New WordCamp Policy

[chipbennett]

I didn't read the whole thing and I'm not going to. However, I noticed this:



I was not aware that Microsoft was currently violating the WordPress license. Or any GPL license, actually. They have before, but usually they have fixed it.

Just releasing commercial software doesn't mean you're violating a license. Some people need to remember that. Or read closer. Or something...

But, what exactly does "non-GPL-compliant" mean, even with respect to plugins/themes?

For theme/plugin developers (or re-distributors), does distributing even one non-GPL plugin/theme render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking?

For non-developers, does having on one's personal web site even one advertisement for non-GPL plugins/themes render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking? Does reviewing, discussing, or otherwise promoting even one non-GPL plugins/themes render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking?

(Note: these last two points, regarding non-developers, do meet the de facto threshold for preventing inclusion in the wordpress.org/extend plugin/theme directories.)

What if one uses a non-GPL plugin or theme on one's personal web site? Does such use render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking?

And on a related subject: if the stated purpose of WordCamps is to further the philosophy of WordPress, how does allowing developers of non-GPL software to speak at (see: Anil Dash) or sponsor (see: Microsoft) WordCamps adhere to that purpose? And is it unfair for such a question to be raised, when the clear implication of this policy is ideological purity?

[WraithKenny]

I'm under the impression that specifically violating the WordPress GPL or violating the GPL in general is the issue here, not developing proprietary software.

Automattic has proprietary plugins (I beleive) running on wordpress.com, but those plugins are not distributed and therefor do not violate the GPL. Microsoft (obviously) has proprietary software not licensed under the GPL and therefor can not violate the GPL with that software. Why keep mentioning Microsoft?

Having Microsoft speak at an event to promote how their proprietary software can co-exist with Open-source GPL software, even enhance the value of both, *does not* take away anything from the philosophy of WordPress.

[chipbennett]

There's "alot" of hyperbole surrounding responses to this issue. Not to rehash Otto, but he's right and as he usually says, "Your wrong" ;-)

Also, the word "can't" is a bit abused. You"can't" make proprietary plugins or themes? Yes you can, but you'd violate the GPL. You can sell them, and you can sue your customers if they redistribute it (as ridiculous as that would be) but then they would have recourse in court and *propably* win.

We're talking about a legal copyright license and a policy regarding authorized use of a legally registered trademark. In this context, nothing can be said to have "violated" the GPL until that violation is proven in court. Absent that standard, we are talking only about that which falls afoul of a stated philosophy/ideology.

Similar to my position regarding the decision-making regarding wordpress.org, I contend that, as owners of the registered trademark, the WordPress Foundation is fully within their rights to establish the policy for authorized use of the "WordCamp" trademark.

My primary concern is the ambiguity of the policy. A secondary concern is the implication that the policy is furthering an agenda of ideological purity under the guise of promoting openness and inclusiveness.

Otherwise good (and beneficial-to-the-community) people are being actively excluded from the WordPress community because of ideology, not because of a legal matter that has been settled in court (which is the only proper place to settle a legal matter).

If the WordPress Foundation wants to push their ideological agenda using copyright (GPL) and trademark (WordPress, WordCamp) as their hammers, then the only right and proper thing for them to do is to take an alleged violator (e.g. Thesis) to court, and have the matter settled. Then - and only then - should the ideological purity be pursued.

You can even ignore the guidelines and organize a WordCamp with all GPL violating sponsors and speakers. Just don't expect to get positive publicity from the community, and if their is a copyright on WordCamp, you might have other things to worry about. The community will probably give you plenty of negative publicity though :-)

And another thing, since when is being part of Automattic mutually exclusive with being part of the wider WordPress.org community? That nonsense needs to be called out too.

Non-sequitur?

[wpmuguru]

I was not aware that Microsoft was currently violating the WordPress license. Or any GPL license, actually. They have before, but usually they have fixed it.

Same here.

Or read closer. Or something...

Exactly.

[Otto]

For theme/plugin developers (or re-distributors), does distributing even one non-GPL plugin/theme render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking?

Does distributing this non-GPL plugin/theme violate the WordPress license? If so, then yes, they are acting in an illegal fashion and shouldn't be allowed to participate in sanctioned events.

How is this confusing? I don't want to hear from somebody breaking the law in order to line their own pockets, and I'm honestly not interested in what that person has to say. Should we support these people who are basically leeching off the community?

The better way to handle it would be to ask them to obey the license, of course, but if they were persistent about it, then cutting them off is the only viable option remaining.

For non-developers, does having on one's personal web site even one advertisement for non-GPL plugins/themes render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking? Does reviewing, discussing, or otherwise promoting even one non-GPL plugins/themes render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking?

Advertising, reviewing, discussing, and promoting are not violations of the WordPress license. Nowhere in Jane's text do I see anything along these lines at all. She specifically is referring to "People or companies in violation of the WordPress license".

(Note: these last two points, regarding non-developers, do meet the de facto threshold for preventing inclusion in the wordpress.org/extend plugin/theme directories.)

That's different.

What if one uses a non-GPL plugin or theme on one's personal web site? Does such use render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking?

No, because "use" is not covered by the text of GPLv2, last I checked. It covers "distribution".

And on a related subject: if the stated purpose of WordCamps is to further the philosophy of WordPress, how does allowing developers of non-GPL software to speak at (see: Anil Dash) or sponsor (see: Microsoft) WordCamps adhere to that purpose? And is it unfair for such a question to be raised, when the clear implication of this policy is ideological purity?

Wait, what??? Where in her text did this become an anti-non-GPL rant? You're reading a whole hell of a lot into what is very clear and straightforward to me.

What she wrote boils down to this: If you are violating the WordPress license, don't participate in a WordCamp. That's it. That's all the text really says. It doesn't go into any "ideological purity" anywhere. It's simple and clear and straightforward. Anil Dash and Microsoft have never, to my knowledge, violated the WordPress license.

Why in the hell can't people read what's actually there without projecting their own nonsense onto it?

[andrea_r]

If the WordPress Foundation wants to push their ideological agenda using copyright (GPL) and trademark (WordPress, WordCamp) as their hammers, then the only right and proper thing for them to do is to take an alleged violator (e.g. Thesis) to court, and have the matter settled. Then - and only then - should the ideological purity be pursued.

If you're going to host an official WordCamp and take advantage of the extensive amount of FREE promotion and help that they give you (as well as swag), then they are well within their right to include or exclude whomever they feel.

This isn't about the legalities of the GPL and whether they are proven in court.

[Otto]

We're talking about a legal copyright license and a policy regarding authorized use of a legally registered trademark. In this context, nothing can be said to have "violated" the GPL until that violation is proven in court. Absent that standard, we are talking only about that which falls afoul of a stated philosophy/ideology.

That is total nonsense, plain and simple. A court is not the only body in the world capable of applying logic and reason. If somebody violates the license, then anybody is capable of seeing it and calling them out on it.

As for the rest of your statement, frankly, I think you're high or something. C'mon, man, it's not all that complicated here. You're really, really reaching.

[chipbennett]

Does distributing this non-GPL plugin/theme violate the WordPress license? If so, then yes, they are acting in an illegal fashion and shouldn't be allowed to participate in sanctioned events.

How is this confusing? I don't want to hear from somebody breaking the law in order to line their own pockets, and I'm honestly not interested in what that person has to say. Should we support these people who are basically leeching off the community?

The better way to handle it would be to ask them to obey the license, of course, but if they were persistent about it, then cutting them off is the only viable option remaining.

That's a rather harsh standard: screw up once, and you're a pariah.

For non-developers, does having on one's personal web site even one advertisement for non-GPL plugins/themes render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking? Does reviewing, discussing, or otherwise promoting even one non-GPL plugins/themes render that person "non-GPL-compliant" and thus barred from WordCamp organizing/sponsoring/speaking?

Advertising, reviewing, discussing, and promoting are not violations of the WordPress license. Nowhere in Jane's text do I see anything along these lines at all. She specifically is referring to "People or companies in violation of the WordPress license".

(Note: these last two points, regarding non-developers, do meet the de facto threshold for preventing inclusion in the wordpress.org/extend plugin/theme directories.)

That's different.

How is it "different"? Is it wrong to assume that the de facto policy implemented for inclusion in the wordpress.org/extend plugin/theme repositories would influence the de facto policy implemented regarding authorized use of the WordCamp trademark - especially considering the same entity (WordPress Foundation) controls both?

[QUOTE]No, because "use" is not covered by the text of GPLv2, last I checked. It covers "distribution".

Again, see above. People have had contributions rejected from wordpress.org/extend for using Thesis on their personal web site.

Wait, what??? Where in her text did this become an anti-non-GPL rant? You're reading a whole hell of a lot into what is very clear and straightforward to me.

What she wrote boils down to this: If you are violating the WordPress license, don't participate in a WordCamp. That's it. That's all the text really says. It doesn't go into any "ideological purity" anywhere. It's simple and clear and straightforward. Anil Dash and Microsoft have never, to my knowledge, violated the WordPress license.

Why in the hell can't people read what's actually there without projecting their own nonsense onto it?

I'm projecting nothing. I am interpreting the stated policy in light of Jane's own words:

One thing that we didn’t used to spell out but has become necessary to codify is that WordCamps are meant to promote the philosophies behind WordPress itself.

Those are Jane's words, not mine. She uses them to preface her explanation of the above policy.

[Ryan]

How on earth did Microsoft come into this? Have they released something in violation of the GPL? I highly doubt they would have or they'd be a prime candidate for being taken to court over the matter.

I'm guessing this policy is aimed at Incsub who I believe have sponsored and attended a few WordCamps.

[chipbennett]

If you're going to host an official WordCamp and take advantage of the extensive amount of FREE promotion and help that they give you (as well as swag), then they are well within their right to include or exclude whomever they feel.

This isn't about the legalities of the GPL and whether they are proven in court.

I suppose I can't state often enough: the WordPress Foundation holds the legally registered trademark for "WordCamp". They are free to set whatever rules the wish regarding authorized use of that trademark. I'm not arguing that point.

I am challenging that they are couching their policy not in their legal right to define authorized use of the trademark, but rather in the not-legally-established contention that non-GPL plugins and themes inherently violate WordPress' GPL.

In other words: say "we own the trademark, and as such have the right to make the rules; so here they are." Don't say "you can't use the trademark because you have violated WordPress' GPL."

The latter is incorrect, because to date, nobody has ever been proven to have violated WordPress' copyright. That is the entire extent to which I am arguing regarding legal matters.