
Thesis and the GPL - jackowayed
http://apeatling.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/thesis-and-the-gpl/
======
tzs
Really simple test: can you write blob of code X without having access to any
source code or other copyrightable elements of blob of code Y?

If the answer is yes, then blob of code X is not a derivative work of blob of
code Y. You can distribute X without any liability for direct copyright
infringement of Y's copyrights.

Third party U might combine X and Y in memory, forming a derivative work of
both X and Y. If the license of Y does not allow this, then U would be guilty
of copyright infringement of Y.

It is possible that the developer of X could also be liable for U's
infringement, if X essentially is only useful in cases where someone (like U)
is using X to infringe Y. This is called contributory infringement.

In the case where the license of Y is GPL (or pretty much any other free
software or open source license...), U's actions are not an infringement. If
U's action are not an infringement, then X __cannot __be liable for
contributory infringement.

I've not written any Wordpress themes, so don't know what you need to actually
write one. Do you need to actually have the Wordpress source code in order to
write a theme? Or do you only need a list of functions available in that code
and their interfaces and a description of what they do? If the latter, then a
theme would NOT automatically be a derivative work, and hence would not
automatically need to be under GPL.

Much of this has already been litigated, going way back to the early video
game systems, when third party game companies started releasing unauthorized
game cartridges. When the user inserts a game cartridge, a single work is
formed in the console comprising the system software and the game software.
The game software makes calls to functions in the console. The console makers
tried almost the same argument the SFLC makes in their analysis that someone
else posted here. The console makers lost. This is one of the main reasons
that consoles nowadays rely on technology (such as loaders that only load code
signed by the console maker), not law, to keep out unauthorized third party
games.

------
jessor
A lot of interesting discussion about this topic went down here:
<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1516361>

EDIT: I'm with spacemonkey (referring to how joomla manages it):
[http://apeatling.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/thesis-and-the-
gpl...](http://apeatling.wordpress.com/2010/07/14/thesis-and-the-
gpl/#comment-7928)

------
jeb
Wordpress is a plug-in platform. You can load and execute plugins, you can
load and execute themes. Those themes may call the wordpress API, but a theme
+ wordpress is not a new form or branch of wordpress. So it's not a derivative
work in the sense that the GPL intends derivative works to be.

You can look at technicalities, like how wordpress designs its API, but those
are not faults of the themes.

What is a theme actually? It's a look and feel, and this look and feel is not
dependent on wordpress. A theme could exist across many different blogging
platforms. Each platform will provide a different API for the theme to
interact with it, but the look and feel of the theme has nothing to do with
this interface. The theme is a conceptual abstraction that is in no way
dependent on the existence of wordpress as another conceptual abstraction.

As such, I believe that the thesis theme should not be GPLed.

~~~
mindcrime

      So it's not a derivative work in the sense that the GPL 
      intends derivative works to be.
    

That's hardly a settled point, AFAIK. The FSF contend that linking to a bit of
code creates a derivative work that is a derivative of the "bit of code" in
question. I don't know that this whole issue has ever been tested in court and
any strict legal precedents set. From what I've seen though, it appears to be
an issue that is still debated and for which there is no definitive answer.

    
    
      What is a theme actually? It's a look and feel, and this 
      look and feel is not dependent on wordpress.
    

But there is linking to Wordpress code, so IF you buy the FSF argument, then
the PHP code for the theme would need to be GPLd in order to legally be
distributed. But I don't think there's any argument that corresponding icons,
images, CSS, javascript, etc. would also fall under the GPL.

    
    
      As such, I believe that the thesis theme should not be GPLed.
    

Ultimately it won't matter what any of us think...if it goes to court, it'll
come down to whatever a given court, on a given day, decide. <shrug />

Edit: a poster above asserts that there is case law / precedent concerning all
this. Maybe somebody can dig up a link or two that gives some more info on
that point?

------
kevingadd
Ridiculous nitpicking. The difference between 'A extends B' and, for example,
calling 'B::x' from inside a method of A is rather trivial, so does that also
make you subject to the GPL? If so, what about calling B::x through eval()ing
a dynamically generated string? People can argue semantics like this for
weeks, there's no end to it.

Are people really this desperate to force their license of choice on others?
No harm is being done to Wordpress by this, and if they really care, they can
switch to a license that explicitly states how they wish their product to be
used.

~~~
dododo
defining program boundaries is tricky. here's what the FSF say:
<http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins>

it's not nitpicking: someone has given a license to certain rights, and not to
others. it's important to honour what has been actually given.

