Paying to download GPL themes

[nathanrice]

As a followup to my posting:

1. I don't care to have an argument about this. If you disagree with me, that's fine. I was just stating my personal perspective and policy on the matter.

2. Cory and I had a really good conversation this afternoon about ways we can maximize both openness, freedom, and profitability. We want it all. We want to explore models where we can be happy to contribute freely to the community, openly encourage the use of the freedoms in the GPL, and still do well as a business. We don't want to just "get by". We want to thrive.

We believe that if this were possible, it would be universally beneficial.

[ianstewart]

It doesn't matter if your motivation is to hurt me, or if it is just to "exercise your rights", it's a sleazy thing to do.

This metaphor isn't analogous to the situation at hand. It assumes that redistributing unmodified GPL code over the internet is just like the bad stuff you have a right to do (calling people impolite names, just because you can) when it could be just as easily compared to the good stuff you have a right to do (like standing up to authority).

It's not "bad". Just dumb. Extremely, stupidly dumb. But the free speech analogy is good in a way. You can trust that dumb ideas—like redistributing unmodified GPL WordPress Themes over the internet—will fail and be ignored.

[carlhancock]

I was curious what the community here on the tavern thinks about themes that elect the GPL but do not offer the theme to the community as a free download. I have no problems with this approach and it is of course perfectly acceptable and within the terms of the GPL. With that said, it does seem to somewhat clash with the spirit of WordPress. After all, WordPress itself is not a paid download. This raises some interesting questions:

There is a silly misconception within some diehard GPL fanatics that GPL = free. That isn't the case. Commercial themes and plugins are well within the GPL and the "spirit" of WordPress.

Matt Mullenweg himself has said that just because something is GPL doesn't mean you can't charge for it. It just means that when you pay for it and receive the product that you can do whatever you want with it as long as you abide by the GPL licensing agreement.

I must add that I am sick of the entire usage of "spirit" in regards to the GPL. "That isn't in the spirit of the GPL", "That goes against the spirit of the GPL", etc. There is no spirit, the GPL is a licensing agreement that outlines exactly what is and isn't allowed. It's all in black and white and documented in the licensing agreement that backs up the GPL.

Can people charge for GPL code? Yes. Does doing so violate the GPL? No. So if it doesn't violate the GPL then it doesn't go against the licensing of WordPress. 'Nuff said.

[greenshady]

<metaphor>
Let's say a random person sees me and my wife walking down the street and he decides to call my wife a name that I find complimentary and makes me proud to be with her. That guy is great. He's also completely within his rights under the first amendment of the US Constitution. He's a wonderful person, and has many friends. So, I have a conversation with him and we become friends. I introduce him to my other friends and he becomes an influential and positive figure in my life and my community.

Let's say the Ashton Kutcher sees me and my wife walking down the street and he decides to post a tweet calling my wife a name I find complimentary and makes me proud to be with her. That guy is great too, and also within his legal rights. Because he has influence, I'm far more likely to want to befriend him and use my influence to convince as many people as I can that he is wonderful and his movies are great.
</metaphor>

;)

[Remkus]

<OT>How did this go from GPL & Alex King to Ashton Kutcher and a wife you can be proud of ?</OT>

[greenshady]

I was just making a joke with Nathan. I hope he doesn't take too much offense. ;)

[Jeffro]

1. Redistributing unmodified GPL code over the internet is not sleazy nor does it make one an ass. Redistributing unmodified GPL code is what the GPL is all about—even if the author of that code is charging for it and depending on that income.

I'll agree to disagree with you. If the original GPL code was being charged for and someone comes along, gets ahold of that code and then redistributes it for free without any modifications or improvements, I think that is a sleazy thing to do. All that person is doing is undercutting the original author.

Furthermore, how is this at all good?

[nathanrice]

The point of the metaphor was to illustrate that you could be within your legal rights, and still be sleazy.

Like I said, I don't want to argue. It's just my position on the matter. No hard feelings.

[nathanrice]

I was just making a joke with Nathan. I hope he doesn't take too much offense. ;)

None at all. Like Ian said on twitter, it's just a neutral debate. Just don't talk about my wife ;-)

[Remkus]

I was just making a joke with Nathan. I hope he doesn't take too much offense. ;)

You'll be fine. Just as long as you don't use "cheers" as a greeting or salutation.