One Peeved Off Theme Maker

[chipbennett]

Back to the OP, here's something else that bugs me (as Ryan posted on Antonio's comment thread, and as I've seen referenced elsewhere):

From http://wordpress.org/extend/themes/about/:

“All themes are subject to review. Themes for sites that support non-GPL (or compatible) themes or violate the WordPress community guidelines themes will not be approved.”

What the heck does "themes for sites" mean?

A theme isn't "for" the site of the author credited in the author credit link; rather, a theme is "for" the site on which it is installed.

Perhaps the policy is worded this way in order to obfuscate the requirements they are posing on theme-directory contributors and that go over and beyond the requirements of the GPL?

A more clear way to express this policy might be:

1) Themes may only include a link to the author's website.
2)Themes may not link to sites that sell or promote, or link to sites that sell or promote, non-GPL themes.
3) If the theme author's website sells or promotes, or links to sites that sell or promote, non-GPL themes, the theme author must provide for the theme a "landing page" that does not sell or promote, or link to sites that sell or promote, non-GPL themes.

Now, personally, I would still have a problem with this policy, since it essentially excludes premium theme authors from contributing any GPL themes to the theme directory (under their own name, at least).

Of course, I also have a problem with WP dictating to theme authors what they can do or promote on their own websites, with respect to an issue upon which WP have taken a stand but that is far from being clarified in a legal sense.

[andrea_r]

I'm kind of wondering if they really would allow proposed wording #3 though. that has crossed my mind.

If the rejected theme from the OP was linking to a different blog from the same submitter, would they still accept it?

If they're willing to reject themes on that basis, doesn't seem a far stretch that they might just reject themes outright from perceived supporters of non-GPL themes.

I dunno tho - maybe my tinfoil hat is a little tight.

What the heck does "themes for sites" mean?

They mean themes "for sites that support non-GPL themes". I agree it's badly worded and could use some improvement.

[Ryan]

What the heck does "themes for sites" mean?

Lol, I've read that same line of text lots of times before but I never noticed the poor wording of it until you pointed it out.

[chipbennett]

I'm kind of wondering if they really would allow proposed wording #3 though. that has crossed my mind.

If the rejected theme from the OP was linking to a different blog from the same submitter, would they still accept it?

But, if they don't allow #3, then they would have to be enforcing a three-degrees-of-separation policy - and at that point, where does the lunacy end?

If they're willing to reject themes on that basis, doesn't seem a far stretch that they might just reject themes outright from perceived supporters of non-GPL themes.

I dunno tho - maybe my tinfoil hat is a little tight.

Maybe, but only a little (tight). The logical inference at this point is that WP/Matt would do exactly that - and considering that at this point the issue goes far beyond the letter or spirit of the GPL, my biggest concern is that the WP community really aren't getting a say in the matter.

They mean themes "for sites that support non-GPL themes". I agree it's badly worded and could use some improvement.

But "themes for sites that support non-GPL themes" still doesn't make sense.

Does that mean that a GPL theme can't be used on a site that sells or promotes (or links to) non-GPL themes? (Of course not, since the GPL poses no restrictions on use.)

The word "for" is the problem. Apparently, they mean "linking to", or "written by authors whose".

[chipbennett]

Lol, I've read that same line of text lots of times before but I never noticed the poor wording of it until you pointed it out.

It's bugged me ever since I first read it, but I thought that I was just being overly anal retentive. :)

The more the policy/phrasing gets used as a hammer, though, the more important it is to clarify.

[itsananderson]

From the way they "filter" themes, I would guess that it means "themes released simply to promote a site" or something similar, but rewording it to say something like that would probably be a good idea.

[greenshady]

But for the sake of argument, wouldn't said CSS editor be a derivative work of WP, and therefore subject to the GPL?

Yes, it would be a derivative work. But, the GPL is irrelevant here. The GPL is about the distribution of software.

For the sake of further argument, shouldn't WP.com be giving away (use of) all such derivative works for free, and only charging for support - since that is the de facto expectation of premium theme developers?

I don't see a problem with Automattic making a little money here. This has nothing to do with premium themes developers, really. Automattic is not breaking the GPL. Premium theme developers are at best in some weird, murky, gray area. At worst, are breaking the GPL.

[Brad]

Exactly. Lead by example.

But for the sake of argument, wouldn't said CSS editor be a derivative work of WP, and therefore subject to the GPL?

For the sake of further argument, shouldn't WP.com be giving away (use of) all such derivative works for free, and only charging for support - since that is the de facto expectation of premium theme developers?

[Brad]

Why do other open source communities like Joomla and Drupal handle GPL differently? Could it be they have already been down this road and come up with something that makes everyone happy? Are they wrong? There are a lot of very smart people at Joomla.org. I'm a member of multiple (license restricted) Joomla clubs and I don't see GPL issues being raised every couple of months.

It's great talented people like Ian, Justin and many others are contributing their work often times for free but I would hate to lose other talented people like Brian, Chris, Adii, etc., simply because it became too difficult an environment to work in. I'm willing to bet many theme authors have analyzed their premium themes and incorporated some of the same techniques into GPL themes.

[andrea_r]

For the sake of further argument, shouldn't WP.com be giving away (use of) all such derivative works for free, and only charging for support - since that is the de facto expectation of premium theme developers?

Actually, Matt has said that anyone who wants it, he'll make the css editor available as a plugin. but, you know, there's a few plugins that'll do this already.

But allowing a member to modify or add css to the theme on their wp.com doesn't have anything to do with redistribution of software.