[wp-hackers] Re: Removal Of Over 200 Themes?

[Jeff Chandler]

Pete's situation as per the comment reference in Najots reply is very 
interesting. What happened to Pete (if thats how it happened) is I think 
out of line. In relation to the linking issue, here is the actual 
statement as part of the requirements to be hosted on the repository.

No hidden, paid or sponsored links in the theme. Links back to the 
author's site are fine.

What if the authors site happens to be a site that sells themes? I mean, 
it's not paid, it's just that the theme author is releasing a decent 
product for free to be used by anyone and the authors site just happens 
to be a guy running his own pay-for-theme company? Wouldn't he be 
considered the theme author in which case, fall in line with the 
requirements?

Jeremy Clarke wrote:
> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Navjot Singh <navjotjsingh at gmail.com> wrote:
>   
>> I don't understand this policy of removing theme of a author who only shows
>> ads of a premium theme. How does GPL violates in this case. Please refer to
>> http://www.jeffro2pt0.com/why-were-200-wordpress-themes-removed#comment-2952-
>> Adii's comment here on what I mean. A person whos releases a GPL theme
>> but
>> only uses a affiliate banner of a premium theme site - Does this also
>> violates GPL in a way?
>>     
>
> No, the paid links thing is a completely different issue from GPL.
> It's a policy for inclusion in wordpress.org/extend (as i understand
> it) because they want to keep quality high and avoid exploiters just
> looking to make money by re-releasing existing themes with paid links.
>
> You can be as commercial as you want with GPL code as long as you keep
> the license attatched to your product. GPL-compliance and "no paid
> links" are just two seperate qualifications to be in the theme/plugin
> repositories.
>
>