I'm not against split licensing, I think it's a fair for an author to decide. Envato makes that decision for its authors, I think that's unfair to authors. Hav

I'm not against split licensing, I think it's a fair for an author to decide. Envato makes that decision for its authors, I think that's unfair to authors. Having said that, I don't buy into to the idea that Envato's licensing protects author's works, at least not for WordPress themes & plugins - if there's data to support the contrary, that would be interesting to find out. The reason I think this it is not the case is that there are outfits excelling with their business doing everything GPL. As far as I know there are no companies that have regretted switching to pure GPL in the WP space. Secondly, the reality of the fact is that even with restrictive licenses, trademarks and lawyers in place it's impossible to prevent people from copying/stealing/etc. What does work is having a community that cares about principles and understands why they are important which is why I think the foundation believes these kinds of positions are necessary even if they draw harsh lines. (I do not agree with banning/excluding/or putting authors needlessly in bad graces with the community as they are now though)