4 ms·

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 th

• 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
        Really, well where is the publicly available code for Genesis then? I'm not saying it doesn't exist, just that I can't find it in Google. Isn't the most basic premise of the GPL that source code should be publicly available? I don't see anywhere on the StudioPress site where this code is posted. This whole argument by WP is bringing up a lot of questions about whether or not I want to continue to use WP as a development platform in the future.
        • anu_gupta 14y ago
          No, the premise of the GPL is that if the software is distributed to you, then you have a right to the source code. This is very different from the code having to be publicly available to anyone. There is, of course, nothing stopping anyone from buying the source code, and making it publicly available.
          • hexis 14y ago
            Why, then, does absolutely no one do that and offer it for free download?
        • nhangen 14y ago
          GPL allows you to sell access, but does not permit you to restrict the distribution from that point forward. Essentially, it's legal to re-sell the same bundle.
        • tienshiao 14y ago
          The GPL does not require source code to be "publicly available". IMO the basic premise of the GPL is that users who receive the program/app/whatever may also get the source code, modify it, and further distribute under the same license. Section 3 of GPL2 states: 3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following: a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or, c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.) Most do "a" but "b" is acceptable and Section 1 even allows for charging a fee for the source code.
    • nhangen 14y ago
      'Seems like that would basically only be using the GPL as a tool for monopoly.' That's what I'm starting to think...