

GPL and the Wordpress x Thesis theme issue (Why Chris is right) - ddbb
http://fseek.me/2010/07/gpl-and-the-wordpress-x-thesis-theme-issue/

======
andrewhyde
It looks like quite a bit of GPL code is used in Thesis
[http://drewblas.com/2010/07/15/an-analysis-of-gpled-code-
in-...](http://drewblas.com/2010/07/15/an-analysis-of-gpled-code-in-thesis/)

~~~
sfall
looks like one api function is used with normal naming

------
avar
For some historical context: The debate over whether using the publicly
advertised functions of a GPL library makes your code GPL too is an old one,
the best and early example of this was the CLISP v.s. FSF debate, which the
FSF won:
[http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-...](http://clisp.cvs.sourceforge.net/viewvc/clisp/clisp/doc/Why-
CLISP-is-under-GPL) in particular Stallman said:

    
    
        I say this [that using the readline API makes your code GPL too]
        based on discussions I had with our lawyer long ago.  The issue
        first arose when NeXT proposed to distribute a modified GCC in two
        parts and let the user link them.  Jobs asked me whether this was
        lawful.  It seemed to me at the time that it was, following
        reasoning like what you are using; but since the result was very
        undesirable for free software, I said I would have to ask the
        lawyer.
        
        What the lawyer said surprised me; he said that judges would
        consider such schemes to be "subterfuges" and would be very harsh
        toward them.  He said a judge would ask whether it is "really" one
        program, rather than how it is labeled.
    

Later, Linux under the direction of Linus Torvalds did the opposite the other
way by looking the other way when nVIDIA and others distributed binary blobs
that directly interfaced with the kernel. Some people now point to this as an
example of why this sort of thing is just fine by the GPL, but in fact it's a
very grey area. It's likely that if the Linux kernel had been run by the FSF
that nVIDIA's actions would have resulted in a lawsuit.

However, as pointed out by others this doesn't appear to be a case of using a
public GPL API at all, but rather case of code being copied. See
[http://drewblas.com/2010/07/15/an-analysis-of-gpled-code-
in-...](http://drewblas.com/2010/07/15/an-analysis-of-gpled-code-in-thesis/)
specifically this comparison:
<http://drewblas.files.wordpress.com/2010/07/diff.png>

------
ekiru
Regardless of whether or not Thesis and other WP themes are actually legally
required by the GPL to be distributed only under the GPL, if one believes at
all in the concept of copyright, it's ethically, if not necessarily legally,
important to consider the intentions of the developers of WP in using the GPL.

It's clearly the case that both Wordpress and the FSF believe that programs
which link or include GPL-ed works are derivative works. Even if they're
wrong, isn't it somewhat unethical to agree to an agreement and then violate
what the other side of that agreement have told you from the beginning they
believed it means?

------
gorm
It's hard to judge this without understanding how a theme integrates with
WordPress and I suspect the author of this post thinks this is just a mater of
calling an API or two.

The way it works is by overriding the behavior of WordPress, both integrating
in internal filtering of input/output, reacting on actions/events, integrate
with the admin interface of WP and calling APIs.

If this is not a derivate work, nothing is.

------
moxiemk1
Though I'm not familiar with Wordpress and it's theming system, this argument
has indeed puzzled me. This article is spot on: why would a theme be beholden
to the software's license?

That said, maybe Wordpress themes are much different than normal themes, and
are much more tightly coupled? That WP would pursue this if not puzzles me.

~~~
mattdawson
_maybe Wordpress themes are much different than normal themes, and are much
more tightly coupled?_

They can be made to be tightly coupled, but they're not necessarily intended
to be. A lot of themes override core WordPress functions via a functions.php
in the theme root directory. You don't _have_ to include any core WP code in
your theme, but WP provides an easy way to do it if you need to.

 _That WP would pursue this if not puzzles me._

IMHO, Mullenweg comes off looking like a brat in this whole mess. Regardless
of the legality of the whole thing, this seems to be a straddling-the-line
kind of situation, which makes it feel like there's some kind of ulterior
motive at play.

 _Edit:_ This link from elsewhere in the thread totally changed my opinion.
[http://drewblas.com/2010/07/15/an-analysis-of-gpled-code-
in-...](http://drewblas.com/2010/07/15/an-analysis-of-gpled-code-in-thesis/)
Seems like Thesis should pretty clearly be GPL.

~~~
moxiemk1
I was unconvinced by that one, if only because I don't really agree that just
because it calls your functions, it's a derivative work.

I feel like interpreted code is pretty hard to make derivatives of, honestly,
though it seems like a fairly large number of people agree with you on this
one.

------
intlect
I just wanna point out that Matt Mullenweg used to have a much more logical,
awesome, and superior stance before he decided to go all Richard Stallman on
the non-GPL developer community.

<http://ma.tt/2009/10/matt-qa-wordpress-gpl/#comment-469692>

------
ddbb
To summarize:

Thesis integrates with Wordpress, it is not derivative from it. Same way Linux
modules integrate with the Linux kernel (and many of them are closed source).

If someone is using a public/open API, and not distributing any part of the
software, it means they are not based on the other.

~~~
travem
If that API is under the GPL then isn't use of it a derivative work? If the
API is a GPL implementation of a standard API, e.g. the JDBC API, then it
wouldn't be a derivative work, not sure if Themes call a wordpress specific
API or not though.

~~~
dedward
I think that's a great question, and one that could probably spawn a ton of
interesting legal/logical arguments.

At what point does dynamic linking make something a derived work - and how is
dynamic linking fundamentally different, than, say, a remote procedure call
(or SOAP or REST or whatever) over a network? The interface is different, but
the principle is the same.

Also - the GPL does state that it's okay to link against things that are
"standard parts" of the target system....

------
francoisdevlin
Isn't this whole issue why the LGPL exists?

~~~
logic
That depends entirely on the goals of the original author (Matt and the
Wordpress team, in this case). Judging from Matt's reaction, I suspect the
LGPL would have produced the opposite result they were looking for.

~~~
neutronicus
You miss the point. The LGPL was created to allow people to do what Chris
wants to do. The GPL was created to prevent people from doing the same. If
Chris is actually right, the GPL and LGPL are equivalent. In that case, damn!
I should have used GSL instead of rolling my own numerical methods for a
closed source project. And I should sell a GUI frontend that links against GNU
Octave.

