Displaying 181 To 210 Of 211 Comments If the theme is useless without the CSS or images one could easily argue that those files are also affected by the GPL. First, define “useless”. A theme will still render just fine (as in, without errors) without either the CSS file(s) or image file(s). For a plethora of evidence, see “CSS Naked Day”. Further, those CSS and image files can be plucked out, and replaced with entirely different CSS and image files – meaning that, by definition, the theme is not dependent upon those specific, original CSS files. Second, your argument becomes incredibly twisted, and untenable. To wit: if a theme is dependent upon a CSS file (or an image file) that has its own (for the sake of argument, non-GPL) license, as in, that theme is “useless” without said file, then why would the file upon which the theme is dependent somehow inherit the GPL? To make an analogy to a compiled program: your argument is analogous to saying that, if a compiled program dynamically links to two libraries – one GPL and the other not – and if that program is dependent upon both libraries to function, then the non-GPL library must inherit the GPL from the GPL library. Do you really want to try to make that argument? » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 23, 2009 @ 9:14 PM You know, what’s sad – and really telling – is that you had to add a disclaimer at all, much less twice in the same post. That need is indicative of that about which I am really concerned: the quasi-fascist, cult-like reaction against anyone who dares even voice an opinion regarding the possibility that WordPress’s GPL might not have the reach that it is claimed to have. That your released themes are GPL should be more than enough to satisfy the WP community, regardless of your personal opinion on the matter. As for me, I’ve come to the following conclusions: A theme is not a compiled program, but rather a collation of disparate works, each of which must be assessed individually with respect to inheritance of GPL. Image files and CSS files absolutely do not – cannot – inherit WordPress’s GPL. Such files simply have know knowledge or understanding of the existence of WordPress, do not depend on WordPress to exist or to function, and (not having the capacity to link to anything, dynamically or otherwise) do not link to WordPress. The GPL absolutely makes no claim of inheritance on image files or CSS files. This made me scratch my head:
The GPL is explicit about what constitutes a derivative work, and themes/plugins are derivative work. The GPL does not prevent you from creating and selling themes that are not GPL licensed, but using them in conjunction with WordPress (or any other GPL’d software) would be a violation of the theme’s non-GPL license.
Jeff, I would question your lawyers. A fundamental point of the GPL is that it places no restrictions on the use of code, but rather on redistribution of code or of derivative works of that code. Your above statement sounds exactly backwards – unless I’m reading it wrong? » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 23, 2009 @ 12:21 AM Well, you know that I prefer dark text on light background – the more contrast, the better. » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 19, 2009 @ 10:44 PM Too Much RSS Noise? Get An Email Daily Digest I’m with Andrew; I don’t understand what the problem is. Just publish good content, when it’s ready. If people don’t want so much RSS “noise” then they can just change the update frequency in their feed reader. » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 18, 2009 @ 6:24 PM A Question For Premium Theme Authors @Jeffro – That’s the way I see it, too. The client-developer relationship is one in which the client provides the developer with access to the work under his own authority and only his own authority to have/use that work, and with the explicit intent that the developer will return to the client both the work and the authority to use it at the conclusion of the business arrangement. Should the developer make any other use of the work during/after that business relationship, it is the developer who is stealing the work, rather than the client having illegally distributed the work. So, yes, there might still be a concern on the part of the copyrighted work’s developer in such a scenario, but that concern should be centered around the client’s hired developer, not the client himself. (Note that such risk is not unique to theme development specifically or software development in general. Holders of copyrighted works and other IP have to manage this risk in pretty much every industry and line of work.) » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 2, 2009 @ 7:51 AM @Andrea_R – Respectfully, no; it would not be distribution as defined by copyright law. Distribution, as a matter of copyright law, specifically involves transfer to the public: Subject to sections 107 through 122, the owner of copyright under this title has the exclusive rights… to distribute copies or phonorecords of the copyrighted work to the public by sale or other transfer of ownership, or by rental, lease, or lending Regardless of the opinion of the hypothetical premium theme developer, such a scenario is not a violation of copyright’s exclusive right to distribution. » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 1, 2009 @ 11:19 PM I can’t comment on the rest of the hypothetical situation, but I think your premise is faulty. Your scenario does not fit the definition of distribution. Your client is not giving you the theme for your own use, but rather is giving you access to his copy of the theme, for you to modify for his use. Right or wrong, ethical or unethical – I have no comment on those; but I’m fairly certain that it isn’t distribution. » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 1, 2009 @ 6:59 PM @Paul - Fair enough. But, if the “Thesis” name isn’t trademarked (for the sake of argument, as I’m sure it must be trademarked), what remains as a cause for a legal suit? (Of course, if that “Thesis-like theme” also happened to incorporate the copyright-able content of Thesis, such as its cutsom functions, etc., then that is another matter altogether.) I would hazard a guess that the “Thesis-like theme” author could plagiarize the Thesis style sheet 100%, and still survive a legal challenge. I’m not aware of any legal precedent regarding plagiarism of a CSS file (or an HTML file for that matter) – although web plagiarism has been prevalent since the days of HTML 1.0. The bigger problem, though, for the potential plaintiff in such a case, is that the same output can be rendered exactly, using an entirely different style sheet. » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 4, 2009 @ 9:34 PM @Paul - not being a lawyer I have no idea if the absence of a trademark would leave him no legal recourse. What, exactly, do you find to be copyright-able about “a theme that has a 300 pixel right side banner/photo/video and a left sided content area, Georgia as the main font, using ems and in black and white”? » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 4, 2009 @ 9:16 PM @redwall_hp - I still don’t buy-in to the derivative works argument. WordPress is a self-proclaimed “platform.” Linux is a platform, Mac OS X is a platform. Writing an application that runs on Linux doesn’t mean the application has to have a GPL license. Firefox runs on Linux, but that shouldn’t mean it should have to be licensed under the GPL. The Linux-Firefox analogy is completely non sequitur, and in no way applies to WordPress and WordPress themes. A better example would be Ubuntu and its various derivatives. A non-GPL package can run on either distro, but because Ubuntu is GPLed, so too must any of its derivatives be GPLed. Remember the definition of “derivative work”: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”. Firefox isn’t an editorial revision of, annotation to, elaboration upon, or other modification of Linux. Firefox doesn’t depend upon Linux to exist or to run. It clearly isn’t a derivative work of Linux. Ubuntu Netbook Remix, on the other hand, clearly is a derivative work of Ubuntu. I’m curious how you could argue that a WordPress back-end admin UI interface written for a theme isn’t a derivative work. (On the other hand, it seems pretty clear to me that a CSS file, for example, is certainly not a derivative work.) » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 4, 2009 @ 9:04 PM @Paul - if they did all that and called it “Thesis-like Theme” then yes I imagine they’d attract the same attention. I assume that “Thesis” is trademarked as a theme name. If so, then yes, they would have a valid trademark infringement claim. But that’s all. » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 4, 2009 @ 8:39 AM @Hyder - So now if anyone creates a theme that has a 300 pixel right side banner/photo/video and a left sided content area, Georgia as the main font, using ems and in black and white can get sued by these dimwits {yes, I said it}. They could try to sue – and I would absolutely love to see them try. They would fail, miserably, and we can put this whole business behind us (well, most of this business). While I’m sure that Thesis has a rich set of custom functions that can, and certainly ought, to be copyrighted, the rendered style is another matter. There’s nothing particularly original or unique, and it can be recreated any number of ways. And as for the oft-mentioned (and by all accounts, very good) back-end admin UI functionality, I don’t see how the Thesis back-end UI functionality wouldn’t be clearly a derivative work of WordPress. (I should also say that I think Matt M. is doing the WordPress community a disservice by taking an all-or-nothing approach to WP.org’s stance on applicability of GPL to themes and plugins. Situations like these prove the point that we as a community need to have an honest conversation with a definitive conclusion regarding this issue.) » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 4, 2009 @ 12:16 AM $87 – $164 for a freaking theme? To me, that would never be a good investment. I’d say that it couldn’t be a good business model, but obviously it works, since Chris Pearson makes enough money to bully no-name bloggers with lawyers. That said, I have no problem whatsoever with a theme developer getting paid for a theme. I do, however, think that Chris Pearson’s actions demonstrate boorishness of a level not often seen in the WordPress community. Publicly commenting cease-and-desist threats?Twitter-flaming? Seriously? Although you said that you don’t want to re-hash the theme/GPL argument, that’s really what this whole thing boils down to, isn’t it? And ironically, it is my reading of this post (and researching the backstory re: Thesis) that helps me better understand Matt’s position regarding pushing for all themes to be GPL’d. It appears to me, though, that Thesis is staking a position that might prove to be untenable to both a GPL fight and to a copyright infringement fight: GPL: If Thesis uses any WordPress functions, then the theme would have an extremely difficult time proving that it is not a derivative work of WordPress, and thus subject to the GPL (as opposed to hooks, which IMO are equivalent to API functionality and thus not derivative – though I very well may be wrong). Copyright Infringement: I’m not familiar with any successful HTML/CSS/PHP copyright infringement claims (again, I could be wrong) – and this is the primary issue I have with Chris Pearson’s over-the-top bullying of the guy who dared make a clone of Thesis (even one he intended to be inferior, in order to drive more people toward the original). I don’t see any way that he could win such a fight. Enlightening reading this morning, for sure… » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 1, 2009 @ 9:33 AM Hasty Mistake With WP2.8 Header Design Challenge At first, I didn’t realize that this was a contest that was “officially” supported by WP.org. Apparently, WP’s new motto out to be: “WordPress – we support Open Source (but only when it’s convenient)” Wouldn’t this requirement for an Adobe Photoshop proprietary format file be analogous to Canonical requiring job applicants to submit their resumes in Microsoft Word format? » Posted By Chip Bennett On April 28, 2009 @ 6:57 PM Plugin Style Settings – Database Or CSS? @Gianfranco - The only thing is that I don’t see how you could override the original CSS within the plugin itself. For example, I think that WP-Polls generates a scripts right before the tag with the to pull the CSS file within the plugin. If so,because of its position, the plugin CSS file will override my plugins.css file, correct? I’d really would love to know how can one simply choose to setup a plugins.css file that overrised all the CSS files for all plugins. Depending on how the plugin implements its style, it can be difficult. Most plugins that I have run into, however, implement their style in a way that can be easily over-ridden by the user. (I don’t know how that’s done, because I’m not a plugin developer. :) ) In my experience, the plugin developer will just say, “the plugin is wrapped in a container with the .mypluginstyle class” – in which case, you just throw .mypluginstpyle into your plugins.css file, and away you go. » Posted By Chip Bennett On May 5, 2009 @ 6:54 PM @JamieO - What is the plugin that you have wrote which uses that look-for-a-plugin-centric-css-file-in-active-theme approach? The “standardization” that is starting to come together for child themes only came about by people talking about it and – where possible – taking their own steps towards implementing it as you have done. As the community shows interest in various areas, the core development team has done a great job of extending / supporting these visions for the platform. I’ve not written any such plugin. Plugin development isn’t really my forte (yet, anyway). Rather, if I need to style the display/output of a given plugin, I either read the documentation for the plugin, look for a CSS file in the plugin directory, or just view the rendered page source, to find out what CSS declarations (ID/class) the plugin is making. Then, I add those declarations to my plugins.css file, and style as I see fit. I like this method, because it provides maximum control and a future-proof (i.e. upgrade-proof) means of controlling plugin style. I’m not sure if or how standardization would come about, but I’d sure support it! » Posted By Chip Bennett On April 16, 2009 @ 11:19 PM @JamieO – I use the plugins.css file approach. It would be nice to see some standardization there, but I’m not sure it will/could happen. There are too many opinions out there regarding how to handle CSS in general, and plugin CSS in particular. I much prefer configuring plugin CSS in a stand-alone file to trying to configure it in an options page. » Posted By Chip Bennett On April 16, 2009 @ 9:24 PM Default Theme Framework Is Stupid My guess is that the idea to include a “theme framework” in the default install would be to have a basic “parent” theme, and an example “child” theme. Of course, the above-quoted statement is such a compelling argument against the idea that nothing further needs to be said. :/ Perhaps what he *really* means is that *he* personally thinks the theme parent-child framework is stupid? And I still contend that there’s no reason to include Hello Dolly in the default install (but that’s an argument for another comment thread). » Posted By Chip Bennett On March 28, 2009 @ 8:34 AM Making Money From GPL Plugin Development @Kevin – I also have a problem with the “as long as they don’t do it on wordpress.org” sentiment – *especially* now that plugins and themes hosted on wp.org can be searched/installed from within the admin UI. Some enterprising theme/plugin author is going to have to write a plugin to allow for non-wp.org sources to be searched from within the admin UI, or else as time goes on, *only* wp.org (i.e. Matt) sanctioned themes/plugins will ever get any real exposure. Also, I have a problem with Matt giving lip service to wp.org being a community-driven website, yet at the same time making unilateral decisions by fiat regarding these issues. I don’t remember the community ever being consulted regarding inclusion of non-GPL (proprietary) or for-cost (premium) themes/plugins in the wp.org directories. » Posted By Chip Bennett On March 11, 2009 @ 9:13 PM @Kevin – let me take a representative quote from Matt’s 2-hour interview in the special WPWeekly episode back in December: JC: Ok, so here’s the next question: Why is it that so many people within the inner circle of the WordPress community believe you and Automattic don’t want anyone else profiting through or around WordPress? It seems to be this notion, primarily from those who make a living selling premium themes. Matt: *laughs* Well, I have said it before that it’s hard to convince anyone that the way that they currently making money is wrong, *laughs* you know, if you are paying your bills with the way you’re making money, you’re going to find ways to rationalise and… sort of believe in that. Be sure to read through all three parts. Some of Matt’s opinions on the matter don’t become clear until having read all of his responses. » Posted By Chip Bennett On March 11, 2009 @ 6:44 PM @Andrea_R – None of us, to my knowledge, have missed the fact that the GPL does not preclude one from charging for GPLed code. However, one very prominent person in the WP community – namely, the (ostensibly) benevolent dictator for life (to borrow a term coined by Mark Shuttleworth, the BDFL of Ubuntu) Matt, has a very clear agenda to discourage WP plugin developers from doing just that. It is patently obvious that Matt does not want developers charging for theme or plugin code. The problem, of course, is that Matt is enforcing that position using a specious GPL argument. » Posted By Chip Bennett On March 11, 2009 @ 1:45 PM Somebody really just needs to challenge the “WordPress is GPL, therefore all plugins must also be GPL” mandate. I have serious doubts that a legal challenge against a non-GPL, distributed WP plugin would prevail. The “derivative work” argument is tenuous at best. The GPL is great. GPL fascism isn’t. If a coder wants to attempt to make money from his code, that is and should remain his right. » Posted By Chip Bennett On March 7, 2009 @ 8:42 PM Is It Time To Refocus The Dashboard For News? So, is WordPress a community project, or is it Matt’s baby? We can’t have it both ways. The primary reason that I changed the “Other WordPress News” feed url from planet.wordpress to Ozh’s Planet WordPress is that Ozh’s feed generally has more useful posts/information. So, I agree wholeheartedly that the Planet feed would benefit from having non-WP specific posts culled. Posts about Matt’s trips to Paris (or any other non-WP posts from anyone else on the planet) do constitute spam in the context of the WP admin dashboard. » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 10, 2009 @ 1:04 PM “Around the Bar”? (Around the Tap) “WordPress On Tap” (WPTavern: What’s on Tap) “Draught Discourse” (Draft Discourse) (Draft Discussions) I also like “Tavern Talk” » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 10, 2009 @ 9:42 AM I’ve had WP install setup to use Ping-O-Matic for a long time, but I don’t think it’s worked (properly) in ages. Some sites (Technorati, etc.) just don’t get updated via Ping-O-Matic, although the settings appear to be correct (maybe it’s an issue with Technorati’s RPC?). It’s still in my Update Services settings, but I may go back to setting up pings for individual services. » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 8, 2009 @ 11:34 AM Demise Of WordPress And Its Saving Grace I think it far more likely that any potential “demise” of WordPress would result not from a failure to implement post-editor features, but rather would result from the underlying attitude that would lead the WP devs to ignore the obvious desire of the WP community to have such features implemented. The #1 most popular idea is especially telling. » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 8, 2009 @ 7:15 AM Core Plugins? Never Gonna Happen! @Lloyd: How many (better: what percentage of) WP.org users will ever develop their own plugins? I’ll be generous, and say 1% (not sure of the aggregate number of users to which that percentage equates). Of the remaining 99% of WP.org users, how many/what percentage find the *functionality* of Hello Dolly useful/beneficial? I would find it hard to believe that the number would even be measurable. Nonetheless, let’s be really, really generous, and say that 5% of all WP.org users would find Hello Dolly beneficial, either as a developer template or in its function to end users. Now, I have to ask: What *other* plugins are useful to *more* than 5% of all WP.org users? Please note, I really don’t have a dog in this hunt. I’m comfortable with installing/uninstalling plugins, so whether some functionality gets moved into core, or some plugins become designated as “core” plugins, or the plugin situation remains exactly as it is now – no matter what happens, I can make my blog work the way I want it to work. » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 5, 2009 @ 5:47 PM @Ryan: So, Hello Dolly is no longer included in a fresh install of WP.org? If true, I’m glad to see they removed it. It has been there every time I’ve installed from latest.zip (as opposed to upgrading e.g. via WPAU). For my purposes (and I daresay, for *most* WP users), Hello Dolly *is* useless. It adds nothing meaningful whatsoever to my blogging experience. That it is only 2.17 Kb is irrelevant; those 2.17 Kb are used needlessly – thus, they are wasted. The claim that Hello Dolly acts as an example plugin for developers is also a specious argument with respect to justifying its inclusion in the default install. The vast majority of WP.org users are *not* developers, and have no need of an “example” plugin. All that said, my main point remains: certain plugins *are* included in the default install of WP.org. Such plugins are, for all intents and purposes, “core” plugins. » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 5, 2009 @ 6:14 AM But, doesn’t WP.org *already* have “core” plugins? can see the benefit/necessity of Akismet. On the other hand, Hello Dolly is an utter waste of resources – and yet it is installed by default. So, the question isn’t whether or not WP.org will have core plugins; the question is, what will the devs allow to become core plugins? » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 4, 2009 @ 10:20 PM Chances Of WPTavern Getting Into Dashboard? Jeff, I also use FeedSmith – but my Category feeds still work just fine, as well as my comments feed (I don’t use tags, so can’t comment on those feeds). Strange… » Posted By Chip Bennett On February 2, 2009 @ 10:25 PMComments Posted By Chip Bennett
«« Back To Stats Page