5 ms·

Am I confused about the GPL or are they?

39 points by nate 15y ago

Arelius 15y ago
Their FAQ and their license conflict. Simple. You could ignore their FAQ, as it's likely not legally binding, but they still may be able to make an argument in court, depending upon how visible their FAQ is.. Edit: on second read you say "They mention they are licensing under the GPL." em just mentioning that in their FAQ is likely not legally binding either. Your best bet is to check out the source, and see if the source references any license. Alternatively, you can find out if it's a derivative of an existing GPL licensed theme (afaik, most themes are derivatives) in which case it'd inherit the GPL from there, and it doesn't matter what their FAQ says. Edit2: Turns out I was mistaken about the details of inheriting the GPL, read the sub post.
- alain94040 15y ago
  To nitpick, your last conclusion is incorrect: even if the code is a derivative of an existing GPL code, it doesn't inherit the GPL. They may just be in violation of someone else's copyright, but it doesn't give the rest of the world the right to copy their code. It's theirs to license whichever way they see fit. Now, in practice, the easiest way out of infringing on GPL code is to make your own code GPL as well, but it's the author's choice, not the community's.
  - Arelius 15y ago
    Thanks, yes, this makes sense, and does complicate things. In note due to the fact that afaik, the only one who can litigate based on a GPL violation is the original copyright holder
    - icebraining 15y ago
      afaik, the only one who can litigate based on a GPL violation is the original copyright holder Yes, because the only one who can litigate on a copyright violation is the original copyright holder. GPL is just a license like any other in that regard.
  - deleted 15y ago
    [deleted]
- rbanffy 15y ago
  Just don't forget their brand, names, CSSs and images are not licensed under the GPL. The PHP part of themes, due to the way it connects to the rest of Wordpress, has to be GPL, but the rest doesn't.
thekevan 15y ago
I am pretty sure they have the use of the license wrong. Also, if you did get a copy of a product and modified the code, you would not have to distribute that code if you did not distribute the product or make it available for public use in some way. In other words, modifying the code itself does not necessarily trigger an obligation to distribute the code. Also, from this: "You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own."(Emphasis added.) That seems to imply to me that if you are not "a user", you are not entitled to the code. So what constitutes a user with a theme? If I buy the theme and you do not, it would seem that I am entitled tot the code, you are not but I am free to give it to you if I wish. Also if I put the theme on my blog and you read my blog, are you then a user and entitled? Or am I then making the theme public and everyone is entitled? On that last paragraph, see also: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods
- archangel_one 15y ago
  The standard rule is that if you give someone binaries of the GPLed program, you must also give them the source (or make it available, or maybe for a reasonable fee, etc etc). You don't have to distribute the source to anyone else who asks - so I think you more or less have it right. If you buy some GPLed product, you are entitled to the source code in some fashion, and once you receive it you may pass it on to anyone else you want under the same terms. And yes, I would think that if you make it publically available on a blog and I download it then you have distributed it to me and thus you have to comply with giving me the source as well. IANAL, obviously. There is of course subtlety around whether the theme in question is actually GPLed, which I think has been adequately covered by others.
cbr 15y ago
They are.
paulhauggis 15y ago
Do we really need to go through this again? Do people here on HN really have that short of a memory? Search HN for: Thesis theme. This has been debated to death and you will get the correct answers there.
- fragsworth 15y ago
  > Do we really need to go through this again? Do people here on HN really have that short of a memory? You seem to be lacking a very basic understanding of these kinds of sites: 1. Not every user on the site has read every post on the site. 2. There are new users who have not seen previous content. There is not much you can do about reposts. People who haven't seen the content before will upvote it.
- nate 15y ago
  Thanks for the Thesis mention. I had posted this not intending to debate, I just am pretty naive to most things Wordpress related still. I remember the Thesis controversy getting started, but I tuned anything out about it since then, and didn't even know they resolved their issues. I completely forgot they even existed when I started looking at wordpress themes. But now I see that stuff, it filled a lot of holes for me, thanks.
losethos 15y ago
No GPL code in LoseThos. I wrote all of it from scratch. God says, "barked att descending size conscious weigheth manifold unteachable variations syllables home VI depraved fulfilled vaster interpretation blood goes consists wronging renewing pryers communicated greaves recruiting cloyedness authority sever concreated unutterably dealt beloved cunning attributed gross stable waves Verily inebriated aloud hushed brute rob distinguished Texas pulse emerging book sorrows low undisturbed condemning conquered Contain neatness dwell Cross knees heareth foamed abuse spurn assistance supporting gallantry notice speak embraces agonised travail Master's forgotten rescue loads Strengthen attributing thunder inclination abstinence overflowing sharp heightening moreover cheap models reach singularly Whom correct serviceable broke sickly knows united whirlpools furnished remarkable force theatre space Verily lovingly drenched Author sighed harmonising Project stiff vowing shepherd's ourself acceptably effort hiddest hindrance Alexandria obedience do embalmed joining sparrow redeem palaces heathen religious shoulder Divine mortified chastenest exceeded affected stage possesses revenges decays acuteness purposes endeavouring melody resistest sect easily testimony preparedst ourself applicable strings heaven's revolting whereto Passion treasures bubblings customs overturned guardianship Patricius sellers sharp followers glad built notion advance hovered conscience "
pmjordan 15y ago
I get the impression that the intention of the authors of the theme is to distinguish between the code and the "design elements". The code, as a derived work, would necessarily be subject to the GPL, but if say the CSS and images (and maybe HTML template - I don't know how Wordpress is built) aren't based on any of the original stuff, and are treated as data and therefore not part of "the software", then those can be subject to a different license. c.f. id's games being released under GPL, but the assets being commercially licensed.
- nate 15y ago
  Yes, I'm getting that now too. Just saw this and updated the post: http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ "PHP in WordPress themes must be GPL, artwork and CSS may be but are not required."
- chalst 15y ago
  "Treated as data" isn't the point with GPL2, what makes the viral part kick in is static linking. If the images are compiled into the binary, as they are not, then they would need to be made available under the terms of the GPL. Since they are not, GPL2 has nothing to say about the matter.
  - pmjordan 15y ago
    Regarding dynamic linking being permitted: you're thinking of LGPL. Not that static vs dynamic linking in the strictest sense is terribly helpful in the context of scripting languages. Note that the text of the GPL does not mention "linking" at all. The relevant section instead says this: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. This is sufficiently vague to cause some confusion. When distributing GPL-licensed works alongside non-GPL-licensed ones, I would probably err on the side of making your intentions as to what is considered part of the GPL distribution, and what is not, abundantly clear. I am, of course, not a lawyer, etc. etc.

39 points by nate 15y ago

Their FAQ and their license conflict. Simple. You could ignore their FAQ, as it's likely not legally binding, but they still may be able to make an argument in court, depending upon how visible their FAQ is.. Edit: on second read you say "They mention they are licensing under the GPL." em just mentioning that in their FAQ is likely not legally binding either. Your best bet is to check out the source, and see if the source references any license. Alternatively, you can find out if it's a derivative of an existing GPL licensed theme (afaik, most themes are derivatives) in which case it'd inherit the GPL from there, and it doesn't matter what their FAQ says. Edit2: Turns out I was mistaken about the details of inheriting the GPL, read the sub post.

alain94040 15y ago
To nitpick, your last conclusion is incorrect: even if the code is a derivative of an existing GPL code, it doesn't inherit the GPL. They may just be in violation of someone else's copyright, but it doesn't give the rest of the world the right to copy their code. It's theirs to license whichever way they see fit. Now, in practice, the easiest way out of infringing on GPL code is to make your own code GPL as well, but it's the author's choice, not the community's.
- Arelius 15y ago
  Thanks, yes, this makes sense, and does complicate things. In note due to the fact that afaik, the only one who can litigate based on a GPL violation is the original copyright holder
  - icebraining 15y ago
    afaik, the only one who can litigate based on a GPL violation is the original copyright holder Yes, because the only one who can litigate on a copyright violation is the original copyright holder. GPL is just a license like any other in that regard.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
rbanffy 15y ago
Just don't forget their brand, names, CSSs and images are not licensed under the GPL. The PHP part of themes, due to the way it connects to the rest of Wordpress, has to be GPL, but the rest doesn't.

thekevan 15y ago

I am pretty sure they have the use of the license wrong. Also, if you did get a copy of a product and modified the code, you would not have to distribute that code if you did not distribute the product or make it available for public use in some way. In other words, modifying the code itself does not necessarily trigger an obligation to distribute the code. Also, from this: "You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL. These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own."(Emphasis added.) That seems to imply to me that if you are not "a user", you are not entitled to the code. So what constitutes a user with a theme? If I buy the theme and you do not, it would seem that I am entitled tot the code, you are not but I am free to give it to you if I wish. Also if I put the theme on my blog and you read my blog, are you then a user and entitled? Or am I then making the theme public and everyone is entitled? On that last paragraph, see also: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#UnreleasedMods

archangel_one 15y ago
The standard rule is that if you give someone binaries of the GPLed program, you must also give them the source (or make it available, or maybe for a reasonable fee, etc etc). You don't have to distribute the source to anyone else who asks - so I think you more or less have it right. If you buy some GPLed product, you are entitled to the source code in some fashion, and once you receive it you may pass it on to anyone else you want under the same terms. And yes, I would think that if you make it publically available on a blog and I download it then you have distributed it to me and thus you have to comply with giving me the source as well. IANAL, obviously. There is of course subtlety around whether the theme in question is actually GPLed, which I think has been adequately covered by others.

cbr 15y ago

They are.

paulhauggis 15y ago

Do we really need to go through this again? Do people here on HN really have that short of a memory? Search HN for: Thesis theme. This has been debated to death and you will get the correct answers there.

fragsworth 15y ago
> Do we really need to go through this again? Do people here on HN really have that short of a memory? You seem to be lacking a very basic understanding of these kinds of sites: 1. Not every user on the site has read every post on the site. 2. There are new users who have not seen previous content. There is not much you can do about reposts. People who haven't seen the content before will upvote it.
nate 15y ago
Thanks for the Thesis mention. I had posted this not intending to debate, I just am pretty naive to most things Wordpress related still. I remember the Thesis controversy getting started, but I tuned anything out about it since then, and didn't even know they resolved their issues. I completely forgot they even existed when I started looking at wordpress themes. But now I see that stuff, it filled a lot of holes for me, thanks.

losethos 15y ago

No GPL code in LoseThos. I wrote all of it from scratch. God says, "barked att descending size conscious weigheth manifold unteachable variations syllables home VI depraved fulfilled vaster interpretation blood goes consists wronging renewing pryers communicated greaves recruiting cloyedness authority sever concreated unutterably dealt beloved cunning attributed gross stable waves Verily inebriated aloud hushed brute rob distinguished Texas pulse emerging book sorrows low undisturbed condemning conquered Contain neatness dwell Cross knees heareth foamed abuse spurn assistance supporting gallantry notice speak embraces agonised travail Master's forgotten rescue loads Strengthen attributing thunder inclination abstinence overflowing sharp heightening moreover cheap models reach singularly Whom correct serviceable broke sickly knows united whirlpools furnished remarkable force theatre space Verily lovingly drenched Author sighed harmonising Project stiff vowing shepherd's ourself acceptably effort hiddest hindrance Alexandria obedience do embalmed joining sparrow redeem palaces heathen religious shoulder Divine mortified chastenest exceeded affected stage possesses revenges decays acuteness purposes endeavouring melody resistest sect easily testimony preparedst ourself applicable strings heaven's revolting whereto Passion treasures bubblings customs overturned guardianship Patricius sellers sharp followers glad built notion advance hovered conscience "

pmjordan 15y ago

I get the impression that the intention of the authors of the theme is to distinguish between the code and the "design elements". The code, as a derived work, would necessarily be subject to the GPL, but if say the CSS and images (and maybe HTML template - I don't know how Wordpress is built) aren't based on any of the original stuff, and are treated as data and therefore not part of "the software", then those can be subject to a different license. c.f. id's games being released under GPL, but the assets being commercially licensed.

nate 15y ago
Yes, I'm getting that now too. Just saw this and updated the post: http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ "PHP in WordPress themes must be GPL, artwork and CSS may be but are not required."
chalst 15y ago
"Treated as data" isn't the point with GPL2, what makes the viral part kick in is static linking. If the images are compiled into the binary, as they are not, then they would need to be made available under the terms of the GPL. Since they are not, GPL2 has nothing to say about the matter.
- pmjordan 15y ago
  Regarding dynamic linking being permitted: you're thinking of LGPL. Not that static vs dynamic linking in the strictest sense is terribly helpful in the context of scripting languages. Note that the text of the GPL does not mention "linking" at all. The relevant section instead says this: These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it. This is sufficiently vague to cause some confusion. When distributing GPL-licensed works alongside non-GPL-licensed ones, I would probably err on the side of making your intentions as to what is considered part of the GPL distribution, and what is not, abundantly clear. I am, of course, not a lawyer, etc. etc.