The license explicitly says it has to be GPL. End of discussion. He is making up his own rules!
He wants to make money and is scared to GPL. Fair enough.
However, Matt and WordPress can sue him and they should. Stop these goofy debates and making Chris squirm awkwardly. Though it is kind of funny...
The license does. However, I don't think his theme uses actual wordpress code beyond function calls. I would hardly call this a derivative work.
WordPress has a public API... several of them, in fact. A theme doesn't use those, it makes direct calls to internal WP code, and it uses WordPress internal data structures. This is enough to make it a derivative work.
From http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html#Me... :
"Combining two modules means connecting them together so that they form a single larger program. If either part is covered by the GPL, the whole combination must also be released under the GPL—if you can't, or won't, do that, you may not combine them.
What constitutes combining two parts into one program? This is a legal question, which ultimately judges will decide. We believe that a proper criterion depends both on the mechanism of communication (exec, pipes, rpc, function calls within a shared address space, etc.) and the semantics of the communication (what kinds of information are interchanged).
If the modules are included in the same executable file, they are definitely combined in one program. If modules are designed to run linked together in a shared address space, that almost surely means combining them into one program.
By contrast, pipes, sockets and command-line arguments are communication mechanisms normally used between two separate programs. So when they are used for communication, the modules normally are separate programs. But if the semantics of the communication are intimate enough, exchanging complex internal data structures, that too could be a basis to consider the two parts as combined into a larger program."
Ultimately, it is a matter of interpretation, but all previous interpretation, including those made in courts of law, pretty much universally agree with Matt on this one. It's very difficult to consider a theme to be a "separate program" when it's deep-linking to internal functions and data structures and it also cannot run independently.
There have been no court cases I'm aware of that have dealt with this in the context of a GPL program. There are, however, numerous cases where the code being called was not GPL, and they have pretty much universally ruled that the FSF position is wrong--blob of code X calling into blob of code Y does NOT make X a derivative work of Y.
A key point from the opinion:
"Micro Star further argues that the MAP files are not derivative works because they do not, in fact, incorporate any of D/N-3D's protected expression. In particular, Micro Star makes much of the fact that the N/I MAP files reference the source art library, but do not actually contain any art files themselves. Therefore, it claims, nothing of D/N-3D's is reproduced in the MAP files. In making this argument, Micro Star misconstrues the protected work. The work that Micro Star infringes is the D/N-3D story itself--a beefy commando type named Duke who wanders around post-Apocalypse Los Angeles, shooting Pig Cops with a gun, lobbing hand grenades, searching for medkits and steroids, using a jetpack to leap over obstacles, blowing up gas tanks, avoiding radioactive slime. A copyright owner holds the right to create sequels, see Trust Co. Bank v. MGM/UA Entertainment Co., 772 F.2d 740 (11th Cir.1985), and the stories told in the N/I MAP files are surely sequels, telling new (though somewhat repetitive) tales of Duke's fabulous adventures. A book about Duke Nukem would infringe for the same reason, even if it contained no pictures."
They use that same notion, that the MAP file is encoding a D/N story, in dismissing the claim that it is the user making the derivative work, not Micro Star. It doesn't seem to be the artwork per se that's the problem for Micro Star--it's that it is telling a D/N story.
Galoob is fascinating - thanks for that, I've not read it before.
Do you think Matt would have changed his mind either? From his tweets and past interviews, he doesn't seem like he will ever change is mind about derivative works.
He still hasn't changed one bit on his opinion of plugins/themes and the GPL.
Well, matt wasn't offering a compelling argument for chris to release under the GPL either, so I guess they are even.
I love all the posts here about "breaking the law". I never see this much support when a content owner doesn't want their stuff shared on the torrent networks for free. Funny how politics plays into the rights and wrongs of society.
The songs and films and software on The Pirate Bay aren't funding the corporations or artists with the copyrights, but they are funding the revenue stream of TPB itself.
Did you watch the whole interview? His views has nothing to do with laws, nothing to do with grey areas within the license (from my understanding GPL is very explicit about this); he basically said "I don't wanna do this because, I don't wanna do this."
How can you rationalize with that?
EDIT: Not many licenses have been challenged in court, including the GPL. Do you have any cases to cite in favor of GPL?
I don't think that Thesis is distributed with a copy of Wordpress. I definitely think it's a sketchier argument to make with a theme. Settlement of a case doesn't always mean that the defendant is going to lose either. It can also mean that the cost and distraction of a protracted suit makes it easier to swallow the cost of the settlement.
Not to say that his argument couldn't fly, but I'm not sure I would give it that much credence either.
While Chris may not have stuck on point about the gray areas within the license (it is FAR from explicit), that doesn't mean they don't still apply. And last I checked, we're still innocent until proven guilty in regards to the kinds of accusations Matt is making.
Matt is the one with the burden of proof here, not Chris and Matt most certainly hasn't achieved the requisite level of proof IMO.
My respect for Matt just jumped ten-fold for being so calm with this guy and I am not even a fan-boy.