[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Emil Uzelac]

This is how<http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/query?status=closed&changetime=7+days..&resolution=not-approved&resolution=live&resolution=closed-newer-version-uploaded&groupdesc=1&group=owner&col=id&col=changetime&col=resolution&col=owner&col=reporter&desc=1&order=changetime&report=16&owner=emiluzelac>
you
can start (re)education (sorry no begins)


On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:00 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at uzelac.me> wrote:

> This is how<http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/query?status=closed&changetime=7+days..&resolution=not-approved&resolution=live&resolution=closed-newer-version-uploaded&groupdesc=1&group=owner&col=id&col=changetime&col=resolution&col=owner&col=reporter&desc=1&order=changetime&report=16&owner=emiluzelac>you can start (re)education begins. Start reviewing more Themes.
> Instead of doing one per day, increase the numbers and you'll end up with
> 64.
>
> Just sayin ;)
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:49 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
>> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 3:38 PM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com>
>> wrote:
>> >> If the copyright holder says that the terms are GPL, then the terms
>> >> are GPL. Period. No magic coding trickery can make it "incompatible"
>> >> with those terms.
>> >
>> > Just because you claim something is GPL does not make it true.
>>
>> If you are the copyright holder, because you *wrote the damn thing*,
>> then it absolutely does make it true. Every single time, without fail.
>>
>> Only the copyright holder has the power to license the work. That's
>> the whole point of copyright.
>>
>>
>> > There are plenty of people who release code under the GPL and violate
>> the terms, and there have been several lawsuits on this matter.
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
>> >
>> > The GPL is not the same as copyright, there is no inherent law granting
>> you the right. If you release something under the GPL that is not GPL
>> compatible, it is a GPL violation and you lose the privilege to claim your
>> code is GPL compatible.
>>
>> This is so wrong that I honestly don't know where to start.
>>
>> Time for quick copyright school lessons:
>> - The creator of a work gets the copyright to that work. This gives
>> them all the rights to it. Nobody else has any rights to it at all.
>> - The copyright holder can give those rights to others. They can do it
>> freely, or make it subject to conditions. The conditions are called
>> the "license".
>> - The GPL is a license like any other. It is the contract by which the
>> copyright holder gives you, the person with no rights, the ability to
>> exercise those rights from the copyright holder.
>> - The copyright holder cannot violate their own license. The very
>> notion of this fundamentally misunderstands how licenses work. The
>> license applies to you and everybody else. Not to them.
>>
>>
>> > If you look at the violations page, one of the questions to determine
>> if there is a violation is: "Is the available source code complete, or is
>> it designed for linking in other non-free modules?"
>> >
>> > This is exactly what we're discussing.
>>
>> Violations can only occur to licensees. Not to the licensor.
>>
>>
>>
>> > PageLines is releasing a supposedly GPL compatible theme linking to a
>> plugin that forces users to pay a subscription validated through the use of
>> a priority API to use supposedly GPL compatible code. This is a violation
>> of the GPL and renders both the theme and plugin as non-compatible with the
>> GPL, and WPORG policy.
>>
>> This has no bearing on the GPL in any way whatsoever. The theme/plugin
>> are licensed under the GPL because *their author says so*. That's the
>> end of it, really.
>>
>> Whether it violates policy or not is a fair debate. I say it does not.
>>
>>
>> > When it comes to policy on .org, the question is do we allow themes or
>> plugins to upsell priority non-GPL themes and plugins? The answer as I
>> understood it was a resounding no. You yourself said this is not allowed,
>> so I'm not sure why you're claiming this situation is different then what
>> it is.
>>
>> The issue isn't about "non-GPL". If they say it's GPL, then I accept
>> that, and it's GPL. Done.
>>
>>
>> >> Now, the review requirements go far beyond GPL, and that's fair
>> >> enough. But there is no real case where you would ever need to "modify
>> >> a pro theme heavily" to be GPL-Compatible. Whoever told you that this
>> >> was the reason was mistaken.
>> >
>> > Actually they weren't wrong. This has been WPORG policy for over 3
>> years now as Chip mentioned.
>>
>> If the theme review team has been incorrectly interpreting the GPL and
>> using it in a mistaken way, then I'm very saddened by that, and I
>> offer my assistance to correct and educate the team in any way that I
>> can.
>>
>> -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/20130920/31d10e39/attachment-0001.html>