Just to be clear, this article is about why a wordpress theme maker is not allowed to participate at a wordpress conference because they are (through a proxy site ThemeForest) selling their themes with licensing that wordpress doesn't like.<p>The main issue for the author is that they do not have control over the license used when selling on ThemeForest, and <i>not</i> selling on ThemeForest is not a viable option for them as sales through that platform account for most of their monthly income.<p>The author states:<p>"""The only license available to authors on ThemeForest is a split license[0]. The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not. There’s nothing wrong with this, and I also have no problem with this; But it doesn’t meet those guidelines for WordCamps that I mentioned earlier."""<p>So users of the THemeForest platform are unable to license their themes in any way they wish, but must split license their themes. Wordpress has a problem with this, hence the hard line being drawn.<p>Not sure what the resolution might be, but I think ThemeForest should allow fully GPL themes if authors so desire. Maybe there are implications to this I am not aware of?<p>[0] <a href="http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Article/View/428/0/split-licensing-and-the-gpl---what-does-it-all-mean" rel="nofollow">http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Arti...</a>
I think this is pretty reasonable behavior by wp.org.<p>Their position has been entirely clear for years. No-one's forcing the OP to sell WP themes. No-one's required to find a way to let the OP profit from selling WP themes incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to be used; much less to find a way to let the OP keep using <i>one particular</i> infringing WP theme site to sell his work when there are plenty of other theme sites out there that are successfully following the rules.
For more context, the GPL/WordPress debate got a lot of attention in the summer of 2010 when WordPress.org was bumping heads with the Thesis Theme.<p><a href="http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/" rel="nofollow">http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/</a><p><a href="http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpress+" rel="nofollow">http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpre...</a><p>Edit: Changed Automattic to WordPress.org
So, if I have this right. In order to speak at this wordpress conference one must not distribute <i>anything</i> related to wordpress that isn't 100% GPL? That's pretty hardcore.
"The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and JavaScript are not."<p>I know a lot of companies do this. Heck, even ID software provided free source of their engines, but didn't give away their WADs. But is the PhP in this case of any value without the rest? Can anything be done with it?<p>If the PhP is of no value on its own and it specific to the CSS, JS, and images, then imo that totally would violate the spirit of GPL'ing the other. If that is the case and you want to have it be proprietary, don't provide the source/files for any of it (for the new stuff). If you want it to be GPL, then sell it, but make all of it free source, including the images, JS, and CSS. Note: I believe that Stallman's view (if you care) is that not providing images is ok if it is art and not source/required for the source, but I think that is a loophole that can be exploited, so I say make it all free.<p>However, if the PhP provides some value on its own and is usable (like one of ID's engines), it's all good and do what you want.<p>There is nothing in GPL that says that you can't get paid for it. Just because you have to provide the source for free doesn't mean people can't pay you for the work, it just means they can't pay you for the source. They could pay you for the bundle (which they could create on their own if they wanted for free, but some may not be savvy enough to do that). GPL is not anti-capitalist.
Is this not unlike Apple's App Store? Developers aren't shy about their disdain for Apple's control, but in the end, it doesn't matter. If you want to make money, you need to play by Apple's rules. Likewise ThemeForest is the dominant marketplace for WordPress themes, with +2MM users. It sounds like ThemeForest can call the shots (for now) if the ultimate goal is profits.
This whole story has gone on for a week now, and has been discussed a great deal.<p>This post does a nice job summarizing the story, with links to many blog posts that came from Jake's original <a href="http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-contributors-and-the-spirit-of-the-gpl/" rel="nofollow">http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-contribut...</a><p>Jake also discussed in on his PleaseAdvise podcast, as well as another podcast:
<a href="http://pleaseadvise.fm/" rel="nofollow">http://pleaseadvise.fm/</a>
<a href="http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-guest-jake-caputo/" rel="nofollow">http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-guest-jake-capu...</a>
Just adding some additional background. I happened on a related post earlier today on ThemeShaper ("Home of the Automattic Theme Team)...<p><a href="http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/" rel="nofollow">http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/</a>
Odd - I submitted this story, with the same URL, 5 days ago<p><a href="http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033" rel="nofollow">http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033</a>
I feel like WP and that Matt guy are just trolling everyone. I'm waiting for the punchline: punked!<p>"Why would we ban someone for how they sell some themes through a 3rd party provider? That would be crazy! You actually believed us??"
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?