[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Wed Oct 9 21:08:23 UTC 2013

Patience, please.

If you'll recall, this matter was discussed at some length already in this
very mail-list. I've raised the issue further. No action will be taken one
way or another, until the admins receive some clarification.

Thanks,

Chip

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:52 PM, Design 311 <hello at design311.com> wrote:

>  So, what happens now with PageLines?
> It gets removed from the directory?
>
>  *Design 311*
> E-mail: *hello at design311.com*
> Tel: *+32 478 91 67 89*
> Website: *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 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?
>
> 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
> Twitter @trentlapinski
> http://CyberChimps.com <http://cyberchimps.com/>
>
>  On Sep 23, 2013, at 1:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <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>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
>> 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 listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://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/20131009/53655600/attachment.html>