4 ms·

There is no evidence that the author is selling infringing WP themes. Even if you accept that all clients of a library are inherently derivative works of that

There is no evidence that the author is selling infringing WP themes. Even if you accept that all clients of a library are inherently derivative works of that library (a stance I strongly oppose), there is no reasonable way to conclude that non-code theme assets must also be derivative. Trying to enforce additional restrictions on the author's own work is asinine.

prodigal_erik 14y ago
The way I read > any person or business should give their users the same freedoms that WordPress itself provides. Note: this is one step above simple compliance, which requires PHP code to be GPL/compatible but allows proprietary licenses for JavaScript, CSS, and images. they are fully aware that theme authors can comply with the GPL yet impose restrictions on users via licensing of non-derivative assets. They're just refusing to promote such parasitic behavior.
- tedunangst 14y ago
  If I'm buying a GPL PHP mod I can get elsewhere for free with not-GPL assets, chances are it's because I think the assets are worth paying for. If the assets add sufficient value that people would rather pay than use the free theme, what's the problem?
  - icebraining 14y ago
    Nothing in the article indicates they oppose charging, just distribution under different licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
    - Dylan16807 14y ago
      You kind of seem to be missing the point on purpose here. In a free software environment, there are many things you can pay for, sure. Support, distribution, development, etc. But paying for the use of specific images is not very fitting. When you buy assets like that it's purely on the basis of IP monopoly, not because they provide you with any service and/or material. Then again I don't think you're supposed to apply it to images in the first place. It's about freedom for software users, the ability to control their own computers. Either way it's not really relevant to this discussion.
cjbprime 14y ago
I tried to use the awkward phrase "incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to be used" to cover your viewpoint; regardless of the meaning of the legal code, their intent is clear and has been for a long time. In those circumstances, blogging a complaint that you want to use GPL code but not in the way that the authors have very publicly stated that they think is reasonable doesn't get my sympathy -- go take someone else's code instead.
- analog 14y ago
  The authors are not just Automattic though, everyone who has contributed code has done so under the assumption that the code is GPL. Automattic have just as much responsibility to respect the wishes of everyone who contributed to the source code, and by changing the effective terms of the license they are not.

prodigal_erik 14y ago

The way I read > any person or business should give their users the same freedoms that WordPress itself provides. Note: this is one step above simple compliance, which requires PHP code to be GPL/compatible but allows proprietary licenses for JavaScript, CSS, and images. they are fully aware that theme authors can comply with the GPL yet impose restrictions on users via licensing of non-derivative assets. They're just refusing to promote such parasitic behavior.

tedunangst 14y ago
If I'm buying a GPL PHP mod I can get elsewhere for free with not-GPL assets, chances are it's because I think the assets are worth paying for. If the assets add sufficient value that people would rather pay than use the free theme, what's the problem?
- icebraining 14y ago
  Nothing in the article indicates they oppose charging, just distribution under different licenses. http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/philosophy.html
  - Dylan16807 14y ago
    You kind of seem to be missing the point on purpose here. In a free software environment, there are many things you can pay for, sure. Support, distribution, development, etc. But paying for the use of specific images is not very fitting. When you buy assets like that it's purely on the basis of IP monopoly, not because they provide you with any service and/or material. Then again I don't think you're supposed to apply it to images in the first place. It's about freedom for software users, the ability to control their own computers. Either way it's not really relevant to this discussion.

cjbprime 14y ago

I tried to use the awkward phrase "incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to be used" to cover your viewpoint; regardless of the meaning of the legal code, their intent is clear and has been for a long time. In those circumstances, blogging a complaint that you want to use GPL code but not in the way that the authors have very publicly stated that they think is reasonable doesn't get my sympathy -- go take someone else's code instead.

analog 14y ago
The authors are not just Automattic though, everyone who has contributed code has done so under the assumption that the code is GPL. Automattic have just as much responsibility to respect the wishes of everyone who contributed to the source code, and by changing the effective terms of the license they are not.