[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

Fri Sep 20 20:31:02 UTC 2013

@Ulrich that breaks what guidelines exactly?

On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:25 PM, Ulrich Pogson <grapplerulrich at gmail.com>wrote:

> @Otto -  The curreent version being reviewed is version 1.0.3 This is the
> footer code:
> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/browser/dms/1.0.3/footer.php#L52 The pro
> class is still there. I have to ask, have you looked at the diff from
> version 1.0.2 and 1.0.3
>
>
> On 20 September 2013 22:21, 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/e9bda551/attachment.html>