4 ms·

What is the source of the GPL virus in all this? What bits of technology are built upon GPL code? Would be feasible to re-write that code or theme such that it

What is the source of the GPL virus in all this? What bits of technology are built upon GPL code? Would be feasible to re-write that code or theme such that it could be released in a less freedom restricting manner?

dangrossman 14y ago
WordPress itself is GPL licensed, and its creator, Automattic, contends that all themes and plugins for the CMS are derivative works, and must therefore be GPL licensed as well. Which is probably true, since in addition to being nonfunctional without WordPress to provide the functions themes and plugins hook into, they commonly copy large bits of code from the main codebase and make minor changes to them. Envato allows you to list WordPress themes and plugins for sale in their marketplace, ThemeForest. They make these products available under a split license: the PHP code that interfaces with WordPress is made available under the GPL. CSS, JavaScript and binary assets are made available under a commercial license. WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences that use their name.
- lftl 14y ago
  If you do "copy large bits of code from the main codebase" this is moot, but I've wondered about the other point. If I don't copy any bits, I'm not really sure why my PHP code would necessarily fall under the GPL. What if I made NotGPLPress that had API compatibility with WP's theme API, but was otherwise my implementation and released under a BSD license. That seems to be the exact same battle Google and Oracle just fought over Java, with Google essentially winning the APIs are not copyrightable battle. At that point couldn't every theme author just say that their theme is built for NotGPLPress and license it however they want? It seems odd that the existence or non-existence of another implementation should affect an author's licensing obligations.
  - bigiain 14y ago
    Heh - I wonder of NotGPLPress would even have to work? ThemeForest could start selling NotGPLPress themes, with a note that NotGPLPress happens to be 100% API compatible with Wordpress. You'd need to ensure your themes weren't cut-n-pastes from code that is copyright Wordpress, but apart from that… Of course, the bigger problem seems to be that (some) theme authors want to be "part of the Wordpress community", presumably largely for professional and monetary reasons, while ignoring that "the Wordpress community" is strongly reliant on (and fundamentally beholden too) Automatic, and they can (and do) place expectations on the behaviours of participants in "the community", and they can (and now are) requiring that participants at events they run comply with those expectations. If you want to be "part of a community" which is reliant on one company, you probably need to play by their rules, even if you can whip out your rules-lawyer hat and claim "but those rules aren't strict interpretations of 'the law'".
  - darkarmani 14y ago
    > What if I made NotGPLPress That might make them really mad. If they are going to blacklist on not licensing images as GPL, what do you think they are going to do to you? ;)
- DannyBee 14y ago
  Actually, it's only true to the degree they copy bits of code. The question whether conforming to a given API (which is what wordpress themes really do) constitutes a derivative work has so far only been answered "no" (and honestly, you better hope it stays that way). GPL explicitly states that non-derivative works are not covered. That said, basically, wordpress takes a legal position that is pretty bad, IMHO. People copying the GPL code into their own code? Great, i'm with you, it's GPL'd, assuming 1. it's copyrightable code. 2. it's not the only way to make it compatible, since if it's the only way to make it compatible, that's so far been considered fair use. As the ninth circuit said, anything else would grant a de-facto monopoly on functional uses. IMHO, you really don't want the legal reality to become what wordpress is trying to enforce.
  - bigiain 14y ago
    "IMHO, you really don't want the legal reality to become what wordpress is trying to enforce." While your explanation makes that clear (and thanks for that), there's a big difference between "our preferences should become law", and "our preferences are not supported by law, but people who don't agree with them don't get invited to speak at conferences we run". Democrats are free to run conferences without being required to allow republicans to present there and vice versa, why is that different for Wordpress's conferences? I think your choice of the word "enforce" is probably a bit of an overreach for what Wordpress are trying to do. (for what it's worth, I don't agree with what Wordpress are doing, it seems petty and small minded to me, but I do think they have every right to be petty and small minded about conferences they organize if they choose to be…)
    - dangrossman 14y ago
      They don't actually organize the conferences, and probably have no involvement in most of them aside from vetting those who volunteer as organizers. WordCamps are small, locally run, kind of like a big meetup (and are often first organized through meetup.com). Tickets are usually around $20, with volunteer speakers and a few sponsors to cover the meeting space. That's been my experience in this region at least.
    - 14y ago
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences that use their name. Except that is ridiculous. What if you start a LLC and license your code through the LLC? How is WP going to know the developer of that split-licensed code? Does this mean everyone selling themes needs to start hiding behind legal entities?
  - bigiain 14y ago
    Not so ridiculous, I think. What WordPress are doing is ensuring that if you want to build a reputation at a Wordpress conference, then you need to abide by what they think are important principles. If you want to be "Joe Smith, WordPress theme superstar" at their conference, you need to GPL your themes non-php assets. If you want to sell themes at ThemeForest as "Anonymous Foo Corp LLC" with commercially licensed non-php assets, that's fine too, but Anonymous Foo Corp doesn't get invited to speak at WordPress conferences, and if Joe Smith springs "Hey, I'm Anonymous Foo Corp on ThemeForest, go buy my shit" on the audience during a presentation at a WordPress conference, it'd be spectacularly poor form, and he should expect to be called out on it and never invited back. (and the fact that the blog post got written shows that at least one theme author does want to build his reputation by speaking at their conference, but isn't prepared to meet their "rules". wordPress, rightly or wrongly, have decided you can't do that any more.)
drewcrawford 14y ago
You're making an error that many programmers make when they reason about the law. The law is not a set of rules about technology. The law is mostly about intent. The technology that is used is for the most part, as we programmers commonly say, "merely an implementation detail." For example, the law says that you have to have a license to make a derivative work, and it is this particular law that is "the source of the GPL virus" in this situation. But whether or not you are making a derivative work does not have much to do with what bits of technology you use. Of course, the questions are related because choices of technology can make the question about whether you are creating a derivative work more believable on one side than the other. But if you making technology choices in the hope and on the sole basis that it has some impact on whether or not you are creating a derivative work, you are practicing cargo cult law, just the same as if you erase the experimental results table from your paper and hope it changes the gravitational constant. You're reasoning in the wrong direction. Just as random aside, this is the same kind of thinking that led to the predominance of magnet links instead of torrent files. There are some technical reasons to prefer one over the other, but some people seem to believe there is a legal distinction when there is not. The magnet link is just as legal or illegal as the torrent file it replaces. The question is whether one is engaged in contributory copyright infringement, not whether one does it with URLs or not.
- mnutt 14y ago
  I'm with you on the intent aspect of the law, but I think there is a chance that the switch from torrent files to magnet links might have some effect on a non-technical person's thinking. In one instance you're "offering files for download", in another you're "linking". The intent could be the same, the technology could be essentially the same, but it may change the perception.
jmillikin 14y ago
Since you call the GPL a "virus" I doubt you're trying to start an honest debate here, but maybe responding anyway will be useful to readers. This drama actually has nothing to do with the GPL. The theme authors are complying fully with the GPL, and there is nothing legally or morally wrong with distributing a plugin containing separately-licensed code or assets. The exact same issues could arise even if Wordpress was released under the BSD/X11/Expat/etc licenses. The problem is that Wordpress is trying to maintain a very high level of control over their community. One of the tools WP has is the ability to ban theme authors they don't like (i.e. those who sell themes on third-party sites) from attending official events. Then WP throws in a few words about the GPL as a smokescreen to deflect anger at someone else.
- forrestthewoods 14y ago
  The GPL is explicitly designed to be viral and I didn't know the source. Below Dan Grossman said the Automattic released WordPress itself under the GPL license. It sounds like they did so because they wanted to, but they could have released it under any license they wanted. That would make WordPress the source. Alternatively Automattic may be forced to release WordPress under GPL due to being a derived work of other code. This may or may not be true. Based on their behavior it does not seem to be a contributing factor either way.
  - jmillikin 14y ago
    The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? It's a common lie that someone might be forced to open-source their code because they accidentally copied some GPL'd code. This is not true. In a typical case of copyright infringement, the infringer must stop distributing the copied code and possibly pay damages. The GPL merely offers a additional choice, it doesn't force anything.
    - Xylakant 14y ago
      > The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your code, then you're free to licence the result under any license you choose. However, if you include GPL code in your code, the result must be under GPL or any other license that is compatible (AGPL for example). In that sense, the GPL is viral - it does not only cover the code that's licensed, but also "infects" other code.

dangrossman 14y ago

WordPress itself is GPL licensed, and its creator, Automattic, contends that all themes and plugins for the CMS are derivative works, and must therefore be GPL licensed as well. Which is probably true, since in addition to being nonfunctional without WordPress to provide the functions themes and plugins hook into, they commonly copy large bits of code from the main codebase and make minor changes to them. Envato allows you to list WordPress themes and plugins for sale in their marketplace, ThemeForest. They make these products available under a split license: the PHP code that interfaces with WordPress is made available under the GPL. CSS, JavaScript and binary assets are made available under a commercial license. WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences that use their name.

lftl 14y ago
If you do "copy large bits of code from the main codebase" this is moot, but I've wondered about the other point. If I don't copy any bits, I'm not really sure why my PHP code would necessarily fall under the GPL. What if I made NotGPLPress that had API compatibility with WP's theme API, but was otherwise my implementation and released under a BSD license. That seems to be the exact same battle Google and Oracle just fought over Java, with Google essentially winning the APIs are not copyrightable battle. At that point couldn't every theme author just say that their theme is built for NotGPLPress and license it however they want? It seems odd that the existence or non-existence of another implementation should affect an author's licensing obligations.
- bigiain 14y ago
  Heh - I wonder of NotGPLPress would even have to work? ThemeForest could start selling NotGPLPress themes, with a note that NotGPLPress happens to be 100% API compatible with Wordpress. You'd need to ensure your themes weren't cut-n-pastes from code that is copyright Wordpress, but apart from that… Of course, the bigger problem seems to be that (some) theme authors want to be "part of the Wordpress community", presumably largely for professional and monetary reasons, while ignoring that "the Wordpress community" is strongly reliant on (and fundamentally beholden too) Automatic, and they can (and do) place expectations on the behaviours of participants in "the community", and they can (and now are) requiring that participants at events they run comply with those expectations. If you want to be "part of a community" which is reliant on one company, you probably need to play by their rules, even if you can whip out your rules-lawyer hat and claim "but those rules aren't strict interpretations of 'the law'".
- darkarmani 14y ago
  > What if I made NotGPLPress That might make them really mad. If they are going to blacklist on not licensing images as GPL, what do you think they are going to do to you? ;)
DannyBee 14y ago
Actually, it's only true to the degree they copy bits of code. The question whether conforming to a given API (which is what wordpress themes really do) constitutes a derivative work has so far only been answered "no" (and honestly, you better hope it stays that way). GPL explicitly states that non-derivative works are not covered. That said, basically, wordpress takes a legal position that is pretty bad, IMHO. People copying the GPL code into their own code? Great, i'm with you, it's GPL'd, assuming 1. it's copyrightable code. 2. it's not the only way to make it compatible, since if it's the only way to make it compatible, that's so far been considered fair use. As the ninth circuit said, anything else would grant a de-facto monopoly on functional uses. IMHO, you really don't want the legal reality to become what wordpress is trying to enforce.
- bigiain 14y ago
  "IMHO, you really don't want the legal reality to become what wordpress is trying to enforce." While your explanation makes that clear (and thanks for that), there's a big difference between "our preferences should become law", and "our preferences are not supported by law, but people who don't agree with them don't get invited to speak at conferences we run". Democrats are free to run conferences without being required to allow republicans to present there and vice versa, why is that different for Wordpress's conferences? I think your choice of the word "enforce" is probably a bit of an overreach for what Wordpress are trying to do. (for what it's worth, I don't agree with what Wordpress are doing, it seems petty and small minded to me, but I do think they have every right to be petty and small minded about conferences they organize if they choose to be…)
  - dangrossman 14y ago
    They don't actually organize the conferences, and probably have no involvement in most of them aside from vetting those who volunteer as organizers. WordCamps are small, locally run, kind of like a big meetup (and are often first organized through meetup.com). Tickets are usually around $20, with volunteer speakers and a few sponsors to cover the meeting space. That's been my experience in this region at least.
  - 14y ago
darkarmani 14y ago
> WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences that use their name. Except that is ridiculous. What if you start a LLC and license your code through the LLC? How is WP going to know the developer of that split-licensed code? Does this mean everyone selling themes needs to start hiding behind legal entities?
- bigiain 14y ago
  Not so ridiculous, I think. What WordPress are doing is ensuring that if you want to build a reputation at a Wordpress conference, then you need to abide by what they think are important principles. If you want to be "Joe Smith, WordPress theme superstar" at their conference, you need to GPL your themes non-php assets. If you want to sell themes at ThemeForest as "Anonymous Foo Corp LLC" with commercially licensed non-php assets, that's fine too, but Anonymous Foo Corp doesn't get invited to speak at WordPress conferences, and if Joe Smith springs "Hey, I'm Anonymous Foo Corp on ThemeForest, go buy my shit" on the audience during a presentation at a WordPress conference, it'd be spectacularly poor form, and he should expect to be called out on it and never invited back. (and the fact that the blog post got written shows that at least one theme author does want to build his reputation by speaking at their conference, but isn't prepared to meet their "rules". wordPress, rightly or wrongly, have decided you can't do that any more.)

drewcrawford 14y ago

You're making an error that many programmers make when they reason about the law. The law is not a set of rules about technology. The law is mostly about intent. The technology that is used is for the most part, as we programmers commonly say, "merely an implementation detail." For example, the law says that you have to have a license to make a derivative work, and it is this particular law that is "the source of the GPL virus" in this situation. But whether or not you are making a derivative work does not have much to do with what bits of technology you use. Of course, the questions are related because choices of technology can make the question about whether you are creating a derivative work more believable on one side than the other. But if you making technology choices in the hope and on the sole basis that it has some impact on whether or not you are creating a derivative work, you are practicing cargo cult law, just the same as if you erase the experimental results table from your paper and hope it changes the gravitational constant. You're reasoning in the wrong direction. Just as random aside, this is the same kind of thinking that led to the predominance of magnet links instead of torrent files. There are some technical reasons to prefer one over the other, but some people seem to believe there is a legal distinction when there is not. The magnet link is just as legal or illegal as the torrent file it replaces. The question is whether one is engaged in contributory copyright infringement, not whether one does it with URLs or not.

mnutt 14y ago
I'm with you on the intent aspect of the law, but I think there is a chance that the switch from torrent files to magnet links might have some effect on a non-technical person's thinking. In one instance you're "offering files for download", in another you're "linking". The intent could be the same, the technology could be essentially the same, but it may change the perception.

jmillikin 14y ago

Since you call the GPL a "virus" I doubt you're trying to start an honest debate here, but maybe responding anyway will be useful to readers. This drama actually has nothing to do with the GPL. The theme authors are complying fully with the GPL, and there is nothing legally or morally wrong with distributing a plugin containing separately-licensed code or assets. The exact same issues could arise even if Wordpress was released under the BSD/X11/Expat/etc licenses. The problem is that Wordpress is trying to maintain a very high level of control over their community. One of the tools WP has is the ability to ban theme authors they don't like (i.e. those who sell themes on third-party sites) from attending official events. Then WP throws in a few words about the GPL as a smokescreen to deflect anger at someone else.

forrestthewoods 14y ago
The GPL is explicitly designed to be viral and I didn't know the source. Below Dan Grossman said the Automattic released WordPress itself under the GPL license. It sounds like they did so because they wanted to, but they could have released it under any license they wanted. That would make WordPress the source. Alternatively Automattic may be forced to release WordPress under GPL due to being a derived work of other code. This may or may not be true. Based on their behavior it does not seem to be a contributing factor either way.
- jmillikin 14y ago
  The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? It's a common lie that someone might be forced to open-source their code because they accidentally copied some GPL'd code. This is not true. In a typical case of copyright infringement, the infringer must stop distributing the copied code and possibly pay damages. The GPL merely offers a additional choice, it doesn't force anything.
  - Xylakant 14y ago
    > The GPL is not "viral", unless you consider every copyright license to be. Would you say the BSD or X11 licenses are "viral"? BSD is not viral. If you incorporate BSD code in your code, then you're free to licence the result under any license you choose. However, if you include GPL code in your code, the result must be under GPL or any other license that is compatible (AGPL for example). In that sense, the GPL is viral - it does not only cover the code that's licensed, but also "infects" other code.