WordPress.org bans Themeforest members from participating in official WordCamp gatherings

Whoops, sorry. Links to correct post though.

hexahedron said

CodingJack said
So here’s how ThemeForest can get around this. Instead of offering direct downloads, they can just sell a subscription to a “download service” run by a third party. Then they’d just be selling a “service” and the two situations would be exactly the same.

Letting buyers download the theme is distribution. I’m not sure how else a stock themes marketplace can operate.

Going to have to disagree. Selling a “token” that can be used on another site for whatever purpose is not distribution. Obviously this wouldn’t happen but I’m just trying to illustrate the hypocrisy.

hexahedron said

WordPress.org is not a marketplace for stock themes. And no, “commercial” page is a bad comparison.

Are you saying you cannot upload your theme to the wordpress.org repository ? Sure you can. Regarding commerce, this is what they say:

Commercial versions of free Themes (i.e. “freemium” or “up-sell” Themes) are required to be released under GPL-compatible licenses Commercial versions of free Themes must not lock core WordPress features behind the commercial paywall Up-sell Themes may be subjected to more rigorous or additional Theme-Review requirements, at the discretion of the Theme Review Team

Typps said
Are you saying you cannot upload your theme to the wordpress.org repository ? Sure you can. Regarding commerce, this is what they say:

Commercial versions of free Themes (i.e. “freemium” or “up-sell” Themes) are required to be released under GPL-compatible licenses Commercial versions of free Themes must not lock core WordPress features behind the commercial paywall Up-sell Themes may be subjected to more rigorous or additional Theme-Review requirements, at the discretion of the Theme Review Team

What I was saying is WordPress.org repository is not a platform where you can sell stock themes. Sure, you can go the freemium model but that’s not really like ThemeForest, is it? You’d be using the repository as a marketing tool only.

CodingJack said
Going to have to disagree. Selling a “token” that can be used on another site for whatever purpose is not distribution. Obviously this wouldn’t happen but I’m just trying to illustrate the hypocrisy.

But that token does what? If some custom functionality is locked outside the theme that can only be accessed via API key, then I agree, it’s not distribution and GPL doesn’t apply (to that custom functionality) because you didn’t give the source code. If the token is an access to downloading the source code, that’s distribution.

hexahedron said
What I was saying is WordPress.org repository is not a platform where you can sell stock themes. Sure, you can go the freemium model but that’s not really like ThemeForest, is it? You’d be using the repository as a marketing tool only.

Ah true, it’s not the same indeed.

hexahedron said
If the token is an access to downloading the source code, that’s distribution.

Not exactly. But it’s a silly topic to debate Here are my arguments:

• Jake shouldn’t be penalized for making an honest living.
• If WordPress wants to enforce its own view of GPL that’s their choice. But they should lead by example with regards to WordPress.com

I also don’t think it would be a bad idea for Envato to add a “100% GPL” licensing option. Personally I’m happy with the split-licensing, but there’s no no harm in letting authors choose their own path.

CodingJack said

hexahedron said
If the token is an access to downloading the source code, that’s distribution.

Not exactly. But it’s a silly topic to debate Here are my arguments:

• Jake shouldn’t be penalized for making an honest living.
• If WordPress wants to enforce it’s own view of GPL that’s their choice. But they should lead by example with regards to WordPress.com

Part of my problem with this issue(even though Jake wasnt singled out) is they havent fully enforced their own polices on others who violate the same rules they used for banning Jake, maybe it just a time will tell and Jake was the first.

using WordPress.com isn’t subject to GPL as its a service and the code isnt being distributed. Think of custom client sites the code/images/etc arent being distributed though it fall under(Work for Hire)

Oh and wordpress.com isnt ran by the WordPress Foundation its ran by Automattic though those two entities are so closely related it seams they are the same but they are different (I made that same mismenteripitation)

OrganicBeeMedia said
using WordPress.com isn’t subject to GPL as its a service and the code isnt being distributed. Think of custom client sites the code/images/etc arent being distributed though it fall under(Work for Hire)

Just to clarify the point I think others are trying to make on this:

The CSS and artwork of a theme are also not subject to the GPL, but apparently applying a different license to them violates the spirit of the GPL. I believe people here are trying to say that by WordPress.com not distributing their themes as 100% GPL (or at all), they are violating the same “spirit” of the GPL. The “chain of innovation”, as Caldazar puts it, is stopped.

Correct me if I’m wrong there.

SyamilMJ said
On last 3.5.1 update there is already a “don’t buy non-GPL themes” notice for the users (not sure if it’s been there since forever, but I just noticed).

The paragraph you’re referring to was actually added to WordPress core on 12th May 2011. Which, incidentally, is also around the time Envato was no longer allowed to sponsor WordCamps.

Japh said
The CSS and artwork of a theme are also not subject to the GPL, but apparently applying a different license to them violates the spirit of the GPL. I believe people here are trying to say that by WordPress.com not distributing their themes as 100% GPL (or at all), they are violating the same “spirit” of the GPL. The “chain of innovation”, as Caldazar puts it, is stopped.

The counter-argument, which seems to be the legally valid one is “Does it in theory work standalone, without wordpress?” CSS & JS stuff does, so it’s not wordpress and does not fall under Mullenweg’s copyright.

But I get the feeling this guy’s about something else anyways: Envato not letting the authors and copyright holders choose their licence as they see fit. I think the term he used was that being ‘evil’. And he mentioned that Envato at least allowing authors to go full GPL might be the compromise he was willing to settle the dispute. (As some may know, this happens to be the deal-breaker for me also.)

Caldazar said
But I get the feeling this guy’s about something else anyways: Envato not letting the authors and copyright holders choose their licence as they see fit. I think the term he used was that being ‘evil’. And he mentioned that Envato at least allowing authors to go full GPL might be the compromise he was willing to settle the dispute. (As some may know, this happens to be the deal-breaker for me also.)

For what it’s worth, after having followed this thread, I too see the usefulness of having GPL as opt-in. If i had seemed contrary, it is because I got carried away with the points I was trying to make, not that it is of importance now, but I think it is fair I clarify my stance on this

Great thread BTW, many mixed feelings and so many points of view!