4 ms·

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, w

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.
  - strictfp 15y ago
    I would interpret this for this scenario as "If you make (reasonably original) graphics for a theme, you do not need to release the graphics as GPLv2 if you release the graphics standalone. If you, however, release the graphics as a part of the theme, you need to put the graphics under GPLv2 aswell". The mail quoted at http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ classified the images and css as standalone works. They then concluded that the standalone works did not fall under GPL2. But the excerpt in the parent seems to state that these actually must be GPLv2:ed if bundled with the derivative work, no? So my interpretation is that the disclaimer is in conflict with the licence, since the licence actually requires you to GPLv2 standalone work when bundling with derivative. (IANAL)
    - pmjordan 15y ago
      Yeah, I don't know; Linux distributions bundle GPL software with non-GPL software. That doesn't make the non-GPL parts suddenly fall under GPL. In practice you're probably fine if you offer the GPL parts for free separately as well. Certainly, if the copyright holders of the original work openly state they don't consider third-party images and CSS to be included in the license, then I think they would have a hard time arguing the opposite in court.
  - chalst 15y ago
    Static linking is permissible with LGPL but not GPL. The point about linking is that the viral part of the GPL kicks in with regards to the distribution of executables ("the licensee must provide the recipients with a complete source code in one of the following methods, when distributing the program in object code"). If code is dynamically discovered at runtime, then this viral aspect does not apply. This issue is old, regarded by Eben Moglen as a loophole, and I expected GPL3 to address it. I think it has not.

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.
- strictfp 15y ago
  I would interpret this for this scenario as "If you make (reasonably original) graphics for a theme, you do not need to release the graphics as GPLv2 if you release the graphics standalone. If you, however, release the graphics as a part of the theme, you need to put the graphics under GPLv2 aswell". The mail quoted at http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ classified the images and css as standalone works. They then concluded that the standalone works did not fall under GPL2. But the excerpt in the parent seems to state that these actually must be GPLv2:ed if bundled with the derivative work, no? So my interpretation is that the disclaimer is in conflict with the licence, since the licence actually requires you to GPLv2 standalone work when bundling with derivative. (IANAL)
  - pmjordan 15y ago
    Yeah, I don't know; Linux distributions bundle GPL software with non-GPL software. That doesn't make the non-GPL parts suddenly fall under GPL. In practice you're probably fine if you offer the GPL parts for free separately as well. Certainly, if the copyright holders of the original work openly state they don't consider third-party images and CSS to be included in the license, then I think they would have a hard time arguing the opposite in court.
- chalst 15y ago
  Static linking is permissible with LGPL but not GPL. The point about linking is that the viral part of the GPL kicks in with regards to the distribution of executables ("the licensee must provide the recipients with a complete source code in one of the following methods, when distributing the program in object code"). If code is dynamically discovered at runtime, then this viral aspect does not apply. This issue is old, regarded by Eben Moglen as a loophole, and I expected GPL3 to address it. I think it has not.