New WordCamp Policy

[chipbennett]

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.

Again, my primary contention is with ambiguity (as is often the case with WordPress-related, written policies). The ideological issues are secondary, and orthogonal.

[chipbennett]

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.

I didn't actually bring up Microsoft. Others did, primarily via Twitter.

But, it's not entirely irrelevant. Consider Jane's 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.

How does allowing Microsoft - a company hostile to the principles and philosophy of free software, if ever there was one - to sponsor and/or speak at a WordCamp "promote the philosophies behind WordPress itself"?

How would allowing Chris Pearson to sponsor and/or speak at a WordCamp be any more harmful to that stated purpose than letting Microsoft do so?

[andrea_r]

Have you ever even been to a WordCamp, Chip?

[brandingdavid]

Microsoft has been a great sponsor of WordCamp events over the last two years, and so that's how they got into this conversation. They push their Expression Web products as a good way to develop for WordPress, and Windows Server as a platform for WordPress to run on.

[wpmuguru]

How would allowing Chris Pearson to sponsor and/or speak at a WordCamp be any more harmful to that stated purpose than letting Microsoft do so?

The Thesis license violates the WordPress License.
Microsoft is not currently violating the WordPress License.

I can't see a difference. Can you see a difference?

[Remkus]

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...

I was under the impression, but I'd love to be corrected, that the Microsoft WordPress installer, which they heavily promoted during our WordCamp here in the Netherlands, does not hold a GPL license. Truth be told, with Ron weighing in I'm not sure it actually is required to do so..

[Otto]

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

No, you'd be a pariah only if you continue to screw it up when you have it pointed out to you. You can fix it easily enough by simply changing to obey the license.

How is it "different"?

Well, because the plugin/theme repository is not a trademark, and WordCamp is not a plugin/theme repository.

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?

Yes, I'd say it would be wrong to assume that, as there is absolutely no basis for such an assumption.

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

Irrelevant. WordCamp is a trademark, not a repository of code.

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.

Again, I don't see how this is relevant to your point. You're taking something entirely out of context and using it to back up a supposition that is not only unfounded, but downright illogical.

I can't see how you get to A from B, basically. The words you're quoting bear no relation to what you seem to think they are implying.

Bottom line: You're saying crazy stuff like "will this prevent people who run Thesis from speaking at a WordCamp?", when nothing she ever said even comes close to implying any such thing. You're drawing conclusions from wholly irrelevant and unrelated places like wp.org/extend and applying it to here, where it doesn't even apply in the slightest. It's not related at all. It doesn't even come close to relevant.

Nothing you're saying makes the slightest damn bit of sense, basically. Sorry, but I don't know a better way to sugarcoat that.

Again, my primary contention is with ambiguity (as is often the case with WordPress-related, written policies). The ideological issues are secondary, and orthogonal.

I don't believe that what Jane said was ambiguous in the slightest. On the contrary, I found it to be very carefully worded.

I was under the impression, but I'd love to be corrected, that the Microsoft WordPress installer, which they heavily promoted during our WordCamp here in the Netherlands, does not hold a GPL license. Truth be told, with Ron weighing in I'm not sure it actually is required to do so..

I have not used it, but it is my impression that the web installer stuff actually does not contain the code for WordPress, but actually downloads it on installation, like it does for many other packages as well. So it's not really a "distribution" in the sense of the GPL meaning. And even if it were, it would still not necessarily be a "derivative" as merely including a package unchanged does not constitute such under either the GPL definition or copyright law. I could put GPL software on a CD with non-GPL software and distribute it without it being a violation, after all.

[Otto]

How does allowing Microsoft - a company hostile to the principles and philosophy of free software, if ever there was one - to sponsor and/or speak at a WordCamp "promote the philosophies behind WordPress itself"?

What? Microsoft releases TONS of free software. Much of it under the GPL as well.

The problem with Microsoft is not their attitude towards free software, it's their Embrace and Extend policies.

[Remkus]

I have not used it, but it is my impression that the web installer stuff actually does not contain the code for WordPress, but actually downloads it on installation, like it does for many other packages as well. So it's not really a "distribution" in the sense of the GPL meaning. And even if it were, it would still not necessarily be a "derivative" as merely including a package unchanged does not constitute such under either the GPL definition or copyright law. I could put GPL software on a CD with non-GPL software and distribute it without it being a violation, after all.

I'm not sure if it does or doesn't and I'm too lazy to be bothered to download it and try, but if what you say is true I stand corrected.

[chipbennett]

Have you ever even been to a WordCamp, Chip?

I've not had the opportunity (yet). But I'm not sure how that's germane?