Jane Wells posted some new guidelines for WordCamp organizers and its raised quite a kerfuffle in the community.
Before I get into this, let me offer up a bit of background on my own involvement with conferences and events of all shapes. I’ve attended multiple WordCamps, both as a speaker and a participant. I’ve also helped organize BarCampOrlando, was involved with the first DrupalCamp Florida, and attended a number of other BarCamps and unconferences all over the country. I even booked and promoted concerts in a past life.
Let’s just say I’ve got a bit more Event Planning experience than your average bear, and have half a clue about what goes into making a good event great.
Here’s what I took away from the recent guidelines and along the way I’ll offer up a few assumptions of what I think are the motivations behind them, and what my interpretation of the guidelines are. This is by no means exhaustive nor is it intended to address anyone’s concerns directly.
What Automattic, as shepherds of the WordPress project, is trying to do is protect the integrity of the WordCamp “trademark” and ensuring that attendees get a consistent experience no matter which WordCamp event they attend.
Insisting that the content of the conference be solely about WordPress ensures that folks get what they paid for.
Insisting that they are stand-alone events ensures conference goers a quality experience. I’ve been to WordCamp events that played second fiddle to a larger BarCamp conference, and frankly it felt tacked on and sucked more than a little.
Insisting that organizers, speakers and sponsors be aligned with the WordPress philosophy and respectful of the GPL ensures that the community comes first, and commercial interests a distant second.
Trust me, I speak at conferences to do one thing: Educate my audience. In the course of teaching them, undoubtedly someone talks to me after my session and wants to hire me. This is why I do it, and I make no bones about that fact, and the guidelines were not created to address this issue. My presentations are by no means sales pitches, but I find that there is no greater form of marketing for a developer than showing potential clients how my brain works and how deep my knowledge goes.
However, as you are probably aware, there is a long standing battle between Matt Mullenweg/Automattic/WordPress and various premium theme and plugin authors – most notably Thesis and diythemes, and their interpretation of whether or not themes and plugins should be considered derivative works of the project and therefore are required to be released under the same license. The official WordPress Foundation stance is that they are indeed derivative works, and I agree 100%. My plugins or themes can not be run in any stand alone fashion since they make extensive use of functions and APIs that are provided by the host system and are intended solely to modify the behavior of WordPress. I see this policy as just another aspect of the battle for the soul of the GPL as applied to WordPress (so to speak) and nothing more. Asking that these types of organizations not be sponsors or speakers or organizers is just an extension of this debate.
Take Microsoft for example, which has been thrown around as a strawman in this debate. The company produces proprietary and non-GPL products left and right and has a long history of anti-open source moves (FUD Campaigns, etc). However, their actions in the WP Community have been nothing but in line with the project’s philosophy and the GPL. They’ve released code, submitted patches, and are generally working with the WordPress community on many levels to ensure that WordPress works flawlessly on their server software, can utilize their database technology and that their cloud services can support one of the most sought after web publishing tools out there. They’re good community citizens, and the past sponsorship of WordCamp events (and I hope future events) shouldn’t be curtailed just because they make most of their money from proprietary software.
The actions of some other members of the community stand in stark contrast to those of Microsoft in a number of ways. They’ve been antagonistic to the point of being mean and still wrongly (in my opinion) insist that themes/plugins are not derivative works of WordPress and hence don’t have to abide by the GPL.
Compare this with the Shopp plugin for which I paid $300 for a developer’s license. What I really bought was ongoing support and upgrades and to support the project, and while you still can’t just download a copy with out paying, the code is still licensed under the GPL (implicitly and explicitly). This means that I can fork it or do whatever I want with the actual code, as is my right under the GPL. I wouldn’t, since that would be kind of a dick move and would harm a small independent developer’s ability to make money for his hard work, but there is nothing really stopping me other than common decency.
Same goes for community members, such as WooThemes, who charge for membership to a ‘club’ and for support and other goodies rather than the code itself. Many of their themes are even straight up free (as in beer and as in speech). This is one of the reasons why I think their menu manager code was eventually donated to the WordPress Core. They are a shining example of the kinds of actions a good community citizen makes.
The bottom line is that WordCamps are seen as official WordPress conferences and only share some of the DNA with the BarCamp unconferences that inspired the name, so its in their right to make some requests to ensure the integrity of the ‘brand’ the WordCamp name has come to represent. Don’t like the rules? Then don’t just call it a WordCamp.
Remember, this project (much like Linux) is run by a benevolent dictator with the community’s best interests in mind. It is, however, still a dictatorship. At least it’s the nice folks on the WordPress core team (not all of them Automattic employees mind you) doing the dictating and not this guy:
Richard Stallman - Open Source Ideologue
Well said.
The problem is the requirement isn’t “respectful of the GPL” it’s “Promotes the philosophies behind WordPress” and requires that their company be GPL compliant as well.
That’s drastically different than asking presenters or sponsors not to rip the GPL from stage or something.
It’s obviously “their” conference(even though it’s supposed to be about the community) and they can do as they please. But this is one more attack by Matt and Automattic against anyone that dares disagree with them about the GPL.
The GPL is a license, and until it’s settled in court is open to interpretation. Saying GPL compliant is NOT the same as saying “fits in the mold of what Matt or Automattic think the GPL means”.
They’re constantly preaching about openness and freedoms, but you apparently don’t have the freedom to express any differing opinions about the GPL if you still want to be a part of the WordPress community that’s controlled by Automattic.
The GPL is pretty clear cut, and a legally binding document. There isn’t a lot of room for interpretation. And while there is no case law that has forced this issue to a definitive decision, only a small vocal minority seem to feel differently about how its applied to WordPress in regards to the question of themes and plug-ins being derivative or not.
This is true. But there is the GPL and then there is the WordPress.org’s repository policy which has it’s own set of rules above and beyond the GPL. For instance, technically themes can be dual licensed (php can be GPL and the images/css/js could be proprietary). Even Matt has said so. However, the WordPress.org policy is themes must be 100% GPL.
So in the WordPress world things ARE open to interpretation because there is the GPL and then there is WordPress.org policy on theme and plugin licensing.
HOWEVER, that being said… Jane did say that the WordPress.org repository policy does NOT apply in this situation.
The repository needs stricter standards to protect users, but the GPL itself is what we’re talking about here, and I’m not confusing the two.
Eric,
I’ve seen at least one lawyer present very compelling arguments against Matt’s interpretation of the GPL and where it applies.
As for those of us that don’t feel themes fall under the umbrella, we are certainly a small group but that’s only because it only impacts a small number of people.
I’ve read that post too and I really don’t think he knows what the hell he is talking about.
Show me a theme that can run, without modification and without WordPress, and I might be inclined to agree. However, at this point there is no such theme and if you are using even wp_head() in your theme, you need to be GPL.
I don’t really want to get into the whole what GPL is issue again.
The point is, that there are just as qualified legal arguments made against GPL applying to WordPress as there have been for it.
Matt got a lawyer to say what he wanted and somehow that’s the gold standard?
> Matt got a lawyer to say what he wanted and somehow that’s the gold standard?
I’ve yet to hear an argument, legal or otherwise, that would dissuade me to think that themes or plugins can be anything but derivative works.
But at the end of the day, its not like those who feel differently about this issue are barred from making money that way — they just aren’t invited to any of the WordPress parties (so to speak).
The GPL is clear cut, but saying that a theme framework is dependent on wordpress is an insult to the theme framweork. It’s like saying that Microsoft owns all templates created for use in Word. Or that sherwin williams owns all things painted.
Expressing things in wordpress is just that: putting ideas in place. WorPress can’t own all the good ideas that happen on its platform because it’s then usurping and taking credit for the work of others, and putting a boot on the neck of innovation.
The GPL isn’t about ownership. At ALL. Its about ensuring that the next guy has the same freedoms you were given to ‘express yourself’ as you put it.
The only issues I have with the policy is the vagueness and lack of clarification. It came across as a blanket statement. Anyone involved, including speakers and sponsors, must be GPL compliant.
What isn’t clear is does this mean Matt Cutts, noted Google SEO expert, now barred from speaking at a WordCamp because his blog is powered by Thesis which is a non-GPL theme? He’s spoken at WordCamps, including San Francisco. Does this mean he is now blacklisted?
Does this mean Chris Brogan is also barred from speaking at future WordCamps because his blog is powered by a non-GPL theme?
Does it only apply to the people selling and distributing non-GPL products? Or does it apply to all users of non-GPL WordPress products?
What about BuySellAds. If they wanted to sponsor a WordCamp, does this mean they are barred from doing so because their advertising network may include ads for non-GPL WordPress products?
What about a hosting provider like GoDaddy. They do sponsor WordCamps yet they probably have more GPL violations of anyone do to all the sites that they host for people that use non-GPL WordPress products. Does this apply to them?
They shouldn’t get bent out of shape when people ask questions about policies they are forcing on the community. This isn’t a flame war. These are legitimate questions that need to be answered.
The logical conclusions you are putting forth seem more than a little forced.
Should DIYThemes be allowed to organize, speak at, or sponsor a WordCamp? No.
Should users of their products be barred from doing the same? No.
There is a big difference between promoting a GPL-does-not-apply-to-me attitude and using a theme you like.
Yes, but what if that user of the Thesis theme has an affiliate link and ad for Thesis on their blog? Therefore they would be promoting a non-GPL WordPress product. This isn’t unusual as people like Chris Brogan DO in fact promote the fact that they use Thesis.
My example of BuySellAds is also valid. Numerous non-GPL WordPress products advertise on blogs via the BuySellAds network so they aid in promoting non-GPL WordPress products. Does this policy apply if BuySellAds wanted to sponsor a WordCamp?
My questions are valid, and are not forced. This is why organizations such as WordPress need clear, concise written policies rather than vague policies made via blog posts. The advantage of vague policies is you can pick and choose how you want to enforce it… which may be what they prefer but isn’t an open way of doing things.
I hope we’re not barred from sponsoring some WordCamps
We love WP and us forcing WP ideals on our ad network is a bit like playing “God”, and that’s obviously not something we do. It’s up to our publishers to decide which ads they will and will not allow, not our decision. We’re actually sponsoring a WordCamp attendee in a few weeks, paying for him to get to the show and such, and I’d hate for something like this to prevent this individual from attending (and wearing out t-shirt). Definitely needs some clarification…
My personal opinion? You provide a service and aren’t (necessarily) responsible for the content on that network (with in reason). I would say that you’re in the clear. Like Nacin said in his comment, that GPL portion of the policy is for the anti-GPL crowd and nothing more. The rest of the ‘gray area’ arguments seem a little far fetched to me. Users of non-GPL themes/plugins are just using add-ons they like. Its the antagonistic attitude of those developers that could poison a WordCamp, and at the end of the day these policies are to ensure quality not dictate how we think.
Thanks for your comment!
And yet, that very thing happens, in the wordpress.org Extend theme/plugin repositories. A developer can submit a 100% GPL plugin or theme, and if the developer’s personal web site has so much as a positive mention of Thesis or DIYThemes, his 100% GPL contribution will be rejected.
The WordPress Foundation, which holds the registered trademark for WordCamp (and the trademark (and as applicable, copyright) for WordPress) and is responsible for the policy regarding authorized use of the WordCamp trademark, is also responsible for the wordpress.org web site.
So, why is it so extraordinary for one to be concerned that the same de facto policy that is applied to the wordpress.org Extend plugin/theme repositories will be applied to enforcement of the WordCamp trademark?
P.S. – Grey areas (like the buy/sell ads) should seek clarification from the WPF first.
Here’s the rub: the WordPress Foundation controls both the WordCamp trademark (and therefore, the policy for its authorized use) and the WordPress trademark (and, as applicable, copyright), including wordpress.org – and, therefore, the wordpress.org Extend plugin/theme repositories.
Currently, the de facto policy regarding the wordpress.org Extend plugin/theme repositories is to deny submissions from anyone so much as promoting or using a non-GPL theme (the usual culprit is Thesis). The result is that submissions that are 100% GPL are rejected simply because the developer advertises, uses, or otherwise promotes other, unrelated, non-GPL themes/plugins.
So, why is it unreasonable to suspect that the same de facto policy will find its way into enforcement of the WordCamp trademark authorized use policy, considering that the same entity oversees and controls both?
IMO, it is a perfectly reasonable concern to express.
Amazing post – you nailed it
How will this effect folks like me that create custom themes that are unique to a client? The themes aren’t redistributed, and most of them couldn’t be since they are created to only work on the site I build around them using WordPress as the backbone. I don’t actually do any official licensing, I just design a site, code it to work with WordPress, and get paid. Am I an anti GPL developer? Would I still be allowed to speak at WordCamps?
I’m confused.
Also, is WordCamp really trademarked?
The GPL only goes into effect when the themes you give to a client are then redistributed. Since no redistribution is occurring, this is a non issue for you.
As for the trademark, there was word a year or so ago about the term being trademarked. If it’s not already, it will be and most likely will be under the direction of the WordPress Foundation.
GPL doesn’t need to come into play if you aren’t releasing the code. Selling your services as a theme designer or developer is a different ball of wax from selling a commercial theme (over and over again) and arguing that you are ‘above’ the GPL. As someone who makes 60% of my income from WordPress related development and consulting, and has spoken at an Automattic sanctioned WordCamp, you would be allowed to organize/speak at/sponsor a WordCamp under these guidelines, just as I can in the future.
WordCamp is not necessarily trademarked (as far as I know) but in people’s minds they are becoming synonymous with the WordPress project in an official type of way and care should be taken to ensure that the events live up to the highest quality standards possible.
Thanks for clearing that up. I have built a lot of success recently speaking at WordCamps and like events, so I was beginning to sweat.
As for the trademarking, it seems like they can’t make rules about something they don’t own. Unless they have a legal ownership over the name, I could technically hold a scrabble convention and call it WordCamp.
Also, it seems to have been brought up that the WordCamp presentations should only be about WordPress, but I was just at WordCamp San Francisco where one of Automattic’s employees gave a great presentation on “Living with Your Computer, and Keeping it Healthy.” Never once did he mention WordPress, or even blogging, for that matter. So.. it doesn’t seem like they being a stickler in that area.
I just looked up the trademark via the USPTO website and indeed, WordCamp has been trademarked under the WordPress Foundation Corporation and was filed in December of 2009.
Organizing, Promoting, Conducting, and Sponsoring of Events and Meetings in the Field of Blogging and Internet Publishing; Consulting Services, Namely, Facilitating Third-Party Organization of Events and Meetings in the Field of Blogging and Internet Publishing. FIRST USE: 20060805. FIRST USE IN COMMERCE: 20060805
ah, mystery solved. Thanks for looking that up.
If you do not distribute your themes, you are not beholden to the GPL.
Also, yes, the WordPress Foundation holds the trademark registration for “WordCamp”.
Creating a custom WordPress theme for a client does not impact your ability to organize/attend/speak at any WordCamp. The custom theme is only being used by your client, not being publicly distributed. It does not make you an anti-GPL developer.
Re: your question about WordCamp being trademarked. There was a trademark application filed on December 30, 2009 by the WordPress Foundation for “WordCamp”:
http://www.trademarkia.com/wordcamp-77902996.html
After the Virtual WordCamp debacle last year, suggestions were made that the name “WordCamp” should be trademarked in order to protect the use of it.
Thanks for that link Kim. I figured such a thing was in the works, but didn’t bother doing the research. (Typical blogger move
)
I should point out that I am NOT trying to pick on DIYThemes and Thesis specifically, they are just a good example of what not being GPL-Compliant looks like.
I released all my premium themes and plugins as GPL, and I don’t have a problem with that. But, this WordCamp statement is another one rushed and not well thought out announcement of Automattic. As Carl pointed out, such policy will eliminate just about everyone except of companies making GPL plugins and themes from sponsorship and participating even if those companies have no direct connection to WordPress (hosting companies, advertising companies).
I expect that we will soon get another announcement that clarifies the previous one, but once again something like that will be another late response from Automattic that again make them look like dictators in charge of the amazing project that WordPress surely is.
Next time, Automattic people should sit and discuss such public announcements before releasing them, because this will once again get a negative publicity that is not good for the comunity.
Milan, they are dictators. Did you not get to the bottom of my post?
As for clarification, I don’t feel any was needed, and seeing how my write-up of it is being received I’m not the only one that feels this way.
As much as I love WordPress, I don’t like where all the things with Automattic are going. 100% of my income is from WordPress premium plugins and themes and work I do for clients, and I don’t plan to switch to other platform, but all negativity raised by Automattic will be bad for business. And just today, an long time client asked me what the hell is going on again with WordPress, he read some comments today also on WordCamp. Bottom line is that if things continue this way, business based on WordPress will suffer.
LOL all the bad negativity to Automattic would be bad for their business, WordPress.com and owned services. Not WordPress.org. I think because it’s Jane Wells who is employed by Automattic, you’re considering this announcement Automattic created. You don’t think Jane had talks with Matt before publishing something like this? In my experience, where there is a Jane, there is a Matt. They talk about things all the time and I imagine this announcement and revised guidelines definitely got the OK by Matt himself. I don’t know for sure but I’m willing to wager on it.
I guess you are right. Matt definitively approved the announcement. I really hope that there will be some changes (either in their attitude towards the community, or even in leadership) in Automattic, and soon, because I sure don’t like the way things are going.
Can you elaborate more on your thoughts on this? Having been around this project for a while I can only say that both WordPress, and my consulting business along with it, has thrived under his leadership.
The negative publicity is being stirred by people who are radically anti-GPL and everything it stands for, precisely the people this policy would prevent from disrupting WordCamps and the WordPress license and philosophy with sponsorshops and presentations.
This policy — which consists of “then don’t call it a WordCamp” for enforcement — would not affect companies, unless they are releasing and non-GPL plugins and themes. If they’re not releasing any plugins or themes, then of course they are fine.
Blanket generalizations are rarely helpful. Not everyone expressing concerns regarding the WordCamp trademark policy is “radically anti-GPL and everything it stands for”. How do I know this? Because I’m one of the people expressing concerns. Because two of my acquaintances – OneFineJay and Skitzzo – are two others. They have probably been among the most vocal. Neither is “radically anti-GPL and everything it stands for.” Who else has voiced concern? Carl Hancock? He also is not “radically anti-GPL and everything it stands for.”
I’m not “radically anti-GPL and everything it stands for.” Every plugin I’ve written and/or released has been released under GPL. When my theme meets my standard for release, it also will be released under GPL.
I am not intrinsically opposed to the GPL. To the contrary, I’m quite pragmatic about the GPL. The GPL is a copyright license – and nothing more. The GPL doesn’t “stand for” anything beyond its purpose of a copyright license. (Free Software philosophy? Yes. Open-Source philosophy? Yes. GPL? No.)
I am, however, opposed to what I perceive to be a radical pursuit of ideological purity regarding the so-called “spirit of the GPL” and free-software philosophy, especially while simultaneously claiming a desire to be an inclusive community.
Reasonable people can and do disagree regarding the matter of GPL inheritance, and until someone takes it to court, the matter remain unsettled. Any assertions to the contrary are simply the opinion of the one making the assertion. To claim otherwise is both incorrect and unwise.
For that reason, I do not support the active antagonism against (and practical banishment from the community of) any and every third-party developer who merely chooses not to release their WordPress themes/plugins under GPL. Not every such developer is evil. Those developers with malevolent intent will manifest that intent in plenty of other ways.
I’m not one such developer. Everything I’ve released has been GPL, and everything I release in the future will be GPL. My actions conform to stated WordPress requirements, although my reasons may or may not conform to the “WordPress philosophy”. More and more, it appears that someone in my situation will eventually not be welcome.
At least, that concern is furthered by rhetoric that would speciously generalize an entire group of people as “radically anti-GPL and everything it stands for.”
There is a difference between being inclusive and bowing to the whims of every new developer. Projects like these are generally the vision of one guy. For Linux it was Linus, for WordPress its Matt. Nothing gets into the kernel with out Linus’ blessing, etc. Now that’s not to say that this is the best way to manage it and try to encourage new blood and old to continue to volunteer their time and energy to improving on that vision.
Even if its a matter of opinion of where the GPL inheritance buck stops, I don’t think that the exclusion of those who choose to not only go a different route, and tend to be antagonistic about it, is not all that far fetched (or even unfair).
Other than the official repositories and as speakers/sponsors/organizers of WordCamp events is there any other systematic exclusion of commercial developers (as one commenter called them) in the community that I don’t know about?
False dichotomy. Resisting an agenda of ideological purity does not imply that every conceivable ideology should be accepted. The GPL establishes a certain framework (namely, copyright) that bounds acceptable limits.
You’re conflating two separate issues here: core contribution versus community acceptance.
Regarding core contributions, WordPress is and always has been a dictatorship (I liken it to Ubuntu/Canonical). No issues there. It works.
However, regarding the community, WordPress tries to have it both ways: claiming all the benefits, privileges, etc. of being a “community” project, while at the same time exercise strict control – and, with respect to the “WordPress philosophy”, ideological purity – over that community.
It is not merely those who antagonistically challenge GPL inheritance, but rather all who fail to fall lock-step in line with one particular – and unproven – interpretation of the GPL (an interpretation that, by its own admission, goes beyond the letter of the license, and in so doing, ironically, contradicts itself by denying certain freedoms protected by the license itself).
How is advertising, affiliate-linking, or even merely mentioning Thesis an act of antagonistic opposition to the GPL?
There are those who would say that I am antagonistic, for nothing more than merely pointing out that interpretations regarding GPL inheritance differ, and that the matter remains unsettled.
What more is there? Even 100% GPL plugins for which developers charge get no mention on wordpress.org (unlike their theme brethren).
No access to the gold-standard plugin/theme repository. No access to advertising or mere mention on the personal web sites of any developer who wants his plugins/themes to be accessible in the repository. Now, no opportunity to organize, sponsor, or speak at a WordCamp. So, again: what more is there? There aren’t a whole lot of things left to take away:
Core contributions? I think it is safe to assume that a Trac patch from a non-GPL plugin/theme developer would be treated with suspicion at best, and derision at worst.
That pretty much leaves access to wordpress.org (forum/extend profiles). I can’t think of much more.
I still don’t buy the GPL doesn’t apply argument, and I probably never will. What benefit does it bring to holding to another license? What protection does it bring? There are pirated versions of every premium plugin/theme on the market. Even if you take all of the ‘penalties’ out of the equation, why would I want to use another license for my WP-related code?
I should also point out that I might ‘get it’, I am in no way speaking for WordPress/Automattic in an official way. So don’t take my word for it, but ask them if you’re in doubt.
I’ve seen this coming. And have talked to Jane about this in the past few weeks. I gladly welcome this, as it will only help to keep WordCamps like Los Angeles (which I organize) clean and fun.
Stay classy, LA.
“My plugins or themes can not be run in any stand alone fashion since they make extensive use of functions and APIs that are provided by the host system and are intended solely to modify the behavior of WordPress.”
Using this mentality to define derivative work is asinine. Consider that PHP is GPL and as such, any PHP script written makes extensive use of, wait for it, PHP. Do you consider all commercial PHP projects that encode and sell their code in violation of the GPL?
Back on topic:
“WordCamp is a conference that focuses on everything WordPress. WordCamps are informal, community-organized events that are put together by WordPress users like you. Everyone from casual users to core developers participate, share ideas, and get to know each other.” –WordCamp front page.
WordCamps cannot focus on “everything WordPress” unless commercial developers are allowed to be speakers. Like it or not, whether you subscribe to the (faulty) GPL “philosophy” of Ma.tt and the WPF or not, commercial developers are a HUGE part of the COMMUNITY. Speaking about how they do what they do is one of the ways they can give back. Sponsorship is another.
Things can either be community run, or not — but not both.
You might need to double check you facts. PHP is not GPL, but is released under the PHP License: http://www.php.net/license/3_01.txt and while a few things are compulsory when distributing code or binaries derived from the PHP codebase, there is, as far as I can tell, ZERO limitations on the distribution of code written for the PHP Interpreter. Remind me whose argument is flawed again?
As for commercial developers, as you call them, as long as they’re not in the anti-GPL crowd that I feel the new policy was meant to address, then they are free to sponsor, organize, and speak at WordCamp events. I gave two examples of pro-GPL developers that I personally have spent money with in my post. I’m sure they would be welcome at any WordCamp as a sponsor, etc.
I appreciate your comment, but let’s try not to get into name calling to make points, since it just makes us both look bad and doesn’t forward the conversation in a constructive way.
My apologies — I still remember PHP being released under the GNU GPL license, guess that stopped back in v3… I’m old. Lets reset the example and use Linux — if you write software that relies upon the Kernel API, is it derivative work?
I’m not calling YOU asinine, I am however calling your interpretation of the GPL as it applies to WordPress amazingly foolish. Where does it stop? Is it just the code, or the CSS and images as well? Since both the images and CSS are typically intended solely for the code in the theme, does your viral definition of the GPL apply to them as well?
For me it stops and ends with the two add-ons: themes and plugins. For me its a no-brainer, if its written for WordPress and you release it, it needs to be GPL.
And what has always kind of blown my mind about this whole debate is that even if the GPL was not compulsory and its just a lie Matt convinced us to believe in, would it change anything?
With or without the GPL, you can still create and charge money for derivative works. By adopting the GPL, you get the added benefit of being seen as a good citizen in the community, etc.
The Linux Kernel is a better example, but there are a few places that that argument falls down too. However, if it ships inside the Linux Kernel or with a Linux Distro, then I can (almost) guarantee the code is GPL or compatible. Indeed this is why some debian packages are stored in one repository and others in another… license conflicts.
Eric, I appreciate this post and the level-headed interpretation you’ve given it. But a lot of the specific verbiage in Jane’s post bothers me, since it lays out a black and white line of what is and isn’t OK. Yes, it was a subtle jab at the Thesis camp (which is a fight I have no interest in getting involved with, since I use Thesis on a lot of sites I build for clients, along with other ’standard’ WP sites). Her statement: “but WordCamps may not have non-GPL-compliant people as organizers, sponsors, or speakers” is a pretty stark line. I agree that there should be some gray area, but then it becomes a case-by-case basis which leads itself to a difficult situation of who is ‘ok’ and why. I agree that the intent was probably in relation to WordPress-specific products, but that wasn’t mentioned anywhere in her post or follow-up comments.
I’d like to specifically mention one company: page.ly. they provide a great service (hosted WP with back-end support). They were part of the WordCamp in San Francisco, but under these black-and-white rules it would appear as though they’d be verboten. Until recently they included Thesis as a ‘premium’ option, allow non-GPL plugins and themes to be used on their sites, and have an affiliate / reseller program. Now I’m not knocking them at all (I met them at the WP BBQ at SXSW, they’re really cool guys) but it seems like Automattic is dancing around the issue (their disdain for Thesis and other premium non-GPL themes & plugins) and creating stricter and stricter policies because of it.
The whole Thesis thing is obviously a sticky subject for them, and while I don’t personally use it, I know folks go gaga for it. However, their position on the GPL as it applies to their work is beyond a mere disagreement, and have taken a pretty aggressive pose in regards to this — to the point of being antagonistic. I’ve even seen Matt show his ass in this debate and have not always handled it in the best way possible either.
However, imagine that this debate was taken “to the streets” at a WordCamp you paid $50 (plus airfare/hotel if it wasn’t in your backyard) and disrupted an entire event just to try to force a discussion about the GPL thing? It would probably ruin that event for you and for everyone in ear shot and start to feel more like the set of the O’Reilly Factor than a place to learn more about everyone’s favorite publishing tool. This is what I think this policy is meant to avoid, especially since the official stance on how the GPL should be applied to Themes and Plugins is not up for debate (in their eyes). I just happen to agree with them, and not just because Matt said so. I’ve ready the GPL, thought through it and came to my own conclusion. The WP.org Repositories goes above and beyond the GPL, but those policies are in place for more reasons than just the GPL debate, and have more to do with protecting users from code they don’t understand doing things they wouldn’t want being done.
As for page.ly, they’re a hosting provider, and like you said pretty cool guys. They are providing a service that just happens to target the WordPress community, but aren’t really releasing anything derived from WordPress and claiming that the GPL doesn’t apply. I don’t see this policy barring them from anything.
I agree with you about the ‘taking it to the streets’ issue, and certainly don’t want to see that at an event. And I let my wife deal with legal issues, not me. However, what bothers me about the whole thing is that they’re ignoring the 600 lb gorilla in the room and trying to ‘out-policy’ it instead of just addressing it head-on. If they really care about what Thesis is doing, then address it as such. Sue’em if it matters that much.
A simple ‘don’t promote or otherwise discuss non-GPL works as interpreted by Automattic’ would have sufficed here, but instead they decided to use a scorched-earth approach (IMO) thus causing all this commotion to begin with.
I used to think that Automattic should sue them over the issue, mostly in a knee-jerk “put your money where your mouth is” kind of way. But I came to a couple of conclusions that changed my mind on the issue.
For one, there is no justice in the justice system, and it would be a huge distraction from all the other good things they keep cooking up.
My other fear is that the case wouldn’t necessarily be heard by an internet-savvy judge that would understand enough of the technical merits of the case to even give *either side* a fair shake and make an informed decision. After the gavel drops it would set case precedent and could alter the entire open source ecosystem forever and we’d all “lose”.
That is exactly why it will never happen. The guys at Thesis were begging to be sued by the WordPress Foundation for that very reason. They even offered to take it to an arbitrator to have it settled in a friendly fashion.
But it will never happen because the foundation can’t risk losing the battle in court because of the precedence it would set.
Thanks Norcross,
But we have never resold thesis. Only StudioPress and Woothemes.
- Page.ly
I’ve been mulling this whole thing over throughout the day and have been having difficulty putting my finger on what my core complaint is, but here goes my attempt at crystalizing it:
“The WordPress community, as lead by Automattic, suffers from a severe lack of meaningful, rigorously-defined communication channels.”
“…But #wordpress! Weekly IRC meetups! WP Devel! wp-hackers! Trac!” might be your rejoinder. I would argue that each of these falls down in some fairly specific ways and, as a consequence, Wordpress users, developers, themers and hangers-on are all left in the dark.
Let’s take a word that has become value-laden in the WP world and apply it here: canonical. WordPress itself uses “canonical” to denote the One True URL for all WP objects internal to the system; while “core” was eventually decided upon, “canonical” was in the running for the officially-supported and -developed plugins. It has a special meaning. Now, let’s apply that word to my statement above: what is the canonical way to communicate in the WordPress world? If one has a code-related question, how does one get an answer? Do you ask it on wp-hackers? wp-testers? In IRC? The .Org forums? StackOverflow? (haw!) Are .Org forum moderators’ opinions final?
Let’s broaden the discussion to non-code issues, such as the WordCamp one at hand. Whose word is canonical in these situations? Matt? Toni? Jane?
Do you see what I’m driving at? With no defined process for, say
1) Community conflict resolution
2) Determinations as to who gets commit rights
3) Determination of software roadmap
…then folks are left in the dark when questions arise. To whom do I speak when I want to know X? How do we, as a community, deal with Person Y and their continual disruptive behavior?
We’ve seen this play out in the WP community before, and it wasn’t pretty. We lost a whole slew of talented folks in the Habari Wars of the mid-Aughties over their “meritocratic” concerns and, while I don’t know that the community is in particular danger of splintering again, I do see many of the same concerns bubbling up again.
Today’s Twitter-Led Freak Out bears similar markings as previous ones: an announcement is made from the Automattic camp that, perhaps inarticulately expressed or incompletely explained, causes a[n] [over]reaction in the community, necessitating a response from Someone and an expenditure of serotonin by Everyone. (Side note in re: today: I know Jane is a perfectly wonderful woman — met her and she seemed a completely decent sort. However, there’s something to her wording that acts as a sort of dog whistle to those on the lookout for anti-meritocratic/anti-communitarian behavior. Not sure of what the solution is…)
So what do I propose? I think Jane, Matt, Toni, et al. all have more than enough to be getting on with at Automattic, focusing on making the WordPress software itself work at its absolute best. I think WordPress needs, just for situations such as these, a “community manager” ala Ubuntu’s Jono Bacon — someone whose sole job it is is to act as an ambassador, hostage situation negotiator and marriage counselor all rolled into one. Someone preferably employed by the Foundation and thus at least slightly removed from Automattic, Inc. and the binding ties that implies. Someone canonical to whom appeals can be made.
If the Drupal Association is any indication (where Dries has been appointed practically for life), we could hold some kind of elections and still get Matt, Jane, et al as the leading body for the WordPress Foundation as well. Obviously, I don’t think that that would be very healthy for the foundation, but it could go down that way based on name recognition alone.
I’m not entirely sure I could answer any of those questions for most of the open source software I use and care about.
Either way, this is still a real problem and I couldn’t agree with you more about this. Thank you for articulating this so beautifully in your comment.
…And yes, I know about the Contributing to WordPress Codex page. This is a good place to start, but unfortunately many of those channels are infrequently visited by core committers, Those In The Know, etc.
A lot of open source projects seem to be ‘hard to break into’ and that can be issue. I would love to see WordPress adopt a dvcs, like Git or Mercurial, so that contributing could be seamless. The inner circle could still approve patches, but it would make the act of contributing (code at least, but it could be used for docs too) easier. But as long as it’s hard to be heard the root issue won’t be solved by technology alone.
*ahem*
http://github.org/wordpress/wordpress
http://bitbucket.org/zamoose/wordpress
*grin*
Now imagine if WP.org was buddypress with a github like layer for devs…
Add in some sort of We Rule/Farmville-esque game tied to bug reports, commits, answered questions, etc., and you’d have gold. Gold, Jerry, GOLD!
*chuckle*
Badges. We need more stinking badges!
I agree Doug. I’m with you and I’m not sure the Island approach is going to work in the long run. I’m hoping that the WordPress.org site redesign can solve a lot of these problems brought about my dispersed communication channels.
Although I’ve been terrible at progressing on my mini project, the communications issue is the reason I started this thread.
http://www.wptavern.com/forum/general-wordpress/1334-wordpress-whitepages-project.html
As for some sort of code of conduct and such, Chip Bennett had post with his concerns and such.
http://www.wptavern.com/forum/general-wordpress/1263-wordpress-community-redress-grievances.html?highlight=community+guidelines
Also, when it comes to little groups and elections of that sort in the Foundation, it would be best to avoid the mistakes that have happened in the Joomla community as they have been ripped apart once or twice because of the foundation and groups involved. Communication being a big reason for those splits.
Oh, and regarding the canonical person, based on everything I’ve read and know, Jane Wells was pretty much fulfilling that role.
As I said above, Jane is a wonderful person and is High Priestess Of User Interface, but several of her recent interfaces with users have been the flashpoints for these politics-of-software flashmobs. She has many other responsibilities, it seems, in keeping WordPress (the software) on the right UX track. I’m suggesting someone entirely devoted to keeping WordPress (the community) similarly attended-to.
What a tough job that would be, there are plenty of mean ass people with pitch forks waiting to stab people like that LOL
Such a position would require grace, humility, a thick skin and an ability to derive self-worth from somewhere other than the job. Rare qualities, these.
As an outsider, the idea of this argument existing seems ludicrous in the first place.
Aren’t there bigger fish to fry?
There is.
I’m wondering if this won’t create an offshoot of WordCamps for the people banished by the new rules… Obviously Wordpress or Automatic wouldn’t be advertising them, so i’m guessing these would be less popular or migrate those into the Barcamps and similar tech meetups.
But outside of the GPL thing, I totally agree with the “don’t combine WordCamps with other events” rule. It created confusion when WordCamp Miami 2009 was combined with BarCamp and then in 2010 it was an actual, real WordCamp.
That was exactly the event I was thinking about when I wrote the post.
I’ve been thinking the same thing. If there are enough smart people who understand this GPL stuff and who don’t give a damn about being told what to do via the guidelines of putting together a WordCamp event, then nothing stops them from creating the same type of event with a different name and having anything go. Likewise, nothing is stopping non GPL business built on or around WordPress to continue what they are doing.
I’m still confused over the original purpose to begin with. Why is it such a big deal for a non GPL plugin distributor to sponsor or speak at a WordPress event? What’s the worry? What damage could it possibly do? How is that guy any different? Especially if all he talks about is something neutral. Is he going to rot our brains and drink our blood because he chooses to license his code differently? I mean really.. maybe I’m just naive, but it seems like it’s more of a snobby clique type of thing than a real concern.
Our products are GPL so these rules don’t impact us at all but I agree 100% with your comments Tammy. You hit the nail on the head. For an organization that promotes freedom and openness they sure do force a lot of policies and decisions motivated by personal agendas on the community.
I don’t think its a personal agenda. They took a stand, and are adhering to their principles. That’s admirable, to say the least, even if you don’t agree.
There is a strong principle behind it. Me, I’m not quite so dogmatic, even if I agree with their position on the GPL. Hence the reason slagged off on Richard Stallman, Mr. Open Source himself, at the end of my post.
However, since there is this rift of opinion, a WordCamp would not be the ideal platform to carry on this debate. I believe that this is one of the bigger (unspoken) motivating factors. (see my comment to Norcross that goes into this a bit more).
The other reason is that as WordCamps become more ‘official’ events they don’t want to construe approval for something that they’ve been outspoken in denouncing. It sends mixed signals.
It really is less about cliques and exclusion, and more to do with ensuring the the WordPress philosophy (right or wrong) is respected at these events.
WordPress denounces other things too, like not allowing porn blogs on wordpress.com. Are they going to survey speakers to see if they watch, buy, or sell porn?
And what about speakers who are developers like me that use themes like Thesis because a client paid them to (not like me, I’m a from scratch type of gal)? Is that developer suddenly going to corrupt the spirit of WordPress?
I don’t give a rip about GPL since it has no bearing on what I do for a living. I do give a rip about snobbery, and it still seems like that’s what this is. I haven’t been directly involved in any WordPress/Automattic politics, but I have a close friend that has, and it ain’t pretty.
another thing. I think WordPress would have a COW if someone made a derivative of the core itself and then attempted to sell it, yet it states over and over again how GPL doesn’t mean free. And they don’t hammer on people that sell GPL themes and plugins (*ahem* Gravity Forms).
@Tammy – Actually, it’s within the rights granted by the GPL to do that regardless of what anyone says. As long as WordPress is licensed under the GPL v2, anyone can do that. Now, the folks who run WordPress.org could banish any mention of said people or not even pretend they exist as a means of shunning those that decided to partake in that, despite it being within the confines of the license.
To quote Xentek, it would be a dick move, but a dick move that is completely legal and acceptable under the rights granted by the license.
The GPL says there is no problem with selling GPL code. That’s why it’s referred to as Free as in Freedom, not Free as in Beer.
From the GNU Site – “Free software” is a matter of liberty, not price. To understand the concept, you should think of “free” as in “free speech,” not as in “free beer.”
I think this is where common sense comes into play.
@Jeffro: That’s exactly my point. That is what they are doing to non GPL speakers/sponsors, and that’s what they would do to the person selling “Mikes version of W-rdPr-ss”.
I’m probably beyond bringing any real meat to this discussion and mainly just blowing steam, I digress.
Well, I agree with many others that the guidelines regarding non-GPL compliant activities need to be specified further, perhaps even with examples. I believe Carl Hancock has raised a number of good questions regarding when and how the non-GPL compatible clause will be used to deny a speaker or sponsor. Is it just one thing they have done in the past, or is it some other circumstance? I believe this to be the most confusing, and annoying part of this entire discussion. The rest of the guidelines I have no problem with, and even the premise of the non-GPL stuff but it needs to be specific in who or what that means. Vagueness is only going to make matters worst not only for everyone else, but for WordCamp organizers.
I am not gonna get asked to speak at Wordcamp cause I am just a sucky blogger- Up until 5 minutes ago I didn’t even know what GPL was and well I still don’t but hey loved reading the post and all the comments-
I think the tragedy of this whole thing is that you’re ultimately going to drive the most talented developers/designers out of the Wordpress marketplace.
Regardless of whether or not themes are derivatives, the GPL is an absolutely horrible business model. You’re basically saying, “Hey go ahead and make awesome stuff but you can protect yourself.” That’s just flat out stupid. Its essentially the best way I can think of to get the most talented people to completely avoid working with your product.
If Matt/WP want to continue to pursue this they can, but I really believe you’re going to see many of the most talented developers creating independent products. When that happens, Wordpress is really gonna be screwed. Mark my words.
Adam, I appreciate your comment but you seem to believe that copyright without the GPL is somehow some kind of protection against theft. It is not. The GPL augments your copyright by giving folks the right to modify and build on your work. Given that WordPress is now 7 years old I somehow doubt that its GPL status as a project has driven away anyone. That’s a strawman argument – at best, and reveals your ignorance of the larger intellectual property debate at worst.
And while the GPL-inheritance issue may still be up-for-grabs, since there is no case law yet to prove it one way or another, holding to some fragile belief that by NOT licensing your themes and plugins in GPL-compatible fashion is going to somehow protect your market and keep you from being ripped off is laughable. Anything digital is going to be stolen by someone. Indeed thesis is probably one of the most pirated premium themes. Others are probably victims of it too (I just haven’t noticed them).
Take, for instance, WooThemes who are GPL-friendly, I heard they made $1M+ last year (needs confirmation, but it came from a reliable source). Being compatible and respectful of the platform that made their business possible hasn’t seemed to slow them down one bit. For all I know DIY made the same amount or more, but they also have stirred up a lot of ill will against them over the years.
As for chasing the best and brightest being chased from the platform? Seems like the opposite is true. There are over 1500 active contributors on Trac and the Commit team and Core Staff are growing like crazy.
The misapprehension that everyone seems to be laboring under is that the GPL is designed to be some sort of protection mechanism for developers. It’s not — it’s designed to be a protection mechanism for users. As a user of GPL code, you can have access to the source and modify a project/product to fit your needs and, as long as you don’t distribute it to anyone else, those changes can stay yours and only yours in perpetuity. But, as soon as you release/pass on your product/project, based on GPL’d code, you’ve turned yourself into a developer and therefore must provide the source.
Now, all this applies to the WordPress trunk. I’m still not 100% convinced it actually applies to themes/plugins, though I think the bulk of the evidence rests in that camp, so I can understand companies feeling resistant to GPL licensing their themes/plugins.
Honestly, though, people, you’re distributing PHP code, which by its very nature is the source code to your app! Unless you’re doing SaaS ala Akismet or Woopra, people already possess your source code and to delude yourself into thinking otherwise is just silly.
Well Said, Doug. Even if we can’t agree on GPL-inheritance, we can still agree on the nature of GPL.