

Am I confused about the GPL or are they? - nate
http://natekontny.com/post/17659909597/am-i-confused-about-the-gpl-or-are-they

======
pmjordan
I get the impression that the intention of the authors of the theme is to
distinguish between the code and the "design elements". The code, as a derived
work, would necessarily be subject to the GPL, but if say the CSS and images
(and maybe HTML template - I don't know how Wordpress is built) aren't based
on any of the original stuff, and are treated as data and therefore not part
of "the software", then those can be subject to a different license. c.f. id's
games being released under GPL, but the assets being commercially licensed.

~~~
chalst
"Treated as data" isn't the point with GPL2, what makes the viral part kick in
is static linking. If the images are compiled into the binary, as they are
not, then they would need to be made available under the terms of the GPL.

Since they are not, GPL2 has nothing to say about the matter.

~~~
pmjordan
Regarding dynamic linking being permitted: you're thinking of LGPL. Not that
static vs dynamic linking in the strictest sense is terribly helpful in the
context of scripting languages. Note that the text of the GPL does not mention
"linking" at all. The relevant section instead says this:

 _These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable
sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably
considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License,
and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as
separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole
which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on
the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it._

This is sufficiently vague to cause some confusion. When distributing GPL-
licensed works alongside non-GPL-licensed ones, I would probably err on the
side of making your intentions as to what is considered part of the GPL
distribution, and what is not, abundantly clear.

I am, of course, not a lawyer, etc. etc.

~~~
strictfp
I would interpret this for this scenario as "If you make (reasonably original)
graphics for a theme, you do not need to release the graphics as GPLv2 if you
release the graphics standalone. If you, however, release the graphics as a
part of the theme, you need to put the graphics under GPLv2 aswell".

The mail quoted at <http://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/>
classified the images and css as standalone works. They then concluded that
the standalone works did not fall under GPL2. But the excerpt in the parent
seems to state that these actually must be GPLv2:ed if bundled with the
derivative work, no?

So my interpretation is that the disclaimer is in conflict with the licence,
since the licence actually requires you to GPLv2 standalone work when bundling
with derivative. (IANAL)

~~~
pmjordan
Yeah, I don't know; Linux distributions bundle GPL software with non-GPL
software. That doesn't make the non-GPL parts suddenly fall under GPL. In
practice you're probably fine if you offer the GPL parts for free separately
as well. Certainly, if the copyright holders of the original work openly state
they don't consider third-party images and CSS to be included in the license,
then I think they would have a hard time arguing the opposite in court.

------
paulhauggis
Do we really need to go through this again? Do people here on HN really have
that short of a memory?

Search HN for: Thesis theme. This has been debated to death and you will get
the correct answers there.

~~~
fragsworth
> Do we really need to go through this again? Do people here on HN really have
> that short of a memory?

You seem to be lacking a very basic understanding of these kinds of sites:

1\. Not every user on the site has read every post on the site.

2\. There are new users who have not seen previous content.

There is not much you can do about reposts. People who haven't seen the
content before will upvote it.

------
thekevan
I am pretty sure they have the use of the license wrong.

Also, if you did get a copy of a product and modified the code, you would not
have to distribute that code if you did not distribute the product or make it
available for public use in some way. In other words, modifying the code
itself does not necessarily trigger an obligation to distribute the code.

Also, from this:

"You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only
under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source
code available _to the users of the program_ as described in the GPL, and they
must be _allowed to redistribute and modify it_ as described in the GPL. These
requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received
in a program of your own."(Emphasis added.)

That seems to imply to me that if you are not "a user", you are not entitled
to the code. So what constitutes a user with a theme? If I buy the theme and
you do not, it would seem that I am entitled tot the code, you are not but I
am free to give it to you if I wish. Also if I put the theme on my blog and
you read my blog, are you then a user and entitled? Or am I then making the
theme public and everyone is entitled?

On that last paragraph, see also: <http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-
faq.html#UnreleasedMods>

~~~
archangel_one
The standard rule is that if you give someone binaries of the GPLed program,
you must also give them the source (or make it available, or maybe for a
reasonable fee, etc etc). You don't have to distribute the source to anyone
else who asks - so I think you more or less have it right. If you buy some
GPLed product, you are entitled to the source code in some fashion, and once
you receive it you may pass it on to anyone else you want under the same
terms.

And yes, I would think that if you make it publically available on a blog and
I download it then you have distributed it to me and thus you have to comply
with giving me the source as well. IANAL, obviously.

There is of course subtlety around whether the theme in question is actually
GPLed, which I think has been adequately covered by others.

------
Arelius
Their FAQ and their license conflict. Simple. You could ignore their FAQ, as
it's likely not legally binding, but they still may be able to make an
argument in court, depending upon how visible their FAQ is..

Edit: on second read you say "They mention they are licensing under the GPL."
em just mentioning that in their FAQ is likely not legally binding either.
Your best bet is to check out the source, and see if the source references any
license. Alternatively, you can find out if it's a derivative of an existing
GPL licensed theme (afaik, most themes are derivatives) in which case it'd
inherit the GPL from there, and it doesn't matter what their FAQ says.

Edit2: Turns out I was mistaken about the details of inheriting the GPL, read
the sub post.

~~~
alain94040
To nitpick, your last conclusion is incorrect: even if the code is a
derivative of an existing GPL code, it doesn't inherit the GPL. They may just
be in violation of someone else's copyright, but it doesn't give the rest of
the world the right to copy their code. It's theirs to license whichever way
they see fit. Now, in practice, the easiest way out of infringing on GPL code
is to make your own code GPL as well, but it's the author's choice, not the
community's.

~~~
Arelius
Thanks, yes, this makes sense, and does complicate things. In note due to the
fact that afaik, the only one who can litigate based on a GPL violation is the
original copyright holder

~~~
icebraining
_afaik, the only one who can litigate based on a GPL violation is the original
copyright holder_

Yes, because the only one who can litigate on a _copyright_ violation is the
original copyright holder. GPL is just a license like any other in that
regard.

------
cbr
They are.

