[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Chip Bennett chip at chipbennett.net
Fri Sep 20 19:47:19 UTC 2013 

Akismet's spam-analysis (heuristics, analysis, whatever it does to
determine if a comment is spam or not) is performed on the server. Server
connectivity is required for the Plugin to function.

DMS Pro Plugin has 100% of functionality and code within the distributed
plugin itself. The Plugin can be modified to circumvent API connectivity,
and the Plugin will continue to work as-intended.


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:44 PM, Dane Morgan <dane at danemorganmedia.com>wrote:

> @Chip can you contrast this with a paid Akismet license?
>
> @Otto can you compare this with a 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 <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 <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> <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 listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>   Trent Lapinski <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> 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
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing listtheme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.orghttp://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>   Bryan Hadaway <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 <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
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/fe50a7dc/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/fe50a7dc/attachment-0004.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/fe50a7dc/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/fe50a7dc/attachment-0006.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/fe50a7dc/attachment-0007.jpg>

More information about the theme-reviewers mailing list