[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Dane Morgan dane at danemorganmedia.com
Fri Sep 20 17:49:41 UTC 2013

I think part of why he feels ignored is because his point is that

1) We cannot have a theme in the repository if we promote or sell any 
non GPL themes (and plugins?)
2) We cannot be on the commercial list if we do not have a theme in the 

and this is where i start to get all fuzzy.

3) there is code that is not GPL, because you are not allowed to use it 
if you do not have a current subscription, and therefor cannot really 
distribute it either.
4) Moving the code to a plugin does not mean you no longer sell of 
support non GPL code, but only that you sell and support it as a 
separate, plug-able code.

I suspect there is some distinction here? But I'm lost as to where it 
is. I'm honestly like some cartoon at a tennis match watching this.

Otto wrote:
> BTW, what you are referring to here (the "pro" code) was in the
> first version they submitted. Are you saying that this same code
> exists in the second version, the one you actually wrote about in
> ticket?
> Because if so, fine. But I was under the impression that they had
> already addressed that and moved the "pro" code into a separate plugin
> which they are selling separately. If true, this means two things:
> a) They fixed the problem well before your decision to criticize them
> for it, and
> b) You never even looked at the new version of the theme before
> posting in the ticket about it.
> Please correct me if I'm incorrect. What exactly about the theme
> currently is in violation of the rules? Facts, not rhetoric.

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list