6 ms·

WP org bans Envato members from WordCamp gatherings

63 points by tzaman 14y ago

wpgrunt 14y ago
The WordPress ecosystem is increasingly hostile to commercial developers.
- pixelbath 14y ago
  What you call the "WordPress ecosystem" is really the "GPL ecosystem." If license terms can be arbitrarily separated in derivative works, the argument becomes far more important for enforcement of those terms as a whole. As many are fond of saying in the open-source world, if you don't like the license terms, you are free to make your own [software] under any license you like, provided your code is your own, or licensed under terms compatible with the license you choose. Envato's stance enables them to enforce copyright terms, whereas a GPL license is, by nature, far more open and encourages reuse by others. It's my opinion that WordPress is in the right here (aside from the fact that it's their convention to do with what they please) regarding license enforcement, but I can certainly understand Envato's position.
  - mpyne 14y ago
    > What you call the "WordPress ecosystem" is really the "GPL ecosystem." If license terms can be arbitrarily separated in derivative works, the argument becomes far more important for enforcement of those terms as a whole. Well, I'd be careful with that. The open source project I contribute to (KDE) has quite a bit of GPL'ed code, but it also has quite a bit of other licenses in use, so it is certainly possible to have arbitrary licenses that make up a given single derivative work. If I understand Envato's argument correctly, they make derivative themes (and license the derivation under GPL), which has embedded hooks to allow for other content to be read in later. This other content (normally art or CSS?) is not necessarily licensed under GPL, because it is not considered by Envato to be derivative of WordPress content. To be honest I would side with Envato here. Linking khelpcenter (GPL) to kdelibs (LGPL) does not make kdelibs suddenly GPL'ed software, and using khelpcenter to display GFDL'ed documentation in an integrated fashion doesn't make khelpcenter suddenly GFDL'ed. The real question is whether the "additional content" is truly derivative or whether it is originated by Envato and then linked in (since GPL has provisions to allow linking in content with other licenses). Of course, maybe WordPress used a modified license to forbid linking, but then that wouldn't really be GPL, it would be something else.
    - elehack 14y ago
      > Well, I'd be careful with that. The open source project I contribute to (KDE) has quite a bit of GPL'ed code, but it also has quite a bit of other licenses in use, so it is certainly possible to have arbitrary licenses that make up a given single derivative work. Yes, so long as those other license are GPL-compatible. 3-clause BSD, MIT, ISC, etc. are all GPL-compatible. The license that Envato is allowing or using for the non-PHP theme assets is not, so the question does become one of whether the theme assets are a derivative work.
  - gte910h 14y ago
    The wordpress people here are being prissy about things outside the licensed code. That's not GPL people, that's WordPress people picking the wrong license. They shouldn't be using GPL if they want that.
- rabino 14y ago
  I don't agree with this statement, but in any case, it should read "The WordPress foundation"... because the ecosystem is largely made by those same commercial developers.
tedivm 14y ago
This is the kind of stuff that makes commercial companies fearful of GPL software. It's not the disagreement that is the serious issue, but the fact that this legal document is completely unclear as to how it's supposed to work (and the LGPL is even more frighteningly uninterpretable).
- gpcz 14y ago
  id Software makes its game engines free when their technology gets dated, but the artistic/creative content remains copyrighted. They do this by having a copyright "airlock" interface between the executable and the game data (WAD/PAK/PK3/whatever files). The lesson to learn from this conflict is that if you run an open-source project that encourages creative or artistic content add-ons that may remain proprietary, it's a good idea to establish a rigid copyright airlock between the free stuff and the creative stuff.
  - homosaur 14y ago
    And how would one suggest this be implemented with WordPress?
    - potatolicious 14y ago
      Making the creative portion an entirely different codebase/downloadable that is licensed under something else. If, like WordPress, you want to enforce GPL compliance for derivative projects, then spell out clear exceptions to your derivation clause - if they even just spelled out themes it would have made this problem moot.
      - paulhauggis 14y ago
        I feel like they don't want to spell it out. It allows them to gain a ton of value and IP to then wrap up and sell on their site as part of a service (without giving anything back).
      - elehack 14y ago
        It doesn't seem that WordPress wants to make an exception. That is, the license without exceptions is functioning exactly as they intend, and they think ThemeForest is doing something wrong, not should-be-right-but-is-technically-wrong.
fencepost 14y ago
Slightly inaccurate article - I've been following the discussion to some extent, and it's not that ThemeForest developers/sellers are banned from attending WordCamps, it's that they're banned from presenting, volunteering, or sponsoring. Basically it's a GPL dispute - ThemeForest themes are not fully GPL (they GPL the PHP, but not CSS, etc.), and the WordPress.org folks are against that. I'm not going to get into whether they think that this stance is legally wrong or whether it's just that they don't want to offer a venue and what might be perceived by some as endorsement or official sanction, because I don't know and I'm not sure that everyone involved does either. I do think that (from what I've heard) the way the WordPress Foundation has approached it is a bit heavy-handed.
protomyth 14y ago
I get the PHP side of things, but I am not sure how an original CSS file would fall under the linking or derived provision of the GPL.
- anu_gupta 14y ago
  It doesn't, and nor do any images created for a theme, but the WordPress Foundation have taken a stance of insisting that anyone providing a theme that contains any non GPL elements is not allowed to speak / help organise a WordCamp conference. So, this isn't strictly about what's legally required to fall under the GPL.
  - protomyth 14y ago
    Do you know what their policy is on images licensed under CC?
    - anu_gupta 14y ago
      No, but I'm assuming that as most CC licenses (CC0 being the exception according to the GNU site [1]) aren't GPL compatible, the attitude would be the same. However, I have no real domain expertise here, so I could be very wrong. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleL...
  - deleted 14y ago
    [deleted]
dsl 14y ago
Why isn't the WordPress Foundation up in arms over WordPress.com? They sell commercial themes[1] that I can't seem to find GPL copies of. Are they turning a blind eye to the company that writes the checks for the WordPress Foundation, or has a special exemption been carved out for them? 1. http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/sort/premium/ http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/sort/premium/
- ceejayoz 14y ago
  WordPress.com doesn't distribute the source code of those themes outside their own organization.
  - homosaur 14y ago
    This doesn't make sense to me because the people who purchase these themes are not in the WP organization. What's the difference between literally giving you the source and allowing you to use the source?
    - jessevondoom 14y ago
      The source never gets distributed to the end user, so there's no violation of the GPL. (This use case / loophole is the reason the AGPL was written.)
      - homosaur 14y ago
        So are we saying for a commercial developer to legally distribute themes and not open the source code they'd have to basically build their own platform ala wordpress.com? Seems like that would basically only be using the GPL as a tool for monopoly. Does that mean Thesis and Genesis and these toolkits are also violating GPL since they are not openly available?
        fencepost 14y ago
        I believe all the Genesis stuff is actually GPL per Brian Gardner.
homosaur 14y ago
So I've read this and I'm unclear as to why Envato and not the other marketplaces and commercial theme shops?
- joelhaasnoot 14y ago
  They're probably the biggest
  - homosaur 14y ago
    I'd prefer it to be that they were doing something very improper and not just that they are the easiest target... But that's also what I suspect.
- krogsgard 14y ago
  Because all the major theme shops are 100% GPL. GPL != free. Some other marketplaces would fall in this category like TF, but they are a tiny fraction of the size of TF.
burke 14y ago
I try to ignore these things because the GPL generally just infuriates me, but do themes seriously count as derivative works for the purpose of GPL licensing?
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  For most software, a "theme" would look a lot like "top color: #ff00ff; font: Helvetica". AIUI, for Wordpress, themes often involve quite a bit of PHP code calling deep into Wordpress' guts to slice and dice the list of posts in interesting ways. This makes it much more reasonable to claim that the GPL extends to themes. ... of course, the GPL is all about "linking", and it's not at all clear what this means if you're not programming something C-like.
joelhaasnoot 14y ago
So maybe either Wordpress.org needs to a) sell the next version of Wordpress and see how many users are left or b) somehow disallow commercial themes by tightening / changing licensing and then see how many users are left...
mootothemax 14y ago
What's the best license advice if you do want commercial organisations to be able to use your code without ambiguity? I'm looking to open-source a few bits of code soon, and actively want commercial entities to not have to worry about using them, but am not sure what to go with.
- tedivm 14y ago
  MIT or BSD are pretty permissive. The MIT one is arguably clearer because there's only a single version, whereas the BSD has a few (three clause, four clause, etc).
- jeremyjh 14y ago
  Apache or MIT seem to be the most popular.
- JoachimSchipper 14y ago
  There are a few mostly-interchangeable flavors, but the ISC license is small and readable (and basically equivalent to the BSD license.)
- zdw 14y ago
  Depends on what you want to retain. Fundamentally, enforcement of any license comes down to the legal weight you're willing to put into enforcing it. If you want the copyleft style license, the GPLv2 is fairly acceptable, whereas some companies don't like the GPLv3's changes (Apple, for one). LGPLv2 with a linking exception for static binaries is another option, especially if your code component will be included in other products that require solid binaries (various App stores). If copyleft isn't required, the MIT/BSD/Apache licenses have differing levels of advertising requirements/bans, and legal/patent protections. If you really just want to get it out there in the open, declaring it public domain or no license is probably the easiest way.
Supermighty 14y ago
It sounds like they are following the letter of the GPL but not the spirit. By licensing the PHP under GPL they are complying, but by licensing the CSS and image assets under a restrictive license they are activity trying to hinder the PHP from being useful if it were distributed. As the GPL is designed to do. Did they really understand the GPL when they built their business on it?
pan69 14y ago
So WP.org says that all files of a theme or plugin need to be GPL since they're building on top of a GPL'ed piece of software even though this theme or plugin might not use any of the original GPL code. Then how does this work for content you put in a WP website? You're using the database, of which the layout can be considered an interface. Should all the content be GPL'ed as well? And how does that work if your theme uses another OS project, say Bootstrap (which is an Apache licence)?
- streptomycin 14y ago
  Then how does this work for content you put in a WP website? Before even getting to that question... viewing output on a website is irrelevant as far as the GPL is concerned, only the AGPL deals with that. You can take GPL code, make some changes to it, put it up on a web server, let people use it... and you don't have to distribute your changes.
- paulhauggis 14y ago
  Which is nice for them, because they can then legally use it in their service and charge for it (without giving anything back because it's only a service).
wyck 14y ago
The problem with this is that there is an actual legal GPL license but also what is referred to as the "spirit" of GPL. WTF "spirit" is comes down to whatever the founder wants it to be, in this case Matt has decided to target developers instead of addressing the issue with Envato or the community. It has created a confusing situation with good people stuck in the middle. Why was Jake Caputo singled out, several WordCamp speakers and even core contributors have items on Envato. Are developers going to have to submit under pseudonyms so they can make a living? Envato itself sponsors the WordPress community summit (and past wordcamps). Do they not see this as a mixed signal? Who exactly is behind the elusive wordpress.org foundation, is it a private foundation run only by Matt himself? How are the foundation goals not polluted by having the same director of the closed source wordpress.com (who also sell premium themes but in the context of a "service"). Why does the "spirit" of GPL apply to a large company and not me, for example I can copyright my images/graphics in a WordPress theme and still comply with the license, but Envato can't? Is the line drawn when only when a theme is distributed? What about all the theme shops that have non GPL creative work in them? Is Wordpress.com exempt because it is a service, what is preventing Envato or anyone else from starting it's own split-license theme "service". What exactly is the difference between a theme service and a theme distributor? ps. The original article and discussion is here: http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed
- krogsgard 14y ago
  Your own client work, etc. doesn't have the same requirements for graphics and CSS as WordPress themes because the work isn't distributed. The foundation holds the keys to the WordPress logo, and it also does things like support WordCamps that aren't profitable to keep those communities strong. It's also a legal barrier to protect WordCamp organizers. See this post: http://wordpressfoundation.org/2012/wordcamps-and-such/ http://wordpressfoundation.org/2012/wordcamps-and-such/ The foundation is also starting to monetarily support local meetups (more frequent gatherings than WordCamp). I think Matt is the only person in charge of the foundation, but I'm not sure.
thekevan 14y ago
The title is a little bit "link-baity". People who are selling plugins or themes on Envato are banned from being a speaker or even volunteering. Envato members can still attend the gathering.
nhangen 14y ago
I had a brief discussion with Matt in the comments on the source (http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed#comment-413 http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed#commen...) and tried to get him to explain why a split-license was bad. Here is a quote: 'While legally you can make a technical argument that in a theme the PHP, CSS, JS, and images are separate things, from the point of view of a user they make up a single unit of usefulness, one “thing.” Users intuitively understand this, just like it’d be strange to have a car you could drive anywhere, but you had to remove the wheels if you went outside a certain area (the so-called “split license”). Most theme authors and businesses in the WP community also understand this, in fact all of the theme shops on the commercial themes page and many of the most successful including WooThemes and StudioPress sell 100% GPL themes that protect all the rights of their users, and have been extremely successful doing so. It’s an author and developer’s choice to license all their code under the GPL, and it’s our choice to only promote, accept sponsorship, and accept speaking proposals from people who do so. It’s not a personal thing, and the guidelines apply equally to everyone, and if someone who broke the guidelines in the past stopped tomorrow there would be no hard feelings (it’s not a blackball, which implies permanent exclusion, it’s just part of the social mores of our community).' Does this remind you of anything? Greater good, comply and you'll be OK, free == freedom for everyone, etc. I really want to give Matt and the foundation a benefit of the doubt here, but they are making it very difficult. I followed up with a question about the WP logo, which is bundled in the WP.org download but protected. 'The GPL is a license granted under copyright law, which is separate from a trademark, which WordPress and its logo are. It’s totally allowed by the software license for someone to take the software and make a hosting service, they just have to have their own name for it, like Edublogs. (Some OS communities consider trademark restrictions too much as well, which is why there’s a fork of Firefox called “Iceweasel” included in Debian.) In addition to the guidelines on the Foundation site, having the trademark also gives us a tool to take down phishing sites that target WordPress.org users, or people who set up theme directories at similar-to-WordPress domains where every download includes a malware backdoor. There are many hundreds of these per year.' It seems there are plenty of loopholes when they want them to exist. What I want to know is - what can I do, as a plugin and theme author, to ensure I am properly paid for my work?
- ebiester 14y ago

63 points by tzaman 14y ago

wpgrunt 14y ago

The WordPress ecosystem is increasingly hostile to commercial developers.

pixelbath 14y ago
What you call the "WordPress ecosystem" is really the "GPL ecosystem." If license terms can be arbitrarily separated in derivative works, the argument becomes far more important for enforcement of those terms as a whole. As many are fond of saying in the open-source world, if you don't like the license terms, you are free to make your own [software] under any license you like, provided your code is your own, or licensed under terms compatible with the license you choose. Envato's stance enables them to enforce copyright terms, whereas a GPL license is, by nature, far more open and encourages reuse by others. It's my opinion that WordPress is in the right here (aside from the fact that it's their convention to do with what they please) regarding license enforcement, but I can certainly understand Envato's position.
- mpyne 14y ago
  > What you call the "WordPress ecosystem" is really the "GPL ecosystem." If license terms can be arbitrarily separated in derivative works, the argument becomes far more important for enforcement of those terms as a whole. Well, I'd be careful with that. The open source project I contribute to (KDE) has quite a bit of GPL'ed code, but it also has quite a bit of other licenses in use, so it is certainly possible to have arbitrary licenses that make up a given single derivative work. If I understand Envato's argument correctly, they make derivative themes (and license the derivation under GPL), which has embedded hooks to allow for other content to be read in later. This other content (normally art or CSS?) is not necessarily licensed under GPL, because it is not considered by Envato to be derivative of WordPress content. To be honest I would side with Envato here. Linking khelpcenter (GPL) to kdelibs (LGPL) does not make kdelibs suddenly GPL'ed software, and using khelpcenter to display GFDL'ed documentation in an integrated fashion doesn't make khelpcenter suddenly GFDL'ed. The real question is whether the "additional content" is truly derivative or whether it is originated by Envato and then linked in (since GPL has provisions to allow linking in content with other licenses). Of course, maybe WordPress used a modified license to forbid linking, but then that wouldn't really be GPL, it would be something else.
  - elehack 14y ago
    > Well, I'd be careful with that. The open source project I contribute to (KDE) has quite a bit of GPL'ed code, but it also has quite a bit of other licenses in use, so it is certainly possible to have arbitrary licenses that make up a given single derivative work. Yes, so long as those other license are GPL-compatible. 3-clause BSD, MIT, ISC, etc. are all GPL-compatible. The license that Envato is allowing or using for the non-PHP theme assets is not, so the question does become one of whether the theme assets are a derivative work.
- gte910h 14y ago
  The wordpress people here are being prissy about things outside the licensed code. That's not GPL people, that's WordPress people picking the wrong license. They shouldn't be using GPL if they want that.
rabino 14y ago
I don't agree with this statement, but in any case, it should read "The WordPress foundation"... because the ecosystem is largely made by those same commercial developers.

tedivm 14y ago

This is the kind of stuff that makes commercial companies fearful of GPL software. It's not the disagreement that is the serious issue, but the fact that this legal document is completely unclear as to how it's supposed to work (and the LGPL is even more frighteningly uninterpretable).

gpcz 14y ago
id Software makes its game engines free when their technology gets dated, but the artistic/creative content remains copyrighted. They do this by having a copyright "airlock" interface between the executable and the game data (WAD/PAK/PK3/whatever files). The lesson to learn from this conflict is that if you run an open-source project that encourages creative or artistic content add-ons that may remain proprietary, it's a good idea to establish a rigid copyright airlock between the free stuff and the creative stuff.
- homosaur 14y ago
  And how would one suggest this be implemented with WordPress?
  - potatolicious 14y ago
    Making the creative portion an entirely different codebase/downloadable that is licensed under something else. If, like WordPress, you want to enforce GPL compliance for derivative projects, then spell out clear exceptions to your derivation clause - if they even just spelled out themes it would have made this problem moot.
    - paulhauggis 14y ago
      I feel like they don't want to spell it out. It allows them to gain a ton of value and IP to then wrap up and sell on their site as part of a service (without giving anything back).
    - elehack 14y ago
      It doesn't seem that WordPress wants to make an exception. That is, the license without exceptions is functioning exactly as they intend, and they think ThemeForest is doing something wrong, not should-be-right-but-is-technically-wrong.

fencepost 14y ago

Slightly inaccurate article - I've been following the discussion to some extent, and it's not that ThemeForest developers/sellers are banned from attending WordCamps, it's that they're banned from presenting, volunteering, or sponsoring. Basically it's a GPL dispute - ThemeForest themes are not fully GPL (they GPL the PHP, but not CSS, etc.), and the WordPress.org folks are against that. I'm not going to get into whether they think that this stance is legally wrong or whether it's just that they don't want to offer a venue and what might be perceived by some as endorsement or official sanction, because I don't know and I'm not sure that everyone involved does either. I do think that (from what I've heard) the way the WordPress Foundation has approached it is a bit heavy-handed.

protomyth 14y ago

I get the PHP side of things, but I am not sure how an original CSS file would fall under the linking or derived provision of the GPL.

anu_gupta 14y ago
It doesn't, and nor do any images created for a theme, but the WordPress Foundation have taken a stance of insisting that anyone providing a theme that contains any non GPL elements is not allowed to speak / help organise a WordCamp conference. So, this isn't strictly about what's legally required to fall under the GPL.
- protomyth 14y ago
  Do you know what their policy is on images licensed under CC?
  - anu_gupta 14y ago
    No, but I'm assuming that as most CC licenses (CC0 being the exception according to the GNU site [1]) aren't GPL compatible, the attitude would be the same. However, I have no real domain expertise here, so I could be very wrong. [1] http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleL...
- deleted 14y ago
  [deleted]

dsl 14y ago

Why isn't the WordPress Foundation up in arms over WordPress.com? They sell commercial themes[1] that I can't seem to find GPL copies of. Are they turning a blind eye to the company that writes the checks for the WordPress Foundation, or has a special exemption been carved out for them? 1. http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/sort/premium/ http://theme.wordpress.com/themes/sort/premium/

ceejayoz 14y ago
WordPress.com doesn't distribute the source code of those themes outside their own organization.
- homosaur 14y ago
  This doesn't make sense to me because the people who purchase these themes are not in the WP organization. What's the difference between literally giving you the source and allowing you to use the source?
  - jessevondoom 14y ago
    The source never gets distributed to the end user, so there's no violation of the GPL. (This use case / loophole is the reason the AGPL was written.)
    - homosaur 14y ago
      So are we saying for a commercial developer to legally distribute themes and not open the source code they'd have to basically build their own platform ala wordpress.com? Seems like that would basically only be using the GPL as a tool for monopoly. Does that mean Thesis and Genesis and these toolkits are also violating GPL since they are not openly available?
      - fencepost 14y ago
        I believe all the Genesis stuff is actually GPL per Brian Gardner.

homosaur 14y ago

So I've read this and I'm unclear as to why Envato and not the other marketplaces and commercial theme shops?

joelhaasnoot 14y ago
They're probably the biggest
- homosaur 14y ago
  I'd prefer it to be that they were doing something very improper and not just that they are the easiest target... But that's also what I suspect.
krogsgard 14y ago
Because all the major theme shops are 100% GPL. GPL != free. Some other marketplaces would fall in this category like TF, but they are a tiny fraction of the size of TF.

burke 14y ago

I try to ignore these things because the GPL generally just infuriates me, but do themes seriously count as derivative works for the purpose of GPL licensing?

JoachimSchipper 14y ago
For most software, a "theme" would look a lot like "top color: #ff00ff; font: Helvetica". AIUI, for Wordpress, themes often involve quite a bit of PHP code calling deep into Wordpress' guts to slice and dice the list of posts in interesting ways. This makes it much more reasonable to claim that the GPL extends to themes. ... of course, the GPL is all about "linking", and it's not at all clear what this means if you're not programming something C-like.

joelhaasnoot 14y ago

So maybe either Wordpress.org needs to a) sell the next version of Wordpress and see how many users are left or b) somehow disallow commercial themes by tightening / changing licensing and then see how many users are left...

mootothemax 14y ago

What's the best license advice if you do want commercial organisations to be able to use your code without ambiguity? I'm looking to open-source a few bits of code soon, and actively want commercial entities to not have to worry about using them, but am not sure what to go with.

tedivm 14y ago
MIT or BSD are pretty permissive. The MIT one is arguably clearer because there's only a single version, whereas the BSD has a few (three clause, four clause, etc).
jeremyjh 14y ago
Apache or MIT seem to be the most popular.
JoachimSchipper 14y ago
There are a few mostly-interchangeable flavors, but the ISC license is small and readable (and basically equivalent to the BSD license.)
zdw 14y ago
Depends on what you want to retain. Fundamentally, enforcement of any license comes down to the legal weight you're willing to put into enforcing it. If you want the copyleft style license, the GPLv2 is fairly acceptable, whereas some companies don't like the GPLv3's changes (Apple, for one). LGPLv2 with a linking exception for static binaries is another option, especially if your code component will be included in other products that require solid binaries (various App stores). If copyleft isn't required, the MIT/BSD/Apache licenses have differing levels of advertising requirements/bans, and legal/patent protections. If you really just want to get it out there in the open, declaring it public domain or no license is probably the easiest way.

Supermighty 14y ago

It sounds like they are following the letter of the GPL but not the spirit. By licensing the PHP under GPL they are complying, but by licensing the CSS and image assets under a restrictive license they are activity trying to hinder the PHP from being useful if it were distributed. As the GPL is designed to do. Did they really understand the GPL when they built their business on it?

pan69 14y ago

So WP.org says that all files of a theme or plugin need to be GPL since they're building on top of a GPL'ed piece of software even though this theme or plugin might not use any of the original GPL code. Then how does this work for content you put in a WP website? You're using the database, of which the layout can be considered an interface. Should all the content be GPL'ed as well? And how does that work if your theme uses another OS project, say Bootstrap (which is an Apache licence)?

streptomycin 14y ago
Then how does this work for content you put in a WP website? Before even getting to that question... viewing output on a website is irrelevant as far as the GPL is concerned, only the AGPL deals with that. You can take GPL code, make some changes to it, put it up on a web server, let people use it... and you don't have to distribute your changes.
paulhauggis 14y ago
Which is nice for them, because they can then legally use it in their service and charge for it (without giving anything back because it's only a service).

wyck 14y ago

The problem with this is that there is an actual legal GPL license but also what is referred to as the "spirit" of GPL. WTF "spirit" is comes down to whatever the founder wants it to be, in this case Matt has decided to target developers instead of addressing the issue with Envato or the community. It has created a confusing situation with good people stuck in the middle. Why was Jake Caputo singled out, several WordCamp speakers and even core contributors have items on Envato. Are developers going to have to submit under pseudonyms so they can make a living? Envato itself sponsors the WordPress community summit (and past wordcamps). Do they not see this as a mixed signal? Who exactly is behind the elusive wordpress.org foundation, is it a private foundation run only by Matt himself? How are the foundation goals not polluted by having the same director of the closed source wordpress.com (who also sell premium themes but in the context of a "service"). Why does the "spirit" of GPL apply to a large company and not me, for example I can copyright my images/graphics in a WordPress theme and still comply with the license, but Envato can't? Is the line drawn when only when a theme is distributed? What about all the theme shops that have non GPL creative work in them? Is Wordpress.com exempt because it is a service, what is preventing Envato or anyone else from starting it's own split-license theme "service". What exactly is the difference between a theme service and a theme distributor? ps. The original article and discussion is here: http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed

krogsgard 14y ago
Your own client work, etc. doesn't have the same requirements for graphics and CSS as WordPress themes because the work isn't distributed. The foundation holds the keys to the WordPress logo, and it also does things like support WordCamps that aren't profitable to keep those communities strong. It's also a legal barrier to protect WordCamp organizers. See this post: http://wordpressfoundation.org/2012/wordcamps-and-such/ http://wordpressfoundation.org/2012/wordcamps-and-such/ The foundation is also starting to monetarily support local meetups (more frequent gatherings than WordCamp). I think Matt is the only person in charge of the foundation, but I'm not sure.

thekevan 14y ago

The title is a little bit "link-baity". People who are selling plugins or themes on Envato are banned from being a speaker or even volunteering. Envato members can still attend the gathering.

nhangen 14y ago

I had a brief discussion with Matt in the comments on the source (http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed#comment-413 http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed#commen...) and tried to get him to explain why a split-license was bad. Here is a quote: 'While legally you can make a technical argument that in a theme the PHP, CSS, JS, and images are separate things, from the point of view of a user they make up a single unit of usefulness, one “thing.” Users intuitively understand this, just like it’d be strange to have a car you could drive anywhere, but you had to remove the wheels if you went outside a certain area (the so-called “split license”). Most theme authors and businesses in the WP community also understand this, in fact all of the theme shops on the commercial themes page and many of the most successful including WooThemes and StudioPress sell 100% GPL themes that protect all the rights of their users, and have been extremely successful doing so. It’s an author and developer’s choice to license all their code under the GPL, and it’s our choice to only promote, accept sponsorship, and accept speaking proposals from people who do so. It’s not a personal thing, and the guidelines apply equally to everyone, and if someone who broke the guidelines in the past stopped tomorrow there would be no hard feelings (it’s not a blackball, which implies permanent exclusion, it’s just part of the social mores of our community).' Does this remind you of anything? Greater good, comply and you'll be OK, free == freedom for everyone, etc. I really want to give Matt and the foundation a benefit of the doubt here, but they are making it very difficult. I followed up with a question about the WP logo, which is bundled in the WP.org download but protected. 'The GPL is a license granted under copyright law, which is separate from a trademark, which WordPress and its logo are. It’s totally allowed by the software license for someone to take the software and make a hosting service, they just have to have their own name for it, like Edublogs. (Some OS communities consider trademark restrictions too much as well, which is why there’s a fork of Firefox called “Iceweasel” included in Debian.) In addition to the guidelines on the Foundation site, having the trademark also gives us a tool to take down phishing sites that target WordPress.org users, or people who set up theme directories at similar-to-WordPress domains where every download includes a malware backdoor. There are many hundreds of these per year.' It seems there are plenty of loopholes when they want them to exist. What I want to know is - what can I do, as a plugin and theme author, to ensure I am properly paid for my work?

ebiester 14y ago