

Thesis and the GPL - justinl
http://www.andrewnacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/

======
joshkaufman
There's a straightforward way to resolve this once and for all: _if Thesis is
indeed GPL, then it doesn't matter what license Pearson uses - anyone can
legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis publicly right now_ , even if
Pearson continues to opine that the code is distributed under a different
licence. GPL is GPL.

Pearson will most likely sue the first person who actually does this (and
refuses the Cease-and-Desist that precedes the suit). The courts will then
determine whether or not Thesis is indeed GPL, or whether the distribution was
in violation of Pearson's intellectual property rights.

Until someone actually does this, the debate will continue - there's enough
ambiguity that the issue won't be resolved until ruled upon by the courts. I
really doubt Matt/Automattic will push the issue - there's a lot to lose and
almost nothing to gain. (Matt said in a previous thread he thinks Thesis' code
is "junk" and doesn't want it in core.)

Until Thesis is publicly distributed and legally challenged, the status quo
will continue: Thesis will _effectively_ be private code, and Pearson's
position will prevail.

~~~
ekiru
I think that this is a misconception that results from the frequent failure of
people to make the distinction verbally between "Thesis is legally required to
be GPL if redistributed" and "Thesis is GPL". I expect most of the people who
make this mistake are aware of the distinction and are simply using "Thesis is
GPL" as shorthand for "Thesis is required to be GPL", but it leads to
confusion as in your comment.

IANAL, but the following is my understanding based on the my lack of awareness
of anyone licensing code as GPL (even the FSF) who has ever claimed that what
you suggest is legal.

Thesis is currently under whatever proprietary license Pearson distributes it
under. He probably is legally required to distribute it only under the GPL.
There are two obvious ways he can deal with this: stop distributing it or
distribute it under the GPL. In the event that he takes the latter path, then
people will be able to legally copy/distribute/modify/fork/sell Thesis.
However, for now, no one has any license to Thesis' code other than what
Pearson has granted them.

The GPL can't force code to be released under the GPL. It can only forbid
releasing it under other terms.

~~~
jp_sc
The clause 5 of the GPL v2 says:

    
    
        5. You are not required to accept this License, since
        you have not signed it. However, nothing else grants 
        you permission to modify or distribute the Program or 
        its derivative works. These actions are prohibited by 
        law if you do not accept this License. **Therefore, by 
        modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based 
        on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this 
        License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for 
        copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works 
        based on it.**
    

IANAL but it looks like Thesis could be implicitly GPL'ed.

~~~
bad_user
You have to prove first that Thesis is a derivate work ... it might seem
obvious to some, but it's better to ask a real lawyer or at the very least
people with adequate paralegal experience ;)

------
sscheper
Is it a crime to put your life into creating something, marketing it extremely
well, attracting a ton of avid fans/users, and deciding that he or she doesn't
want others undercutting the price?

~~~
hristov
No. Copyright infringement is a crime, however.

~~~
mgunes
Arguably pedantic note: under most jurisdictions, copyright infringement is a
non-criminal offense in civil law.

~~~
carbocation
To be equally pedantic but in a more geographically limited fashion: in the
US, there are criminal copyright statutes. =)

