[theme-reviewers] GPL

Mon Aug 13 06:28:50 UTC 2012

Just for the record:

   - Themes are required
<http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Licensing>to be 100%
GPL-licensed, or use a GPL-compatible license. This includes all
   PHP, HTML, CSS, images, fonts, icons, and everything else. All of the theme
   must be GPL-Compatible.

GPLv3<http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses>is
100% GPL-Compatible. It is not our decision to "force" or even
recommend, heck I would not even note the ticket suggesting authors what
version of GPL they should be using. GPLv2 and GPLv3 are 100% acceptable
licenses.

Now for one license not being compatible with another is a different story.

*P.S. This is never-ending discussion and there's no way that all of us
here will agree on the same license, we're given the choice and right to
use either of them.*

Thanks,
Emil

On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 12:34 AM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not really sure what you're saying exactly, so I say this with the
> best intentions of what I believe that to be, but also talking about the
> issue in general. As best as I can tell, it appears that you're inferring
> that I've taken an anti-GPL or Public Domain Vs GPL stance on the
> discussion at hand, which isn't the case. Of course correct me if I'm wrong.
>
> In any case I think I understand what you're trying to get at about
> possible risks with Public Domain, but honestly those same risks exist with
> any license (or no license). The bottom line is that we're not talking
> about anything tangible (I know, a whole other debate), code, and the
> attached user's rights, freedoms etc are all released in a "good faith"
> scenario and can all be exploited no matter how something is released,
> unless we get into copyright/notarized/patented territory.
>
> Let's look at some black and white hypotheticals:
>
> *Example 1*: Something is released into the Public Domain. Someone takes
> it, copyrights and licenses it and sales it as is. They then sue the
> original source and claim that they in fact stole it (copyright
> infringement) from their product.
>
> *Example 2*: Something is released as a GPLed premium product. Someone
> takes it, publishes it as Public Domain. They then sue the original source
> and claim that they in fact stole it from their free project and turned it
> into a premium product fraudulently privatizing and selling something that
> cannot legally leave the Public Domain.
>
> Before we get into a million different possibilities/angles/gotchas/yadda
> yadda, let me just say that in the US, anyone can sue anyone else for
> anything, and I mean anything. And further more it doesn't matter what the
> actual truth is. The law has nothing to do with the truth. It only has to
> do with what can be "proven" in the eyes of the court. I've had lawyers for
> clients and I've talked to dozens of lawyers/firms throughout my career,
> and they all confirm this. Often the only thing that matters, is who has
> more money, period. It's a very sad reality.
>
> So, when it comes to the intangible nature of a WordPress theme, anyone
> can take it and either slap whatever license on it they want or remove
> whatever licensing they want from it and redistribute it guised as the
> original source. And if they get cornered and don't have a very good case
> there's always plausible deniability. "Hey, I searched for a website
> template online and found this cool theme in a forum and they said it was
> free, so I downloaded it." And anything digital can be faked, duped so
> easily, and even anything that *IS *real in the digital realm could be
> put through the reasonable doubt ringer etc etc etc.
>
> So you feel safe releasing something as GPL? Why? And I mean that only in
> the sense of the worst case exploitation scenario that you brought up.
> Theoretically, we could think of all sorts of awful things that we should
> both be stressed about equally, regardless of how we release our code. If
> we're gonna put it under the microscope with that kind of "what if" filter,
> we're not going to feel safe.
>
> But, that's the point of it all right? We don't want to be corporate, we
> don't want to copyright, trademark, patent the code we release. We want
> people to enjoy it, use it, change it etc. Because we want to be friendly,
> we expose ourselves to litigious people. That's the very nature of the
> beast, always has been.
>
> When it *really* comes right down to it, it's just a preference, even if
> we both in addition release our code under no warranty clauses, it's all a
> deterrent, not foolproof. We have to do our best to conform to our own
> personal ethics and hope for the best, that people are generally good,
> naive as that is that's our pursuit.
>
> For the record, I like GPL just fine. If I had any ethical (or otherwise)
> problem with it I wouldn't have ever used it to begin with, I would have
> simply avoided the official repo. I simply prefer Public Domain. I don't
> think it extinguishes vulnerability to exploitation, of course not. But,
> that doesn't mean that the GPL or any other license in a digital product
> are not open to the same exploitations, though differing circumstances.
>
> If I completely misunderstood what you were trying to say please clarify.
> Either way, I think what I've said carries a lot of important, valid
> points. And yes, I'd love to read the article you wrote. Knowledge is power.
>
>
> Thanks, Bryan
>
>
> Bryan Phillip Hadaway
>
>
> Web & Graphic Designer
> calmestghost.com
> bhadaway at gmail.com
>
>
> *Socialize:* Facebook <http://www.facebook.com/calmestghost> | Twitter<http://twitter.com/calmestghost> |
> LinkedIn <http://www.linkedin.com/in/calmestghost> | Google+<https://plus.google.com/104582075016689917593>
>
>
>
> On Sun, Aug 12, 2012 at 8:19 PM, // ravi <ravi-lists at g8o.net> wrote:
>
>> Correction:
>>
>> On Aug 12, 2012, at 11:16 PM, // ravi <ravi-lists at g8o.net> wrote:
>> >
>> > The side you are missing, IMHO, is that this idea of “pure” and
>> “friendly” (scares not intended …
>>
>>
>> “quotes not intended”…
>>
>>
>> > as scare, but merely to note that they are borrowed from you) is open
>> to exploitation and potentially short-lived in an
>> evolutionary/game-theoretic sense [arguably]. I use the GPL for every bit
>> of code that I release, and I do that without stress because I know that it
>> is one of the strongest way to avoid the community that I am a part of from
>> being exploited - that anyone who uses our work will share their work with
>> us.
>> >
>> > I wrote a blog post about this that was picked by Matt, the last time
>> the GPL wars came around. If you think they might be of interest, please
>> contact me for a link.
>> >
>> > Regards,
>> >
>> >       —ravi
>> >
>>
>> Apologies.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120813/40386b4b/attachment-0001.htm>