Recently I stumbled upon two posts that had pointed out interesting implications of WordPress using GPL as it's license. I guess not many gave a serious thought to that, me included. We all kind of know that GPL is something that is associated with 'free', we like that and use it as such.
But as attributing world of WordPress becomes more commercial every day, with paid plugins and 'premium' themes, I thought it is important to understand what GPL really brings to that world.
And the implication of GPL is this: all typical WordPress plugins and themes automatically fall under GPL license. In other words, even if you paid for that 'power' plugin or 'premium' theme, and even if author tried to put a different license on it, you are free to modify it, give it away for free or even resell it yourself.
The implication comes mainly from this paragraph of GPL:
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
This means that whenever a theme or a plugin uses just one function from the WordPress code, GPL license automatically 'kicks in' and takes over. And since plugins and themes must use WordPress functions they automatically become GPL as well.
What this means..
You are free to remove those links from the theme that author tried to forbid you from (even from sponsored themes). Even when an author slaps a CC (Creative Commons) license on the theme, and demands you respect the links or work, you do not have to as they are actually violating the GPL by putting CC over it.
This goes for plugins as well. In fact for all WordPress based solutions. GPL allows you to do whatever you want with it including reselling it straight away.
Is there a solution?
The solution exists and is technical in nature. For plugins you can develop your whole code as a library under your own licensing model. Then you would have the wordpress plugin which will call functions from your library. The plugin itself becomes GPL but the library not and you are free to slap any kind of license and restriction to it.
For themes it is a bit of a different story. Having read the GPL FAQ carefully this is my interpretation. First solution: You do not need to call any WordPress functions in your theme, but you can connect to the database directly and get the information you need. This method is possible but not elegant at all.
Second solution is to have your theme in external php files and one WordPress index.php. This file will use WordPress functions and only include() your files as neccessary. Again index.php would fall under GPL, all other files won't.
Conclusion
Obviously core of the problem remains in choosing GPL as the licensing model for WordPress. There is a way out, not as elegant as we would like but possible nevertheless.
Also have in mind that GPL is not strict even in their FAQ. They often say "we think", "we beleive", "that's a borderline case" etc. which implies that the license is still a subject to free interepratation in many ways.
See also:
Posted in: WordPress
TAGS:gnu public licensesteal cms, gnu wordpress themes, gpl commercial wordpress themes, gpl implications, gpl license implication, gpl linux implications, gpl reselling legal, gpl wordpress, gpl wordpress theme, interesting wordpress theme, interesting wordpress themes, modifying gpl wordpress theme, wordpress fall themes, wordpress gpl, wordpress gpl license, wordpress gpl problem, wordpress gplv3, wordpress plugin gpl, wordpress theme gpl, wordpress themes gpl
Hi! My name is 
38 Comments
I do not think Matt needs to 'prove' it by doing what you suggest. GPL license is out there for everyone to read. We can differ on interpretation but the fundamentals are very clear.
Here is a link to one more good read http://weblogtoolscollection.com/archives/2008/12/19/2hr-interview-with-matt-mullenweg/
Again... not quite. It doesn't prove "it". It proves Matt's opinion, not quite the same thing :)
Here is what I think Matt should do. Go and find another big company, say Template Monster, with lots of legal and monetary resources.
Buy their top selling 20 Wordpress themes, then put them up on Wordpress themes as a free download.
I am preety sure that TM will send him a C&D and then Matt and them can figure it all out in the courts.
Then *finally* we can put this unresolved issue of GPL derivative works to rest and all move on :)
Heck, I'll even have a whip round for Matt to buy the TM WP themes to start with ;)
I am not giving legal advice only my opinion based on facts available to me, but you are right I should be more careful with that.
Take a look at this post http://wordpress.org/support/topic/113358#post-543507
Matt says there
From this, Matt's opinion is clear, themes are GPL and the recent removal of 200 themes from wordpress.org (another useful read http://www.alistercameron.com/2008/12/14/matt-mullenweg-wordpress-gpl/ ) only proves it.
Here is a another quote from matt again, from just a few days ago:
"You are free to enforce GPL, you do not have to wait for Matt to do it. GPL gives you that right."
Um, I don't really think so.
1. That templates are GPL is not legal fact, tested in US court... its the opinion (based on his legal advice) of Matt.
2. If an end user violated the GIVEN license of a theme, that theme vendor could sue..
3. Thus, an end user would be violating a given license (e.g. CC) in the hope that a court case would get judged in Matt's favor... meanwhile, that end user would be burning through legal dollars.
I think there are also legal implications for you to be dispensing legal advice... I think the popular phrase is....
.....IANAL
Mark (email?):
The license says quite clearly:
which to me means that if you just use the function, the code becomes GPL. As for the Apache argument, ASF and GPL are compatible so there is no argue there. Problem arrises when you try to use non-compatbile license like CC which brings me to Barrie.
Barrie: You are free to enforce GPL, you do not have to wait for Matt to do it. GPL gives you that right. If you download GPL code you are free to modify it as you wish, distribute it further, resell etc.
WARNING... INACCURATE LEGAL ADVICE WAS CONTAINED IN THIS POST
"You are free to remove those links from the theme that author tried to forbid you from (even from sponsored themes). Even when an author slaps a CC (Creative Commons) license on the theme, and demands you respect the links or work, you do not have to as they are actually violating the GPL by putting CC over it."
This is not true and I would advise against any of your blog readers to do this.
If Wordpress.org say the themes are GPL, then THEY (specifically Matt as I think he is the copyright holder) are the ones that must take the legal action.
If the end user removes the links then THEY are the ones violating the copyright that theme was shipped with and could be liable.
Vladimir: Otto is pretty much spot on.
Your claim:
...is incorrect. If the author is making function calls to the core of Wordpress, they can still license their code under a more restrictive license. It is only if they ship a, for lack of better words, modified duplicate of a function that's already in the Wordpress core, which is when the GPL applies.
Take, for example, the Apache webserver. It is licensed under the ASF, which is more restrictive than the GPL. However, Apache makes all kinds of Linux system function calls, and Linux itself is GPL. This isn't the exact same scenario as custom themes under Wordpress, but it's pretty close. Were Apache to include custom code that was derived from Linux, it would have to be GPL, but it doesn't, so it doesn't. Same thing in this case.
Hi Lawrence - It sounds like you might be misunderstanding this discussion since your comments don't seem to be on topic. In short, my personal response was that one is not entitled to declare a plugin to be GPL if it has not been so licensed by the developer. I also think it's against the law to steal from cocaine dealers. Hope that helps!
Let's bring this back to business principles and processes, something that a legitimate commercial business is held accountable to by a court of law (IRS, Better Business Bureau, UK Office of Fair Trade, ASIC, ATO, etc..)
A commercial design studio creates creative works, as defined by the Copyright Act. These creative work may be integrated into applications such as Wordpress, Joomla and the rest. Who therefore remains the owners of said copyrighted works ? Usually the design studio, unless they sign over the copyrights to their clientele.
So by what right does Joomla (and/or Wordpress) seek to create litigate against design studios around the world, in essence, making the work of those design studios GPL ?
They have no right. The contracts employed by the design studios who utilise Wordpress, Joomla and any other GPL based package do not utilise the GPL as a contract licence. At best, they are creating a service utilising GPL components to deliver a commercial solution for a business. The only laws pertaining to their work remain contract law (BBB / Fair Trading) and copyright. Not the GPL. The GPL is never invoked inside the contract, as the client usually requests a template for a particular CMS package. It does not matter if the CMS package is licenced under the GPL or not. The studio is contracted to deliver a creative work.
This has been the fundamental achilles heel within the GPL debarcle that remains unspoken for a year. As long as the GPL is not invoked as part of the contract law between business and client, any licence can be applied. Creative Commons, Commercial copyright, whatever.
Face it, Amy, every time you and the Joomla team you represent through the Communications team, seek to champion design contracts must be commercialised GPL, you profoundly misunderstand the nature of business contracts within the design world.
Furthermore, thanks to the push towards "GPL compliance", Joomla, as a CMS, has attracted the cheap, hobby, unethical market where commercial components continue to be pirated or even worse, developers threatened with attempted hacks against them to pirate works. This is backed up by analysing Joomla.org over Quantcast and other measures.
It's not the commercial developers fault that Joomla is attracting the bottom end (low/no cost) players who want to get into the web.
It does seem ironic that the Joomla.org template design gets pirated so often that they've had to create a sticky and FAQ on it in the forum. And where do you think these pirates get the idea that it's okay to pirate from the Joomla.org site ? From the actions done by the SFLC, Joomla Core, and advocates such as Amy Stephen.
I agree, up to a point. If the original, non-derivative code is distributed within a package that is largely GPL I think you will find that the whole distribution is GPL.
Themes/templates are more complicated. WordPress themes can consist of many different files and the hooks into the WordPress API are often a very minor part of the theme. If a theme can stand alone from WordPress (or any other web app) and look the same, regardless of whether the data is pulled in or not, then its arguable that the GPL applies. A theme developer could just as easily release a commercial theme with notes saying "add get_sidebar on line xyz between these tags".
The issue of whether themes are GPL or not is not even clear on the GNU/GPL FAQ's http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WMS
There is a lot of misunderstanding over the GPL and a whole heap of arguments about its interpretation. But, at the end of the day, the only people who have any say in how their code is used are the copyright holders themselves. They are the only ones with rights to enforce the license and it would be very wrong of people to make assumptions about what they can or can't do with commercial themes or plugins. If they say their work is CC and you disagree, you should take this up with them but not breach their license. If its commercial GPL then there is nothing stopping you from distributing the work either free, or for a fee.
>>Reading that paragraph from GPL again I get the impression that what Bad Behaviour does is not enough - you would need to also distribute GPL-ed and non GPL-ed files separately, because if you distribute is as one ‘work’ it automatically becomes GPL in whole.
No. You can't automatically assume licensing just because somebody distributes stuff in the same ZIP file. The law is not that simplistic.
If I write two pieces of code, then I own those pieces of code. If I then decide to license them differently, but put them in the same ZIP, nothing in the world can prevent me from doing that. I wrote the code, I own it, and I can do with it as I please.
The GPL only has any power over derivative code. If I write a separate piece of code that is clearly not derived from WordPress, then WordPress' license has no power over me at all, no matter what ZIP files I put it in.
@Ryan: Actually, OSX is based on BSD, which uses (obviously) the BSD license.
This is why I keep recommending BSD-style licenses, because they are more permissive.
As far as what your lawyer says, I'd be curious who that was, and what specifically they said. I'm not accusing anyone of anything, but developers tend to hear what they want to hear in regards to things said about licensing.
The lawyer may have said that it's ok to produce commercial software that contains GPL-licensed source. That is true. That doesn't preclude it from itself being GPL-licensed and being subject to the terms of the license. Remember, GPL does not mean non-commercial.
I'm not a lawyer so am not going to attempt to explain the details, but I recently had a long discussion with a lawyer who specialises in copyright law about this topic. I was told there is no issue with integrating GPL code into a commercial product.
Apple's Mac OSX is a prime example of this, it apparently contains a lot of code acquired from Linux (GNU/GPL), but as a whole it is considered an original piece of work, hence anyone who is caught providing a copy of OSX for download will quite rightly land themselves in hot water with the Apple legal team.
@otto: Reading that paragraph from GPL again I get the impression that what Bad Behaviour does is not enough - you would need to also distribute GPL-ed and non GPL-ed files separately, because if you distribute is as one 'work' it automatically becomes GPL in whole.
Same would probably apply to theme CSS and image files. GPL code only includes the CSS (like BB plugin includes independent code) so it does not fall under GPL? But you would have to distribute the CSS and images separately, no?
There is a specific case where one could successfully distribute a plugin without tying it to the GPL.
Look very, very closely at how the Bad Behavior plugin works. He has a core set of files that are independent of any WordPress functions at all. Then there is a plugin that connects WordPress to those core files. He also includes several plugins for other platforms, which are not WordPress oriented at all. He even gives instructions on how to use it bare, by itself, on any PHP site.
In that case, the only WordPress derived piece of Bad Behavior is that one single file "plugin" which ties the WordPress hooks to the Bad Behavior functions. The core is clearly not a WordPress derivative at all, by any sane definition, and so does not really have to be bound by the GPL.
So, in theory, one could make a plugin that way, as long as one made it clearly obvious (as BB does) that the major piece of code is an independent piece of code.
I think the main argument here for ASL is that it is giving you a choice, unlike GPL. And like you said, Apache is doing very well (but so is WordPress to be fair)
Ha ha! I agree, we are not. And in that respect, my analogy is poor. In the case of themes and plugins, because of how the license works, redistributing derivatives is not stealing. They are entitled due to the acceptance of the original author of the terms of the GPL, as implied by their release of the work.
Please consider this: If a person produces a work that must be licensed as GPL and erroneously releases it under some other license, what right do they have to demand that things derived from their own work now correctly licensed under the GPL be discontinued unless they themselves discontinue release of their own work? I say "none". I'm not event addressing whether the third party had a right to derive from their code or not. What I'm asking is, what is the original author's legal recourse for that demand? Even if they have one, it's tenuous. Good luck showing up in court asking for remediation without having your own work revoked or fully opened.
Being that this is the backbone of the discussion - the idea that there are dozens of clearinghouses selling WordPress themes that should rightly be GPL and resalable for any price, even gratis - it would behoove someone like the SFLC to address that issue rather than rehashing how to appropriately apply the GPL. I look forward to that link reference.
It's a terrible state. Depending on how you look at it, you've got these theme resellers making money dealing in illegally licensed goods. From another perspective, you're screwing the theme developers out of money they feel they should have rights to. From another perspective, the free open source software community is getting hosed for lack of themes being developed under their license because it doesn't secure the theme developer himself any rights.
So far, the suggestion is that it's not ok to "steal" from people who license their themes incorrectly, yet unless the copyright holder - once again, "WordPress", an entity that doesn't really exist - does something about it, there's no problem. At best it's an awfully big loophole, and it's certainly not moral. As I've said a couple of times here, a loophole is not a business model.
I feel like I've reached the end of my ability to persuade with this topic, though. Not that I've changed my mind, just that I think I'm not making any headway. I'm interested in hearing other viewpoints.
@Vladimir: Well of course the bad side of ASL is that it's not altruistic at all. :) That's not entirely true. I think that arguments have been made against ASL with the idea being that the code is not as free as with GPL. That is, by allowing commercial protection to derivatives, freedom is taken away from users to do what they want with the software.
There is also an argument about open/free release stagnation due to commercial availability. So if someone comes along and releases a great commercial plugin, why would anyone release a free one? Or the worse argument, if you can charge for your plugins, why would anyone release a plugin for free?
I don't buy into these arguments, though. I think that healthy competition exists between free and commercial products. Look at Open Office as an example, now in its third major release. Maybe the commercial products will be better. As a developer I feel that a fair price for premium work is is fair. It stems back to the idea that GPL-style licenses don't afford the developer any real rights. If the developers aren't getting paid for the actual work, then it all happens on the service side. Are things really better for the user if they always have to pay for service for everything they want improved?
We looked at other BSD-style licenses for Habari after quickly dismissing GPL. The Apache license is pretty well known, and one of the founders is heavily involved in the Apache Foundation. He was very convincing about the virtues of the way Apache works, and we've taken a lot of their ideals to heart with Habari. How bad can it be when their web server is used everywhere?
Owen thanks for that lengthy explanation, I think I got it all now.
In your pursue for appropriate Habari licensing mechanism, you came up with ASL. Since I've got more interested in licenses now when I learned the other side of GPL, I guess I will try to steal you away from your work just a little bit more with this question: are there any bad sides of ASL that you are aware of, and what other licenses that came close to your requirements did you considering?
Actually, I think it's a good thing. I know a lot of people who make great money from premium WordPress themes etc. but I think it's a little crooked personally. I do WordPress customizations for clients all the time and they're made fully aware that the work I'm doing in GPL, only my time is worth money.
Dude - we are not entitled to steal from cocaine dealers, either. :-P Even if the items we steal are 100% funded by criminal activity, that does not legally entitle us.
Now, the government, on the other hand, has the right to the spoils of illegal gain. But, even then (and here's where the preverbial point comes in-> ) there is something called "due process" and a legal framework that keeps pistols holstered and provides our society with legal stability.
The GPL is an interesting instrument with brutal intention and that is liberating code - and keeping it free (the subject of this conversation.) Many do not care for the terms of the license, many do. Here's a good read from the SFLC.
@Amy Stephen:
Yes. So follow through with the logic: If you do distribute, and compliance is required, then distributed materials must be compliant, regardless of what other stipulations you might make. The public hasn't "assumed possession of their work", they're merely using the work under the license that it is required to have been released under. The alternative is not to distribute.
Where I'm coming at this is from the pursuit of remedies should the author of the GPL-violating code seek them. If someone releases code contrary to the terms of the GPL with which they must comply, and someone modifies and redistributes their code in concurrence with the GPL, then what remedy does that original author have? For example, if I purchase your erroneously licensed WordPress theme, and then release it with or without changes for free, I think it would be very difficult for you to win damages on your losses for something that you licensed improperly in the first place.
It's like stealing from a cocaine dealer. If you snatch a couple of keys of coke from a dealer, what recourse does he have to seek remedy in court?
No, nobody should be dealing in cocaine. Likewise, everyone who distributes components for WordPress should distribute with GPL, and live with those consequences.
To be clear, my thoughts have nothing to do with "WordPress", an entity that doesn't even really exist, coming after people who release components outside of license compliance. This is the fear people seem to focus on, and it just doesn't exist. My thoughts are about the ability for creators of those components to defend their monetary rights if someone else, assuming as they should that the code is covered by the GPL, "steals" their code. My concern is for protecting the rights of the people who write plugins and themes; the people who tried in vain to relicense their offerings to do just that. If that's your intent, you should not be writing WordPress components because the GPL virtually strips those rights.
And then there's Joomla, which has gone completely off the reservation as far as licensing is concerned. The graphic components are released under a different license? I advocated this idea in Habari for a while, but really the GPL-ness of the code that must exist in the template files provides a framework upon which the CSS rests. Unless there's something to apply that CSS to outside of what the code for the template generates, the CSS is covered under the GPL as well. Keep using the same clause in the GPL, and your graphics would be covered too.
I think that the Joomla community's interpretation is a convenient delusion for allowing themers to continue to sell their wares, but the whole idea seems contrary to the ideals of the GPL in the first place. The Joomla née Mambo authors should have been more careful about the selection of their license if they intended industry to form around it.
Personally, I'd wash my hands of this nonsense and seek out a product with a more business-friendly license and code for that. For example, there's no requirement for theme or plugin authors to distribute ASL or GPL plugins for Habari. Just avoid the trouble altogether.
Very good clarification. It seems that is so, with the GPL.
Never would someone's violation of the GPL be legal grounds for the general public to assume possession of their work. Regardless of how tiny the improvement might be -- they own the copyright to it and do not have to distribute. (Don't forget - the GPL does *not* require you distribute improvements - it merely stipulates that if you do, you must do so within the license terms.)
Once distribution begins, then compliance is required. But, again, only those who hold the copyright can take action if there is a violation. Typically, insisting on distribution with a compliant license - or - stopping distribution are the end results. (Depending on how difficult one has been, sometimes a penalty.)
Even one who's own copyright was violated could not insist on someone else's work being liberated - they could only insist on compliance with the GPL. (And, again, the GPL does *not* require distribution.)
Good day! :-)
@Amy I believe GPL simply makes their CC license invalid in the first place - like it wasn't there. Perhaps Owen can shed more light on the subject.
@Serge K. Keller: Yes. And I really like the idea of the Street Performer Protocol as doing exactly what you suggest: Allow generic works for hire that can be released under GPL license after the threshhold is reached.
I think - and this may be entirely my biased perspective from moving to Habari from WordPress - the turmoil is being stirred up by other platforms using different licenses specifically because WordPress doesn't allow it. And I think that as a result of more permissive platforms like Habari coming into public view, people who were selling WordPress themes were surprised to find out that what they were doing wasn't a sound business model to begin with.
Being a developer myself, I've been working within the intricacies of open and closed licenses for a long time. I would not expect designers, who are the primary purveyor of themes, to be as familiar with these notions. To me, their backlash is quite expected, since in most other fields of artistic expression, license is more restrictive than with open licenses. For example, even if you want a print of a painting, you pay a license fee. You can't record performances without a license fee. Etc.
To us, and anyone who has read the license to try to understand it, the implications of the license are obvious. But I think many people have assumed things work as they traditionally have, nobody has stopped them, and this has resulted in ignorance that may eventually end in misfortune for those who aren't wary of the consequences. So when I read these cries of despair from themers, I don't so much wonder where the "angst" comes from as shrug and say "I expected this to happen".
@Owen:"This means that it's pointless to charge for a theme or plugin, because after it's sold, the "owner" can do whatever they want with it"I completely agree with you on this (and the rest).
Perhaps whre my stance differs is in the fact that I've always seen that as a pointless business model anyway. Sure, creating a theme or a plugin of the quality of, say, those of Vladimir's is quite a work.
But the nature of electronic media makes it so that, once created, the cost of reproducing it is zero. How can you charge that correctly? Certainly not by selling a theme $50.-: the copy has no inherent value in itself (it's only electrons, people!), but the work and the thoughts and care that went behind it in the first place have. How can you give that a price?
Well, you could ask to be paid for the creation: a contractual work, for example, or a given work for a company. Or you could offer what hardly anyone else can: service, support, developing and nurturing a community around your product. After all, nobody knows that product better than you, if you created it!
@all: just to make it very clear, as English is not my native language and perhaps I'm a bit too convoluted: I'm not defending the GPL at all costs, other licenses (even proprietary, in some cases) have helped nurturing great products as well as great communities. But I don't get the sudden "angst" about WordPress' GPL percolating to themes and plugins: it's nothing new per se, perhaps people were not really aware of it before. "Open source" does not mean only "free to take", but also to fully understand the consequences.
It's not about the money, it's about your rights.
@Pete: the rights you have if you modify the WordPress codebase are very clear: your modifications will stay under the GPL. You could sell them, but the source must be available along with them and anybody else who is capable to do so can then redistribute it further. If that is disturbing to you, consider this: the vast majority of users is not really able to build over such a product. Heck, some people are paying other people to *install* WordPress on their servers, so there is quite a margin of maneuver for you or anybody else to offer services in this domain. The products should only be an incentive, a way to tell: "we know our stuff, if you need help just ask for a quote".
Important note: my previous comment was happy-triggered by the word "scary" Vladimir used at first on his title. I strongly reacted to it. As it was the first time I commented on his blog, of course I was put into moderation. Meanwhile, Vladimir changed his title, so quite a bit of what I said there isn't applicable any more. Not only that, but I want to make it very clear that my intention was not to attack Vladimir for his opinion on the subject (I don't think he took it that way neither), but a fed-up reaction to the state of things in the WordPress world as of late.
@Vladimir: I understand your concerns. Not as a developer (I'm not one) or as a designer (neither), but as a content producer (which I am). Stealing is just something we live everyday with. But how does the current situation of giving away your products differ from a situation where you give away them under the GPL? It's a risk for you even now, although I really hope you will not have to face such a situation.
The crux of the problem, from my point of view, is that many people, young and less young, have begun to build small, easy "business models" where they're making money with derived products for WordPress. But they failed to see that WordPress' license undermines that product if all they can offer is a zip file with something in it for a fee. "Oh, it's automatically infected by the GPL, I can't control it anymore". And all of a sudden there's a whole hubbub going around...
The real way to build something around WordPress, and perhaps to pay the bills with it, is to offer something else entirely: service. I think that is also something Brian Gardner realized, since he does offer such a great service and has been able to build a strong community around it.
To end my rant: there was also an interesting discussion over at ThemeShaper on this very subject. I'll quote Matt Mullenweg on the subject (further down the comment queue):
That's not true. If someone is violating the GPL - that means a copyright holder could take action.
But, that does not mean we can "take their stuff" and disregard their licensing. That's a quick path to getting sued. Don't try that.
Also - commercial is fine. Look at MySQL or Red Hat. It's okay to create a "gated community" and market services surrounding source. There is also a secondary market that emerges that buys access early and resells at a reduced rate. None of that violates the license.
Anyway, take care, have fun!
Amy :)
I am certainly not a lawyer, but I have dealt with the issue of GPL when working with WordPress, and as a result - with the help of our initial Habari team - chose the ASL for our project with that specific idea in mind. We want a healthy ecosystem for both developers and users, and I think the ASL is a better choice for that than forcing developers to swallow the GPL in some altruistic crusade for open source.
Regarding your Insights plugin, I think that's a great idea. Have you seen the Habari media silos? They provide a similar functionality in core, and allow you to plug in different, additional services to extend the services through which Habari can easily link in your posts. Stop by our mailing lists or IRC and chat with us - we're happy to help bring new folks in. :)
Nice to have you here Owen, and I am glad you can confirm for me the issues I was talking about as someone certainly more experienced in the matter.
[On a different note, Habari seems to be going really well, what do you think about including functionality similar to my Insights plugin? I think that would feel at home with Habari]
@Serge K. Keller: It's really not an issue of WordPress coming after you for releasing your plugin/theme under some other license.
It's more about an plugin or theme author's ability to defend their own work from what they perceive as theft.
If you're offering your WP wares for sale at $5 or $500, there are two things that you need to consider. First, if you are releasing your code and/or design exclusively under a non-GPL license, then you are violating the terms of WordPress' GPL license. Doing this in the first place is not legal. While no entity really exists to enforce this, others who obtain your wares could assume that you have implicity applied a dual-license to your code, and handle it as if it was GPL.
Second, and more importantly, if someone obtains your GPL code - at any price, free or not - and then changes or re-sells it, you have no recourse because your license explicitly allows them to do it.
This means that it's pointless to charge for a theme or plugin, because after it's sold, the "owner" can do whatever they want with it, including undercutting you significantly in resale. Is it a bit sleazy? Maybe, but you've explicitly allowed it by complying with the license that you must apply to your work in order for it to be legal to use with WordPress.
A cottage industry of theme resellers has cropped up around the sale of WordPress themes. This amazes me because the resellers offer no additional service to the theme's end-user, and the themes, after they're purchased, are free for the distribution! If I was someone who had based my business model on the idea of selling themes, I would find that concept scary.
This is why licenses like the Apache Software License are good. They allow business to form around the sale of people's hard work, and still provide an outlet for the open source community to grow. As you say, there will always be people giving things away for free, but it's unfortunate that with the GPL the opportunity to exclusively make money from your work is stripped from you simply because you didn't know what you were getting into.
Love your site, plugins and posts. Ok, so for all of us laymen, it is true that you can use wordpress plugins, themes etc without the linkback, and even multiple times even if the theme/plugin creator says you cannot?
I think it is fair to pay for something you use. It takes A LOT of time and hard work obviously to make these things. However, I think the idea that you cannot use it more than once sucks. I know places, like some of us, to get most things (programs,themes etc) for free but if I like the product I will by the real version.
Anyway, just want to try to clarify the rules. Thanks.
Serge, your comment went for approval hence I've seen it only now. You probably caught the early version of the article that had scary, which I later thought was not true.
Brian did not to had to 'consider adopting to GPL', as his themes were automatically adopted by GPL as soon as he used WordPress functions in them. The move he made only means people will no longer have to pay to download the themes from his site, and his new source of revenue will come from offering support packages. My understanding is that he probably realized that anyone could put his themes online, free for download (courtesy of GPL), and that did not look like a long lasting business model.
Why should they go pay for a product they’ll find here for the price of, well, nothing?
Well first of all, most of those people will probably not realize that they can get exactly the same plugins from my site for free.
While I do not mind people doing anything they want with my plugins, as I released them as such, uneasy feeling comes from the fact that someone may actually take my plugins and sell them to beginner users, without my consent, for profit, with zero work involved on their part for development what so ever.
That means someone can open freepremiumthemes.com, purchase a version of each premium theme available (or just get it from someone who bought it previously) and offer it free for download.
GPL does not forbid you to sell GPL-ed content, in fact you have all rights to do so. The point is everyone who bought it from you can offer it for download freely and even resell it themselves, which in a way diminishes the whole point of selling it in the first place.
Hi Vladimir,
Not only have you an array of fantastic plugins to your name but you also exhibit a worldly understanding of important topics, so hats off to you. It's not many who can pull it off.
I read this article with interest because it strikes an important note for the endeavours of all Wordpress developers. It particularly addresses a nagging concern I've had for a while. I've been wondering what rights I have if I modify the Wordpress codebase. Say I were to alter it substantially and I were to create a publishing platform tailored to the needs of an industry or public institution. Could I then sell a commercial version of it to those industries/institutions?
What if I bought and integrated a number of commercial plugins into my package?
To say it's a grey area is an understatement. Imagine trying to entangled a copyright row where ownership of code is the issue. Anyone who has coded anything knows that all code is reused to some extent. Unless we deal just in primitive types e.g. ints, floats etc. But it's not even as clear cut as that. Who hasn't used an API in their development? Functions inherit from other functions and so on. So, where does the originality start and copyright begin?
Incidentally, is there an authority to whom we might get the definitive answer on these posing questions?
Well, if you can shed any further light, I'd be grateful.
PS. Snazzy Archives deserves an award of some sort, without question. However, as you'll see from my forum post on this site, version 0.5.2 works with WP 2.6.2 but not version 0.6. (Bizarre).
Pete.
And in which way is that scary? Well, apart from the fact that it made for a catchy title that attracted my attention, the fact that the GPL should apply to derivatives and extensions of WordPress does not imply the end of any "business models" out there, shaky as they may be...
The GPL does not imply that one *has* to give away his/her precious premium plugins or themes. They could as well be sold, or support for them could be sold, or... or... If the author of the very successful Revolution theme is considering very seriously the adoption of the GPL, it's certainly not madness from his part. Heck, WordPress itself, while being under the GPL, is very much a source of revenue for its creators!
No, what I find very "scary" and disturbing in all this, its this trend of the last year or two of thinking "Hey, this WordPress thing seems pretty popular and it's free (as in beer)! There must be a way for me to make money out of it!" without really understanding the implications of the license the *only* product one bases his/her money-making scheme on is placed under. Is the GPL such a difficult thing to read through and understand at least once in your life?
Well, it seems it's something we're destined to see coming over and over again in the wordpress-sphere... Now it's "premium" themes, then it was "sponsored" themes, before that something else... Let's hope that the move of Brian Gardner will finally make users realize that in the end it's all about the service and the difference you can give to your product. And that does not come easily, it requires work.
Fortunately, the majority of plugin and theme creators are still releasing their products for free. Thank you for that! If only the consumers did hit that "donation" button a bit more often...
PS:"If I get it correctly, my plugins automatically become GPL whether I like it or not, and you can actually take any of my plugins and sell them for profit." - Perhaps they should, IANAL and all that, but apart from the fact that the WP people have been very lenient about this up until now (what they *will* certainly protect is their own products!), permitting a whole econosphere to build itself on and around WP, you must also have some faith in your consumers. Why should they go pay for a product they'll find here for the price of, well, nothing? Or, come to that, why should you feel obliged in that case to be the only one to give them away for free? Because you personally feel it is "the right thing to do"? Well, then continue so: it's all about choice! After all, the GPL is a protection for *you* and your users, not for "them", whomever they are. You still own the full rights on your products under the GPL, but it also protects the rights of your users to use them as they see fit! Some cases of parasitism have emerged in the past over GPL products (CherryOS anyone?), they were quickly brought to light and unsuccessful in the end.
"Scare" really isn't applicable here.