5 ms·

This does settle the case as far as Thesis is concerned. But, this still doesn't make it OK for Automattic to force all theme developers to move to GPL. As tha

by Indyan 16y ago

This does settle the case as far as Thesis is concerned. But, this still doesn't make it OK for Automattic to force all theme developers to move to GPL. As that guy rightly points out, by the same logic you should sue all closed source software on Linux that makes use of system calls.

icey 16y ago
The solution seems quite simple: If you don't like the GPL, don't develop themes for WordPress.
- tzs 16y ago
  The solution is if you don't like GPL, don't copy GPL code from WordPress when you make your theme.
- mseebach 16y ago
  That's not at all simple. The corollary of that statement is "if you don't like the GPL, don't develop applications for GNU/Linux".
  - pmjordan 16y ago
    If you dislike it enough not to use any GPLed software, sure. The GPL specifically distinguishes between code running as part of the same "application" or not. In fact, the kernel itself has a clarification. GCC itself is GPL, but its libraries (along with glibc) have an exception that permits linking against non-GPL software.
  - icey 16y ago
    WordPress states explicitly that it considers the PHP portion of themes to be GPLed. Seems pretty simple to me.
    - slantyyz 16y ago
      WordPress states explicitly that it considers the PHP portion of themes to be GPLed. That they consider it a derivative work is their -legal opinion-. Remember their license still doesn't supercede local laws and a court could invalidate Wordpress' legal opinion of what a derivative work is.
      - stoney 16y ago
        Furthermore, it doesn't matter what WordPress considers to be GPLed or not, what matters is what it says in the license.
- pmjordan 16y ago
  Whether non-copied code imported via PHP's include() statement is covered by the GPL is up to the lawyers to decide, but personally, I'd say if your code explicitly calls GPL'd functions (as opposed to via a callback or so) or subclasses GPL'd classes, you're asking for trouble. If your code happily runs outside WordPress, you have a much better argument.
quadhome 16y ago
Linux has an exception at the top of its license specifically for that.[1] NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". [1] http://github.com/mirrors/linux-2.6/blob/master/COPYING http://github.com/mirrors/linux-2.6/blob/master/COPYING
- Indyan 16y ago
  Thanks. I didn't know this.
- tzs 16y ago
  Assume for the sake of argument that such an exception is in fact needed. That is, assume that without such an exception programs running under the kernel would need to follow the kernel license. Then there is still a problem with the exception. It only applies to code owned by the kernel developers. If I were to come along and contribute, say, a driver to the kernel, I'd have to agree tot he exception and license my driver as GPLv2 + exception. No problem. But suppose as part of my driver, I needed some code for some data structure. I find that someone has already wrote such code and put it in a GPLv2 program. I'm using GPLv2, so I take their code and put it in my driver. But wait! The author of that data structure code has not agreed to GPLv2 + exception. He's just released under GPLv2. I don't own the copyright, so can't relicense it under GPLv2 + exception. If the kernel developers accept my driver, then the author of that data structure code could take action about people running non-GPL applications on Linux. How careful are the kernel developers and maintainers about this? Do they make sure that anyone who contributes code, even indirectly, has agreed to allow the exception? This in general is an issue with any code that uses a GPL + exceptions license, if the exception is actually needed. (Many feel that the Linux exception is NOT actually needed)
  - bad_user 16y ago
    > Many feel that the Linux exception is NOT actually needed Such a practice is used in other projects ... e.g. the GNU Classpath exception ... http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html BTW ... a piece of software X is considered a derived work of some software Y, if X is dependent on Y for functioning and Y can't be replaced. Linux may not need that exception for many user applications, but without it you're in gray area.

by Indyan 16y ago

icey 16y ago

The solution seems quite simple: If you don't like the GPL, don't develop themes for WordPress.

tzs 16y ago
The solution is if you don't like GPL, don't copy GPL code from WordPress when you make your theme.
mseebach 16y ago
That's not at all simple. The corollary of that statement is "if you don't like the GPL, don't develop applications for GNU/Linux".
- pmjordan 16y ago
  If you dislike it enough not to use any GPLed software, sure. The GPL specifically distinguishes between code running as part of the same "application" or not. In fact, the kernel itself has a clarification. GCC itself is GPL, but its libraries (along with glibc) have an exception that permits linking against non-GPL software.
- icey 16y ago
  WordPress states explicitly that it considers the PHP portion of themes to be GPLed. Seems pretty simple to me.
  - slantyyz 16y ago
    WordPress states explicitly that it considers the PHP portion of themes to be GPLed. That they consider it a derivative work is their -legal opinion-. Remember their license still doesn't supercede local laws and a court could invalidate Wordpress' legal opinion of what a derivative work is.
    - stoney 16y ago
      Furthermore, it doesn't matter what WordPress considers to be GPLed or not, what matters is what it says in the license.
pmjordan 16y ago
Whether non-copied code imported via PHP's include() statement is covered by the GPL is up to the lawyers to decide, but personally, I'd say if your code explicitly calls GPL'd functions (as opposed to via a callback or so) or subclasses GPL'd classes, you're asking for trouble. If your code happily runs outside WordPress, you have a much better argument.

quadhome 16y ago

Linux has an exception at the top of its license specifically for that.[1] NOTE! This copyright does *not* cover user programs that use kernel services by normal system calls - this is merely considered normal use of the kernel, and does *not* fall under the heading of "derived work". [1] http://github.com/mirrors/linux-2.6/blob/master/COPYING http://github.com/mirrors/linux-2.6/blob/master/COPYING

Indyan 16y ago
Thanks. I didn't know this.
tzs 16y ago
Assume for the sake of argument that such an exception is in fact needed. That is, assume that without such an exception programs running under the kernel would need to follow the kernel license. Then there is still a problem with the exception. It only applies to code owned by the kernel developers. If I were to come along and contribute, say, a driver to the kernel, I'd have to agree tot he exception and license my driver as GPLv2 + exception. No problem. But suppose as part of my driver, I needed some code for some data structure. I find that someone has already wrote such code and put it in a GPLv2 program. I'm using GPLv2, so I take their code and put it in my driver. But wait! The author of that data structure code has not agreed to GPLv2 + exception. He's just released under GPLv2. I don't own the copyright, so can't relicense it under GPLv2 + exception. If the kernel developers accept my driver, then the author of that data structure code could take action about people running non-GPL applications on Linux. How careful are the kernel developers and maintainers about this? Do they make sure that anyone who contributes code, even indirectly, has agreed to allow the exception? This in general is an issue with any code that uses a GPL + exceptions license, if the exception is actually needed. (Many feel that the Linux exception is NOT actually needed)
- bad_user 16y ago
  > Many feel that the Linux exception is NOT actually needed Such a practice is used in other projects ... e.g. the GNU Classpath exception ... http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html BTW ... a piece of software X is considered a derived work of some software Y, if X is dependent on Y for functioning and Y can't be replaced. Linux may not need that exception for many user applications, but without it you're in gray area.