3 ms·

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.
    - filmgirlcw 14y ago
      If you want the source code from Genesis, you buy the theme. The GPL doesn't mean you can't charge for a product. It does mean if you buy that product you get the source code and you get the right to use, change and redistribute that code. At that point, you have the right to distribute it in any way you want -- provided you aren't restricting StudioPress's rights. That means you could actually resell the same theme for a lower price if you wanted and StudioPress would bitch and moan but couldn't legally do anything about it. That happens with Linux. Red Hat sells their product to clients. They also offer up the uncompiled source code. Others, CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc., take that code and compile it and distribute it for free. The advantage of buying from Red Hat is support and fastest access to newest stuff. There is absolutely nothing stopping me from buying a StudioPress theme and putting a download link to it on my site, or even hosting that content on Github. It might be poor taste, but there'd be nothing against StudioPress's rights with me doing that. My biggest issues with GPL was it was written in an age of traditionally compiled languages. It wasn't written for the nuance of web language and the context of what is distribution, what is complete, what is compiled is different and to me, not as cut and dried. Most of the commercial WordPress theme shops (outside of Envato) do run fully GPL shops. They do this not because of altruism but because Matt and WordPress.org strong armed them into making the decision to change around 2009/2010. Since then, it's become common. The reason you don't see people bitching about giving up their redistribution rights or the rights on their images and CSS is because most people who buy WordPress themes aren't on HN, they buy a theme, customize it, use it. They don't think about, "oh, I cold resell this same theme and undercut someone else."
      - homosaur 14y ago
        Aha, thanks for the clarification everyone on this thread.
    - cowsaysoink 14y ago
      You're confused about how gplv2 works, Genesis gives you the source code and you are free to distribute it if you'd like, or alter it, but they don't have to distribute it for free. You can read more about this kind of thing here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
- 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...

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.
  - filmgirlcw 14y ago
    If you want the source code from Genesis, you buy the theme. The GPL doesn't mean you can't charge for a product. It does mean if you buy that product you get the source code and you get the right to use, change and redistribute that code. At that point, you have the right to distribute it in any way you want -- provided you aren't restricting StudioPress's rights. That means you could actually resell the same theme for a lower price if you wanted and StudioPress would bitch and moan but couldn't legally do anything about it. That happens with Linux. Red Hat sells their product to clients. They also offer up the uncompiled source code. Others, CentOS, Scientific Linux, etc., take that code and compile it and distribute it for free. The advantage of buying from Red Hat is support and fastest access to newest stuff. There is absolutely nothing stopping me from buying a StudioPress theme and putting a download link to it on my site, or even hosting that content on Github. It might be poor taste, but there'd be nothing against StudioPress's rights with me doing that. My biggest issues with GPL was it was written in an age of traditionally compiled languages. It wasn't written for the nuance of web language and the context of what is distribution, what is complete, what is compiled is different and to me, not as cut and dried. Most of the commercial WordPress theme shops (outside of Envato) do run fully GPL shops. They do this not because of altruism but because Matt and WordPress.org strong armed them into making the decision to change around 2009/2010. Since then, it's become common. The reason you don't see people bitching about giving up their redistribution rights or the rights on their images and CSS is because most people who buy WordPress themes aren't on HN, they buy a theme, customize it, use it. They don't think about, "oh, I cold resell this same theme and undercut someone else."
    - homosaur 14y ago
      Aha, thanks for the clarification everyone on this thread.
  - cowsaysoink 14y ago
    You're confused about how gplv2 works, Genesis gives you the source code and you are free to distribute it if you'd like, or alter it, but they don't have to distribute it for free. You can read more about this kind of thing here: http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/selling.html
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...