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

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