[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Josh Pollock]

@srikanth- You are correct.

Still that's tricky marketing. It says both restricted used and GPL. I
realized you were right by visiting a page linked from a page linked in the
license details on that page.

@Otto's point the whole time, which I agree with, has been that we're
talking about tricky wording. I don't buy from themeforest and I wouldn't
buy from Pagelines, but I don't think their tricky language violates the
GPL.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 9:13 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> The actual license there is gpl, not regular.
>
>
> On Thu, Oct 10, 2013 at 6:36 AM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> @chip-
>>
>> We allow developers who sell through Themeforest into the theme repo if
>> they meet the "100% GPL" standard on Themeforest right?
>>
>> First GPL licensed WordPress theme I could find on themeforest:
>>
>> http://themeforest.net/item/purepress-responsive-retina-ready-portfolio/4720197?WT.ac=search_item&WT.seg_1=search_item&WT.z_author=Dream-Theme
>>
>> Terms- "Use, by you or one client, in a single end product which end
>> users are not charged for"  "This item is licensed 100% GPL." We've
>> agreed that Themeforest's authors who choose their GPL license option can
>> be listed in the theme repo. How is this different? The themeforest page
>> says I can only use it on one site. If you read the details link on that
>> page it says "You can’t Sell the End Product, except to one client."
>>
>> What's different between that restriction, which I would never agree to,
>> and the restrictions on Pagelines, which I also think suck and would never
>> agree to?
>>
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 8:57 PM, Justin Tadlock <justin at justintadlock.com>wrote:
>>
>>>  I'm not sure why you've been so confrontational with me.  I don't care
>>> to argue about the license.  I wanted something clarified because I kept
>>> getting a bunch of op-ed pieces in my inbox.  I simply wanted a factual
>>> answer to a single question that I raised.  This question has nothing to do
>>> with an opinion either way on the matter.
>>>
>>> If you want my personal opinion on what I can see from their site, I'm
>>> not a fan of what they're doing.  I don't think it's a site that should be
>>> promoted on WordPress.org.
>>>
>>>
>>> On 10/9/2013 7:32 PM, Bryan Hadaway wrote:
>>>
>>>   *@Whoever doesn't like my answers...*
>>>
>>> I've answered Justin a couple times now, I'm sorry if you don't like the
>>> answer or are trying to manipulate the conversation to get the answer you
>>> want to hear, but I'm not sure what more you want.
>>>
>>>  Take the time to read through the entire conversation starting here:
>>>
>>>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2013-September/thread.html#15341
>>>
>>>  And then followed up in this email discussion and make your own
>>> informed opinion on the entire issue.
>>>
>>>  Yeah, it sucks, it's a lot of reading. But, if you don't like my
>>> summations of the issues covered, sorry, I can't do it for you.
>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20131009/bfc1f0c6/attachment.html>