Shut out of the community if not GPL?

[AutoBlogged]

Disclaimer: Definitely no offense to Jeff here! This is about the wordpress community as a whole. Anyone certainly has the right to do what they want on their site and I respect that. The issue here is that so many people feel like they have to do that.

So having said that, I had purchased a banner ad here and just got my payment refunded and banner removed because my plugin is not GPL. Jeff responded to me that "Bad mojo surrounds plugins and themes that are not GPL licensed." That's totally cool and I do understand. What is frustrating is the fact that there is bad mojo in the first place. This is not the first time our advertising has been rejected, it has happened many times before, often with surprising hostility. Plus, most WP bloggers are afraid to even mention our write about our product.

Now certainly AutoBlogged has more stigma than just being non-GPL. After all, what blogger hasn't had their content blatantly stolen by someone else? (Yes there are people who abuse our software and there are many legit uses but that's off the subject). But GPL is the primary reason we are shut out.

In the case of AutoBlogged, we are unable to release our entire code as GPL because we have licensed portions of our code and our hands are tied.

Nevertheless, the fact is that I, and many others, disagree with the WordPress inner circle that everything that integrates with WordPress is a derivative work of WordPress and therefore must be GPL. I admit the arguments for this aren't an overwhelming clear cut legal case but I would say that the legal history tends to favor that plugins in general are not derivative works. If I made my plugin for Microsoft SharePoint or Adobe Dreamweaver instead, no court would agree that my plugin is a derivative work and therefore Microsoft or Adobe should own my product.

Legal arguments aside, Matt and others have done a pretty good job of indoctrinating the WordPress community that anything that isn't GPL is morally wrong and not in the spirit of GPL. They have done such a good job that it is impossible to participate in this community if you sell a plugin that isn't GPL. In the case of the Thesis theme, there were many sites who abandoned the theme when that GPL issue came up last summer.

The fact is that GPL and commercial licenses could co-exist and be mutually beneficial. For example, I wonder how many companies have decided not to produce commercial WordPress plugins due to the GPL threat. If you look at it, the commercial WordPress plugin market is still very small. If that market grew, the WordPress community would grow as well.

The GPL also prevents plugin and theme developers from using high quality commercial libraries and frameworks in their code. Certainly this does put a damper of the WordPress capabilities.

I personally don't think this is about GPL; I think it's more about control. Why hasn't Automattic made the VaultPress server code available? Shouldn't that be GPL, it certainly is very much a derivative work of WordPress? And how about the code for their iPhone and Android apps? Or how about VideoPress? They say it is about the spirit of GPL, but they are making millions from things they have built from the work of others.


Mark

[Ryan]

This argument has been debated over and over. You will need a much more convincing argument before anyone is going to listen to you. There are some major flaws in your argument above.

Sorry if that's a bit blunt, but there's been way too many debates about this online and it's become kinda tedious correcting all the misinformation out there.

I admit the arguments for this aren't an overwhelming clear cut legal case but I would say that the legal history tends to favor that plugins in general are not derivative works.

There is no legal history covering this sort of thing that I'm aware of. There are related situations, but AFAIK nothing to do with plugins for copyleft code.

If I made my plugin for Microsoft SharePoint or Adobe Dreamweaver instead, no court would agree that my plugin is a derivative work and therefore Microsoft or Adobe should own my product.

That is a pointless analogy since those companies products are not GPL licensed.

The GPL also prevents plugin and theme developers from using high quality commercial libraries and frameworks in their code. Certainly this does put a damper of the WordPress capabilities.

This is a situation which is indeed viewed as grey by many in the community. Ubuntu for example apparently includes non-GPL compatible libraries in their software.

I personally don't think this is about GPL; I think it's more about control. Why hasn't Automattic made the VaultPress server code available? Shouldn't that be GPL, it certainly is very much a derivative work of WordPress?

This is another awful example. The VaultPress server software is not distributed, therefore the GPL does not apply. The VaultPress plugin is distributed and therefore is GPL licensed accordingly.

And how about the code for their iPhone and Android apps?

I'm pretty sure they are both GPL licensed.

Or how about VideoPress? They say it is about the spirit of GPL, but they are making millions from things they have built from the work of others.

That doesn't make any sense. Why would the "spirit of GPL" apply to a non-GPL product?

[andreasnrb]

AutoBlogg I agree with your overall point but the arguments are not that good.
I don't agree with the official WordPress.org stand either and I believe most of the WP ecosphere to be made of ass kissing fanboys and fangirls.

This argument has been debated over and over. You will need a much more convincing argument before anyone is going to listen to you. There are some major flaws in your argument above.

Not all of us agree with the WordPress stand. And some of us do listen even if we find the arguments flawed.

Sorry if that's a bit blunt, but there's been way too many debates about this online and it's become kinda tedious correcting all the misinformation out there.

I haven't encountered much misinformation. Except that the GPL affect on WP plugins is marketed and lobbied as a slamdank case when it is not. And that there is pressure to make people conform to the official line.

There is no legal history covering this sort of thing that I'm aware of. There are related situations, but AFAIK nothing to do with plugins for copyleft code.

That was not what he/they wrote.

That is a pointless analogy since those companies products are not GPL licensed.

The point was concerning the nature of what constitutes a derivative. So you could argue that the analogy is correct.

This is a situation which is indeed viewed as grey by many in the community. Ubuntu for example apparently includes non-GPL compatible libraries in their software.

This this goes back to Linus Thorvalds and his exception in original kernel code I think. So its basically for all distros. Stallman did not like this at all and said it was not the correct GPL way.

This is another awful example. The VaultPress server software is not distributed, therefore the GPL does not apply. The VaultPress plugin is distributed and therefore is GPL licensed accordingly.

Agreed. Actually Matt has written he actually prefer commercial plugins to be SaaS solutions.

I'm pretty sure they are both GPL licensed.

App Store Terms of Service is not compatible with the GPL. So using GPL with IPhone apps is stupid. =)

That doesn't make any sense. Why would the "spirit of GPL" apply to a non-GPL product?

The spirit of the GPL is what most of our debates concerns. People being removed from theme and plugin directory and other WP directories for "violating" the spirit of the GPL etc.

[AutoBlogged]

This argument has been debated over and over. You will need a much more convincing argument before anyone is going to listen to you. There are some major flaws in your argument above.

Sorry if that's a bit blunt, but there's been way too many debates about this online and it's become kinda tedious correcting all the misinformation out there.

I certainly didn't mean to debate this again or convince anyone, I agree that is pointless. The post was really about being shut out of the entire community. I mean geez, Jeff (along with many others) can't even feel comfortable accepting advertising money on his own forum because the license for the product advertised isn't GPL?

I admitted that my side of the argument isn't perfect but by no means either is the opposite view and there are still enough strong arguments made by many others to acknowledge that this could be a valid stance as well.

And that is where it gets frustrating, that the inner circle says themes and plugins must be GPL and if you disagree with them you will be banned from the community. We have even been called "evil." There is no acknowledgment at all that this could be perfectly legal and can have at least some merits to the community whether you agree with it or not. Instead, if you don't agree with them, you don't get to play in their sandbox.

If I made my plugin for Microsoft SharePoint or Adobe Dreamweaver instead, no court would agree that my plugin is a derivative work and therefore Microsoft or Adobe should own my product.

That is a pointless analogy since those companies products are not GPL licensed.

You missed my point there. The whole GPL debate concerning plugins and themes is whether they are derivative works of the software they plug in to. So while those products are not GPL the application of copyright law would be the same. But again, arguing that is not my point. My point was that there are valid arguments against themes and plugins being GPL.

This is another awful example. The VaultPress server software is not distributed, therefore the GPL does not apply. The VaultPress plugin is distributed and therefore is GPL licensed accordingly.

Actually, according to the GNU license FAQ:: "It is essential for people to have the freedom to make modifications and use them privately, without ever publishing those modifications. However, putting the program on a server machine for the public to talk to is hardly “private” use, so it would be legitimate to require release of the source code in that special case. "

According to that, they should be sharing the source. Of course, I agree that is ridiculous along with many other far-reaching claims by the FSF. Yet again, this isn't to convince anyone or to start a debate, it is to point out that there are so many gray areas and contradictory practices. If I write a copyrighted book on WordPress it gets promoted on the wordpress.org front page if I write a commercial plugin I get banned from the community. Isn't that a bit strange?

[chipbennett]

Just copying and pasting a recent reply I sent to a related WP-Hackers thread:

There are two competing priorities: the legal concerns, and the ethical concerns. Here's how I've made my peace with the conflict between the two:

I don't think anyone would question my stance on the matter of WordPress Themes/Plugins being inherently derivative works of WordPress. I've been as outspoken as anyone on that matter.

However, I accept that the WordPress community has rightfully defined its own ethos with respect to acceptable licensing of WordPress Plugins and Themes. I can stand on legal principle and disagree with that ethos - and as a result, become outcast from the WordPress community; or, I can choose willingly to give up some of my own freedom and legal rights (of licensing choice for works for which I own the copyright), in order to conform to the ethos of the WordPress community.

For me, the choice is easy: I want to be a part of the community, and I want to give back (what little I am able), in a "pay it forward" sense that makes licensing my WordPress-related code under GPL. So, I choose to do so.

(Admittedly, this stance on principle is not much of a sacrifice for me. The food I put on my family's table doesn't in any way depend on anything I contribute to the WordPress community.)

Others may choose differently, for differing reasons. But I've made my choice - even as I remain outspoken regarding the lack of copyright case law precedent for claiming that copyright law considers *dependent* code, absent any actual incorporation of copyrightable code, to be *derivative* code.

To be sure: what you *believe* matters. But what matters much more are the *choices* you make, based on what you believe.

[MiroslavGlavic]

Please be aware that I am blunt and don't sugar coat things, if you are a thin skinned person then DO NOT READ BELOW.

1) Jeff didn't accept your ad

WAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAA AAA, it's his site, *whispers*look in the whois info for wptavern.com and look at that part where it says Jeff <insert last name here>*ends whispers*, ok so this is done.

2) I just googled AutoBlogged (by the way, it was the first entry, congrats).

So it takes content from rss of other sites...oh gee, this will help spamblogs so much.
You are enabling sblogs with your plugin. Don't give me the whole "some users will abuse" bs.

I don't care who you are, the whole "i give credit at the end" bs does not work for me. If you want to use my content then first ask me and wait for me to give you permission. Most likely I will say the following: F*** off, create your own content. (this is the church version by the way).

Your plugin makes others put someone else's content on those others's websites. I hope someone writes a plugin to block AutoBlogged.

How on earth will anyone with at least an ounce of spine would take someone else's content and put it on their site.

Even if you just use excerts on whatever.xyz.com, sites using AutoBlogged would be spam blogs.

3) You can sell whatever you want on your own site. Are you going to make a "complaint" thread on every site that rejects you?

[Ryan]

There are legitimate uses for autoblogging plugins. I've used them myself in the past.

Autoblogged wasn't complaining about Jeff blocking him, he was complaining that non-GPL compatible plugins are shunned by the community.

[AutoBlogged]

This has strayed off the topic but here are some legit uses for autoblogging plugins:

One thing we use AutoBlogged for internally is to monitor what kind of problems people are having with our plugin so we can be proactive in fixing stuff. For example, have an internal customer support blog where we create RSS feeds to monitor search engines, forums, and social media for queries like this:
+autoblogged bug OR problem OR error OR buggy OR "not compatible" OR crashed OR "error message" OR "wp-content\plugins\autoblogged\"

Often we are able to respond in forums by the next day with an answer which makes our customers very happy. It's also cool to get a fix for a customer when they didn't even realize their site was showing errors.

We also monitor for piracy using search engines for specific tags in our code, our product name used along with a filesharing service like rapidshare, people who are reselling the software in forums (and ripping people off), and torrent feeds. We use our regex engine to extract the URLs into wordpress custom fields that we use to build a list of sites. We don't do much about piracy but it is nice to know we could if we wanted to.

We pull RSS feeds from our bug tracking, svn, help desk, and other services to create a wordpress-based development dashboard. This helps the support guys in India to know when certain bugs have been fixed, etc.

We have another internal marketing blog for monitoring reviews and articles about our product from various sources.

We have yet another internal webmaster blog that monitors our web site, using queries that notify us when any new pages show up, when any pages are changed, etc. We monitor the whois of our domains, backlinks, maintenance notices from rackspace, monitor search engine ranking and PR, etc. We also use that particular blog to track vulnerabilities and exploits with the software and plugins we use. There's no way I could track all this stuff individually.

We have built a supercharged feedburner clone by creating a wordpress theme that turns every page in wordpress into an RSS feed. We load our various feeds into that site for caching, performance, and aggregation. This is actually very cool and we have an article coming out on this soon.

Many of our customers purchase news feeds and use AutoBlogged to turn them into blog posts.

Right now I am setting up a site for the small town I live in to aggregate all news mentions, flickr photos, youtube videos, weather feeds, and yard sales.

And personally I use it to monitor RSS feeds from craigslist, ebay, and some local classified sites for stuff I am looking for that falls below a certain price. By throwing a few misspellings I sometimes get some killer deals.

[Ipstenu]

This is OT and just me wondering aloud...

For example, have an internal customer support blog where we create RSS feeds to monitor search engines, forums, and social media for queries like this: [snip]

Interesting. I use RSS feeds and a feed reader for that, which I plugged into a mailing list to email any new posts. I can see the use, but I don't know why I'd want a BLOG to have that info that I'd just need to aggregate in a feed reader anyway.

it's like ... you're using WordPress as a feed reader. Which is weird to me.

Right now I am setting up a site for the small town I live in to aggregate all news mentions, flickr photos, youtube videos, weather feeds, and yard sales.

See that makes sense except you'd still wanna monitor all that. I do the same thing for news related to a site I run with a couple feeds into my reader. When I post shows up, I read it, and use it (or not), making any post on my site a hand-crafted post. Which IMO still matters. If you just want an aggregate news portal, yeah, that sounds great. If you want a COMMUNITY, though, you'd really want to put the effort into customizing.

As for GPL... GPL and commercial licenses DO exist together. Being shut out of a community for being different is sort of de rigur for any community I've ever known. They are pretty bitchy things by their very nature ;) When you get a group of like-minded people who say "THIS is right!" and you disagree, you get what you get.

[Ryan]

it's like ... you're using WordPress as a feed reader. Which is weird to me.

I've considered doing this myself in the past. The problem is that you don't get to see any changes which are made to the posts after they're made - unless you wrote some sort of checking system to ensure that any changes to the original posts were updated in your WordPress install; I decided to use Google Reader instead :P