clearer, make sure you understand this 
> particular line from the GPL <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html>:
>
> Is Pagelines placing any additional restrictions on those items listed 
> from the GPL?
>
> The only things I'm concerned with were stated in my previous email 
> about policy on blocking features within a theme that WordPress.org hosts.
>
> On 9/20/2013 4:01 PM, Ünsal Korkmaz wrote:
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Ünsal Korkmaz <mailto:unsalkorkmaz at gmail.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 16:01
> I am not expert on GPL but if i cant use a code in WordPress Multisite 
> because of a license or code restriction (not talking about multisite 
> compatible), its not GPL in my eyes.. even author can say its gpl code..
>
> *preserve, protect and promote the freedom to use, study, copy, 
> modify, and redistribute computer software, and to defend the rights 
> of Free Software users. *from http://www.gnu.org/
>
> And yes, we cant use this theme/plugin/whatever in multisite if not 
> developer licensed: http://www.pagelines.com/pricing/
> *
> *
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Otto <mailto:otto at ottodestruct.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 15:49
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Trent Lapinski<trent at cyberchimps.com>  wrote:
>>> If the copyright holder says that the terms are GPL, then the terms
>>> are GPL. Period. No magic coding trickery can make it "incompatible"
>>> with those terms.
>> Just because you claim something is GPL does not make it true.
>
> If you are the copyright holder, because you *wrote the damn thing*,
> then it absolutely does make it true. Every single time, without fail.
>
> Only the copyright holder has the power to license the work. That's
> the whole point of copyright.
>
>
>> There are plenty of people who release code under the GPL and violate the terms, and there have been several lawsuits on this matter. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
>>
>> The GPL is not the same as copyright, there is no inherent law granting you the right. If you release something under the GPL that is not GPL compatible, it is a GPL violation and you lose the privilege to claim your code is GPL compatible.
>
> This is so wrong that I honestly don't know where to start.
>
> Time for quick copyright school lessons:
> - The creator of a work gets the copyright to that work. This gives
> them all the rights to it. Nobody else has any rights to it at all.
> - The copyright holder can give those rights to others. They can do it
> freely, or make it subject to conditions. The conditions are called
> the "license".
> - The GPL is a license like any other. It is the contract by which the
> copyright holder gives you, the person with no rights, the ability to
> exercise those rights from the copyright holder.
> - The copyright holder cannot violate their own license. The very
> notion of this fundamentally misunderstands how licenses work. The
> license applies to you and everybody else. Not to them.
>
>
>> If you look at the violations page, one of the questions to determine if there is a violation is: "Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking in other non-free modules?"
>>
>> This is exactly what we're discussing.
>
> Violations can only occur to licensees. Not to the licensor.
>
>
>
>> PageLines is releasing a supposedly GPL compatible theme linking to a plugin that forces users to pay a subscription validated through the use of a priority API to use supposedly GPL compatible code. This is a violation of the GPL and renders both the theme and plugin as non-compatible with the GPL, and WPORG policy.
>
> This has no bearing on the GPL in any way whatsoever. The theme/plugin
> are licensed under the GPL because *their author says so*. That's the
> end of it, really.
>
> Whether it violates policy or not is a fair debate. I say it does not.
>
>
>> When it comes to policy on .org, the question is do we allow themes or plugins to upsell priority non-GPL themes and plugins? The answer as I understood it was a resounding no. You yourself said this is not allowed, so I'm not sure why you're claiming this situation is different then what it is.
>
> The issue isn't about "non-GPL". If they say it's GPL, then I accept
> that, and it's GPL. Done.
>
>
>>> Now, the review requirements go far beyond GPL, and that's fair
>>> enough. But there is no real case where you would ever need to "modify
>>> a pro theme heavily" to be GPL-Compatible. Whoever told you that this
>>> was the reason was mistaken.
>> Actually they weren't wrong. This has been WPORG policy for over 3 years now as Chip mentioned.
>
> If the theme review team has been incorrectly interpreting the GPL and
> using it in a mistaken way, then I'm very saddened by that, and I
> offer my assistance to correct and educate the team in any way that I
> can.
>
> -Otto
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Trent Lapinski <mailto:trent at cyberchimps.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 15:38
>> If the copyright holder says that the terms are GPL, then the terms
>> are GPL. Period. No magic coding trickery can make it "incompatible"
>> with those terms.
>
> Just because you claim something is GPL does not make it true.
>
> There are plenty of people who release code under the GPL and violate the terms, and there have been several lawsuits on this matter. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
>
> The GPL is not the same as copyright, there is no inherent law granting you the right. If you release something under the GPL that is not GPL compatible, it is a GPL violation and you lose the privilege to claim your code is GPL compatible.
>
> If you look at the violations page, one of the questions to determine if there is a violation is: "Is the available source code complete, or is it designed for linking in other non-free modules?"
>
> This is exactly what we're discussing.
>
> PageLines is releasing a supposedly GPL compatible theme linking to a plugin that forces users to pay a subscription validated through the use of a priority API to use supposedly GPL compatible code. This is a violation of the GPL and renders both the theme and plugin as non-compatible with the GPL, and WPORG policy.
>
> When it comes to policy on .org, the question is do we allow themes or plugins to upsell priority non-GPL themes and plugins? The answer as I understood it was a resounding no. You yourself said this is not allowed, so I'm not sure why you're claiming this situation is different then what it is.
>
>> Now, the review requirements go far beyond GPL, and that's fair
>> enough. But there is no real case where you would ever need to "modify
>> a pro theme heavily" to be GPL-Compatible. Whoever told you that this
>> was the reason was mistaken.
>
> Actually they weren't wrong. This has been WPORG policy for over 3 years now as Chip mentioned.
>
> --Trent Lapinski
> =============
> CEO of CyberChimps Inc
>
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 1:01 PM, Otto<otto at ottodestruct.com>  wrote:
>
>> If the copyright holder says that the terms are GPL, then the terms
>> are GPL. Period. No magic coding trickery can make it "incompatible"
>> with those terms.
>>
>> -Otto
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://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
> Otto <mailto:otto at ottodestruct.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 15:01
>
> You throw around the term "GPL-compatible" pretty freely, but I don't
> think you really understand what it is that you're saying here.
>
> *Code cannot be incompatible with the GPL*.
> Ever.
> Period.
>
> Only other licenses can be incompatible with the GPL. Code is just
> code. It cannot be "incompatible" with a legal document.
>
> If I write a piece of code that only works on my computer (using
> whatever method I like) and release that code, then I can release it
> under the terms of the GPL. Those are the terms for the code. The code
> itself is useless to anybody not using my computer, but that does not
> matter. Those are still the terms.
>
> If the copyright holder says that the terms are GPL, then the terms
> are GPL. Period. No magic coding trickery can make it "incompatible"
> with those terms.
>
> -Otto
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130920/050a2bd8/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1160 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/050a2bd8/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1061 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/050a2bd8/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1391 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/050a2bd8/attachment-0006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1336 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/050a2bd8/attachment-0007.jpg>


More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list