WP org bans Envato members from WordCamp gatherings
thenextweb.com
thenextweb.com
WTF "spirit" is comes down to whatever the founder wants it to be, in this case Matt has decided to target developers instead of addressing the issue with Envato or the community. It has created a confusing situation with good people stuck in the middle.
Why was Jake Caputo singled out, several WordCamp speakers and even core contributors have items on Envato. Are developers going to have to submit under pseudonyms so they can make a living?
Envato itself sponsors the WordPress community summit (and past wordcamps). Do they not see this as a mixed signal?
Who exactly is behind the elusive wordpress.org foundation, is it a private foundation run only by Matt himself?
How are the foundation goals not polluted by having the same director of the closed source wordpress.com (who also sell premium themes but in the context of a "service").
Why does the "spirit" of GPL apply to a large company and not me, for example I can copyright my images/graphics in a WordPress theme and still comply with the license, but Envato can't?
Is the line drawn when only when a theme is distributed? What about all the theme shops that have non GPL creative work in them?
Is Wordpress.com exempt because it is a service, what is preventing Envato or anyone else from starting it's own split-license theme "service". What exactly is the difference between a theme service and a theme distributor?
ps. The original article and discussion is here: http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed
The foundation holds the keys to the WordPress logo, and it also does things like support WordCamps that aren't profitable to keep those communities strong. It's also a legal barrier to protect WordCamp organizers. See this post: http://wordpressfoundation.org/2012/wordcamps-and-such/ The foundation is also starting to monetarily support local meetups (more frequent gatherings than WordCamp). I think Matt is the only person in charge of the foundation, but I'm not sure.
Basically it's a GPL dispute - ThemeForest themes are not fully GPL (they GPL the PHP, but not CSS, etc.), and the WordPress.org folks are against that.
I'm not going to get into whether they think that this stance is legally wrong or whether it's just that they don't want to offer a venue and what might be perceived by some as endorsement or official sanction, because I don't know and I'm not sure that everyone involved does either. I do think that (from what I've heard) the way the WordPress Foundation has approached it is a bit heavy-handed.
If, like WordPress, you want to enforce GPL compliance for derivative projects, then spell out clear exceptions to your derivation clause - if they even just spelled out themes it would have made this problem moot.
They did have the occasional issue where they were using comercial libraries and had to take those out of the codebase before they could open source them.
In this case, the theme developers are not copyright holders of the WordPress code and thus are subject to the WordPress.org's license.
Are they turning a blind eye to the company that writes the checks for the WordPress Foundation, or has a special exemption been carved out for them?
There is, of course, nothing stopping anyone from buying the source code, and making it publicly available.
IMO the basic premise of the GPL is that users who receive the program/app/whatever may also get the source code, modify it, and further distribute under the same license.
Section 3 of GPL2 states: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:
a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,
c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
Most do "a" but "b" is acceptable and Section 1 even allows for charging a fee for the source code.
At that point, you have the right to distribute it in any way you want -- provided you aren't restricting StudioPress's rights. That means you could actually resell the same theme for a lower price if you wanted and StudioPress would bitch and moan but couldn't legally do anything about it.
That happens with Linux. Red Hat sells their product to clients. They also offer up the uncompiled source code. Others, CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc., take that code and compile it and distribute it for free. The advantage of buying from Red Hat is support and fastest access to newest stuff.
There is absolutely nothing stopping me from buying a StudioPress theme and putting a download link to it on my site, or even hosting that content on Github. It might be poor taste, but there'd be nothing against StudioPress's rights with me doing that.
My biggest issues with GPL was it was written in an age of traditionally compiled languages. It wasn't written for the nuance of web language and the context of what is distribution, what is complete, what is compiled is different and to me, not as cut and dried.
Most of the commercial WordPress theme shops (outside of Envato) do run fully GPL shops. They do this not because of altruism but because Matt and WordPress.org strong armed them into making the decision to change around 2009/2010. Since then, it's become common.
The reason you don't see people bitching about giving up their redistribution rights or the rights on their images and CSS is because most people who buy WordPress themes aren't on HN, they buy a theme, customize it, use it. They don't think about, "oh, I cold resell this same theme and undercut someone else."
You can read more about this kind of thing here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
That's what I'm starting to think...
... of course, the GPL is all about "linking", and it's not at all clear what this means if you're not programming something C-like.
I'm looking to open-source a few bits of code soon, and actively want commercial entities to not have to worry about using them, but am not sure what to go with.
If you want the copyleft style license, the GPLv2 is fairly acceptable, whereas some companies don't like the GPLv3's changes (Apple, for one). LGPLv2 with a linking exception for static binaries is another option, especially if your code component will be included in other products that require solid binaries (various App stores).
If copyleft isn't required, the MIT/BSD/Apache licenses have differing levels of advertising requirements/bans, and legal/patent protections.
If you really just want to get it out there in the open, declaring it public domain or no license is probably the easiest way.
As many are fond of saying in the open-source world, if you don't like the license terms, you are free to make your own [software] under any license you like, provided your code is your own, or licensed under terms compatible with the license you choose.
Envato's stance enables them to enforce copyright terms, whereas a GPL license is, by nature, far more open and encourages reuse by others. It's my opinion that WordPress is in the right here (aside from the fact that it's their convention to do with what they please) regarding license enforcement, but I can certainly understand Envato's position.
Well, I'd be careful with that. The open source project I contribute to (KDE) has quite a bit of GPL'ed code, but it also has quite a bit of other licenses in use, so it is certainly possible to have arbitrary licenses that make up a given single derivative work.
If I understand Envato's argument correctly, they make derivative themes (and license the derivation under GPL), which has embedded hooks to allow for other content to be read in later. This other content (normally art or CSS?) is not necessarily licensed under GPL, because it is not considered by Envato to be derivative of WordPress content.
To be honest I would side with Envato here. Linking khelpcenter (GPL) to kdelibs (LGPL) does not make kdelibs suddenly GPL'ed software, and using khelpcenter to display GFDL'ed documentation in an integrated fashion doesn't make khelpcenter suddenly GFDL'ed.
The real question is whether the "additional content" is truly derivative or whether it is originated by Envato and then linked in (since GPL has provisions to allow linking in content with other licenses). Of course, maybe WordPress used a modified license to forbid linking, but then that wouldn't really be GPL, it would be something else.
Yes, so long as those other license are GPL-compatible. 3-clause BSD, MIT, ISC, etc. are all GPL-compatible. The license that Envato is allowing or using for the non-PHP theme assets is not, so the question does become one of whether the theme assets are a derivative work.
That's not GPL people, that's WordPress people picking the wrong license. They shouldn't be using GPL if they want that.
Then how does this work for content you put in a WP website? You're using the database, of which the layout can be considered an interface. Should all the content be GPL'ed as well? And how does that work if your theme uses another OS project, say Bootstrap (which is an Apache licence)?
Before even getting to that question... viewing output on a website is irrelevant as far as the GPL is concerned, only the AGPL deals with that. You can take GPL code, make some changes to it, put it up on a web server, let people use it... and you don't have to distribute your changes.
Did they really understand the GPL when they built their business on it?
So, this isn't strictly about what's legally required to fall under the GPL.
[1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleL...
People who are selling plugins or themes on Envato are banned from being a speaker or even volunteering. Envato members can still attend the gathering.
'While legally you can make a technical argument that in a theme the PHP, CSS, JS, and images are separate things, from the point of view of a user they make up a single unit of usefulness, one “thing.” Users intuitively understand this, just like it’d be strange to have a car you could drive anywhere, but you had to remove the wheels if you went outside a certain area (the so-called “split license”). Most theme authors and businesses in the WP community also understand this, in fact all of the theme shops on the commercial themes page and many of the most successful including WooThemes and StudioPress sell 100% GPL themes that protect all the rights of their users, and have been extremely successful doing so.
It’s an author and developer’s choice to license all their code under the GPL, and it’s our choice to only promote, accept sponsorship, and accept speaking proposals from people who do so. It’s not a personal thing, and the guidelines apply equally to everyone, and if someone who broke the guidelines in the past stopped tomorrow there would be no hard feelings (it’s not a blackball, which implies permanent exclusion, it’s just part of the social mores of our community).'
Does this remind you of anything?
Greater good, comply and you'll be OK, free == freedom for everyone, etc.
I really want to give Matt and the foundation a benefit of the doubt here, but they are making it very difficult.
I followed up with a question about the WP logo, which is bundled in the WP.org download but protected.
'The GPL is a license granted under copyright law, which is separate from a trademark, which WordPress and its logo are. It’s totally allowed by the software license for someone to take the software and make a hosting service, they just have to have their own name for it, like Edublogs. (Some OS communities consider trademark restrictions too much as well, which is why there’s a fork of Firefox called “Iceweasel” included in Debian.) In addition to the guidelines on the Foundation site, having the trademark also gives us a tool to take down phishing sites that target WordPress.org users, or people who set up theme directories at similar-to-WordPress domains where every download includes a malware backdoor. There are many hundreds of these per year.'
It seems there are plenty of loopholes when they want them to exist. What I want to know is - what can I do, as a plugin and theme author, to ensure I am properly paid for my work?
I don't attend WordCamps or contribute to core, so it doesn't affect me, but it does bother me that the platform I'm building for has principles that are fundamentally opposite to my own.
I find Envato's licenses very limiting and authors have to play by their rules to be in their market place. However, I'm not against the split licensing at all, just wish authors could more freely choose under what terms to sell their works, such as pricing and what the terms are for installing a design on multiple sites.
If I wanted to, I could raid the WP theme and plugin repo and re-sell all of them. Since I'm a developer, I could offer support that exceeds the level most get with free themes/plugins and provide value. I don't because I have ethical boundaries, but there are plenty that do not.
Having said that, I don't buy into to the idea that Envato's licensing protects author's works, at least not for WordPress themes & plugins - if there's data to support the contrary, that would be interesting to find out. The reason I think this it is not the case is that there are outfits excelling with their business doing everything GPL. As far as I know there are no companies that have regretted switching to pure GPL in the WP space.
Secondly, the reality of the fact is that even with restrictive licenses, trademarks and lawyers in place it's impossible to prevent people from copying/stealing/etc. What does work is having a community that cares about principles and understands why they are important which is why I think the foundation believes these kinds of positions are necessary even if they draw harsh lines. (I do not agree with banning/excluding/or putting authors needlessly in bad graces with the community as they are now though)
I agree it's impossible to prevent, but any rational individual will try their best to stop it until the work > return. I think the 'community' is a straw man in this case.