[theme-reviewers] WordPress Theme Stores Violating GPL

[Robert Ambartsumov]

makes a perfect sense now, thanks!

On Thu, Jan 19, 2012 at 12:14 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> ThemeForest Themes comply 100% with the GPL, as far as I know. However,
> that doesn't mean that their Themes are 100% GPL.
>
> Split licenses do not violate the GPL; they are 100% GPL-compatible. But
> that does not mean that they are 100% GPL. Any resources under the
> more-restrictive part of the split license are NOT GPL (otherwise, why
> split the license?). This arrangement IS FINE for non-WPORG-hosted Themes,
> but it is NOT FINE for WPORG-hosted Themes.
>
> So, AwesomeThemes can distribute split-license Themes from their own site,
> but any Themes they submit to the WPORG repository cannot be
> split-licensed; they must be 100% GPL.
>
> What AwesomeThemes CANNOT do, however, is distribute Themes under
> non-GPL-compatible licenses, if they intend to have Themes hosted in the
> WPORG repository.
>
> Hopefully that clarifies things. :)
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 4:07 PM, Robert Ambartsumov <robert6292 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Chip, are you saying a developer with a hosted theme on wp.org (100%
>> gpl) can't create, say another theme and promote it on themeforest (which
>> is not really a 100% gpl)?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 11:59 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> The question isn't the matter of technical GPL inheritance, but rather
>>> of Themes - and developers - adhering to stated WPORG policy regarding GPL
>>> compatibility of hosted Themes, and of Themes distributed or promoted by
>>> developers who have WPORG-hosted Themes. That is: it is not a matter of
>>> legal GPL inheritance, but rather of adherence to WPORG policy for hosted
>>> Themes.
>>>
>>> WPORG-hosted Themes are required to be 100% GPL-compatible (not
>>> split-licensed). Developers who have WPORG-hosted Themes cannot distribute
>>> or promote Themes with non-GPL-compatible licenses.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>> On Wed, Jan 18, 2012 at 3:12 PM, Rankin, Matthew W. (Student) <
>>> mrankin at my.ccsu.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>>  I like the approach taken by ThemeForest. Any PHP code which contains
>>>> WordPress functionality must be released under the GPL, but the
>>>> CSS/HTML/Javascript and images used in the theme are copyrighted by the
>>>> theme author. That being said, I don't think most premium theme stores are
>>>> in violation of the GPL.
>>>>  ------------------------------
>>>> *From:* theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org [
>>>> theme-reviewers-bounces at lists.wordpress.org] on behalf of Emil Uzelac [
>>>> emil at themeid.com]
>>>> *Sent:* Wednesday, January 18, 2012 3:48 PM
>>>> *To:* theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>>> *Subject:* [theme-reviewers] WordPress Theme Stores Violating GPL
>>>>
>>>>   This afternoon I came across this post
>>>> http://www.wpmods.com/wordpress-theme-stores-violating-gpl/ what do
>>>> you guys thing?
>>>>
>>>>  P.S. Note that this is not site-specific issue, we need a general
>>>> opinion only, try to isolate sites listed in the post.
>>>>
>>>>  Thanks,
>>>> Emil
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20120119/78b8ad81/attachment.htm>