One Peeved Off Theme Maker

[Jeffro]

I won't dive into it now as I'm heading to bed but it looks like they are actively enforcing the GPL guidelines including not allowing themes who link to or have advertising on the linked site for those that sell or offer themes which violate the GPL.

http://www.antoniowells.com/2009/05/...eme-designers/

[andrea_r]

This started a few months ago when they removed a pile of themes from the repo. Remember that? :)

I kinda wonder if they'll do the same over plugins.

[Ryan]

Blinking heck, would help if that moderator didn't use no double negatives!

This is the reason WordPress.org should ignore links from themers sites to non-GPL theme sites. Not for any moral reasons, but just to avoid themers becoming frustrated by not understanding what is going on and why their themes are rejected for problems seemingly unrelated to their attempts to support the WordPress community.

[davecoveney]

Hang on - what is this? The GPL say's who people can link to on their sites? I don't think so, but maybe you know better?

I'm sorry, but GPL heavy-handedness is starting to tear the community apart. I've noticed some other moves in places too.

So - some questions:

How do non themers feel about non-GPL themes? Does it make you mad? Are you ambivalent?

What are the disadvantages to the WP community of non-GPL themes?

And the advantages?

What opportunities are there for a GPL author that are not available to somebody who doesn't release any GPL themes or plugins?

[Ryan]

I kinda wonder if they'll do the same over plugins.

If they said they wouldn't allow links to sites which promoted non-GPL plugins then it is unlikely to be a problem since there are very few non-GPL plugins available for WordPress. However if they extended it to non-GPL themes then that could definitely become a big problem.

My issue with all of this is the wording. They shouldn't refer to 'sites' but 'pages' instead. At least then the themers would only need to remove the offending links from the specific pages linked to in the theme.

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.

Personally I don't have any links to non-GPL stuff on my site/s and I don't have any themes in the repository so this doesn't affect me. But I sure can see how it would tick some people off, particularly if they'd spent a week busting their tail trying to produce something to donate back to the community.

[Ryan]

How do non themers feel about non-GPL themes? Does it make you mad? Are you ambivalent?

That depends on whether they are breaching the GPL or not. A WordPress theme which is not GPL, but does not breach the GPL in the process is fine by me. But breaking the law is obviously bad and such people need to be punished accordingly.

What are the disadvantages to the WP community of non-GPL themes?

Encourages more non-GPL themes ... assuming that GPL = a good thing

And the advantages?

That depends on what the alternative license is. There are many too many alternate licenses to comment on all of them.

What opportunities are there for a GPL author that are not available to somebody who doesn't release any GPL themes or plugins?

Inclusion in the official WP theme repository.
More publicity from GPL supporting sites like weblogtoolscollection.com.
Less hassle as you don't need to either break the law or write convoluted code to get around the GPL license.

[davecoveney]

But breaking the law is obviously bad and such people need to be punished accordingly.

Steady on old bean - laws are made by governments and the judiciary. The GPL is a license written by a lawyer and quite possibly not even enforceable in many countries. It's a bit like an employment contract - just because you turn up at 9:15 when the contract says you should turn up at 9:00 doesn't mean you've broken a law.

That depends on what the alternative license is. There are many too many alternate licenses to comment on all of them.

Personally I have two minds with giving stuff away. My favourite contract is the WTFPL because it's so deliciously simple - but it's also a tad churlish. I think the way Apache is run is about the best, and I prefer the license. But WP is one of our tools and it just so happens it's GPL, so we're stuck with it.

Inclusion in the official WP theme repository.

What does that lead to in terms of business?

More publicity from GPL supporting sites like weblogtoolscollection.com.

Been on there a few times - doesn't actually bring that much traffic, and I bet losing their spot on the Dashboard has hurt traffic, though Alexa stats look a touch weird.

Less hassle as you don't need to either break the law or write convoluted code to get around the GPL license.

Again - nobody's breaking any law, just a poorly written contract term. Similarly, why should a function call be breaking the GPL? You don't need to write convoluted code. Similarly, if you release a program that runs in Linux and makes calls to the OS the program doesn't have to be GPL. It can help in terms of publicity, but I've found plenty of non-GPL Linux applications out there.

The WordPress GPL argument will drone on because ultimately there's too much ambiguity. GPL V2, which WordPress inherited, is ideally suited to compiled code but full of errors with regards to scripts. With compiled code you would take the code and recompile it with your own bits included and then redistribute the whole. You couldn't send out two separate modules. As a consequence that whole has to be GPL. However, if you wrote a program that made calls to a GPL module or, as is the case with WP hooks and filters, allowed that module to call your code back, and you released that module 100% independently without including the GPL elements then you would be within the GPL terms.

Now, in scripted languages you do have dynamic linking of a sort and that can invoke the GPL, but the pulling together has been done by the language, not by a developer. I personally don't feel that the GPL applies. But I can understand how others might believe it does. Given that the view of the person who appears to be the community leader (ie. Matt) is that a theme is GPL then if you want to fit into that community you have to take a pragmatic approach and just accept the license or risk being cast out.

[antoniowells]

Great discussion here on my post. You can see my frustration about how the moderator handled the situation. I understand they want to prevent credit links to non-GPL websites, but clearly didn't understand the author credit link didn't go to a non-GPL website. Toward the last few emails, they then changed the excuse towards promoting websites.

My thoughts on Plugins and Themes. Yes, some of the true beauty in WordPress comes more from Plugins versus Themes. But if they applied the actions towards Plugin authors as they do Theme authors, you'll probably see a fall with WordPress. I have a number of plugins in my admin panels of various websites that clearly violate GPL or link to non-GPL websites. Many of you too.

[Jeffro]

I think we have short memories. As I was conducting my 2 hour interview with Matt regarding this entire ordeal, someone had mentioned a plugin to him which was on the repository which supposedly violated the repository guidelines. After checking into it, he actually removed it during the interview. So rest assured, plugins received the same fate as they are discovered.

We have a use case here where the repository reviewer felt that the credit links within the theme were strictly for promotional purposes only instead of just a nod of accomplishment. Whenever the theme had been reviewed, if the links within the theme pointed back to a site which displayed advertising for ThemeForest for lets say an affiliate program, this is the type of thing Matt warned against during the interview. After looking at AndroidTapp, I couldn't find advertising for a site which would be against the repository guidelines. However, AntonioWells.com does have a 125X125 banner for Theme Forest which does not comply with the GPL. So, now I'm confused as I don't see a problem with AndroidTapp, the original author of the theme.

Maybe a change in Wording would help alleviate these problems, maybe not. I think overall this was just a terrible experience. I mean, I can see Antonios frustration as he tries to correct the problem but is repeatedly told that he doesn't meet the guidelines. I've checked out the site and I don't know what the problem is. In frustration, Antonio removes all credit links except the Google one and this apparently makes the repository reviewer think that Antonios sole purpose is to link back to and promote AndroidTapp.

Right now, I'm kind of leaning towards Antonios side on this issue.

[itsananderson]

I think its important to take a step back periodically and remember what we're discussing. Automattic never attempts to make people release their themes under GPL, even though when they do, it really is a violation of the GPL license. Instead, they enforce rigid guidelines as to what themes are listed in their repository. Ultimately I think that's a pretty fair compromise. Now it might be better if they gave authors more details about why their themes were removed or rejected, but that's a problem with their method, not the policy itself. What I gathered from Matt's interview was that they enforced the "Two Levels of Seperation" from Non-GPL to keep people from releasing crappy themes, just to make money. That sounds like a good goal to me, and if this method works, I really don't have a huge problem with it.