Premium Mod Flame War!

[Jeffro]

What I don't understand is if themes are so easy to create, why is there a commercial theme market?

[Otto]

What I don't understand is if themes are so easy to create, why is there a commercial theme market?

Oh, don't get me wrong. I understand paying somebody to do something that you don't have the time or inclination to do. I don't change my own oil in my car, after all.

Again, there's nothing wrong with selling themes or plugins or anything else for that matter. I just think people would do better selling services and support instead, and giving the themes away. Most people want to customize their sites. Charge them for the service.

[Ryan]

Programmers, HTML/CSS and designers generally suck at each others disciplines but for some reason we all keep trying to multi-skill :p

This is why I've been a big proponent of taking the code of the theme out of the hands of the theme authors. This is why I love the wp_list_comments function. This is why I want a wp_comments_form function. This is why I want the Loop to become more standardized. Because all these things are big hunks of code inside the theme, and theme authors usually fuck them up, pretty badly. I've seen some horrific code out there, this kind of shit has to stop.

This is a good idea as long as their is a way to over-ride it ... which there does appear to be with the wp_list_comments() function. I think the last time we discussed this, we could not find a way to bypass the function or filter it to do what we needed it to do.

Some people have characterized my calls to keep standardized HTML which doesn't change as "crazy". Well, that's probably because a) they're a theme author and b) aren't particularly good at CSS.

Most of the time. Some times we actually need to change it!

[chipbennett]

No, they absolutely do not. They DO expect compensation, and detail exactly how: In the GPL itself.

The GPL has requirements. You compensate by adhering to them. Think of it as a pay-it-forward scheme.

That is an awfully liberal connotation of "compensation". I suppose one may derive some measure of satisfaction knowing that they have contributed to something, or that others will do likewise. I wouldn't equate that sense of satisfaction with "compensation", though.

"Use", sure. "Distribution of derived works" is something else again.

Themes are derived works of WordPress.

Isn't "convey" the term used in the GPL?

Regardless, yes: the GPL imposes certain restrictions on the manner of conveyance - the most significant of which is that any derivative work that is conveyed must be conveyed under the GPL or a GPL-compatible license.

And, until it is proven in court, one can equally assert that WordPress themes (or certain components, i.e. images and CSS) are *not* derivative of WordPress core. But, that argument is really decide the point, isn't it? I know that we're not going to come to agreement on that point, so there's no need to re-hash it here.

The point of discussion here is compensation - a concept about which the GPL is silent, with respect to compensation up the chain, so to speak.

If a theme author conveys (distributes) that theme licensed under the GPL, then a user of that theme can do whatever he wants with that theme - and he can re-distribute that theme, modified or un-modified, without any GPL-imposed need of compensation to the original author.

In other words: once it's released under GPL, it's released.

And that concept applies to WordPress itself, too.

Regardless of how the themes-are-derivative-works argument works out, nobody who has contributed to WordPress core has any right or claim - under the GPL - to any compensation from any theme or plugin author. None whatsoever.

Again, the ethics of the WordPress community may deem that such compensation is justified - but that justification is not borne out of the GPL.

Let the community ethos be what it will be, but likewise let the GPL be the GPL.

It's just a copyright license. It's not the Nicene Creed, the Magna Carta, or the Declaration of Independence. It's just a copyright license.

Yes, it really is quite easy to say. And you know what? I don't care how hard it is for you or anybody else to earn your living. Can't make money at one thing? I'd suggest doing something else then.

I agree with that; I really do.

I just don't think that Matt (or anyone else) should be interfering in those business models - at least not under the auspices of the GPL.

That depends on who you consider my customer to be.

However yes, in the long run we sell products. I do not in any way contribute to the creation of those products, I mostly contribute to our process of selling them.


No, I get paid for my time. My company gets paid to sell products. I am not my company. Money goes around in circles, pal. This is economy.

Spin it however you like. You get paid because your company delivers a coded product to a paying customer. No product, no salary. And if you're writing code for those products, then you're a direct part of that chain.

I wholeheartedly and enthusiastically agree, which is why I hope you'll back me in my stated goal of creating standardized functionality in the core, to eliminate the need to learn any of it, whether it's correct or not. Why burden the end-user with details of which they don't need to learn, know, or indeed care about? There's no benefit for them to be able to customize things in these ways, we can provide standardized paths for them to customize the pieces they'll actually *want* to customize, and the rest will just be handled for them.

I do back that goal - provided that in so doing, we don't create walled gardens.

[Otto]

That is an awfully liberal connotation of "compensation". I suppose one may derive some measure of satisfaction knowing that they have contributed to something, or that others will do likewise. I wouldn't equate that sense of satisfaction with "compensation", though.

Think of it more like a barter system. In exchange for me letting you use code I wrote under the GPL, you will release the code you wrote under it as well. I'm compensated by getting the code you wrote back and getting use of that code.

I mean, why do most people write code? Personally, I write code because I need that code for something. When I release it with GPL, then I'm able to get back improvements to it. Those help me, because *I'm using that code*. Sounds like compensation to me.

Regardless of how the themes-are-derivative-works argument works out, nobody who has contributed to WordPress core has any right or claim - under the GPL - to any compensation from any theme or plugin author. None whatsoever.

You persist in thinking of compensation in monetary terms. I do not and cannot agree with your terminology here, so I'm forced to disagree with you entirely.

Compensation does not have to be monetary, and the GPL ensures compensation back to the original authors by ensuring that derivative works can be used by said author (along with anybody else). When I release GPL'd code, I'm compensated for it automatically. The GPL makes sure of that.

Spin it however you like. You get paid because your company delivers a coded product to a paying customer. No product, no salary. And if you're writing code for those products, then you're a direct part of that chain.

No, my company doesn't sell code, we sell physical products. My code is all used internal to my company, nobody else sees or uses it.

Nevertheless, the fact that product is moved to make sales which eventually ends up paying my salary is irrelevant. This is not spin, this is simple separation of contract. I am working for my employer. That is a separate transaction from my employer selling products to customers. If we don't sell as many products, I still get paid the same regardless (or my employer goes out of business and I change jobs). My salary is not dependent on the quantity of sales, except in an indirect fashion.

This is an important distinction: I'm selling time to the company, the company is selling product to customers. Two separate things.

Let's say I'm in a contract situation, and I develop a website for somebody. I'm probably charging them some flat rate for the website, or I may charge them by the hour. Whatever, it doesn't matter whether or not they make any money using that site. That is *not my problem*. Separate transaction. If they fail to pay me, then I sue them, and it doesn't make any difference whether or not their business model succeeded.

[chipbennett]

Think of it more like a barter system. In exchange for me letting you use code I wrote under the GPL, you will release the code you wrote under it as well. I'm compensated by getting the code you wrote back and getting use of that code.

I mean, why do most people write code? Personally, I write code because I need that code for something. When I release it with GPL, then I'm able to get back improvements to it. Those help me, because *I'm using that code*. Sounds like compensation to me.


You persist in thinking of compensation in monetary terms.

Compensation is defined as "something given or received as an equivalent for services, debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc.;" - and again, "Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service or loss."

So, it's not my terminology that you're disagreeing with.

I do not and cannot agree with your terminology here, so I'm forced to disagree with you entirely.

Wait: what I said was: "nobody who has contributed to WordPress core has any right or claim - under the GPL - to any compensation from any theme or plugin author. None whatsoever."

So, you're welcome to disagree with me. But in so doing, please point out to me the clause in the GPL that grants the owner of a work licensed under the GPL any right or claim to compensation for their distributed work (ETA: or, more accurately, compensation for a derivative work of their distributed work).

It's not there.

Any compensation for a distributed work licensed under the GPL comes externally from the GPL, not because of the GPL.

Compensation does not have to be monetary, and the GPL ensures compensation back to the original authors by ensuring that derivative works can be used by said author (along with anybody else). When I release GPL'd code, I'm compensated for it automatically. The GPL makes sure of that.

Wrong. You, as the owner of the work, are not granted a special right through the GPL. Rather, you are simply exercising the rights granted to everyone through the GPL under which the new distributed work is licensed.

By your reasoning, then, if you are compensated for your original work through the use of a derivative work, then everyone who uses the derivative work is compensated for your original work as well, which is illogical.

No, my company doesn't sell code, we sell physical products. My code is all used internal to my company, nobody else sees or uses it.

Nevertheless, the fact that product is moved to make sales which eventually ends up paying my salary is irrelevant. This is not spin, this is simple separation of contract. I am working for my employer. That is a separate transaction from my employer selling products to customers. If we don't sell as many products, I still get paid the same regardless (or my employer goes out of business and I change jobs). My salary is not dependent on the quantity of sales, except in an indirect fashion.

This is an important distinction: I'm selling time to the company, the company is selling product to customers. Two separate things.

Let's say I'm in a contract situation, and I develop a website for somebody. I'm probably charging them some flat rate for the website, or I may charge them by the hour. Whatever, it doesn't matter whether or not they make any money using that site. That is *not my problem*. Separate transaction. If they fail to pay me, then I sue them, and it doesn't make any difference whether or not their business model succeeded.

But the point remains: your company compensates you for the services you render to them - and they do so because they find those services to be valuable, i.e. they make money because of the services you render.

But, as your coding work is purely internal to your company, it was never really relevant to the discussion at hand.

[Otto]

Compensation is defined as "something given or received as an equivalent for services, debt, loss, injury, suffering, lack, etc.;" - and again, "Something, such as money, given or received as payment or reparation, as for a service or loss."

So, it's not my terminology that you're disagreeing with.

Umm... Your definitions agree with me, not you. The phrase "such as money" means it doesn't have to be money.

So, you're welcome to disagree with me. But in so doing, please point out to me the clause in the GPL that grants the owner of a work licensed under the GPL any right or claim to compensation for their distributed work (ETA: or, more accurately, compensation for a derivative work of their distributed work).

It's not there.

Yes, it is there. It's built in, only your oddball definition is preventing you from seeing how compensation is achieved.

When somebody takes my GPL'd code, changes it, and re-releases it, then I am compensated. Why? Because I can now use that changed code myself.

By your reasoning, then, if you are compensated for your original work through the use of a derivative work, then everyone who uses the derivative work is compensated for your original work as well, which is illogical.

I fail to see how that is illogical, since it is, in fact, true. How can reality be illogical?

Of course, the term "compensate" only really applies to the first party (who released the initial code), but yes, everybody does indeed benefit. That's the beauty of the system.

[chipbennett]

Umm... Your definitions agree with me, not you. The phrase "such as money" means it doesn't have to be money.

Money is simply an acceptable equivalent of exchanged value - which is the critical concept for "compensation". In order to be "compensation", it must have equivalent value to that which was rendered in the first place.

Yes, it is there. It's built in, only your oddball definition is preventing you from seeing how compensation is achieved.

When somebody takes my GPL'd code, changes it, and re-releases it, then I am compensated. Why? Because I can now use that changed code myself.

You may benefit, but you are not compensated. You have not received in return the equivalent value of your original code.

I fail to see how that is illogical, since it is, in fact, true. How can reality be illogical?

That argument is tautological, and refuted already. You have received a benefit, but not an equivalent value in return for your original code. Thus, you have not been compensated.

Of course, the term "compensate" only really applies to the first party (who released the initial code), but yes, everybody does indeed benefit. That's the beauty of the system.

Don't conflate benefit with compensate. I wholeheartedly agree with the application of benefit in this scenario.

The GPL implicitly helps to ensure such benefit. It does not, however, guarantee a right or claim of compensation from those who distribute derivative works (just as it does not deny the right of one who distributes a GPL work from seeking compensation for that work).

To bring the point back to the situation at hand:

Matt and the WP core devs, et al release WordPress under the GPL.

Plugin developer Joe Blow comes along, writes a plugin, releases it under the GPL, but requires payment (or subscription) for download.

There is nothing whatsoever in the GPL itself that then requires (or even implies) that Joe Blow compensate Matt and the WP core devs, et al because of his plugin, which is a derivative work of WordPress.

Joe Blow is under no obligation or compulsion, under the GPL, to do anything other than to release his derivative work under the GPL.

Any and all such obligation and compulsion thus comes from outside the GPL.

The community may decide to ostracize Joe Blow for not compensating WordPress, or for not making sufficient contribution (e.g. code) back into WordPress. But any such actions or decisions are driven by the community ethos, not by the GPL.

That, in a nutshell, is my point.

[Otto]

Money is simply an acceptable equivalent of exchanged value - which is the critical concept for "compensation". In order to be "compensation", it must have equivalent value to that which was rendered in the first place.

You may benefit, but you are not compensated. You have not received in return the equivalent value of your original code.

"Value" is not a fixed construct. I mean, who determines value? Since I'm involved in the transaction, and you are not, then really I get to determine what value each thing has to me. So saying that two things are of equivalent value is really for me to decide, is not it?

Well, I say they are equivalent. So there you go. QED.

Matt and the WP core devs, et al release WordPress under the GPL.

Plugin developer Joe Blow comes along, writes a plugin, releases it under the GPL, but requires payment (or subscription) for download.

There is nothing whatsoever in the GPL itself that then requires (or even implies) that Joe Blow compensate Matt and the WP core devs, et al because of his plugin, which is a derivative work of WordPress.

Joe Blow is under no obligation or compulsion, under the GPL, to do anything other than to release his derivative work under the GPL.

GPLing the derived work is the compensation. It's the only compensation I require. And guess what, since I determine what is valuable to me, hahah I just got compensated!

That, in a nutshell, is my point.

Set, game, and match.

[chipbennett]

"Value" is not a fixed construct. I mean, who determines value? Since I'm involved in the transaction, and you are not, then really I get to determine what value each thing has to me. So saying that two things are of equivalent value is really for me to decide, is not it?

Yes - for you, and only you, and for your code, and only your code.

[QUOTE]Well, I say they are equivalent. So there you go. QED.


GPLing the derived work is the compensation.[/QUOTE

Again, for you, and only for you. Not for Joe Blow commercial plugin developer.

It's the only compensation I require. And guess what, since I determine what is valuable to me, hahah I just got compensated!

The problem here is that there are many commercial developers who value their work differently. Thus, by your reasoning (with which I agree), they get to determine the appropriate compensation for that work. What value you (or Matt, or anyone else) place on that work is irrelevant - which is why it is detrimental for Matt to be trying to interfere.

Besides, you're changing my point by confusing a distribution requirement with compensation. Again:

Matt and the WP core devs, et al release WordPress under the GPL.

Plugin developer Joe Blow comes along, writes a plugin, releases it under the GPL, but requires payment (or subscription) for download.

There is nothing whatsoever in the GPL itself that then requires (or even implies) that Joe Blow compensate Matt and the WP core devs, et al because of his plugin, which is a derivative work of WordPress.

Joe Blow is under no obligation or compulsion, under the GPL, to do anything other than to release his derivative work under the GPL.

Regardless of what you consider to be "compensation" for your work, the GPL is silent on the matter, with respect to derivative works. The GPL imposes a license requirement, not a compensation requirement - no matter what semantic games you wish to play with the term "compensation."

Set, game, and match.

P.S. from a long-time tennis player: it's "game, set, match"