Are WordPress.org culturally anti-business?

[dancole]

@Rarst

I think WordPress.org is more concerned about making things as simple as possible for there user base, which mean keeping things consistent both on the WordPress.org site, but also things that are linked to by the WordPress.org site. I see WordPress.org's stance as: "If developers don't like this game, then they should just keep to themselves or find another platform. We have enough developers that are happy with the status que, so we not going to change to make other developers happy at the cost of our community." If WordPress regulates the developers it links to, then each average community member doesn't have to worry about what they are paying for and the restrictions it comes with.

It's probably better for WordPress.org to draw a strict line at first, then relax it if needed, rather than vise versa. I think there are enough happy plugin and theme developers and that making users happy is what they should focus on. Some theme developers are going to try and game the system, so I think it's better to play bad cop, even if some developers who are in the grey get put on the wrong side.

Themes not in the repository can use the automatic upgrade functions in Wordpress if they do a little hacking. It's not hard at all, I've already successful tried. Themes outside of the WordPress.org repository could actually take advantage of the automatic upgrade one version before themes in the repository, if I remember right. Still, it would be nice if API was developed so theme developers wouldn't have to create a-round-about way or make there own automatic upgrade feature.

[chipbennett]

@Rarst

I think WordPress.org is more concerned about making things as simple as possible for there user base, which mean keeping things consistent both on the WordPress.org site, but also things that are linked to by the WordPress.org site.

We're not talking about things linked to by the wp.org site. We're talking about theme author links that are included in a GPL theme.

I see WordPress.org's stance as: "If developers don't like this game, then they should just keep to themselves or find another platform. We have enough developers that are happy with the status que, so we not going to change to make other developers happy at the cost of our community."

Well, the "our way or the highway" attitude sure is conducive to community spirit, eh?

If WordPress regulates the developers it links to, then each average community member doesn't have to worry about what they are paying for and the restrictions it comes with.

We're talking about free themes, available in the wp.org repository. They're installed from within the wp-admin interface. Users never have to visit the author's site, if they don't want to. No confusion here: blog admin searches for a theme from within the wp-admin interface, finds a theme he likes, installs the theme, and uses it.

It's probably better for WordPress.org to draw a strict line at first, then relax it if needed, rather than vise versa. I think there are enough happy plugin and theme developers and that making users happy is what they should focus on. Some theme developers are going to try and game the system, so I think it's better to play bad cop, even if some developers who are in the grey get put on the wrong side.

I still don't buy the "gaming the system" argument. I've yet to see a valid hypothetical - much less actual example - of "gaming the system."

I have no problem with a strict line being drawn; however, that line has no business extending into a theme author's personal or commercial website. I don't understand why a community that ostensibly espouses freedom believes it is right or acceptable to infringe upon theme authors' freedom exercised on their own websites.

Themes not in the repository can use the automatic upgrade functions in Wordpress if they do a little hacking. It's not hard at all, I've already successful tried. Themes outside of the WordPress.org repository could actually take advantage of the automatic upgrade one version before themes in the repository, if I remember right. Still, it would be nice if API was developed so theme developers wouldn't have to create a-round-about way or make there own automatic upgrade feature.

With the present animosity toward non-repository-eligible theme authors, do you really think such an API will be developed?

[JohnM]

Wp.org and the theme repository is getting an overhaul and they will soon move into the assessment phase. A new modified API will probably be made but thats Matt`s stuff, so on this he has the last decision. ( as I understand )

Jane Wells in trac ticket: We're just beginning an assessment of the .org site with the intention of redesigning to make it a more useful resource, including making access to themes and plugins much more prevalent and friendly. Will be setting up ways for community to submit suggestions and feedback once we've put together a short proposal on a re-org of the site

[davecoveney]

Well, the Dovetail theme is now on the repository and the readme.txt file was changed a fair bit. If you're interested to see what got accepted you can download it from http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/dovetail or, if you like, I could post the before and after here?

And just to mention Chip's line:

Well, the "our way or the highway" attitude sure is conducive to community spirit, eh?

I think that depends. I've seen a lot of communities that will cheerfully exclude even a majority of people. The community that remains can be very strong. Look at Apple fans - they're a massive minority but if you read comments and forums you'd think that Apple had a 60% share of the market.

I think it's a bit of an American thing, really. I'm British, so I'm naturally cynical when it comes to brands and, frankly, anyone other than me. In fact, I'm often quite sceptical about my own motives ;-) But seriously, nobody apart from saints tends to consider other people's needs above their own. Automattic has needs and desires that are quite different to mine. So long as they continue to succeed (and they appear to be doing very nicely so far as I can tell) then they're going to continue down that path.

WordPress.org is slightly different, but as long as it suckles from the Automattic breast then it will be dependent on the culture it inherits from Matt Mullenweg and Automattic. That's OK, because so far this has helped WP to become the dominant open source blogging platform. Matt & Automattic have been a very good thing for WordPress.

[Jeffro]

If WordPress.org became a non-profit organization, what do you think that would do regarding attitude and such? Because it's pretty apparent that sooner rather than later WordPress will fall under a non-profit.

[JohnM]

I thought some "WordPress property" was in the WordPress foundation. Seem to remember posts about this in hackers list.

Check footer: http://pingomatic.com/stats/#footer

http://74.125.77.132/search?q=cache:...&hl=en&ct=clnk

Goals

The point of the foundation is to ensure free access to the projects we support in perpetuity. People, and businesses, may come and go, but it is important that the underlying source code for these projects survive any of the current contributors so we can create a stable base for the world's information and publishing for generations to come. We plan to pursue formal non-profit status with the IRS in order to gather broad community support and make sure we can continue to serve the public good through freely accessible software even without the current support of founder Matt Mullenweg.

Theres also another interesting cite in that cache:

the creator of the GNU GPL license we use and promote.

In the context of this thread, WP doesn't only use GPL , they actively promote GPL, and thats why something is allowed in extend and something is not allowed. Theme repository is a tool to promote GPL, not a tool promoting sites (yep, that word )with non GPL products/licensing.

[carlhancock]

In the context of this thread, WP doesn't only use GPL , they actively promote GPL, and thats why something is allowed in extend and something is not allowed. Theme repository is a tool to promote GPL, not a tool promoting sites (yep, that word )with non GPL products/licensing.

Apparently being 100% GPL is not the only determining factor despite what the published guidelines say.

We had a plugin that had a few hundred downloads after only a few days removed from the repository despite the fact it was 100% GPL. It had a link in the admin end to our site which does offer a commercial GPL plugin. The link was in no way displayed on the frontend. It was in no way linking to anything that wasn't 100% GPL. It wasn't doing anything different than other plugins that exist in the repository that serve a similar function.

I have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone as to why it was removed. Going by the published guidelines there is no reason for it to have been removed.

[chipbennett]

Theres also another interesting cite in that cache:

the creator of the GNU GPL license we use and promote.

In the context of this thread, WP doesn't only use GPL , they actively promote GPL, and thats why something is allowed in extend and something is not allowed. Theme repository is a tool to promote GPL, not a tool promoting sites (yep, that word )with non GPL products/licensing.

The theme repository promotes themes, not sites. There is no promotion of sites in the theme repository.

[chipbennett]

Apparently being 100% GPL is not the only determining factor despite what the published guidelines say.

We had a plugin that had a few hundred downloads after only a few days removed from the repository despite the fact it was 100% GPL. It had a link in the admin end to our site which does offer a commercial GPL plugin. The link was in no way displayed on the frontend. It was in no way linking to anything that wasn't 100% GPL. It wasn't doing anything different than other plugins that exist in the repository that serve a similar function.

I have yet to receive a straight answer from anyone as to why it was removed. Going by the published guidelines there is no reason for it to have been removed.

And I'm using my (minority, I'm sure) voice to say that this treatment is completely wrong.

And, considering how Akismet works, I say that it's also extremely hypocritical.

[JohnM]

The theme repository promotes themes, not sites. There is no promotion of sites in the theme repository.

Thats not correct. As long as themes have links to sites there is a promotion of these sites.

Its first and most by the links on installed themes, but its also through the theme presentation pages in extend and WP theme installer.

There`s the author and theme links on the theme page, the author page, the stats page, the extend preview, and in the WordPress theme installer and previewer.