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.

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.

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.

There is a difference between being inclusive and bowing to the whims of every new developer.

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.

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.

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.

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).

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.

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?

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’m probably beyond bringing any real meat to this discussion and mainly just blowing steam, I digress.

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?

I think this is where common sense comes into play.

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.”