New WordCamp Policy

[chipbennett]

Get ready for another round of the GPL slug-fest.

Jane Wells has updated the policies for authorized use of the WordCamp trademark, including the following:

Promotes the philosophies behind WordPress.

Any event carrying the WordCamp name must follow some basic philosophical guidelines. WordCamps do not discriminate, and anyone is welcome to attend. WordPress is licensed under the General Public License v2, and without the GPL WordPress would not exist. People or companies in violation of the WordPress license cannot be accepted as event organizers or sponsors, as that would provide promotion to entities acting in opposition to the philosophy behind WordPress. Speakers need to be compliant with the license for the same reason — the exception to this rule would be if the non-compliant person is speaking as part of a discussion about the issues around GPL compliance.

Jane further commented on this policy:

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. Lately there have been a number of WordCamps accepting speakers, sponsorships, door prizes, etc from people/companies acting in violation of the WordPress license (GPL v2) with regard to their themes/plugins. It is the official policy of WordCamp that WordCamps not provide publicity/a platform for such individuals/businesses. They are welcome to attend, but WordCamps may not have non-GPL-compliant people as organizers, sponsors, or speakers. Events that want to move forward and include such individuals in these roles may need to use a name other than WordCamp if the appropriate adjustments can’t be made. This is because WordCamps are seen as the place to gather for the official word on all things WordPress; providing a public platform and publicity in an official capacity for people acting in direct opposition to the official word just causes confusion.

I eagerly await the legal clarification of what it means to be a "GPL-compliant" (or "non-GPL-compliant") person.

More later, I'm sure - as this new policy is already generating a flurry on Twitter, and rebuttal blog posts are already in the works. This is just a container thread to hold all related discussion.

Let the fun begin...

[JLeuze]

LOL, the first thing I thought when I read that was, does this mean companies like Microsoft that make proprietary software will get banned from WordCamps?

But I'm sure this will only apply to WordPress theme and plugin developers ;)

It feels a bit draconian, but there are so many shady seminars and conferences out there. I don't want to see WordCamps get infested with marketeers or start costing as much as "An Event Apart", so I'm glad they are taking action.

[chipbennett]

LOL, the first thing I thought when I read that was, does this mean companies like Microsoft that make proprietary software will get banned from WordCamps?

But I'm sure this will only apply to WordPress theme and plugin developers ;)

The problem is not merely that it is a bad policy, but that the policy is poorly written.

As written, the policy does apply to Microsoft, et al. And if the WordPress Foundation allows the WordCamp trademark to be used at events at which Microsoft, et al are sponsors, organizers, or speakers, then they open themselves up to trouble, because theme/plugin developers who release under non-GPL licenses are no more "non-GPL-compliant" than are Microsoft, et al. (Regardless of allegations and rantings to the contrary. The GPL is a copyright license, and claims of violation of that license must be settled in a court of law. To my knowledge, no court has yet found a single WordPress plugin/theme developer to be in violation of WordPress' GPL.)

It feels a bit draconian, but there are so many shady seminars and conferences out there. I don't want to see WordCamps get infested with marketeers or start costing as much as "An Event Apart", so I'm glad they are taking action.

The rest of the policy is fine, reasonable, and understandable.

[chipbennett]

And OneFineJay provides a reasoned critique and rebuke of the policy. Money quote:

Having worked in government sales, and having filled up immigration forms to legally enter this country, ambiguity is the enemy. Now that you are the official liaison for all WordCamp organizing, you’ll learn that while it would be nice to have your word as the Law Of The Land, there will be people like myself who will challenge you to make your statements clearer. I want to organize a WordCamp one day. I do 100% custom work, and the only “theme” I released to the wild is a palette-swap of Classic, back in 2003. I license all PHP in my work under GPL, but not the CSS and images, so my clients won’t turn around and give away a custom work I made for them. Does that disqualify me? Will I have to disqualify someone who made one commercial, non-GPL plugin?

Laying down the law never means having the last word. It means leaving oneself up open to questions. While I may be “just a guy” I know the questions I pose are fair and I would like to get an answer, preferably blogged by Jane on her own site, that more people will see her response.

[chipbennett]

BloggingPro weighs in:

The sixth point is where it get’s tricky however. “People or companies in violation of the WordPress license cannot be accepted as event organizers or sponsors“. Does this mean we have to block out sponsors as Microsoft and the likes? They are clearly not GPL compliant, and don’t get me wrong, I’m very much in favor of the GPL license, but this does not sound right to me. Same goes for speakers, what if you have perfect speaker and he or she is willing to help out, but because they work for a company that does not support the GPL they won’t be allowed to come? That can’t be right. I can understand that we should try to get behind the GPL as much as possible whenever a WordCamp event is being organized, but I don’t think it is humanly possible to conduct a background check on all sponsors and speakers.

[BBMedia]

And on that note... Comments get turned off on @onefinejay's site.

[chipbennett]

And on that note... Comments get turned off on @onefinejay's site.

Indeed. He closed comments upon a comment reply from Jane. Here's my take on her comment:

If someone is violating the WordPress license by distributing WordPress-derivative works under a restrictive license rather than the inherited GPL v2, that’s not in spirit and would not get official approval

Inheritance of WordPress' GPL to themes and plugins is still very much in contention, and in no way settled. Further, there is no such thing as the "spirit" of a copyright license, but rather only the wording of the license. That's a major part of the difference between a legal document and a philosophical ideology.

If people want to tie themselves in knots looking back at every past speaker, sponsor and organizer, wondering who would make the cut, rather than looking forward to how we can make sure the WordCamp label is awesome and inclusive and can bring people together, well, that’s their choice.

How does barring individuals from organizing, sponsoring, or speaking at WordCamps further the goal of being more "awesome and inclusive and... bring[ing] people together"? Making pariahs of people is not an act of inclusiveness.

I posted what I did where I did to give a heads up to WC organizers who are in the process of putting together their events that there are some new guidelines coming down the pike that currently are being developed, not to start a flame war among the more vocal WordPress users out there who like to fan the flames, and who are not organizing WordCamps themselves.

How do you know who is, is not, or may be involved with organizing upcoming WordCamps? Jay himself, in his post, said that he is interested in organizing a WordCamp. I also have the opportunity to help organize one. The stated policy <em>does</em> affect us, regardless of your knowledge to that end.

When/if it gets to the point of there being an official policy with some kind of enforcement, rather than a gentle suggestion to do the right thing if you’re using the official name, it will be posted on wordcamp.org, wordpress.org, and anyplace else I can think of, with specific examples and reasons for the decision. In the meantime, you’re getting upset over something that ought to just be common sense.

Do you not realize that you have just <em>established the de facto policy</em> on use of the WordCamp trademark?

As always, I encourage people who want to voice opinions to not limit themselves to their own blogs and Twitter accounts, but to engage in the official discussions, where their feedback can be far more useful.

I've tried to do so. I'm still waiting for my comment to be approved. I'll be happy to re-post if it got lost in the ether.

[Otto]

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

“People or companies in violation of the WordPress license cannot be accepted as event organizers or sponsors“. Does this mean we have to block out sponsors as Microsoft and the likes?

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...

[Otto]

Inheritance of WordPress' GPL to themes and plugins is still very much in contention, and in no way settled.

I am NOT getting into this argument again, so this is my final statement on the topic.

In actual fact, there is no real contention. The facts are absolutely and totally settled. The GPLv2 is as clear as it can be. Whether you or other people understand it or not is a different thing entirely, but the facts of the matter are absolutely clear:

If your plugin or theme is derivative of WordPress, then it must be GPLv2. Period.

-Your theme very probably is derivative. (I've never seen a non-derivative WordPress theme, ever.)
-Your plugin may or may not be derivative. (I've seen many non-derivative WordPress plugins and can name a few for you, if you like. Acid test: Does the plugin work without WordPress?)

The whole argument about when something becomes derivative is only "unsettled" in the minds of people who are wantonly violating the GPLv2 and want to continue to do so. It should be obvious to any relatively decent programmer when a thing is derivative or not. Only lawyer types like to argue beyond that.

How does barring individuals from organizing, sponsoring, or speaking at WordCamps further the goal of being more "awesome and inclusive and... bring[ing] people together"? Making pariahs of people is not an act of inclusiveness.

I disagree. I do not see that WordCamps should include people who continually and blatantly act in an illegal and unethical fashion towards the community. We do not need nor want those people.

[WraithKenny]

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.

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.