New WordCamp Policy

[Jacob Santos]

If you would share who is actually giving that interview next to Jane (she did not comment here if my mind serves me well), there is at least a chance to find out :).

I would be interested in a transcript after Jane has approved the interview.

Well, I still have the video, if that is what you are asking and can look it over. If you weren't at WordCamp Raleigh for the Sunday Panel + Interview, then you probably missed it. The interview was last minute with the author behind WordPress for Dummies, Lisa Sabin-Wilson. Lisa specificially went into more details behind the various guidelines posted.

It is unfortunate that I can't post the video, because it hasn't been edited. I'm also not the person who is editing it. I just wanted to state that when the video gets out that a few details might be more clear.

I do remember that Jane did say that the guidelines are not set in stone currently and are merely a heads up to what the guidelines are going to be sometime next year. I took that to mean that this year's WordCamps are able to continue with their speakers, sponsors, etc, but next year it will be different.

She mentioned specifically that the motivation behind it was visitors complaining about the various WordCamps, not having a lot of WordPress in them. She mentioned 70% (this number, I believe, is arbitrary) of the topics, she wanted to be WordPress related. This I think makes quite a bit of sense. If I'm going to a WordCamp, I want to know that I'll be learning about WordPress and not about blogging or at the very least blogging with WordPress.

During that, she did mention something of a compromise with multi-tracks, but it has been a while and what I remember is more of what I interpreted of the conversation, so I can't really comment on that portion other to say that multi-tracks were mentioned in conjunction with various users of WordPress, or those who use the software, those who develop using the software, and those who develop WordPress. However, remembering more, I might be wrong, so I'll have to leave it to the video for those to make up their minds.

[hakre]

thanks for providing some details. let's wait for the interview for anything specific.

[Ash]

I see a lot of people saying that GPL is under contention. It's not. GPL is very clear.

Re: the license: simply put it's about freedom (not free beer). When something is licensed as GPL you extend the freedom to do *whatever* they wish with the software providing that:

1) They afford the same rights to the people they distribute it to
and
2) The source code is freely available

Re: inheritance of GPL:
Code derived from WordPress inherits the GPL license, regardless of the developers wishes. Essentially this means the PHP code of any given theme is GPL regardless of the developers wishes. It is possible theoretically to write a theme that makes no use of WordPress code, but probably not practical.

The GPL inheritance does *not* extend to the theme's style sheet or graphic design.

This is where I take issue with Matt and co. They seem to have a policy of insisting the *spirit* of GPL requires this when it in fact does not. (GPL doesn't have a spirit, its a license with clearly stated language)

To demand all themes in the repository be fully GPL makes sense. Its a benefit to the community, and for legal reasons and distribution it makes things simpler if its all GPL. But to require all people selling themes through their own websites make them fully GPL does not.

To require people be 100% GPL in order to be a speaker at an event is censorship, plain and simple.

The line has very much been crossed.

So what if I release themes whose visual designs are not GPL. Maybe I want to give back to WordPress by organizing a WordCamp, oops, I can't. Not allowed. I can only give back to the community if I tow the 'official' line...

Matt and co seem to forget, the community is made up of *people*, not software and licenses.

GPL is about freedom, not free beer. How exactly does a non GPL theme writer infringe upon the spirit of GPL(providing the legally required bits of the theme are GPL)? So what if his visual design is not GPL? How does that hurt anyone?

Does he/she somehow have less to offer the community? Are their thoughts and insights any less valuable? Do the attendees of the event benefit from such a speaker any less?

This policy, ostensibly designed to protect freedom has instead limited it. I as an attendee do not care one whit if the person speaking is GPL compliant or not. I only care about the value of their words and ideas and I don't appreciate someone else, with an agenda of their own, standing in the way of that.

As a potential speaker or organizer one day I don't appreciate being told that I cannot give back to the community because someone at the top decides my words have no value simply because I do not agree with them philosophically.

What's next? Will Matt and co decide that if I don't call God by the same name as they do I won't be allowed to speak?

Extreme example? Yes. But the point is valid: to deny someone the right to speak or organise an event because of philosophical differences is no different than denying them the right to speak for religious differences.

It would be different if Matt and co's stand on this was that anyone who violated the GPL license could not speak, That at least is legally definable, legally actionable, and makes sense.

But to say that violating the *spirit* of a license prevents one from doing something leaves far to much open to interpretation, is not legally definable and is not legally actionable.

We cannot base official policies on such an ambiguous and ethereal thing as the *spirit* of a license. Indeed there is no need to chase after spirits the license itself is sufficient.

[Rarst]

Code derived from WordPress inherits the GPL license, regardless of the developers wishes. Essentially this means the PHP code of any given theme is GPL regardless of the developers wishes.

No. Just no. Really - no.

There is no such thing as automagical GPLing of code. Code must be released as GPL by developer to be GPL.

Code not released under GPL can be breaking license terms, but that does not make it GPL automagically.

Practical example - theme I use at my blog is released under Creative Commons. This does mean developer can be sued for breaking GPL. This does not mean theme is GPL in addition to Creative Commons.

It is possible theoretically to write a theme that makes no use of WordPress code, but probably not practical.

One difference someone is yet to explain me:

Code that makes API call to Linux is not derivative work (normal use of kernel). Clearly, they put it near license.
Code that makes API call to WordPress is derivative work. Supposedly, stated just because it is only option. Or is it? /\

Why is "code use" via API calls treated differently?..

They seem to have a policy of insisting the *spirit* of GPL requires this when it in fact does not. (GPL doesn't have a spirit, its a license with clearly stated language)

Not quite. Current WordPress core team position is that dual-licensed theme are fine and in line with GPL. It's just that all-GPL damage had been done already to community.

It would be different if Matt and co's stand on this was that anyone who violated the GPL license could not speak, That at least is legally definable, legally actionable, and makes sense.

Except that there is no intention to go to court with those (alleged :) violations. It is "we would so kick your as in court" not "we did kick your ass in court".

[andreasnrb]

GPL is about freedom.

No its not. And its not really about end users either. But that can be discussed in the GPL subforum.

One difference someone is yet to explain me:

Code that makes API call to Linux is not derivative work (normal use of kernel). Clearly, they put it near license.
Code that makes API call to WordPress is derivative work. Supposedly, stated just because it is only option. Or is it? /\

Why is "code use" via API calls treated differently?..

Its the system library exception partly. Also I think Linus have decided that driver devs dont have to obey the GPL for Linux probably to get more drivers to Linux. Or something like that. I know Stallman and Linus dont really see eye to eye on some GPL related things.

[MiroslavGlavic]

I fully agree with the WordCamp policy.