[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Wed Oct 9 20:52:08 UTC 2013

So, what happens now with PageLines?
It gets removed from the directory?

*Design 311*
E-mail: /hello at design311.com <mailto:hello at design311.com>/
Tel: /+32 478 91 67 89/
Website: /http://design311.com <http://design311.com/>/

------------------------------------------------------------------------
*From:* Trent Lapinski
*Sent:* Wednesday, October 09, 2013 10:18PM
*To:* Discussion list for WordPress theme reviewers.
*Cc:*
*Subject:* Re: [theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

> We just received confirmation from the GNU 
> (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html) that DMS paid 
> features are NOT GPL compatible due to usage 
> limitations (http://www.pagelines.com/pricing/).
>
> This issue has continually been swept under the rug and now we have 
> irrefutable confirmation that there is a valid GPL issue with 
> PageLines usage licenses and limitations.
>
> This isn't personal, this is about protecting the community and most 
> importantly, the users from unethical business practices. This is our 
> duty as a Theme Review Team and in this case, we've failed miserably.
>
> *These are the facts:
> *
> . The GPL applies to both the copyright holder, and users.
> . DMS (Paid Version) violates the GPL according to the GNU (see 
> official clarification from the GNU below).
> . DMS (Paid Version) thus violates WordPress.org 
> <http://WordPress.org> Guidelines and Policy yet DMS (Free Version) 
> was still approved anyway despite these concerns being raised multiple 
> times by the community.
>
> *We can all agree on the WP guidelines:
> *
> "Commercial versions of free Themes (i.e. "freemium" or "up-sell" 
> Themes) are required to be released under GPL-compatible licenses"
>
> Source: 
> http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-license-theme-name-c... 
> <http://make.wordpress.org/themes/guidelines/guidelines-license-theme-name-credit-links-up-sell-themes/>
>
> *It has always been **WordPress.org* <http://wordpress.org/>* Policy 
> that themes or plugins or their pro versions that **are not 100% GPL 
> compatible are not allowed on **WordPress.org* <http://wordpress.org/>*.*
>
> However, we have not been able to all agree on the GPL, so here it is, 
> irrefutably, from the GNU themselves so there's no longer any confusion:
>
> *Question:*
>
> "1. There are 3 licensing options for how many sites you're allowed to 
> use the software on, 1, 6 or unlimited. It's always been my 
> understanding that you cannot restrict usage at all. That once the 
> code is in the user's hands they're free to use it on as many websites 
> as they need, both for personal and commercial sites."
>
> *GNU Response:
> *
> "That is correct, the user is free to install, copy, and share as much 
> as they like. Sometimes, however, companies offering service/support 
> will word their plans in such a way that it appears that you are 
> limited, when in fact, it is only that their service/support is 
> limited to a certain number of installs. For example, they could offer 
> hosted GPLed software and the limit is actually on the number of 
> hosted instances."
>
> *Question:*
>
> "2. There is no option to outright buy the software. You're forced 
> into monthly fees and if you stop payment at any time (meaning that 
> you're suppose to pay forever) the "pro" features of the software are 
> crippled. It's my understanding that a developer cannot put such 
> restrictions in place or force a user to pay for the same software 
> more than once."
>
> *GNU Response:
> *
> "This is also correct, there cannot be any ongoing restriction such as 
> this. Again, however, sometimes companies can be misleading about what 
> is restricted. There can also be instances where there is GPLed 
> software involved, but also proprietary software which they can 
> restrict. Determining whether a violation is occurring requires 
> looking at the actual facts involved in the case.
>
> With all that said, the GPL is a copyright license, and it is the 
> copyright holder who is empowered to enforce the terms of the license. 
> Sometimes companies will nominally release GPL software, but fail to 
> live up to its terms. As long as they are the sole copyright holder, 
> there is no one with the power to force them to change their wrongful 
> ways. There are other ways to gain compliance, however. Even if they 
> can't be forced by law to follow the terms, people can still send in 
> requests, publicly call them out for their bad practices, or even 
> campaign against them for being bad community members."
>
> *Conclusion:
> *
> PageLines "service" is NOT a GPL compatible Software As A Service 
> business model since PageLines does not host the customers websites. 
> Their "service" is not just a support either since it uses software 
> and an API to limit usage and features to sell variably priced non-GPL 
> compatible usage licenses.
>
> It was argued by some admins that the GPL only applies to users, and 
> not the copyright holder but that is simply not true according to the 
> GNU. While there is no "GPL police" we do have the choice as a 
> community to call this out for what it is, which is a clever marketing 
> scheme designed to supersede the rights of users, the GPL, and 
> WPORG policy.
>
> Are we really going to continue to reward and promote these kind of 
> deceptive business practices on WordPress.org <http://WordPress.org>?
>
> This issue requires actual action be taken immediately as this is no 
> longer a discussion open to interpretation.
>
> Thank you.
>
> --Trent Lapinski
> =============
> CEO of CyberChimps Inc
> trent at cyberchimps.com <mailto:trent at cyberchimps.com>
> Twitter @trentlapinski
> http://CyberChimps.com <http://cyberchimps.com/>
>
> On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me 
> <mailto:emil at uzelac.me>> wrote:
>
>> Thanks Bryan, we appreciate your efforts!
>>
>>
>> On Mon, Sep 23, 2013 at 10:32 AM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com 
>> <mailto:bhadaway at gmail.com>> wrote:
>>
>>     This isn't an empty discussion, no discussion is ever empty,
>>     knowledge is power. "Moving on" from a discussion that has come
>>     to no reasonable understanding whatsoever is what is less than ideal.
>>
>>     I've actually bumped this issue up to a WP foundation lawyer (who
>>     I actually spoke with) and Matt to hopefully get some sort of
>>     officially ruling on this otherwise stalemate issue. I'll let you
>>     guys know if I hear back.
>>
>>     Thanks
>>
>>     _______________________________________________
>>     theme-reviewers mailing list
>>     theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>>     <mailto:theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>     http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org 
>> <mailto: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/20131009/cc567bdc/attachment-0001.html>