

Automatically Blackballed - ovechtrick
http://www.designcrumbs.com/automatically-blackballed

======
Cogito
Just to be clear, this article is about why a wordpress theme maker is not
allowed to participate at a wordpress conference because they are (through a
proxy site ThemeForest) selling their themes with licensing that wordpress
doesn't like.

The main issue for the author is that they do not have control over the
license used when selling on ThemeForest, and _not_ selling on ThemeForest is
not a viable option for them as sales through that platform account for most
of their monthly income.

The author states:

"""The only license available to authors on ThemeForest is a split license[0].
The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and
JavaScript are not. There’s nothing wrong with this, and I also have no
problem with this; But it doesn’t meet those guidelines for WordCamps that I
mentioned earlier."""

So users of the THemeForest platform are unable to license their themes in any
way they wish, but must split license their themes. Wordpress has a problem
with this, hence the hard line being drawn.

Not sure what the resolution might be, but I think ThemeForest should allow
fully GPL themes if authors so desire. Maybe there are implications to this I
am not aware of?

[0]
[http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Arti...](http://support.envato.com/index.php?/Live/Knowledgebase/Article/View/428/0/split-
licensing-and-the-gpl---what-does-it-all-mean)

~~~
ars
The author can post a notice on his website: "Despite what it says on
ThemeForest" all the files in my themes are actually GPL."

Or just the simple notice: "All files in theme xxxx are licensed under the
GPL."

Don't themes come with a readme? Just put the GPL notification in there. Why
do you have to pick your license using a ThemeForest tool?

~~~
mwill
There's an explanation transcribed in the post from a podcast:

 _So the idea behind the split license is to protect authors in terms of their
designs and things like that. The parts that have to be GPL are GPL, the parts
that don’t have to be, we’re happy to provide that license to help you protect
them. The other thing is that on the [Envato] marketplaces there are smaller
component style items, so you could buy the extended license on the
marketplace, and use that in your WordPress theme. And if you then make your
WordPress theme 100% GPL, you just disregarded the license of the item you put
into the theme._

So it seems like they specifically discourage bypassing the split license.

~~~
ars
> So it seems like they specifically discourage bypassing the split license.

Who asked them?

The author of the theme can do whatever he wants, ThemeForest doesn't get a
say in the matter.

~~~
noodle
Have you ever submitted a theme to ThemeForest? They require you to place the
two licenses in your submission and will reject your submission if they're
missing or altered.

Author certainly can do whatever they want; Themeforest will just reject the
submission until the author does what they want.

~~~
ars
No, I have never submitted anything there. But it makes little difference: You
can say whatever you want on your website, and give any license you like.

They have no say in the matter - they aren't getting an exclusive license
after all. The author is free to provide a second license to anyone they like.

~~~
noodle
That is true, sort of. If you don't sell exclusively on Themeforest, the
payout rate is approximately half what it would be otherwise. Its a very
similar rock-and-hard-place situation that this article is about. You're
throwing away significant revenue by selling on your own site and generally
not accepting their license agreement because they are the king in the market.

~~~
ars
I didn't realize they had an exclusivity clause.

If that's the case then, yah, the author is kinda stuck.

~~~
noodle
Its not quite a standard clause -- you do have the choice to sell exclusively
or non-exclusively. Non-exclusive cut for the author is 33% and exclusive cut
is 50-70%. Its a pretty substantial difference, especially if you make a lot
more sales on Themeforest than you do on your own site.

You have a choice, you just don't _really_ have a choice IF you're trying to
make your living on selling themes.

------
cjbprime
I think this is pretty reasonable behavior by wp.org.

Their position has been entirely clear for years. No-one's forcing the OP to
sell WP themes. No-one's required to find a way to let the OP profit from
selling WP themes incompatibly with how the WP developers want their code to
be used; much less to find a way to let the OP keep using _one particular_
infringing WP theme site to sell his work when there are plenty of other theme
sites out there that are successfully following the rules.

~~~
jmillikin
There is no evidence that the author is selling infringing WP themes.

Even if you accept that all clients of a library are inherently derivative
works of that library (a stance I strongly oppose), there is no reasonable way
to conclude that non-code theme assets must also be derivative. Trying to
enforce additional restrictions on the author's own work is asinine.

~~~
cjbprime
I tried to use the awkward phrase "incompatibly with how the WP developers
want their code to be used" to cover your viewpoint; regardless of the meaning
of the legal code, their intent is clear and has been for a long time.

In those circumstances, blogging a complaint that you want to use GPL code but
not in the way that the authors have very publicly stated that they think is
reasonable doesn't get my sympathy -- go take someone else's code instead.

~~~
analog
The authors are not just Automattic though, everyone who has contributed code
has done so under the assumption that the code is GPL.

Automattic have just as much responsibility to respect the wishes of everyone
who contributed to the source code, and by changing the effective terms of the
license they are not.

------
8ig8
For more context, the GPL/WordPress debate got a lot of attention in the
summer of 2010 when WordPress.org was bumping heads with the Thesis Theme.

<http://nacin.com/2010/07/15/thesis-gpl/>

[http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpre...](http://www.hnsearch.com/search#request/all&q=Gpl+Wordpress+)

Edit: Changed Automattic to WordPress.org

------
jiggy2011
So, if I have this right. In order to speak at this wordpress conference one
must not distribute _anything_ related to wordpress that isn't 100% GPL?
That's pretty hardcore.

------
hakaaaaak
"The PHP in our themes is covered under the GPL, but the images, CSS, and
JavaScript are not."

I know a lot of companies do this. Heck, even ID software provided free source
of their engines, but didn't give away their WADs. But is the PhP in this case
of any value without the rest? Can anything be done with it?

If the PhP is of no value on its own and it specific to the CSS, JS, and
images, then imo that totally would violate the spirit of GPL'ing the other.
If that is the case and you want to have it be proprietary, don't provide the
source/files for any of it (for the new stuff). If you want it to be GPL, then
sell it, but make all of it free source, including the images, JS, and CSS.
Note: I believe that Stallman's view (if you care) is that not providing
images is ok if it is art and not source/required for the source, but I think
that is a loophole that can be exploited, so I say make it all free.

However, if the PhP provides some value on its own and is usable (like one of
ID's engines), it's all good and do what you want.

There is nothing in GPL that says that you can't get paid for it. Just because
you have to provide the source for free doesn't mean people can't pay you for
the work, it just means they can't pay you for the source. They could pay you
for the bundle (which they could create on their own if they wanted for free,
but some may not be savvy enough to do that). GPL is not anti-capitalist.

~~~
ebiester
That's entirely true. But you're likely to sell very few copies, because all
another company has to do is buy it for the price you ask, and redistribute en
mass. All they have to do is make up the price they paid, you have to worry
about the time you put into it.

So what ends up happening is reduced quality or higher prices. (Basically,
everything being a bespoke solution, because you aren't going to be selling
too many.) The GPL is a poor model for something like a wordpress theme.

------
8ig8
Is this not unlike Apple's App Store? Developers aren't shy about their
disdain for Apple's control, but in the end, it doesn't matter. If you want to
make money, you need to play by Apple's rules. Likewise ThemeForest is the
dominant marketplace for WordPress themes, with +2MM users. It sounds like
ThemeForest can call the shots (for now) if the ultimate goal is profits.

------
krogsgard
This whole story has gone on for a week now, and has been discussed a great
deal.

This post does a nice job summarizing the story, with links to many blog posts
that came from Jake's original [http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-
community-contribut...](http://www.philerb.com/2013/01/wordpress-community-
contributors-and-the-spirit-of-the-gpl/)

Jake also discussed in on his PleaseAdvise podcast, as well as another
podcast: <http://pleaseadvise.fm/> [http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-
special-guest-jake-capu...](http://wpcandy.com/podcasts/035-with-special-
guest-jake-caputo/)

------
loceng
Why is no one talking about the motives behind why Wordpress is doing this?

~~~
analog
It's interesting that the themes available on Wordpress.com aren't GPL
licensed. This does seem a little hypocritical.

~~~
evansolomon
That's incorrect. <https://wpcom-themes.svn.automattic.com/>

~~~
analog
We were told by one of their support team that we were not allowed to alter
the theme to hide the link to wordpress.com. This is on a paid account.

So they may _say_ it is GPL, but in practice it's not.

~~~
djt
you mean the link in the Footer?

It may be in the terms of the Hosting contract?

~~~
analog
Yes that's it. But if the terms of the hosting contract limit what you can do
with the code then in it's not GPL.

They distribute the css, in that they let us edit it, but they limit what we
can do with it. Not GPL.

~~~
Dylan16807
Yeah and I bet they don't let you edit /etc/passwd either. Restrictions on
their server have nothing to do with copyleft.

~~~
analog
Right, because it's a security issue to restrict how you edit the css.

------
AnthonyMouse
Is there some legal or other reason why you can't dual license the things in
question under both licenses? Or would that just not satisfy anyone?

------
8ig8
Just adding some additional background. I happened on a related post earlier
today on ThemeShaper ("Home of the Automattic Theme Team)...

<http://themeshaper.com/2013/01/24/envato-license/>

------
anu_gupta
Odd - I submitted this story, with the same URL, 5 days ago

<http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=5098033>

~~~
ableal
Your URL had a double t. It (now) leads to the same URL and page as this
submission.

(Possibly someone changed their mind about the wordplay verbing the
"Automattic" noun.)

------
darkarmani
I feel like WP and that Matt guy are just trolling everyone. I'm waiting for
the punchline: punked!

"Why would we ban someone for how they sell some themes through a 3rd party
provider? That would be crazy! You actually believed us??"

------
forrestthewoods
What is the source of the GPL virus in all this? What bits of technology are
built upon GPL code? Would be feasible to re-write that code or theme such
that it could be released in a less freedom restricting manner?

~~~
dangrossman
WordPress itself is GPL licensed, and its creator, Automattic, contends that
all themes and plugins for the CMS are derivative works, and must therefore be
GPL licensed as well. Which is probably true, since in addition to being
nonfunctional without WordPress to provide the functions themes and plugins
hook into, they commonly copy large bits of code from the main codebase and
make minor changes to them.

Envato allows you to list WordPress themes and plugins for sale in their
marketplace, ThemeForest. They make these products available under a split
license: the PHP code that interfaces with WordPress is made available under
the GPL. CSS, JavaScript and binary assets are made available under a
commercial license.

WordPress does not argue that the above scenario is illegal, only that if you
split-license works like that, you're not welcome to present at conferences
that use their name.

~~~
lftl
If you do "copy large bits of code from the main codebase" this is moot, but
I've wondered about the other point. If I don't copy any bits, I'm not really
sure why my PHP code would necessarily fall under the GPL.

What if I made NotGPLPress that had API compatibility with WP's theme API, but
was otherwise my implementation and released under a BSD license. That seems
to be the exact same battle Google and Oracle just fought over Java, with
Google essentially winning the APIs are not copyrightable battle. At that
point couldn't every theme author just say that their theme is built for
NotGPLPress and license it however they want? It seems odd that the existence
or non-existence of another implementation should affect an author's licensing
obligations.

~~~
bigiain
Heh - I wonder of NotGPLPress would even have to work? ThemeForest could start
selling NotGPLPress themes, with a note that NotGPLPress happens to be 100%
API compatible with Wordpress. You'd need to ensure your themes weren't cut-n-
pastes from code that is copyright Wordpress, but apart from that…

Of course, the bigger problem seems to be that (some) theme authors want to be
"part of the Wordpress community", presumably largely for professional and
monetary reasons, while ignoring that "the Wordpress community" is strongly
reliant on (and fundamentally beholden too) Automatic, and they can (and do)
place expectations on the behaviours of participants in "the community", and
they can (and now are) requiring that participants at events they run comply
with those expectations. If you want to be "part of a community" which is
reliant on one company, you probably need to play by their rules, even if you
can whip out your rules-lawyer hat and claim "but those rules aren't strict
interpretations of 'the law'".

