DomainPawnshop

You can somehow come up with that interpretation if you like.

I do not.

I believe exactly as I (and many other more qualified individuals and organizations) have stated about plugins and themes. I also believe that restrictive licenses on premium plugins are a DOUBLE violation of the GPL. And, I believe that those benefiting the most from WordPress have some duty to protect it, and that that is not being done.

That’s what I believe.

I do, however, appreciate your wish for my weekend and would extend a reciprocal gesture in return.

Oh brother.

The only story that Otto’s post might end is one that demonstrates the scope of the problem and the lack of response to complaints like mine.

Consider:

(1) Matt Mullenweg was quick to point out to Chris Pearson (of Thesis Themes) the following:

“It’s just that anyone violating the license is disrespectful to thousands of people that built WordPress and all of the other businesses that have respect for WordPress’ license.“

“Well, if in the WordPress community people started deciding that the GPL doesn’t apply that’s a very, very slippery slope. Not just for WordPress but for all of open source. Like you said, there hasn’t been a court case yet in the United States because every company, including big ones like Cisco, have backed down. If Chris wants to be the court case that proves the GPL, I am sure there are many people in the open source community that would love that opportunity.“

(2) The GPL states “If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.“

(3) The Free Software Foundation (FSF) and the Software Freedom Law Center (SFLC) have rendered an opinion that WordPress themes and plugins are derivative of WordPress and therefore must necessarily inherit WordPress’ GPL.

(4) US Copyright law defines a “derivative work” as follows: A “derivative work” is a work based upon one or more preexisting works, such as a translation, musical arrangement, dramatization, fictionalization, motion picture version, sound recording, art reproduction, abridgment, condensation, or any other form in which a work may be recast, transformed, or adapted. A work consisting of editorial revisions, annotations, elaborations, or other modifications, which, as a whole, represent an original work of authorship, is a “derivative work”.

Yet Otto, a core WordPress contributor, today declares…

“Now, their pay version may not be GPL, but it doesn’t have to be. If it’s not in our repository, they can use whatever terms they like.“

Jeeze, I can’t imagine why there’s so much confusion about these issues.

@mauricius Okay. Yes, I see in theory that it is possible to have a situation where duel licensing would make a difference – but I haven’t seen it in the repository. You do not have that situation in any instance I have seen (nor in the instance that prompted the start of this post) where the plugin was introduced on day one with two versions, having two segregated development efforts. Instead, they have been released as GPL and developed in concert with public input and often specific code contributions, and then, subsequently, that previously licensed, released and distributed GPL software is forked into a commercial, proprietary plugin. It may be a subtle distinction, but I do not see that as complying with the original GPL terms.

Also, for yet a final clarification, I fully support paying for access, installation, support, modification, or any other profit-bearing non-GPL-intruding strategy an author might adopt.

And last but not least, a Report feature would be an easy way for admins to judge community response to an authors behavior, just as the Rate feature is an easy way for the public to judge the community’s impression of the quality of a plugin. There is no pornographic aspect to the suggestion.

Hopefully we can just agree that we don’t agree, as this really is it for me on this post.

@webtechglobal Good ideas for the community to decide – trade-offs for access, how premium services are presented in the repository, etc. And again, my issue is with license restrictions – not access, installation, support, modification fees, or any other manifestation of profit that surrounds plugins.

@mauricius I’m a fairly positive individual, but it does dampen one’s spirits when I awaken to see that – with little direct discussion of the issues I raise – I have been mocked and berated for expressing my opinions.

And since the horse is surely dead by now, I do hate to beat it further, but I simply fail to see how a concurrent license can eliminate my rights under the original GPL license.

What, exactly, is the action, declaration, or whatever that you believe gives an author the legal ability to make a modified GPL plugin into proprietary software and eliminate the public’s right to modify and distribute it?

@esmi That is what I will do; this will be my last post on the matter. Still, with the rapid increase in such activity, I stand by my “Report” idea.

@mauricius – Your folderol is tedious. That my writing amuses you is of no consequence to the facts of the matter. All the justification in the world can not legitimize violation of the GPL license. And lest we forget, PUBLIC is the license’s middle name. It’s not the Whatever Sounds Fair to You license or the Nobody Else is Complaining So Shut Up license, it is the GNU GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE. It is a well thought-out, written document that defines the rights of the public to legally copy, distribute and/or modify the software under which it is released. Or in the exact words of the license document:

“Developers that use the GNU GPL protect your rights with two steps:
(1) assert copyright on the software, and (2) offer you this License
giving you legal permission to copy, distribute and/or modify it.”

@jan Dembowski – I’ll leave the intricacies of relational logistics to those like yourself that understand them. I will say, however, that little is done to dispel the idea that Matt, Automattic, et.al. is an appropriate address. (See the MA.TT blog post https://ma.tt/2012/09/future-of-work/ and the article it points to https://www.forbes.com/sites/jjcolao/2012/09/05/the-internets-mother-tongue/ )

I would assert that debating to whom complaints are addressed is a distraction from the merits of the complaints. And the complaints in this matter are quite clear: (1) the repository is being used in a manner that is commercial in nature, and; (2) taking GPL code (for example, a plugin) and converting it to a commercially licensed proprietary piece of software (say, a “premium” plugin) is a violation of the rights I, as a member of the public, was granted in the original code.

Selling access to GPL code, selling support and other peripheral services for GPL code, charging a fee to modify GPL code, and any other number of activities are not the basis of my complaints. The basis of my complaints are vested in the rights conveyed in the original GPL releases of such software. More and more plugin authors are not only claiming (or implying by restriction) that these modified plugins are proprietary, but are using the repository to market this corruption of the GPL.

I regularly purchase access to support and updates (modifications) of WordPress themes and plugins. But my choice to do so does not enhance or diminish my rights under the GPL. And I would have those same rights had a friend conveyed the software to me after she paid for access to it. These are the rights established when the code is licensed under the GPL.

This is the intended focus of my complaints. So if in those points you see errors in my views, please do explain them, as I thought the GPL was quite clear on modification and the distribution (or conveyance) of modified GPL software.

If, however, I am anywhere close to correct, surely my example of the “All-in-One Event Calendar” license (https://pastebin.com/embed_iframe.php?i=aTJV7HAp) should have been adequate to illustrate the basis for my complaints. And either way, I feel as though I am contributing to the community by taking time to express theses view for the community to consider, as well as pointing these issues out and demanding some response from whomever will claim to be WordPress.

I would close by adding that each plugin in the repository has an easy way to “Favorite” the plugin, “Rate” the plugin, “Donate” to the plugin, and “Vote” for the plugin – perhaps it is time for a “Report” the plugin option.

Agreed. It is getting destructive.

If you provide services, consultation, support, static resources, etc, then obviously that is what you are charging for with your membership. Someone running off and giving away the code is just part of the deal you entered when you signed on to GPL.

There are other instances where plugins are completely based on serving as a tool to allow WordPress to interact with external SAAS applications. The fact that the GPL code in these plugins may be worthless without the SAAS is academic. But if in either instance you are selling a plugin and claim the code itself is commercial and proprietary in nature, then you are at odds with WordPress’ official position on the matter.

That is, Automattic asserts the following:

“If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means the plug-ins must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.”

The support and update model really is the alternative here. StudioPress has shown that with good support and community you can make money on GPL. And maybe WordPress should publish a breakdown of how to do this in a way that is compatible with GPL. Something that’s constructive instead of a head-in-the-sand approach.

But without the slightest hint of enforcement, the dilution of the repository (and the concept of GPL, for that matter) is inevitable. Maybe they have made enough money that they no longer care about the GPL, but by allowing this behavior on their own site, they go beyond indifference and actually contribute to the problem.

Specifically, if they (Matt, Automattic, et.al.) intend to openly allow commercial themes and plugins, they should revise their position (above) on licensing and create another (commercial) area for them. If they are going to continue to maintain the position that WordPress themes and plugins must be GPL – yet not enforce license violations – they need to at least force the sellers of such code off their site and make it more difficult for them to sell “commercial” WordPress products.

This is rampant and will destroy the repository as we know it.

Seems like every time you go to load a plugin, you get a sales pitch for the “real” PREMIUM plugin. More and more people are either abandoning their GPL work or marginally maintaining it as come-on sales tool for their new “premium” alternative.

And by the way, how do you purport to have a commercially licensed plugin when it was derived from the original GPL code? What exactly are the GPL provisions for transforming the GPL code into these new commercial editions? I don’t see that in the GPL license documents, but maybe someone can point it out.

For a real eye-opener, take a look at the “All-in-One Event Calendar”. They don’t even bother mentioning (in the repository text or their website) that by “upgrading” you supposedly abandon your GPL rights. And when they were asked directly, they refused to answer, then claimed a 99% GPL / 1% commercial mixture. (See https://help.time.ly/customer/en/portal/questions/484885-how-is-your-license-valid-not-a-violation-of-the-wordpress-?new=484885) Ridiculous indeed.

In another prime example of bait-and-switch marketing, check ou the “WordPress Advanced Ticket System”. Their repository plugin includes more non-functioning features than functioning features (“This feature only available in the premium version.”). And as if that weren’t enough, the plugin instals a link in your WordPress home page footer that links to their “premium” plugin!

These practices should be stopped before the entire repository turns into an up-selling market. Furthermore, the lack of enforcement of license restrictions encourages the transformation of GPL code into proprietary commercial code and discourages future GPL development.

Right, but what about the “premium” version?

Is it GPL or just derived from it?

Well also, as is more and more the case, the repository version is their primary introduction to the “premium” version. This sheds an entirely new light on not only getting downloaded, but also selling an “updates and support” premium (or Pro in this case) version. More and more, these “premium” versions are claiming commercial licenses for the derivative “premium” plugin. Basically, the repository is not-so-slowly turning into a bait-and-switch zone. And, so long as nobody bothers to enforce the GPL license (Hey Automatic, can you spare a dime?) it will only worsen as authors feel more and more foolish for not having a commercial “premium” version.

What about the “premium” version? Is it GPL or just derived from it?

I agree. It’s abandoned, superseded, and serves little purpose beyond promoting a commercial product; get it out of here.