[wp-hackers] /extend repo requirements

[Christopher Ross]

Glenn, I'm not sure that there's been a shift in policy regarding commercial plugins on /extend/ but can tell you from my experience, releasing GPL compliant plugins for WordPress has been nothing short of great for my business. I give away a couple dozen plugins for free and support them for the community at no cost, yet I'm built a very profitable business with the help of WordPress.org. It took a lot of change on my part to agree with the GPL model and it goes against almost everything I was taught at business school yet ... it works wonderfully.


Chris


On 2011-05-19, at 12:14 PM, Glenn Pegden wrote:

> Hi everyone,
> 
> I'll start off by putting my cards on the table, I work for a commercial
> WordPress plugin developer who until recently released all it's code under a
> non-GPL compliant license. But it's not all bad news, we have been looking
> for ways to fit in with Automattic's wishes on this and release our code
> under a GPL compliant license whilst still protecting our business model
> (we're a professional studio of 6 full time people). We had hoped to make a
> big announcement of the switch at WordCampUK (as well as acting as sponsors)
> but whilst the organiser was keen, the enquiries we made to Automattic about
> how the license change over could be handled in a mutually beneficial way,
> didn't get even a courtesy response..
> 
> However, whilst that background is relevant, the actual question I have is
> regarding the extend plugin directory. I'm sure it has always been a case of
> "no commercial plugins of any type, regardless of license", but a blog post
> at
> http://www.cybersprocket.com/2011/blog/wordpress-plugins-charging-a-fee-is-not-gpl-compliant/
> has
> made me question that. Certainly I agree that
> http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/ doesn't seem to make any
> exclusion of commercial plugins (assuming they are GPL licensed), has the
> text recently changed or was I dreaming? If Automattic's stand point is no
> to commercial plugins of any type in extend" then shouldn't it be explicitly
> stated, otherwise shouldn't commercial plugins be allowed?
> 
> Obviously my personal preference would be the latter, hell I don't think the
> majority of commercial plugin developers would even object to Automattic
> taking a cut of each sale. As we are now trying to "play nice" with
> Automattic and have released our latest plugin (an invite / social media
> promotion system, inviteape <http://www.inviteape.com/>) under the GPL
> (we're charging for downloads and support, similar to Gravity Forms and WPMU
> Dev) as a bit of an experiment to see if it's worth considering with
> our Membership
> Plugin <http://www.yourmembers.co.uk/> which currently generates the
> majority of our WordPress derived revenue it would be great for us and
> others to have a definitive answer as at the moment it appears to be down to
> individual moderators on what does and doesn't get in.
> 
> Some clarification on this would be great.
> 
> Regards,
> 
> Glenn
> 
> -- 
> 
> Glenn Pegden
> Sales Director
> 
> NewMedias is a trading name of Coding Futures Ltd
> 
> Coding Futures Ltd
> The Tannery
> 91 Kirkstall Road
> Leeds
> LS3 1HS
> 
> Company House Registration Number:  07350515
> Company Registered in England and Wales
> 
> Contact Telephone: +44(0)113 2473850
> 
> The contents of this email is for the named parties, if you have
> receieved this email in error please accept our apologises. Unless
> separately mentioned the content of the email are considered private with
> content belonging to the authors.
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers



__

Christopher Ross
Online Portfolio - http://christopherross.ca
Personal Blog - http://thisismyurl.com

Fredericton - 506.238.4661
San Diego   - 858.201.4912