Premium Theme Business Models

[Jeffro]

Well, it was only a matter of time before someone started this topic in this area of the forum, since no one has just yet, guess I'll get us started.

I would like for all of us to discuss ideas or business models revolving around (Premium/Proprietary themes) that you believe can work which are also 100% compatible with the GPL. I suppose within this same forum thread, we can talk about the GPL's impact on this particular business model but I would also like to talk about its benefits.

I'd love to hear from those of you who are currently operating under a business model that fits this description. Lets see if we can't combine our brains to come up with some interesting ideas/business models which premium theme authors haven't thought of yet or are too scared to put into practice.

[Ryan]

I have a business model which fits with the GPL.

The PixoPoint Template Generator creates GPL themes, but the actual program which creates the themes is NOT GPL. I make money from users who pay to have access to the upload function of the generator and from offering premium (paid) support.


I also have a CSS generator for my Multi-level Navgiation plugin. The plugin is GPL, but to access some of the features of the CSS generator which provides the styling for it you need to pay a fee. I also offer a premium support option for users wanting to do really funky stuff with their menus or who just need super quick support (I also offer free support).

[JLeuze]

One gray area of commercial themes that has always confused me is child themes. I haven't heard or read anything where it was directly addressed.

I understand that a WordPress theme has GPL code in it, and therefore has to be GPL itself. That makes sense and seems perfectly reasonable.

But when it comes to child themes, it seems to blur the lines a bit. If you are building a child theme on top of a GPL theme, and your child theme is just CSS and graphics, no GPL code, is that child theme really GPL? It seems like you would be able to retain some sort of copyright and legitimately charge for that design, provided the code underneath that pretty skin is GPL.

I'm thinking specifically of Ian Stewart's superb Thematic framework, which is GPL and free. He's making a great contribution to the community with Thematic, yet he's charging for child themes that can be applied to Thematic, like Acamas.

It seems like the best of both world, the community gets a great framework, and Ian is still able to get compensation for his work. But is it totally legit, GPL-wise?

[dancole]

...
But when it comes to child themes, it seems to blur the lines a bit. If you are building a child theme on top of a GPL theme, and your child theme is just CSS and graphics, no GPL code, is that child theme really GPL? It seems like you would be able to retain some sort of copyright and legitimately charge for that design, provided the code underneath that pretty skin is GPL.
...
It seems like the best of both world, the community gets a great framework, and Ian is still able to get compensation for his work. But is it totally legit, GPL-wise?

You can charge for GPL themes, child themes, or Wordpress under the GPL. I think the WordPress community has come to the conclusion that anything extension to GPL software has to be GPL. But here's the thing, GPL is not the public domain! So by releasing code under GPL the software author is not stripped of all his rights. There are cases of companies stealing GPL code, although all of them have been dealt with out of court.

[Ryan]

Matt Mullenweg has said that he believes that CSS and images do not necessarily need to be GPL when included with a theme.

You don't need to release a child theme for that either. You could just release your theme under two licenses, one for the PHP and one for the images and CSS. With a little lateral thinking you could do the same for your HTML as well.

[film_girl]

While you can absolutely charge for a GPL product, you are also supposed to make the source freely available to anyone who wants it. You can do this in a number of ways, but you are supposed to make it accessible. This is fine for traditional software that has to be compiled in binaries to run, because you can just say -- "here's the source, compile it yourself if you want, but if you want it pre-compiled and you want support, pay us" (that's what Red Hat does with RHEL) because a) businesses and corporations that use your stuff will usually pay for the latest binary updates and support b) it'll take the community a few weeks usually to get a binary compiled and ready to distirbute (Cent OS, the OS version of RHEL is always a few weeks behind RHEL's official schedule because they have to compile, check bugs, do any upstream checks, etc.) and the barrier to entry ensures that there are a certain number of people that will just pay for the service/compiled software.

Where it gets messy with web-based applications, in this case, WordPress -- is that the source IS the final product. You don't have a binary -- you have a PHP file. So the whole notion of providing the source is tantamount to providing the entire product (in the case of a plugin) or the entire product, with the possible exception of the CSS and images when it comes to themes. Keep in mind that anyone with a modern browser can grab the stylesheet and images from a demo site and combine it with the PHP (which would be the GPL) and create the same theme. So there is no real barrier of entry to get people to buy a service, other than, you know, service.

This is my question about what Brian Gardner is doing. It's cool he's selling his themes and still having them GPL, but that means that he should be providing, at the l least, every PHP file that has a WordPress call in it to anyone who wants it. It also means that anyone who buys any of his themes is free to distribute them, for free (or for money) on their sties and that he can't stop them.

I think most people have just gone with the honor system, because of how unclear all this stuff is, but as more and more software become web-based, the licensing structure of the GPL as it stands right now will not suffice. Now, if WordPress were LGPL (lesser GPL), this wouldn't be an issue. If WordPress were BSD or MIT licensed, this wouldn't be an issue - but the GPL is pretty clear about source issues and in the case of code that doesn't need compiling, the source IS the PHP file.

Theme developers seem to want to find a way to get around offering everything, but still calling their stuff GPL. I understand the dilemma, but my personal feeling is: either do it all the way or just don't try to be GPL. There's nothing that is going to stop anyone from selling themes that are not GPL, short of a lawsuit, and I don't see that happening as it is in no one's interest to do so (least of all WordPress's). Sure, theme sellers can't get too uppity about people pirating their themes, but you know, that's part of how this stuff works.

If you want to do GPL themes, your best bet is probably to offer a free or GPL licensed and available framework and then sell customized CSS and image packages, plus offer support. Do image previews rather than full CSS if you don't want people stealing them or do screencasts or put them in a members only section (they'll still get ripped but probably less than if it is just publicly available). Do what Woo Themes does and offer frequent updates. That's the easiest way to get people to pay for support (and Woo isn't GPL, but probably has the smartest business model out there -- hire really great designers to do a design, code it and sell it and release frequent updates). Actually, if Woo offered their base theme, no customization, no CSS, nothing under the GPL, they could even work under the GPL exactly as they are. The functions.php file would be the only thing that would be a question -- but if that doesn't have any WordPress specific calls, that would work too.

[dancole]

While you can absolutely charge for a GPL product, you are also supposed to make the source freely available to anyone who wants it.

The second part of this is incorrect and a common misconception. The source code does NOT have to be available to EVERYONE. The GPL restricts that you (the distributor) can't provide only a compiled or binary form. Meaning the source code needs to be available with other formats in which the source code can't be seen, so the receiver of the GPL product is free to modify the source code.

So if I sell some software to Jeffro and it is under GPL, then no one besides Jeffro has rights to have the source code. But he is free to modify and distribute the software and code as he likes, as long as the GPL stays in tract and the authors are credited.

I'd like to note:
Public Availability: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....bilityToPublic
Author Credit: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit

[andrea_r]

So.. what about the Thesis business model? Is that fully GPL compliant? The developer's license only covers multiple installs on my own site,s but not client sites. They still have to get their own 9albeit cheaper) license.

This kind of ties into above - isn't a lot of this just based on the honor system? Once I have a copy of the theme, I can easily make a hundred copies if I like.

[dancole]

So.. what about the Thesis business model? Is that fully GPL compliant? The developer's license only covers multiple installs on my own site,s but not client sites.

Thesis isn't even close to being GPL compliant, because there is a single use license and the multi-use license only extends to yourself.

[film_girl]

I'd like to note:
Public Availability: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq....bilityToPublic

OK - that section has actually been updated since the last time I went to the GNU site. Fine, so you can sell it, it doesn’t have to be available BUT anyone else can just pop it up on their server and offer it for free if they want. That's the real problem with doing that as a long term business model for web apps (and in this case, add-ons for web apps), there's nothing stopping someone from altering (with credit) and selling your stuff, or just offering it up for free.

This kind of ties into above - isn't a lot of this just based on the honor system? Once I have a copy of the theme, I can easily make a hundred copies if I like.

Exactly -- and the honor system is basically the only way any of this has worked thus far. You could theoretically have calls in the theme that "phone home" or access a registration server before access. Granted, that wouldn't stop people from nulling the scripts and running them modified, but you could theoretically do that -- but as it stands, I haven't seen or heard about any WordPress theme designer doing that. So yes, it's all on the honor system -- and I think the newness of this particular market (in the WordPress community anyway) and the small size (comparatively) hasn't made it much of a problem.

Again, the best way theme developers, regardless of license, can protect their IP and offer value -- in my opinion -- is less in support, and more in frequent feature updates and improvements.