[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Chip Bennett]

"It's always possible to use GPLed code to write software that implements
DRM."

What's the point? The end product - the DRMed software - is the question.
What's its license? That sentence refers to the license of the software
used to *develop* the DRMed software.

I don't see how that has anything to do with the discussion at hand. Back
to which: I stand by my belief that building a crippleware API into a
Plugin renders that Plugin no longer GPL-compliant. Even if I'm proven
wrong in that belief, I don't think the WordPress project should have
anything to do with a Plugin that so egregiously disrespects end users'
software freedoms as to implement what amounts to extortion merely to
continue to use software that has already been purchased and distributed.


On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:44 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com> wrote:

> @chip- we are talking about DRM, Pagelines has an API key that is
> necessary to operate the plugin, does it not? That's digital right
> management.
>
> The FSF would disagree with you on DRMs and the GPL. "It's always possible
> to use GPLed code to write software that implements DRM." -
> https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html#neutralizing-laws-that-prohibit-free-software-but-not-forbidding-drm
> The GPL doesn't prevent you from writing a DRM in your GPL code, it
> prevents you from restricting the freedom of others to take it out. Big
> difference. The GPL3 upgrade addressed the freedom to remove DRMs, but did
> not forbid it.
>
> @Bryan agrees with me that there is nothing saying I can't remove the DRM
> from Pagelines and redistribute it. So there is no GPL violation I see.
> Just a business practice people don't like.
>
>
> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:28 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> We're not talking about DRM<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Digital_rights_management>.
>> I'm not sure how that term even entered the discussion.
>>
>> And I disagree with the assertion that "there is nothing in the GPL that
>> prevents DRMs". DRM is copy protection, and prevention of
>> copying/modification/distribution contravenes the terms of the GPL. So,
>> anything that includes DRM is not actually distributed under the terms of
>> the GPL, even if the developer claims that it is.
>>
>>
>> On Wed, Oct 9, 2013 at 10:24 PM, Josh Pollock <jpollock412 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>> >>"*My question is can I remove the part of the software that deals
>>> with this DRM and redistribute it?*"
>>>
>>> >Of course you can, but it can't be there in the first place and you
>>> shouldn't have to remove it. I think we agree on that.
>>>
>>> See, now you're almost getting my point. There is nothing in the GPL
>>> that prevents DRMs. I posted a quote from the FSF website earlier stating
>>> that clearly.
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, October 9, 2013, Bryan Hadaway wrote:
>>>
>>>> *@Josh*
>>>>
>>>> "*it feels like a CyberChimps effort to get Pagelines out of the theme
>>>> repo*"
>>>>
>>>> I'm sorry you feel that way, that's pretty petty. I also don't
>>>> appreciate my ethics coming into question.
>>>>
>>>> You're entitled to your opinion, but I hope people would rather look at
>>>> the merits of the issues here instead.
>>>>
>>>> I think DMS is a pretty interesting and creative theme actually and if
>>>> there wasn't anything here that was harmful to users there wouldn't be an
>>>> issue at all. No one would have ever said anything to begin with.
>>>>
>>>> And if it was your theme, my theme or anyone else' theme who's company
>>>> model was questionable like this, I certainly hope it would be scrutinized
>>>> just the same.
>>>>
>>>> I don't care if DMS is in the repo, it doesn't effect me or CyberChimps
>>>> in the least, so long as all these issues are worked out PageLines is
>>>> welcome to submit themes to the repo like anyone else. Again, these are
>>>> real issues, not even brought to the table by us and certainly not
>>>> something we've fabricated.
>>>>
>>>> Again, this issue has nothing to do with CyberChimps, I wish I didn't
>>>> work for them because this issue would be no different, I'd be just as
>>>> invested. I've proven time and time again that I stand up for my
>>>> convictions. This isn't the first or last time I'll be involved in a heated
>>>> or controversial debate.
>>>>
>>>> Can we please stick to the issues and not try to turn this into a
>>>> personal vendetta again.
>>>>
>>>> "*My question is can I remove the part of the software that deals with
>>>> this DRM and redistribute it?*"
>>>>
>>>> Of course you can, but it can't be there in the first place and you
>>>> shouldn't have to remove it. I think we agree on that.
>>>>
>>>
>>> _______________________________________________
>>> 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/20131009/79c87f36/attachment.html>