[theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage

[Emil Uzelac]

Yes, you did bud. We closed the discussion and moved on :)

Instead of empty discussions I tried something new. 81 reviews in 7 days
http://goo.gl/VwA5tx

That's something we need around here. Contribution -vs BS. So, let's move
forward, no more
of empty discussion, get to work or move on, that's our new motto :)

Thanks,
Emil


On Sun, Sep 22, 2013 at 11:17 AM, Zulfikar Nore <zulfikarnore at live.com>wrote:

> OK time to stop being a spectator and throw in my 2cents.
>
> The code hosted and distributed via the WordPress.org repository must be
> complete!
>
> It should require no additional resources to run as an end product!
>
> It should contain none of the checks for pro add-ons!
>
> End Of!
>
> Now when it comes to the add-ons, the author is free to distribute that
> however they see fit in accordance with their business model - GPL has no
> say on that. In addition WordPress policy has no say on that (see Qs
> below) for as long as the "add-ons" code does not cross contaminate with
> the WordPress hosted code.
>
> In conclusion:
> The theme hosted on WordPress is the free/lite version which does not
> require any other add-ons in order to be fully functional.
>
> The author should produce the pro version of the theme and distribute that
> on their site with no bearings on WordPress hosted version.
> To which they can choose to add what ever activation checks and
> deactivation code as they please - be that within the theme or as an add-on
> plugin. i.e only the Pro version should contain the subscription API
> checks!
>
> At this point the author is well entitled to claim the pro version as GPL
> compatible and its entirely up to the end user to accept it is or it is not
> - it should be none of our business.
>
> So is the Free version self-contained? If yes then this discussion is over
> - if not then lets hear the actual objectionable issues with the "current"
> theme under review.
>
> Does the Pro version cross contaminate the free version? - If yes it does
> then that is an issue that needs resolving before approval.
>
> Most importantly: Does the Pro version in what it does or propose to do,
> violate the WordPress Org policies? If it does then lets point those issues
> out and get them ironed out.
>
> Did I miss anything?
>
> ------------------------------
> From: unsalkorkmaz at gmail.com
> Date: Sat, 21 Sep 2013 01:38:56 +0300
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] GPL and limiting usage
>
>
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________ 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/20130923/e65cfb2e/attachment-0001.html>