GPL and Ethics

[james]

The GPL clearly states that anyone can distribute licenced work free or for a cost. Anyone who thinks that what Premium Mod and others are doing is "unethical" or against the (so called?) "spirit" of the licence needs to read it again.

Bottom line, if theme authors didn't want their code made available for free download they never would have (re)licenced their themes under the terms of the GPL.

I appreciate that the distribution of these themes may affect the quality / amount of new decent quality themes but most end users pay for support and updates rather than the initial product itself.

Seriously, can we stop the GPL debate? It's getting really boring after many many months...

[chipbennett]

The GPL clearly states that anyone can distribute licenced work free or for a cost. Anyone who thinks that what Premium Mod and others are doing is "unethical" or against the (so called?) "spirit" of the licence needs to read it again.

Bottom line, if theme authors didn't want their code made available for free download they never would have (re)licenced their themes under the terms of the GPL.

I appreciate that the distribution of these themes may affect the quality / amount of new decent quality themes but most end users pay for support and updates rather than the initial product itself.

Seriously, can we stop the GPL debate? It's getting really boring after many many months...

Believe it or not, putting an end to the GPL debate (or at least most of it) is what I'm trying to accomplish here, by separating the true GPL issues (on which, I think, the vast majority can come to agreement) and the non-GPL issues. :)

Call me crazy, but I think we can get there!

[conorp]

Not trying to be disrespectful or anything but does it really matter? I just think everyone keeps bringing up the GPL, but for no reason. Nothing ever comes from any of these discussions, and they usually just turn into frame wars.

[Elpie]

True, but I think, if you look at the blogosphere activity around WordPress, sites such as WPTavern, the world-wide participation in WordCamps, etc., that a strong argument forms for the existence of a true WordPress community - a community that consists not just of code-contributors, but also third-party theme and plugin developers, contributors to sister projects (WPMU, bbPress, BuddyPress, etc.), and users who are equally passionate about WordPress.

I see where you are coming from but disagree with your interpretation of what makes up an open source project community. What you have described are many different communities of interest.

People get involved with open source projects to scratch an itch. That itch may simply be to get software to use. Most people don't give a damn about anything that is not directly related to their own interests. Everyone has their own reasons for their personal involvement and I'd bet there are thousands of different reasons for people blogging about or interacting with others concerning WordPress. Is there a community of theme developers? There are groups within groups and its not WordPress that keeps them together. Many plugin developers work on PHP code that is not related to WordPress and would continue to develop code even if WordPress disappeared.

I've been involved in FLOSS projects for a very long time and have yet to see a FLOSS community. Many different communities of interest in orbit around a project, sure, but a unified community is a myth.

I would agree, except that, as it currently stands, there is a "line in the sand" over GPL issues. The problem is that "line in the sand" is both unilateral (basically, whatever Matt condones) and ambiguous (both because it is nowhere clearly codified, and because it conflates copyright and ethos under the term "spirit of the GPL").

So, if a "line in the sand" is to exist, it should at the very least be unambiguous, objective, and codified.

I responded with my thoughts on "community" first as this is germane to your proposal. A "line in the sand" could never be inclusive. It would always be someone imposing their belief system on others. Ethics and rules about what people can or can't do have no place in a volunteer open source project (beyond normal courtesy and expectations of good behaviour).

I have a great deal of respect for Matt and what he has achieved. However, Matt's opinion is just that - opinion. The problem, as I see it, is not that he holds with a particular interpretation of the GPL and what it means, but that the open source WordPress project is not standing alone as a FLOSS project. It's been years since it was Matt's baby but its now a baby that has grown up and needs to stand on its own feet.

As things stand, if Matt was to be hit by a truck tomorrow a lot of people would panic and wonder about the future of WordPress. This is as silly as thinking the British government would fall over if the Queen died. Matt may be the WordPress king, but he is only a contributor to the WordPress software just like many others.

While I think debating the need or otherwise of a code of conduct is a good thing, suggesting that this should somehow be tied to an indefinable and contentious, "spirit of GPL" is folly. WordPress doesn't need any more GPL debates. All they do is alienate people.

[Rarst]

If you don't like the terms of the license, go do something else for a living or ignore it and license your work how you want. Just don't complain or whine about it.

You have it upside down. :) Currently flaming issue is no longer refusal to comply with GPL. It is refusal of some people (including Matt) to consider legit GPL businesses around WordPress ethical and beneficial to project.

Developers more or less settled with being corralled to GPL... To find out that instead of GPL they got into some virtual GPL interpretation, where explicit license is getting loaded by unclear and unwritten moral clauses.

What next? Agree to vague ethics and wait for next thing you will get hit with out of the blue? I am not dependent on WP and I won't want to be if I can't have clear understanding of what am I getting into.

Not trying to be disrespectful or anything but does it really matter? I just think everyone keeps bringing up the GPL, but for no reason.

It keeps flaming exactly for the reason that situation is unclear. And it will keep flaming until ethical issues would get definitively resolved or subdued.

WordPress doesn't need any more GPL debates. All they do is alienate people.

Too true. But when Matt comes to people who work in line with GPL to say that they are problem and cause community to suffer... It simply explodes issue all over again.

It is not GPL that alienates people, it is attitudes that supersede GPL with ethics and are channeled from the very top of food chain.

On topic of putting ethics in writing - it is tricky. If it will suggest things already described by GPL it isn't really needed. If it would suggest things that go against GPL it would be contradicting.

[davecoveney]

Well... Matt has the idealism of youth. It usually wears off over time. It's like how many university students believe in communism and redistribution of wealth, but then eventually they do well from their degrees, become wealthier themselves, and change their mind somewhat :-)

I do think Matt he needs to learn to set his baby free and establish an independent WP foundation. WP is in its adolescence now and is yearning for freedom of its own.

I've been working with GPL code since Matt was a little schoolkid. I've seen every argument and read every clause. I released and shared code as early as 1990 and the whole point of the GPL was a source of freedom for developers who found it advantageous to share code. It was there to help and save developers from having to reinvent the wheel all the time. It wasn't a movement back then, just something that made sense to coders who wanted to share.

At some point it suddenly became an issue about ethics and about actively restricting the freedom of developers to do what they pleased - somehow because it started getting this mysterious 'spirit' that people go on about it. There are also a great many cases of large companies using it as a way of gaining competitive advantage over smaller, less well funded competitors.

[Jeffro]

Hmm, great points being brought up on both sides of the argument, especially by Elpie. Makes me reconsider my decision to be all for a code of ethics.

[davecoveney]

I'm sorry, but I don't think you can have a written code of ethics. A project or a person can have an opinion, and somebody else can have a different one. I've been asked why I don't have a mistress by some people, while others would be appalled if I did. Neither are right or wrong, it's just differences of opinion, culture and so on. Many of those who write free software come from rich countries, and many who benefit are poorer.

I'm happy to share code with fellow developers. I'm much less happy about sharing it with non-developers, because they don't appreciate the gift and its costs. By moving GPL from being something about developers into something about gifting users we find ourselves in the dangerous position of devaluing our work in the eyes of the public.

This is my biggest concern. The whole point is not about being free to everyone, it's about removing restrictions for developers. When we put code into a client we don't lock them in - they can use another developer, because the code is GPL. But the client does not receive our code for free.

[Elpie]

Well... Matt has the idealism of youth. It usually wears off over time. It's like how many university students believe in communism and redistribution of wealth, but then eventually they do well from their degrees, become wealthier themselves, and change their mind somewhat :-)

Matt might not change his mind. Some folk thought Richard Stallman would mellow as he got older. He's more rabid now than when he first got stuck into the Free Software movement ;)

[chipbennett]

More later, but quickly:

While I think debating the need or otherwise of a code of conduct is a good thing, suggesting that this should somehow be tied to an indefinable and contentious, "spirit of GPL" is folly. WordPress doesn't need any more GPL debates. All they do is alienate people.

In part, that's my whole point. I want to end the debating over GPL, in part by separating the copyright issues of GPL from the extra-GPL ethics of the so-called "spirit of the GPL".

In fact, I want that term to disappear, forever, because what is currently called "spirit of the GPL" has nothing whatsoever to do with GPL.

But going further, I want to circumvent future debating within the WordPress Community regarding the currently mis-named "spirit of the GPL" (or "ethics" or "Free Software principles and philosophy").

Hmm, great points being brought up on both sides of the argument, especially by Elpie. Makes me reconsider my decision to be all for a code of ethics.

Note, I'm suggesting not a "Code of Ethics" but rather a "Community Code of Conduct", that may or may not include such "ethics".

The intent is that the community will develop its own Code of Conduct. If the community agrees to specify these types of behaviors within the Code, then so be it. On the other hand, if the community decides not to specify such behavior, then so be it. Either way, once such a Code of Conduct is in place, then both sides of the current issue should have no further leg to stand on with respect to arguing one way or the other regarding "ethics".

Personally, I don't think they belong at all. And from what I'm gathering based on this thread thus far, I don't think most of the community will think they belong, either - for exactly the reasons Elpie mentions.

But, either way, at least it would be the Community that decides. Not Matt alone. Not the third-party developers alone.

And, Elpie: as for the WordPress Community (or lack thereof), I address my related ideas in Jeff's thread "Replacing Matt..." and am hoping to flesh those ideas out more. Maybe that can be another thread.