[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Ünsal Korkmaz]

My whole commercial GPL theme understanding is completely vanished.
My brain is keep denying all of this as "*its a trap! dont do it, its just
another way of scam!"*
*
*
While you say its legal, basically its similar to selling a car without
engine. You give an empty shell (theme) for free but leasing the engine
(plugin).
This is not what i was thinking as commercial GPL.

Nope, i couldnt accept it. Thanks for everyone to spare time to explain.
Sorry for all trouble.

*
*

*
*
*
*


On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 1:03 AM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com>wrote:

> @Otto I already stated that from a technical legal perspective your
> interpretation of copyright law is valid.
>
> It still doesn't speak to the issue of whether or not we're going to allow
> this on wordpress.org or not.
>
> I'm always going to side with users rights over paywalls, and forced
> pricing structures and payment practices.
>
> Again, I want to make it very clear here that what PageLines is doing is
> not selling a support service, they are forcing users to pay to get
> continued access to features that are critical to the future development of
> the users website when they've already paid for the Pro product.
>
> They are essentially leasing features to users, and forcefully removing
> them if they don't continue to pay.
>
> Legal issues, and interpretations of the GPL aside, as a community should
> we allow this?
>
> My vote is absolutely not. If anything I think we need to define our
> guidelines more clearly that leasing features, paywalls, and proprietary
> validation APIs that serve no function other then to remove features if
> someone stops paying should be banned to protect the rights of users.
> Moving said features to a companion plugin shouldn't be allowed as a
> loophole either.
>
> This will be my final e-mail on this subject. I truly hope the greater
> good of the community is considered here, for I fear if we allow this it
> will open pandoras box to a host of similar scams.
>
>    --Trent Lapinski
> =============
> CEO of CyberChimps
>
> On Sep 20, 2013, at 2:38 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 4:33 PM, Ünsal Korkmaz <unsalkorkmaz at gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> @Otto, All i understand from your perspective:
> "You are moron if you sell a product with 1 time fee, why dont you make it
> on monthly fee?"
> Label it as GPL, put all valuable functionality in plugin with paywall.
>
> You just changed wordpress commerical GPL theme market. I hope you realize
> it.
>
>
> I didn't change anything. You've always had the ability to sell
> add-ons to your themes. Why are you not doing this now? It's obvious.
>
> It may not be a great idea, however, to do self-disabling code behind
> a subscription. I never said DMS's subscription plugin was a *good
> idea*. Making that sort of self-disabling thing encourages others to
> take your code and offer it for free with your restrictions removed,
> undercutting you. It creates animosity between you and your userbase.
>
> But, selling add-on products is a perfectly valid market. I'd go the
> extra step and make them unrestricted though, having checks like this
> won't help you in the long run. You shouldn't try to sell code,
> because code can be copied and modified. Selling support services is
> always long term.
>
> -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/20130921/c2c26ac2/attachment.html>