A growing trend toward GPL support
14 posts-
Ryan Imel
offlineHead of the playgroundThis year has seen a couple of big names "change sides", so to speak, and commit to releasing WordPress themes as GPL compliant. The first big one was Brian Gardner, traditionally thought to be the first one to popularize the sale of premium themes. Now, this past week, Cory Miller of iThemes has this week announced that they are making the same switch over.
This is definitely good news. Do you think it's inevitable that all theme developers (the big ones, particularly) will move over to GPL only at some point?
Now, with iThemes having made the switch, WooThemes is probably one of the only big theme shops not abiding by the GPL. Do you think there is any chance of them moving over?
Posted 9 months ago # -
BinaryMoon
offlineMemberPro Theme Design went over to the GPL a couple of months ago and so far it hasn't affected sales at all, and it's given us the warm fuzzies inside. I think more people will HAVE to make the switch, as without it you will be seen as closed and insecure.
Posted 9 months ago # -
Ryan Imel
offlineHead of the playgroundThat's probably the most interesting part about it all. Switching to GPL doesn't seem to affect anyone's bottom line.
It also stood out to me in the iThemes blog post announcing the change. For both current customers and future customers, the line began the same way: "This won't change anything for you..."
Posted 9 months ago # -
Well, that didn't take very long:
http://www.woothemes.com/2009/06/woothemes-gpled/Posted 8 months ago # -
Ryan Imel
offlineHead of the playgroundYup.
Am I a jerk for thinking it's kind of silly for these companies being praised for (now) doing things the right way? Yeah, I'm a jerk.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Better late than never, but yeah it does seem like more a matter of convenience than conviction...
Posted 8 months ago # -
scott
offlineMemberWhy is switching to GPL "the right thing?"
Posted 8 months ago # -
Ryan Imel
offlineHead of the playground@scott It's definitely debatable, but there are many of us (us, so admittedly it includes me) who believe that it is in line with the spirit of WordPress, the spirit we've all benefitted from, to continue to use the GPL license when creating things like themes and Plugins using the GPL WordPress code.
So it's only right, to me, in the sense that it continues to propagate that which we've all already benefitted from, and also falls in line with the intentions and wishes of those who have built this great thing for us. I guess that's important to me.
Posted 8 months ago # -
scott
offlineMember"believe" "spirit" "intentions" "wishes"
Those are the relevant words in your response. The GPL has NO quantifiable or empirically proven benefit. I hear people say that premium themes' sales are not affected by going GPL: that is not a benefit if nothing changes. The fact is, the GPL is more like a religion than anything else. Josh Leuze (above) uses a word to describe changing over to GPL that I hear in religious conversation all the time: conviction. GPL followers even mimic religious intolerance towards other "ways of life"(in this case, those who wish to actually own their property). Binary Moon says "I think more people will HAVE to make the switch, as without it you will be seen as closed and insecure." Seen? So he sees adoption of GPL as good for appearance? That sounds identical to beliefs found at "Fill In The Blank" Christian Church.
The other issue is that almost all GPL followers presume that if you don't adopt their view, your intention is to be selfish and greedy. Why is that? Is is selfish for me to not let all my neighbors drive my car? Is it selfish to not allow strangers to come eat my food? Wear my clothes? Use my internet? Crap in my toilet? Drink my wine? It seems that people who follow the doctrine of GPL and don't allow strangers to do the aforementioned have a moral/ethical dilemma. They are randomly picking and choosing what property people should share and what people shouldn't. And yes, software is as much property as food, clothes, etc.
What this boils down to is choice. GPL is a personal choice, much like religion, and has no significance outside of ideology. If you want to give your work away, then go for it. Believe it or not I respect that decision. But, to exclude and cast aside others because they believe differently is morally wrong. Not to keep bringing up Thesis (it is just the most popular), but your exclusion of that from popular themes was asinine. The ONLY grounds of exclusion was GPL which, as I have stated, is pure ideology and NOTHING else.
What I see as an economist turned business person turned web designer (another story for another day) is fear within the GPL community. Fear of business, fear of markets, fear of competition and fear of having to understand the three. That fear has manifested itself in a document written with undeniable communist/socialist overtones and on the grounds of "fairness." I hope that you can one day abandon your rigid philosophy, include the hard work of others who simply wish to retain ownership of their property and just get along. I think you will find that the people on what you perceive to be the opposing side are actually just as generous, lenient and willing to develop mutually beneficial relationships as those who follow the GPL.
Posted 8 months ago # -
I hear people say that premium themes' sales are not affected by going GPL: that is not a benefit if nothing changes.
Ah, but something *does* change...
With a GPL licensed them, I can do what I like with it. Put it on all my sites, set it up on WPMU for users to choose from, use it on clients sites - all without having to go get another copy or a developer's license.
To use your example, with thesis I can;t do that. I'd need to keep buying one copy for each.
Posted 8 months ago # -
scott
offlineMemberI am arguing that the developer should have the unrestricted right to dictate how their work is used, without backlash. If a theme developer wishes to release a theme and allow people to use and modify it for free, so be it. If a theme developer wishes to release a theme under a more restrictive license, there should be no discrimination and hatred directed at them for making that choice. If you don't want the theme, don't buy it. Simple as that.
And, I should have specified what I meant by "benefit." I did not mean to use it in terms of social benefit. Rather, I intended to use the word benefit in reference to private benefit.
But, I think your point further exposes a kind of selfish attitude in the GPL community. Why should you have the right to do what you want with others' property? Why should you have the right to put a free theme on a client's site and then charge them for it? Charging for a free theme (to a client) seems to go against the very foundation of GPL. Without question you should have to disclose to them that it is not your work, that you got it for free (so could they). To do otherwise would be manifestly immoral. Obviously, if you are using it as a crude base for a larger custom job, they should have no problem. If you are simply reselling a free theme, I foresee a possible issue. Furthermore, why stop at copyright? Why not freely use others' trademarks and patents? Why not continue to personal property, such as cars, homes, land, etc.?
GPL followers seem to expect "something for nothing." Let me leave you with an Econ 101 lesson: there is no such thing as a free lunch. That is a quote from Nobel Prize Laureate Milton Fried, arguably the most brilliant economist in history. It is also one of the foundational principles of modern economic thought.
Posted 8 months ago # -
Ryan Imel
offlineHead of the playgroundThe GPL has very little to do with "free" anything. A GPL item can be free, or it can cost money. It's a license, one that you (scott) pointed out that every software developer has the right to apply or not apply to his/her software. And I think the reason users get excited about GPL versus other licenses is that it puts the rights back in the user's hands, rather than the developer's. This isn't to say that developers are evil, or necessarily have bad intentions or anything.
And it's not about having rights to others' property. It's about having rights to your own property. Many software licenses restrict what you are allowed to do with it once you own it. In the case of GPL, once it's yours (whether for free or for a purchase price) you can do what you want with it. That's why it's exciting. I'm not sure you can accuse those who prefer GPL of being selfish. Idealist, maybe :)
Posted 8 months ago # -
J. D. Bentley
offlineMemberscott: If a theme developer wishes to release a theme under a more restrictive license, there should be no discrimination and hatred directed at them for making that choice. If you don't want the theme, don't buy it. Simple as that.
I think you should probably take that back one step further and say "If you want to release a theme under a more restrictive license, don't use a GPL'd blogging platform."
Developers know what they are getting into.
Posted 8 months ago # -
scott
offlineMemberJD:
Your argument seems to make the assumption that a developer should produce GPL licensed software if it works in conjunction with other GPL software. That is a normative statement and is based purely on personal preference. I am not aware that software MUST be GPL if it works with other GPL software. There is no legal precedent that I know of and no section of the GPL that expressly forbids GPL and non-GPL software from working in conjunction. Therefore, I refer you back to my second post (first long one).Ryan:
The very essence of the GPL is "free." It allows for nearly unrestricted distribution of anything licensed under it. Almost every single GPL licensed premium theme is readily available from sources other than the author at no cost whatsoever. Why would any sensible person pay for something from one source, when another source offers it free? I don't accept the "support forum argument" because it is easy to find free resources for most themes.Posted 8 months ago #
