emil at themeid.com
Mon Aug 13 09:09:51 UTC 2012
Yes sir, leftover from somewhere in the middle of this and I felt that it
was necessary to note that authors can choose either or, that was all :)
On Mon, Aug 13, 2012 at 2:17 AM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> Hey Emil,
> Just to clarify, you're picking up on previous conversation of GPLv2 Vs
> GPLv3 and not really replying to where ravi and I just left off, yes? We
> branched the conversation out a bit into a different area.
> Thanks, Bryan
> Bryan Phillip Hadaway
> Web & Graphic Designer
> 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 11:28 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>> 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
>> Now for one license not being compatible with another is a different
>> *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.*
>> 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
>>> 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
>>> 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
>>> Thanks, Bryan
>>> Bryan Phillip Hadaway
>>> Web & Graphic Designer
>>> 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:
>>>> 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
>>>> > 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
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the theme-reviewers