[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Dane Morgan dane at danemorganmedia.com
Fri Sep 20 19:44:55 UTC 2013 

@Chip can you contrast this with a paid Akismet license?

@Otto can you compare this witha paid Akismet license?

Every time one of you guys posts Everything seems reasonable and I find 
myself saying, oh, okay. Ultimately, the question is, does the 
subscription requirement that was removed to the plugin violate GPL, right?

I can see merit in both arguments and I'd love to see this discussion 
resolve.
> Chip Bennett <mailto:chip at chipbennett.net>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 14:09
> I think the source of confusion stems from here: whether in the Theme, 
> or in a commercial Plugin, code is being distributed that *stops 
> working* (partially) if a subscription payment isn't maintained.
>
> This isn't a case of SaaS. This is code, fully encapsulated in the 
> distributed work, that stops working, based on a payment subscription 
> tied to an API key. The sole purpose of the API key is to determine if 
> the subscription is current. As such, it is reasonable to construe 
> this model as a usage restriction - or at least, to ask for 
> clarification for why it doesn't construe a de facto usage 
> restriction. (And it is de facto, and not a true usage restriction, 
> because the code can be modified to de-couple the API key - but IMHO 
> it is contrary to free-software philosophy and principles to require 
> the user to modify code in order to ensure that it continues to work 
> as-distributed.)
>
> As far as I can tell, nothing of this model has changed from the 
> original ticket. The subscription-based code has simply been moved 
> from the commercial version of the Theme to a commercial Plugin.
>
> While I am willing to be shown to be wrong, out-voted, or over-ruled, 
> I do not believe that this subscription model - that requires a 
> subscription payment not for a service but for already distributed 
> code - complies either with the letter of GPL, or with the 
> free-software principles that drive WPORG policy.
>
> I think this is a legitimate question, that merits discussion. I don't 
> think that raising the question constitutes "trolling". And I think 
> that any reviewer is welcome to comment on any ticket, whether that 
> reviewer is the owner of the ticket or not. We are a team, and work as 
> a team.
>
> I only ask that everyone be afforded the same degree of respect in 
> having that discussion, and that questions and comments be taken at 
> face value, rather than assumed to be "trolling".
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Otto <mailto:otto at ottodestruct.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 13:57
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 1:55 PM, Trent Lapinski<trent at cyberchimps.com>  wrote:
>> Are subscription based themes and plugins that limit usage if the user stops
>> paying allowed on .org?
>
> No, they are not.
>
>
>> If no, then the theme shouldn't be allowed on .org until they change their
>> pricing model.
>
> The problem is that their theme no longer does this. Their pricing
> model for another add-on piece of code they are selling is irrelevant
> to the theme.
>
>
>> This isn't an us vs. them situation. This is simply a "is this allowed?" and
>> so far not a single admin or .org representative seems to have an answer.
>>
>> Can we please get a clarification so we can put this issue to rest once and
>> for all?
>
> I have already answered this, multiple times, in multiple ways. What
> answer are you looking for that will satisfy you? How can I better
> explain this? Tell me, please, because it's as clear as day to me.
>
> -Otto
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Trent Lapinski <mailto:trent at cyberchimps.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 13:55
> I've just been watching this so far, and I have to admit I'm getting 
> confused as well.
>
> Are subscription based themes and plugins that limit usage if the user 
> stops paying allowed on .org?
>
> If no, then the theme shouldn't be allowed on .org until they change 
> their pricing model.
>
> If yes, can someone please explain how this is GPL compatible?
>
> This answer will have a drastic effect on all upsell themes and 
> pricing models for theme shops. We need a clear yes or no answer with 
> a defined explanation.
>
> This isn't an us vs. them situation. This is simply a "is this 
> allowed?" and so far not a single admin or .org representative seems 
> to have an answer.
>
> Can we please get a clarification so we can put this issue to rest 
> once and for all?
>
> --Trent Lapinski
> CEO of CyberChimps
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 11:08 AM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com 
> <mailto:bhadaway at gmail.com>> wrote:
>
>> *@Otto*
>>
>> Just because you disagree with me does not make the issues I'm 
>> raising a rant and it's not fair for you to be dismissive in that 
>> manner. Also, I'm not concerned that this discussion is being 
>> ignored. I wasn't even the one who started this discussion so clearly 
>> others have the same concerns. Furthermore, are you even reading my 
>> responses? They're very concise and backed up with facts, links, 
>> quotes etc.
>>
>> The GPL is not just about code and never has been, that's only part 
>> of it. I think it more importantly has to do with usage rights and 
>> specifically to the point, our roles of protecting the users of this 
>> community, hence additional WP policies and guidelines.
>>
>> No, I haven't reviewed the new ticket theme code nor will I nor 
>> should I, as I don't need to, that's completely irrelevant. The only 
>> proof needed is right here:
>>
>> http://www.pagelines.com/pricing/
>>
>> You already made your point that "Well, marketing language is one 
>> thing and the fine print is another..." (paraphrasing of course) and 
>> I already agreed that is a good point generally, but doesn't apply 
>> here as the theme developer has already clarified that it's not a 
>> support limit, but a usage one.
>>
>> I couldn't be more calm, clear and concise in my communications. 
>> Nothing I've said has been frantic or hyperbole in the least.
>>
>> You say that I need to be more clear and backup what I'm saying, well 
>> if you disagree with me, I invite you to do the same. If you disagree 
>> with me, here's what you're saying:
>>
>> *1. Under the GPL, we're allowed to sell themes, but restrict how 
>> many websites our customers are allowed to use those themes on.*
>>
>> *2. Under WP policy, if we submit plugins or themes, we're not 
>> required to keep all our WordPress works GPL compatible.*
>>
>> Is that what you're saying? And if not, I'm completely failing to 
>> understand what you mean. Instead of just disagreeing with me, do you 
>> have a rebuttal?
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org 
>> <mailto: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
> Bryan Hadaway <mailto:bhadaway at gmail.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 13:08
> *@Otto*
>
> Just because you disagree with me does not make the issues I'm raising 
> a rant and it's not fair for you to be dismissive in that manner. 
> Also, I'm not concerned that this discussion is being ignored. I 
> wasn't even the one who started this discussion so clearly others have 
> the same concerns. Furthermore, are you even reading my responses? 
> They're very concise and backed up with facts, links, quotes etc.
>
> The GPL is not just about code and never has been, that's only part of 
> it. I think it more importantly has to do with usage rights and 
> specifically to the point, our roles of protecting the users of this 
> community, hence additional WP policies and guidelines.
>
> No, I haven't reviewed the new ticket theme code nor will I nor should 
> I, as I don't need to, that's completely irrelevant. The only proof 
> needed is right here:
>
> http://www.pagelines.com/pricing/
>
> You already made your point that "Well, marketing language is one 
> thing and the fine print is another..." (paraphrasing of course) and I 
> already agreed that is a good point generally, but doesn't apply here 
> as the theme developer has already clarified that it's not a support 
> limit, but a usage one.
>
> I couldn't be more calm, clear and concise in my communications. 
> Nothing I've said has been frantic or hyperbole in the least.
>
> You say that I need to be more clear and backup what I'm saying, well 
> if you disagree with me, I invite you to do the same. If you disagree 
> with me, here's what you're saying:
>
> *1. Under the GPL, we're allowed to sell themes, but restrict how many 
> websites our customers are allowed to use those themes on.*
>
> *2. Under WP policy, if we submit plugins or themes, we're not 
> required to keep all our WordPress works GPL compatible.*
>
> Is that what you're saying? And if not, I'm completely failing to 
> understand what you mean. Instead of just disagreeing with me, do you 
> have a rebuttal?
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> Otto <mailto:otto at ottodestruct.com>
> Friday, September 20, 2013 12:07
>
> 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.
>
> -Otto
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130920/00e02b81/attachment-0001.html>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1200 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/00e02b81/attachment-0004.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1391 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/00e02b81/attachment-0005.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1336 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/00e02b81/attachment-0006.jpg>
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: postbox-contact.jpg
Type: image/jpeg
Size: 1250 bytes
Desc: not available
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130920/00e02b81/attachment-0007.jpg>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list