Automatically Blackballed
designcrumbs.com
designcrumbs.com
The main issue for the author is that they do not have control over the license used when selling on ThemeForest, and not selling on ThemeForest is not a viable option for them as sales through that platform account for most of their monthly income.
The author states:
"""The only license available to authors on ThemeForest is a split license[0]. The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not. There’s nothing wrong with this, and I also have no problem with this; But it doesn’t meet those guidelines for WordCamps that I mentioned earlier."""
So users of the THemeForest platform are unable to license their themes in any way they wish, but must split license their themes. Wordpress has a problem with this, hence the hard line being drawn.
Not sure what the resolution might be, but I think ThemeForest should allow fully GPL themes if authors so desire. Maybe there are implications to this I am not aware of?
[0] http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Arti...
Or just the simple notice: "All files in theme xxxx are licensed under the GPL."
Don't themes come with a readme? Just put the GPL notification in there. Why do you have to pick your license using a ThemeForest tool?
So the idea behind the split license is to protect authors in terms of their designs and things like that. The parts that have to be GPL are GPL, the parts that don’t have to be, we’re happy to provide that license to help you protect them. The other thing is that on the [Envato] marketplaces there are smaller component style items, so you could buy the extended license on the marketplace, and use that in your WordPress theme. And if you then make your WordPress theme 100% GPL, you just disregarded the license of the item you put into the theme.
So it seems like they specifically discourage bypassing the split license.
Who asked them?
The author of the theme can do whatever he wants, ThemeForest doesn't get a say in the matter.
Author certainly can do whatever they want; Themeforest will just reject the submission until the author does what they want.
They have no say in the matter - they aren't getting an exclusive license after all. The author is free to provide a second license to anyone they like.
If that's the case then, yah, the author is kinda stuck.
You have a choice, you just don't really have a choice IF you're trying to make your living on selling themes.
Maybe you disagree with it/don't like the split licence/feel you should have a choice/whatever, you've got the choice to not distribute via ThemeForest.
But it seems incredibly disingenuous and sort of shady to enter into an agreement which explicitly limits the licence, and then try go behind your partners back and tell the customer to disregard that licence for your own.
If you're also selling on your own site directly, and setting your own licence, sure those sales can be licenced however the author wants. But it still leaves the fact that files sold on ThemeForest should be provided as dictated by ThemeForest, licence and all.
An ideal situation would be if the WP folks decided it's not worth it to fragment the community and let the theme folks participate. Participation doesn't kill innovation even if you disagree politically (except in congress).
Their position has been entirely clear for years. No-one's forcing the OP to sell WP themes. No-one's required to find a way to let the OP profit from selling WP themes incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to be used; much less to find a way to let the OP keep using one particular infringing WP theme site to sell his work when there are plenty of other theme sites out there that are successfully following the rules.
Even if you accept that all clients of a library are inherently derivative works of that library (a stance I strongly oppose), there is no reasonable way to conclude that non-code theme assets must also be derivative. Trying to enforce additional restrictions on the author's own work is asinine.
> any person or business should give their users the same freedoms that WordPress itself provides. Note: this is one step above simple compliance, which requires PHP code to be GPL/compatible but allows proprietary licenses for JavaScript, CSS, and images.
they are fully aware that theme authors can comply with the GPL yet impose restrictions on users via licensing of non-derivative assets. They're just refusing to promote such parasitic behavior.
Then again I don't think you're supposed to apply it to images in the first place. It's about freedom for software users, the ability to control their own computers.
Either way it's not really relevant to this discussion.
In those circumstances, blogging a complaint that you want to use GPL code but not in the way that the authors have very publicly stated that they think is reasonable doesn't get my sympathy -- go take someone else's code instead.
Automattic have just as much responsibility to respect the wishes of everyone who contributed to the source code, and by changing the effective terms of the license they are not.
Even RMS doesn't think the GPL is appropriate for everything (hence the FDL for docs).
[1]: It's the closest to the GPL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US
What does it even mean to be the corresponding source for images?
Can it be a JPG if you originally had a PNG?
JPG is lossy, after all, and therefore arguably may not be the corresponding source.
Also, the GPL says if you modify it, "a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices stating that you changed the files and the date of any change."
I guess you are supposed to put that in the EXIF?
Basically, the GPL is not a good content license, and is difficult to reason about legally for content.
http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/
http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpre...
Edit: Changed Automattic to WordPress.org
I know a lot of companies do this. Heck, even ID software provided free source of their engines, but didn't give away their WADs. But is the PhP in this case of any value without the rest? Can anything be done with it?
If the PhP is of no value on its own and it specific to the CSS, JS, and images, then imo that totally would violate the spirit of GPL'ing the other. If that is the case and you want to have it be proprietary, don't provide the source/files for any of it (for the new stuff). If you want it to be GPL, then sell it, but make all of it free source, including the images, JS, and CSS. Note: I believe that Stallman's view (if you care) is that not providing images is ok if it is art and not source/required for the source, but I think that is a loophole that can be exploited, so I say make it all free.
However, if the PhP provides some value on its own and is usable (like one of ID's engines), it's all good and do what you want.
There is nothing in GPL that says that you can't get paid for it. Just because you have to provide the source for free doesn't mean people can't pay you for the work, it just means they can't pay you for the source. They could pay you for the bundle (which they could create on their own if they wanted for free, but some may not be savvy enough to do that). GPL is not anti-capitalist.
So what ends up happening is reduced quality or higher prices. (Basically, everything being a bespoke solution, because you aren't going to be selling too many.) The GPL is a poor model for something like a wordpress theme.
This post does a nice job summarizing the story, with links to many blog posts that came from Jake's original http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-contribut...
Jake also discussed in on his PleaseAdvise podcast, as well as another podcast: http://pleaseadvise.fm/ http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-guest-jake-capu...
So they may say it is GPL, but in practice it's not.
It may be in the terms of the Hosting contract?
They distribute the css, in that they let us edit it, but they limit what we can do with it. Not GPL.
I think you're wrong. The GPL governs code, not services (even services that use GPL code).
(Possibly someone changed their mind about the wordplay verbing the "Automattic" noun.)
"Why would we ban someone for how they sell some themes through a 3rd party provider? That would be crazy! You actually believed us??"
Envato allows you to list WordPress themes and plugins for sale in their marketplace, ThemeForest. They make these products available under a split license: the PHP code that interfaces with WordPress is made available under the GPL. CSS, JavaScript and binary assets are made available under a commercial license.
WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences that use their name.
What if I made NotGPLPress that had API compatibility with WP's theme API, but was otherwise my implementation and released under a BSD license. That seems to be the exact same battle Google and Oracle just fought over Java, with Google essentially winning the APIs are not copyrightable battle. At that point couldn't every theme author just say that their theme is built for NotGPLPress and license it however they want? It seems odd that the existence or non-existence of another implementation should affect an author's licensing obligations.
Of course, the bigger problem seems to be that (some) theme authors want to be "part of the Wordpress community", presumably largely for professional and monetary reasons, while ignoring that "the Wordpress community" is strongly reliant on (and fundamentally beholden too) Automatic, and they can (and do) place expectations on the behaviours of participants in "the community", and they can (and now are) requiring that participants at events they run comply with those expectations. If you want to be "part of a community" which is reliant on one company, you probably need to play by their rules, even if you can whip out your rules-lawyer hat and claim "but those rules aren't strict interpretations of 'the law'".
That might make them really mad. If they are going to blacklist on not licensing images as GPL, what do you think they are going to do to you? ;)
The question whether conforming to a given API (which is what wordpress themes really do) constitutes a derivative work has so far only been answered "no" (and honestly, you better hope it stays that way).
GPL explicitly states that non-derivative works are not covered.
That said, basically, wordpress takes a legal position that is pretty bad, IMHO.
People copying the GPL code into their own code? Great, i'm with you, it's GPL'd, assuming
1. it's copyrightable code.
2. it's not the only way to make it compatible, since if it's the only way to make it compatible, that's so far been considered fair use.
As the ninth circuit said, anything else would grant a de-facto monopoly on functional uses.
IMHO, you really don't want the legal reality to become what wordpress is trying to enforce.
While your explanation makes that clear (and thanks for that), there's a big difference between "our preferences should become law", and "our preferences are not supported by law, but people who don't agree with them don't get invited to speak at conferences we run". Democrats are free to run conferences without being required to allow republicans to present there and vice versa, why is that different for Wordpress's conferences?
I think your choice of the word "enforce" is probably a bit of an overreach for what Wordpress are trying to do.
(for what it's worth, I don't agree with what Wordpress are doing, it seems petty and small minded to me, but I do think they have every right to be petty and small minded about conferences they organize if they choose to be…)
Except that is ridiculous. What if you start a LLC and license your code through the LLC? How is WP going to know the developer of that split-licensed code? Does this mean everyone selling themes needs to start hiding behind legal entities?
What WordPress are doing is ensuring that if you want to build a reputation at a Wordpress conference, then you need to abide by what they think are important principles. If you want to be "Joe Smith, WordPress theme superstar" at their conference, you need to GPL your themes non-php assets. If you want to sell themes at ThemeForest as "Anonymous Foo Corp LLC" with commercially licensed non-php assets, that's fine too, but Anonymous Foo Corp doesn't get invited to speak at WordPress conferences, and if Joe Smith springs "Hey, I'm Anonymous Foo Corp on ThemeForest, go buy my shit" on the audience during a presentation at a WordPress conference, it'd be spectacularly poor form, and he should expect to be called out on it and never invited back.
(and the fact that the blog post got written shows that at least one theme author does want to build his reputation by speaking at their conference, but isn't prepared to meet their "rules". wordPress, rightly or wrongly, have decided you can't do that any more.)
For example, the law says that you have to have a license to make a derivative work, and it is this particular law that is "the source of the GPL virus" in this situation. But whether or not you are making a derivative work does not have much to do with what bits of technology you use. Of course, the questions are related because choices of technology can make the question about whether you are creating a derivative work more believable on one side than the other. But if you making technology choices in the hope and on the sole basis that it has some impact on whether or not you are creating a derivative work, you are practicing cargo cult law, just the same as if you erase the experimental results table from your paper and hope it changes the gravitational constant. You're reasoning in the wrong direction.
Just as random aside, this is the same kind of thinking that led to the predominance of magnet links instead of torrent files. There are some technical reasons to prefer one over the other, but some people seem to believe there is a legal distinction when there is not. The magnet link is just as legal or illegal as the torrent file it replaces. The question is whether one is engaged in contributory copyright infringement, not whether one does it with URLs or not.
This drama actually has nothing to do with the GPL. The theme authors are complying fully with the GPL, and there is nothing legally or morally wrong with distributing a plugin containing separately-licensed code or assets. The exact same issues could arise even if Wordpress was released under the BSD/X11/Expat/etc licenses.
The problem is that Wordpress is trying to maintain a very high level of control over their community. One of the tools WP has is the ability to ban theme authors they don't like (i.e. those who sell themes on third-party sites) from attending official events.
Then WP throws in a few words about the GPL as a smokescreen to deflect anger at someone else.
Below Dan Grossman said the Automattic released WordPress itself under the GPL license. It sounds like they did so because they wanted to, but they could have released it under any license they wanted. That would make WordPress the source.
Alternatively Automattic may be forced to release WordPress under GPL due to being a derived work of other code. This may or may not be true. Based on their behavior it does not seem to be a contributing factor either way.
It's a common lie that someone might be forced to open-source their code because they accidentally copied some GPL'd code. This is not true. In a typical case of copyright infringement, the infringer must stop distributing the copied code and possibly pay damages. The GPL merely offers a additional choice, it doesn't force anything.
BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your code, then you're free to licence the result under any license you choose. However, if you include GPL code in your code, the result must be under GPL or any other license that is compatible (AGPL for example). In that sense, the GPL is viral - it does not only cover the code that's licensed, but also "infects" other code.
> BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your
> code, then you're free to licence the result under any
> license you choose.
> Copyright (c) 2013 Felix Gilcher
>
> MIT License
>
> Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
> a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
> "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> the following conditions:
>
> The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
> included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
>
> THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
> EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
> MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
> NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
> LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
> OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
> WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
> to deal in the Software without restriction, including
> without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
> distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
> permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
> the following conditions:
> DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
> Version 2, December 2004
>
> Copyright (C) 2004 Sam Hocevar <sam@hocevar.net>
>
> Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim or modified
> copies of this license document, and changing it is allowed as long
> as the name is changed.
>
> DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO PUBLIC LICENSE
> TERMS AND CONDITIONS FOR COPYING, DISTRIBUTION AND MODIFICATION
>
> 0. You just DO WHAT THE FUCK YOU WANT TO.
Otherwise, we are saying that Linus was doing something wrong to license his work under the GPL...
Please stop attacking people for applying GPL to their own work by their own choice. You are NEVER forced to use someone else's work in violation of their license. If you want to use their work, you must comply with their license. If you can't comply with the license, find an alternative or build your own. Then you will be able to license it as you wish. End of story.
> The GPL is not designed to be "viral".
As you correctly note, it's the author's choice to adopt the license for a new project or to combined works licensed under the GPL into an existing project. That it is a choice doesn't preclude an analysis of the license's effect on any given work.
[0] http://lkml.indiana.edu/hypermail/linux/kernel/0312.0/0670.h...
> It is designed so that if one chooses to create a work
> that makes use of another GPLed work, that the license
> "spreads" to the resulting combined work.
If you _dont_ license your code under the GPL or some similar license which explicitly allows others to build on your code, copyright prohibits anyone from doing so.
You can't, in general, "create a work that makes use of" somebody else's song, or movie, or novel. Because copyright says you need their permission, and there's not a culture of songwriters, filmmakers, or authors; who explicitly grant the freedom to use their work without asking. I find it difficult to understand people who intentionally use negative language like "viral" about the GPL. It's remarkable there so much high quality software available where the authors have said "here, you can use it inspite of the fact that it's copyrighted to us, the only condition we require is that you offer that freedom to everybody else if you build something new using our copyrighted work."
If I have a project licensed under the X11 license, and I copy some BSD-licensed code into it, then that code is still the property of the original owner, and it needs to remain under the BSD license. If I simply copied it and stripped out the copyright notices, then I would be committing copyright infringement.