[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Fri Sep 20 20:24:45 UTC 2013

>
> > 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.

@Otto, based on your comments & ideas;

Can i basically sell non-GPL themes on themeforest while i keep my GPL
theme<http://wordpress.org/themes/firmasite>in
wordpress.org?
Simple question, please answer, its important for me. Thx

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 11:21 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> So all this comes down to what we were saying in this discussion all along
> or at least from the second Theme submission, that there are no GPL
> issues.
>
> Am I wrong Justin?
>
> If so we already touched the policy and noted that this should be
> acceptable.
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:14 PM, Justin Tadlock <justin at justintadlock.com>wrote:
>
>> The issue here is really all about whether a theme can block
>> features/code bundled within the theme itself without a paid subscription.
>>  It's not connecting to an API to use a service (like Akismet).  It's
>> connecting to an API to determine whether particular code in the theme will
>> run based on nothing more than a payment.
>>
>> For a simple example, this code in `footer.php`:
>>
>>     <?php if(!pl_is_pro()):?>
>>         <a class="pl-credit" href="http://www.pagelines.**com/<http://www.pagelines.com/>"
>> title="Built with PageLines DMS [basic]" target="_blank" style="display:
>> block !important; visibility: visible !important; opacity: 1 !important;">
>>             <i class="icon-pagelines pl-transit"></i> <span
>> class="fademein">DMS</span>
>>         </a>
>>     <?php endif; ?>
>>
>> I'm sure most of you can understand it, but I'll break it down:
>>
>> * A footer link is displayed if you do not have a subscription to their
>> pro service.
>> * The inline style rules break our guidelines on inline style rules.
>> * The inline style rules seem to be there solely to make it hard for
>> users to hide this via CSS.
>>
>> Obviously, anyone can remove that if they know where to look and a little
>> bit about code.  But, the lengths in which the theme author has gone to
>> block users from removing a footer credit wouldn't be allowed in any other
>> theme.
>>
>> I haven't had a chance to fully look over the code, but I'm guessing
>> based on the comments so far, that this is just one of many similar
>> restrictions.  It seems the gist of everyone's concern is about actual
>> restriction within the theme code that's being put on WordPress.org.
>>
>> Let's all assume that there's no GPL issues.  The question then becomes
>> whether this violates WordPress.org policy and/or theme review policy.
>>
>> So, let's talk policy.
>>
>> Assuming I understand the issues clearly, let me present another example
>> that's not tied to the theme in question.
>>
>> Suppose in the next theme I upload to WordPress.org, I decided to create
>> some color and layout options for the theme customizer.  This code would,
>> obviously, be within the theme.  However, anyone who downloads this theme
>> from WordPress.org would not be allowed to use my theme customizer options
>> out of the box.  They'd need to purchase an API key for this feature to
>> become unlocked.  Of course, anyone who knows a little PHP can go in and
>> change the code so that it works without an API key.
>>
>> From what I've gathered from this discussion, that example is no
>> different (please do correct me if I'm wrong).  I'm not sure if that
>> necessarily breaks the GPL (probably not).  It's more a matter of policy --
>> whether this is something that we should allow on the WordPress.org theme
>> repository.
>>
>> I apologize if I'm misunderstanding anything that's happening with the
>> code and hope I didn't misrepresent the situation.  I'll be sure to give it
>> a better look when I get a chance.
>>
>>
>> On 9/20/2013 2:50 PM, Otto wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 2:40 PM, Bryan Hadaway <bhadaway at gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Because, I'm going to bang on pots and pans until you actually
>>>> acknowledge
>>>> that the horse ever even existed. The issue isn't contained within the
>>>> walls
>>>> of the theme's code, it's a licensing issue that has not changed just
>>>> because a new version of the theme was uploaded.
>>>>
>>> In my view, the issue existed in the theme, up until they moved the
>>> problem code to a plugin on their own site. And I'm kind of okay with
>>> that.
>>>
>>> So as far as I'm concerned, the issue is not an issue anymore.
>>>
>>> Now, as I see it, you're wanting to create a whole new issue, one
>>> where now we impose even more strict guidelines on theme authors. As
>>> near as I can tell, you essentially want the theme review team to say
>>> that subscription models are unacceptable. Well, call me crazy, but I
>>> don't think that's a really good idea.
>>>
>>> If you want to fine-pick the nitty gritty details and go "oh-noes
>>> they're selling code that actually checks for subscriptions", well I'm
>>> going to say that checking for subscriptions really doesn't bother me
>>> too awful much, as long as the code to do so ain't on WordPress.org.
>>>
>>> So yeah. That's my viewpoint. I don't much care whether they have a
>>> subscription model or not for their own code that is being sold from
>>> their own site. My 2 cents.
>>>
>>> -Otto
>>> ______________________________**_________________
>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers>
>>>
>>
>> ______________________________**_________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.**wordpress.org<theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/**mailman/listinfo/theme-**reviewers<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/20130920/39c416e9/attachment-0001.html>