[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Justin Tadlock]

> For the specific case of the footer.php, I'm forced to remember that
> credit links are actually allowed in themes. If the credit link itself
> is acceptable without the is_pro check, then I'd personally be hard
> pressed to say it's unacceptable with that check there to allow it to
> be removed.

The is_pro check in that particular scenario isn't so much a concern of 
mine as the inline style rules placed there to make it hard to hide with 
CSS.  It seems like it's placed there to intentionally make it hard for 
users to remove this link, which is the sort of thing we've always taken 
a hard stance against.

> You're basically correct, however the issue is more complex.
>
> - The first version of the theme did essentially what your example
> does. It was not-approved for that and other reasons.
> - The second and current version of the theme does not contain most of
> the code that the "pro" stuff had, and does not have this
> service-check. Instead, that code is now in a plugin only available
> from the author's site.
>
> The key problem here seems to be that the existence of this plugin is
> now unacceptable to some people, to the point where they want to
> reject the theme based on it. The theme itself now has only minor
> issues and would normally be perfectly acceptable as is.
>

Got it.  As long as the theme isn't allowed to do that, I'm pretty good.

I don't really see any GPL violations coming from their site, but I'll 
leave that up to those more knowledgeable about the GPL.