Automatically Blackballed

http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed

by ovechtrick • 13 years ago

69 72 13 years ago

8ig83• 13 years ago

Just adding some additional background. I happened on a related post earlier today on ThemeShaper ("Home of the Automattic Theme Team)...

http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/

AnthonyMouse• 13 years ago

Is there some legal or other reason why you can't dual license the things in question under both licenses? Or would that just not satisfy anyone?

loceng• 13 years ago

Why is no one talking about the motives behind why Wordpress is doing this?

uptown• 13 years ago

Here's your chance - what are their motives behind them doing this?

analog5• 13 years ago

It's interesting that the themes available on Wordpress.com aren't GPL licensed. This does seem a little hypocritical.

evansolomon2• 13 years ago

That's incorrect. https://wpcom-themes.svn.automattic.com/

8ig83• 13 years ago

For more context, the GPL/WordPress debate got a lot of attention in the summer of 2010 when WordPress.org was bumping heads with the Thesis Theme.

http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/

http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpre...

Edit: Changed Automattic to WordPress.org

forrestthewoods2• 13 years ago

What is the source of the GPL virus in all this? What bits of technology are built upon GPL code? Would be feasible to re-write that code or theme such that it could be released in a less freedom restricting manner?

dangrossman2• 13 years ago

WordPress itself is GPL licensed, and its creator, Automattic, contends that all themes and plugins for the CMS are derivative works, and must therefore be GPL licensed as well. Which is probably true, since in addition to being nonfunctional without WordPress to provide the functions themes and plugins hook into, they commonly copy large bits of code from the main codebase and make minor changes to them.

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.

lftl• 13 years ago

If you do "copy large bits of code from the main codebase" this is moot, but I've wondered about the other point. If I don't copy any bits, I'm not really sure why my PHP code would necessarily fall under the GPL.

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.

DannyBee5• 13 years ago

Actually, it's only true to the degree they copy bits of code.

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.

darkarmani3• 13 years ago

> 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.

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?

drewcrawford• 13 years ago

You're making an error that many programmers make when they reason about the law. The law is not a set of rules about technology. The law is mostly about intent. The technology that is used is for the most part, as we programmers commonly say, "merely an implementation detail."

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.

mnutt• 13 years ago

I'm with you on the intent aspect of the law, but I think there is a chance that the switch from torrent files to magnet links might have some effect on a non-technical person's thinking. In one instance you're "offering files for download", in another you're "linking". The intent could be the same, the technology could be essentially the same, but it may change the perception.

jmillikin6• 13 years ago

Since you call the GPL a "virus" I doubt you're trying to start an honest debate here, but maybe responding anyway will be useful to readers.

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.

forrestthewoods2• 13 years ago

The GPL is explicitly designed to be viral and I didn't know the source.

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.

krogsgard• 13 years ago

This whole story has gone on for a week now, and has been discussed a great deal.

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...

Cogito• 13 years ago

Just to be clear, this article is about why a wordpress theme maker is not allowed to participate at a wordpress conference because they are (through a proxy site ThemeForest) selling their themes with licensing that wordpress doesn't like.

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...

ars4• 13 years ago

The author can post a notice on his website: "Despite what it says on ThemeForest" all the files in my themes are actually GPL."

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?

mwill2• 13 years ago

There's an explanation transcribed in the post from a podcast:

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.

harlanlewis• 13 years ago

It sounds like ThemeForest needs to host its own conferences.

eksith• 13 years ago

Sounds a bit like this : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z5tZMDBXTRQ

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).

8ig83• 13 years ago

Is this not unlike Apple's App Store? Developers aren't shy about their disdain for Apple's control, but in the end, it doesn't matter. If you want to make money, you need to play by Apple's rules. Likewise ThemeForest is the dominant marketplace for WordPress themes, with +2MM users. It sounds like ThemeForest can call the shots (for now) if the ultimate goal is profits.

cjbprime2• 13 years ago

I think this is pretty reasonable behavior by wp.org.

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.

jmillikin6• 13 years ago

There is no evidence that the author is selling infringing WP themes.

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.

prodigal_erik• 13 years ago

The way I read

> 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.

cjbprime2• 13 years ago

I tried to use the awkward phrase "incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to be used" to cover your viewpoint; regardless of the meaning of the legal code, their intent is clear and has been for a long time.

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.

DannyBee5• 13 years ago

IMHO, it would be reasonable behavior if something like "GPL'd images" made any sense at all, but the licensing they are asking to enforce is just nonsensical.

Even RMS doesn't think the GPL is appropriate for everything (hence the FDL for docs).

icebraining2• 13 years ago

Agreed, but the same issue would pose if they said the images would have to be CC-BY-SA[1] licensed, for example.

[1]: It's the closest to the GPL: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/deed.en_US

hakaaaaak• 13 years ago

"The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not."

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.

ebiester• 13 years ago

That's entirely true. But you're likely to sell very few copies, because all another company has to do is buy it for the price you ask, and redistribute en mass. All they have to do is make up the price they paid, you have to worry about the time you put into it.

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.

jiggy2011• 13 years ago

So, if I have this right. In order to speak at this wordpress conference one must not distribute anything related to wordpress that isn't 100% GPL? That's pretty hardcore.

darkarmani3• 13 years ago

I feel like WP and that Matt guy are just trolling everyone. I'm waiting for the punchline: punked!

"Why would we ban someone for how they sell some themes through a 3rd party provider? That would be crazy! You actually believed us??"

anu_gupta• 13 years ago

Odd - I submitted this story, with the same URL, 5 days ago

http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033

ableal• 13 years ago

Your URL had a double t. It (now) leads to the same URL and page as this submission.

(Possibly someone changed their mind about the wordplay verbing the "Automattic" noun.)

Automatically Blackballed

Related Stories