[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Otto]

On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 4:39 PM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com> wrote:
> Man, full stop. Please go back and read the questions and GNU responses.
> There is 0% paraphrasing there and 100% character for character exact quotes
> wrapped in "" from the GNU email response. It's very clear.

Yes, it is, and yet you're STILL misreading it... Why is that, do you think?


The bottom line here is that you're interpreting any sort of
"restrictions" in the marketing as being a licensing restriction. Even
the parts of GNU's responses that Trent quoted argue that this is not
necessarily a valid point.

Let's take a simple example that everybody should be able to agree on.
Gravity Forms. Most of us have used it, or paid for it in some way.
It's good stuff.

Gravity Form is 100% GPL code. Says so right here:
http://www.gravityforms.com/terms-and-conditions/

Now, they also have a pricing structure, here:
http://www.gravityforms.com/purchase-gravity-forms/

Look at the GNU Response Trent posted:

"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."

Did you miss that part? Because that part is really key here.

Additionally,

"Again, however, sometimes companies can be misleading about what is
restricted. ...  Determining whether a violation is occurring requires
looking at the actual facts involved in the case."

So, I must once again ask this question: What exactly is the
"violation" as you see it here? Because a company charging an ongoing
fee for service/support/upgrades is clearly not a violation. And if
your *only* beef is that they are releasing code which checks to see
if a user has paid for service and support on an ongoing basis, then
your argument, as I see it, is fairly thin.

Yes, we do not allow that sort of "checking" code in the directory,
but that is a restriction we make *for the directory*, above and
beyond the GPL. It's perfectly possible to release such code under the
GPL. It's possible to release *any* code under the GPL.

-Otto