WordPress is the world’s most popular blogging platform. Long the product of choice for writers big and small, WordPress is the online content king.
Under the surface of the giant however, there is tension between one of the best known WordPress premium theme (skin) developers, Chris Pearson of DIY Themes, and Matt Mullenweg, founding developer of the popular open-source blogging software.
In a video, Mullenweg called out developers of “premium” themes for WordPress (the ones you have to pay for) that are not released under the GPL as ‘evil’. WordPress itself is released under GPLv2, and Mullenweg feels that the products developed on top of WordPress (such as those premium themes) need to be GPL as well. To Mullenweg, if you build off of free software, and depend on it, to license them under other means is a breach of ethics.
Pearson disagrees with Mullenweg, and has been having a war of words over Twitter for the past few hours to reinforce his points. In Pearson’s logic, he should be able to license his own work in whatever manner he sees fit, regardless of the platform on which it is built. However, the GPL has a specific clause (according to the Mullenweg interview) that states that anything built on a GPL licensed platform must also be under GPL licensing.
The debate eventually came down to a three-way audio session, hosted on Mixergy. Andrew Warner, owner of Mixergy, attempted to play the role of mediator, offering choices to both sides. In the end, the two parties have neither agreed, nor agreed to disagree. In fact, Mullenweg has gone so far as to insinuate that he might take Pearson to court in order to enforce the GPL standard for WordPress themes.
“If you’re going to hurl accusations, you should back it up.” – Pearson
The end result? No one is certain, just yet. It will be an interesting battle that will likely stay at the forefront of WordPress discussions for some time to come. Is it inherently evil to make money from something? Of course not. However, as Mullenweg stated, Thesis doesn’t work if you remove WordPress, so it should not be classified as its own product for licensing.
In an interesting piece of information, we’ve found out via Technosailor that this entire argument has apparently spawned due to a security breech in the Thesis code. We’re digging for more information on this, and will let you know what we find.
What are your thoughts? We’re interested to hear from both sides, of course.
Update: We now have the video for your viewing pleasure, from Mixergy.
Editor’s note: This post is a collaborative effort from @Alex and @BradTNW
In my opinion products / services built on top of a GPL based product should not be labelled as GPL by default. Having said that, I believe that Thesis should follow the freemium approach.
why should Thesis follow the freemium approach?
GPL Is not the freemium model. Thesis could continue to sell it, limit access to it (does not have to be free downloadable), and still be GPL Compliant.
There’s lots of people selling WordPress Premium Templates. OK, Thesis is not a template, but a framework… but… I really think if Matt is going after Pearson, is unfair to leave other designers off the hook.
Every major WordPress premium theme vendor is totally GPL except Thesis. I recommend StudioPress, Woothemes, iThemes, Hybrid… dozens of others.
Matt — you should merely grab a copy of thesis and throw it on wordpress.org/extend/themes & on wordpress.com
By default, the theme *must* be GPL if it’s built on top of GPL. That’s how it works — so, ‘back it up’ and distribute it free of charge on the web.
Technically only if it is a derivative work (which seems to be a bit subjective here). So if the theme was integrated into WP or your distributed theme+WP, then yes the theme must be GPL. However since there is no linking to binaries or taking code *from* WP and putting into the theme, then I don’t see how you can necessitate the theme be GPL?
Thesis does contain some code from WP, and is completely reliant on WP. Hence the Linux Kernel, Linux Kernel Module reference in the debate.
When it comes to principle, and licensing, Matt is completely correct in his assertions.
Since no one wants to take 2 minutes out of there day to actually go read the GPL, I’ll paste part of the T&Cs section 5 that basically make Matt’s point:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
…Therefore, by modifying or distributing the Program (or any work based on the Program), you indicate your acceptance of this License to do so, and all its terms and conditions for copying, distributing or modifying the Program or works based on it…
Is there a replay of the debate somwhere?
If it was live today, I’m guessing it’ll be posted to http://mixergy.com/ when processed.
I’m guessing some lawyers will make big bucks tearing the GPL open. Which is kinda ironic, with GPL being free :) But one thing is certain, there will be debate, there will be blood and we’ll witness interesting times in the WordPress community.
If you follow the Free Software Foundation and the Software Freedom Law Cennter, you’ll find that a lot of big companies (with big lawyers) have settled rather than go to court against the GPL. I’m not worried about the strength of the GPL.
if themes go GPL extensions like Shopp should too… this would harm wordpress in the long run.
Shopp is already GPL! :)
Shopp is GPL.
My comment is: WordPress is a great platform. Thesis is a wonderful and powerful framework. Matt should leave Chris make his own good (deserved) money or buy them and integrate it by default :-)
I love people making money on top of WordPress, which is why I promote so many of them. The issue is Thesis violates WordPress’ license.
Matt – What about Headway for WordPress?
How does the split GPL licence work then?
So Matt, anyone who uses jQuery and then sells the product is violating their license?
If you use jQuery in your product, you can still sell it under the GPL, but the purchaser has the right to redistribute your product for free.
Bad example, jQuery is dual licensed under the GPL and MIT licenses so using it with a closed source project is allowed.
I think it’s OK to sell a product based on a free platform for a price. One should consider it as a price for their efforts to make something good, better. And Thesis IS better than most of the free themes available. After all, ‘Everything good comes at a price’. Lastly, I smell envy in the arguments of Mullenweg
I love both. How about this: Make WP 1$ a month. How many millions of people use it? How many of them would not pay 12$ a year for the service?
90% of them probably wouldn’t pay.
Not because it’s not worth it, but because they are freetards.
Seeing how the article made a selective link to perpetualbeta.com, it might be worthwhile to post another link to perpetualbeta (and the guy there does happen to be a lawyer who knows a little something about IP) who says all this arguing is moot. http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2009/12/why-the-gplderivative-work-debate-doesnt-matter-for-wordpress-themes/
That’s a good article! Well worth the time it takes to read it. Makes me wonder where Matt is getting his legal advice…
Sorry but this seems simple to me…
If there is in fact a clause in the GPL that states “anything built on a GPL licensed platform must also be under GPL licensing” then Thesis is at fault??
If this doesn’t hold up then either both sides are right or both sides are wrong!
It seems to me that the debate, while legally a grey area, should be more about how to promote WordPress to the broadest audience possible. I agree with Matt that there is most likely a case here and cracking open the joys of the GPL language most likely will support your case (at least enough to sue). But what is the end goal? If either side “wins” this debate, I cannot tell how we as developers and avid users of both solutions gain.
Thesis is a wonderful framework that is 100% dependent on WordPress, thus any sale of Thesis automatically drives more adoption of WordPress. I believe we all want this to continue. In addition, I would love to see even more people exploring new revenue models on WordPress since I think we have not scratched the surface of potential revenue opportunities. I fear that creating a schism in this community will end up restricting interest in this amazing platform, regardless of who is legally correct.
I understand this is an emotional issue, but I cannot understand the long term value to either the WordPress team or the community if this is taken to the next level. I hope that there is an alternative available to allow both parties to continue the work that allows me to deliver powerful new websites for myself and my clients.
This is going to get messier before it gets better.
If it does go legal, this is going to be the battleground landmark case for a lot of other open source projects.
My verdict is that Thesis will ultimately fall in line or ultimately wither.
To me, there are two issues here.
1. The GPL inheritance issue. Sure, you can debate it, but show me a theme that doesn’t take features (and code) from the “default” theme, or any of the default or other GPL themes released since? They all inherit the basic code from these original themes. And to me, that makes them inherit the GPL.
2. Community. Look, this is how it works:
Copy the community.
Make money with your improvement.
Give back to community.
That’s the whole point of the GPL, and if it “goes against your personal beliefs”, then by all means: there’s the door.
Matt has a point that thesis can’t run without WordPress and should be licensed under GPL. One thing which I might not like here is brining all this fiasco online and degrading the value of WordPress and Thesis theme at the same time. New users who might be looking forward to move to WordPress, will be taking a step back from this…
I don’t have any strong point to backup Chris but all I can say is Thesis is an amazing theme….
Maybe I don’t understand the specifics of the problem, because it seems based on this argument that people running WordPress blogs should also not be able to make any money off their blogs, from subscriptions or ads or anything else. What part has to be free under the license– the code, the design, the content? And where would you draw the line between those things?
Nevermind, I didn’t read this very well the first time through.
Thesis is the only non-GPL? I thought Solostream fit in the same category. Anyway, I think this is a complicated issue, but overall, my gut feeling is that if the Thesis developer doesn’t like it, he should move over to another platform.
Never heard of Thesis, if there were a legal battle, WordPress is sure to win.
You will have SEEN a thesis used though. ;)
I’ve never seen an install of Thesis in the field, however I have had many users asking me how to make the incompatible Thesis theme work with my or other plugins.
Sorry, but it’s a poorly written theme. IMO, of course. I admit that I have not seen the complete code, but the bits I have seen are enough to convince me.
Well, i wouldn’t know about it, so I can’t comment there, quote a few people have told me others are better, headwey, frugal, etc. Me, I don’t care. :lol: If my blog is working, working right I am happy. :D
Matt, after you done with Thesis will you go after Template Monster, Theme Forest …?
Themeforest is GPL
http://blog.themeforest.net/site-news/important-change-to-wordpress-license-takes-effect-today-please-read/
@Matt Your an awesome dude NO DOUBT WordPress is an historic product BUT license or not this is the internet when you give out something for FREE what people do with it is their business :)
Be like Ford saying we sold you a BLUE car keep it Blue or else :)
SUE ME I need some publicity Thanks :)
My site is built on WP BP and what I WANT :)
Kiss and make up we all bloggers after all no matter how big our pockets are :)
Nice post and Debate
Nice work be checking this site on a regular now
Thanks
Any WordPress developer should know that WordPress is licensed under the GPL and if you make any theme for it, you can sell it, but your purchasers should be allowed to distribute it for free. Not being aware of this is ignorance and irresponsibility.
You’ve said this twice now, and I agree that this is stated in the GPL, but neglects the true question of whether or not themes fall under the GPL’s “stipulations”. Here’s your comment with just a few words changed:
Any Java developer should know that Java is licensed under GPL and if you make any application on it, you can sell it, but your purchasers should be allowed to distribute it for free. Not being aware of this is ignorance and irresponsibility.
Using that logic, many commercial entities are at risk of not being able to control the sale of their products. (If you feel the my logic comparison is flawed, the argument is that a theme is a tool that displays your website’s style using WP as the engine that powers it, just like a Java application does it’s job using Java to power it.)
I’m not asking you to defend your comment, GPL does stipulate this (at least in the FAQ). But the argument is whether or not themes fall under the GPL’s “protection”, which is similar to what John is saying about Ford. So the question is if you use WP (or any GPL’d product) as your base to build on/with does it immediately imply your product must be GPL’d as well? And that question is one that will only be handled by the courts as it’s only a philosophical question without legal weight.
If you use the Java source code itself, then yes, your application would fall under the GPL also. If you use Java to write an application, you don’t have to license that application as GPL. Same goes for programs written in C that use the GNU C compiler.
Surprising to see but I have no idea about the law side of it, obviously it’s been looked at by @matt at least, not sure by chris , but isn’t it thesis a framework? Rather than a theme?
So, creating a framework one like thesis, under free use would be ok?
What about themes?
This is gonna be interesting to see where it goes, I think considering that every theme used gets a backlink, most people see the value of giving them out freely… (doesn’t thesis demand that, from users? Just asking as I’m unsure) I think most free ones are good anyway. :)
As a convert to WP…Ii like it alot now, I think the 2010 theme is enough for me…Sticking to WP after using blogger for too long! :)
It’s not about “free” in the sense of money. It’s about “free” in the sense of freedom. WordPress freely allows anybody who gets it to modify it, change it, re-release it. This is the purpose of the GPL, to ensure that the software remains free of copyright restrictions and other ways for people to take your freedoms away.
It is perfectly okay to sell GPL’d software and to not give it away to anybody who asks for it. The GPL only ensures that your users have the same rights you do.
Where is the line drawn on “derivative works”? Just themes, plugins, and forks of the core?
What about books or training courses?
I have never seen a non-derivative theme.
I *have* seen non-derivative plugins. The simple acid test is easy: can you use the plugin without WordPress? For a fair number of them, the answer is “yes”.
Books and training courses and such are entirely new works. Describing a way to do something is not the same as being a derivative of the thing you’re describing.
Seems a bit grey to me. If the books or training courses contain screenshots, code snippets, videos etc, does that fit the same definition? I suppose you could argue that those things wouldn’t “work” without WordPress.
Actually, yeah, we’re working on some new documentation over at wordpress.org and are having to look at this very closely.
If someone were to read the API documentation and create their own theme without ever having looked at the code from another theme, it would be their own original work, not a derivative. I’m no lawyer, but I’m pretty sure I’ve heard that this concept (writing to an API doesn’t make something a derivative work) is well established.
And the fact that there would be similarities between their theme and others released under the GPL wouldn’t matter — after all, every theme is going to contain things like an opening HTML tag, an opening HEAD tag, a TITLE tag with a call to the WordPress API to fetch and display the appropriate title, etc. The existence of such basic things doesn’t prove that any of the code was copied, just that both works were designed to use the same API and generate HTML.
Whether all this applies to Thesis in particular, I don’t know. Whether Chris “should” release Thesis under the GPL as an ethical issue…I don’t think he’s obligated to if it’s his own work.
Releasing works under the GPL and making money providing related services is a valid business model. But not everyone should have to use the same business model — some people enjoy working that way, and some people’s strengths fit that business model well. Other people have different strengths and preferences. If you don’t like it, just don’t buy Thesis — you haven’t been injured.
“and some people’s strengths fit that business model well. Other people have different strengths and preferences”
I think the point is that you don’t get to decide your preferences if your work is liable to an established license – especially if that license is fundamental to the core of the WP community and philosophy. But it’s beside the point, there are no strong business reasons for Chris not to go GPL. He’s basically stating he wants to do what he feels he wants to do and not feel like somebody is telling him what to do. 99.9% of the community don’t feel that by complying with the license that they are being told what to do – they get the bigger picture, it doesn’t even strike them as that way.
With Thesis, I’m really playing for the support. Paying for Thesis is like paying for a Linux distribution. Sure, I could use a free theme or a free Linux distro – but if the support package is good enough, I won’t have to reinvent the wheel or do a lot of research to resolve a tricky issue.
If WordPress were Microsoft Excel would a Theme be the equivalent of an VB macro that runs inside of Excel?
If so the, then wouldn’t the theme be an independent software object that could be copyrighted, GPLed, or whatever the same way the VB macro could be copyrighted by its developer? This is possible because Microsoft provides a public API, and, in this case, a scripting language that allows someone to add an independent software object which they can copyright.
Does WordPress provide a public API? If a person changes the guts of the API then they’d be making a variant of WordPress, thus must honor its GPL. If they use the public API isn’t that like an Excel user writing a Macro, something that is independent of WordPress?
Interesting…very interesting. I thought the GPL allowed people to make money for anything. But I also think Pearson is right, that in order to do so, it also has to be under the GPL license.
Besides. I have tried thesis, and though it is neat, there is stll nothing you can do with it that you can not do with out it.
What I don’t get is that it’s not as though Pearson couldn’t go GPL and obfuscate his code and add functions to validate that the theme/framework was purchased properly. I don’t think the GPL requires code to be nice, just available.
Watching this brouhaha makes me glad that I made a decision years ago to never look at or touch anything that has the GPL license.
I have never used Thesis, nor have I seen the code for Thesis, nor have I read the licensing for Thesis. That said, this is easy:
The code for Thesis, assuming it uses code taken directly from WordPress, should be GPL according to WP’s licensing guidelines.
However, JavaScript, Images, CSS, and other non-WP/GPL derived code can be licensed anyway the author/creator darn well pleases.
Best thing to do? Release the underlying code–the stuff that actually *powers* the theme–as GPL and if anyone wants to dress it up (i.e. make it look pretty and do nifty little tricks can purchase a package separately.
Moving away from all that, I believe this cat fight between Matt and Chris is plain childish.
First I’d like to clear up the issue of the “security” breach; this was in fact some form of malware that was added to the download server as part of a malicious hacking attack. Whilst full details have not been released the code was injected into multiple php files within a .zip suggesting the issue was with the server and in the Thesis theme is not what caused the issue. At this stage Matt then made some snide comments about the quality of the coding in relation to the Theme which peaked a lot of peoples interest and in my opinion began perpetuating bad information to many who couldn’t or wouldn’t know otherwise.The Thesis theme may or may not be the best depending on your opinion but either way it is way ahead of many other free and premium themes found. These remarks are something I suspect he will have come to regret considering he has later praised theme but based his argument solely on the GPL issue.
With that out of the way the issue is not about whether Chris Pearson should charge or not charge for the theme. He has every right to charge for access even if the theme was changed to GPL. The problem(?) is that once he has distributed the theme to any one individual they also have the right to make charge or distribute the theme for free. Clearly Matt and Chris both have thier pros and cons to each situation however the real argument begins over whether the theme should in fact inherit the GPL.
As many people mention if Thesis were to contain portions of the WordPress code then it would be subject to the GPL. However in the case of the Thesis theme it only contains references to hooks and functions within WordPress with the overwhelming code base having been created by Chris and his team.This is why it is in my mind a grey area because the Thesis theme doesn’t stand independently of WordPress however it only contains references to WP code to enable communications. If this is the case then surely under Matt’s logic anything that communicates with GPL software in any way would automatically inherit the GPL license and this would have far broader implications for the wider software community.
However you look at it on both sides there are questions that need to be addressed and answers that need to be clarified and unfortunately I think personal opinion will play a huge part in the verdict. As a professional that works with and appreciates both tools I still wouldn’t like to make that final call. It will definitely be interesting to watch this develop. I just hope that it doesn’t create an unnecessary rift between the WordPress users because ultimately we are all just seeking a vehicle to publish our content in the best way possible.
You should read through your copy of Thesis’ code. It contains security vulnerabilities and parts it even says are copy and pasted from WordPress.
The only reference I could find to code generated by a WP component as opposed to calling others was from a Multilingual plugin. This appears to be once again an output generated by something that allows interaction rather than the program itself. Is this what you were reffering to?
Also I’m interested in what these vulnerabilities are? This is something that I’ve not heard mentioned before and it’s not something that I’ve personally noticed either, though this is not to say that they don’t exist.
This is a HUGE can of worms. I am not a lawyer. But to say that charging for any product that will not work without any GPL licensed product would bankrupt thousands of companies. Servers running GNU/Linux could not be used in commercial environments? What about jQuery? That’s issued under GPLv2. And, define broken. Would any subscriber-only content be “broken” if it cannot be searched without a free search engine?
Then, shall we talk about the premium features at WordPress.com? Is it not an extension of WordPress.org? How can Matt charge for Premium features over there?
And if the underlying argument boils down to “because it’s free”, will this lead to a host of problems for free products under EULA, like Adobe Acrobat Reader?
IMHO, this is no more valid than the argument that if something is on the internet, then copyrights are void. It’s free for anyone to use. It’s just more complex.
As usual, the lawyers are the only winners here. They are the only ones who will come out of this without scars. If Matt wins, he’s going to alienate a huge client base – far more than just Chris and his Thesis users. If no one else does, Google will create a bigger, better blogging platform that works with WordPress themes. WordPress will become the new Netscape. And Chris will have spent a ton of money to protect his work. It’s not like the man hasn’t built free themes.
If you want to give away everything you create, more power to you. But not everyone can afford to do that.
I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of almost every issue involved as you are responding to arguments I haven’t seen anyone suggest.
Fine. I’m sure you are right and I did not see the jQuery issue brought up in a discussion about Thesis dating back to 2008. And I’m obviously too stupid to understand the issues involved.
Sorry. I’m bowing out of the discussion and leaving it to the intelligentsia.
With JQuery you have the option of using the MIT or GPL2 license. MIT license is what most people use.
Yeah, jQuery’s not the best example of plugins being forced to have the same license; the permissive MIT license they allow (http://jquery.org/license) makes it possible to have non-GPL plugins.
But within the Joomla! and Drupal spheres, GPL is GPL. Joomla! themes’ PHP code (or on the Joomla! 1.5+ templating engine) are generally licensed under the GPL while artwork is separately licensed. Drupal modules and themes are expected to be GPL.
WordPress’s stance on this is not inconsistent with common open source practices and reliable legal opinions.
I’ve posted about this.
Chris, how about adopting the GPL along with offering a free, scaled down slightly less powerful version of Thesis? wouldn’t that combat most instances of other people distributing the full version of Thesis?
looks like this will go on for a few years, or maybe they will agree to open part as GPL a very basic version… if thesis is being sued then many many others could be too including woothemes, themeden and more! I doubt this will happen but i think we will see limited free versions as GPl
Honestly, I hope Mullenweg does sue because it would be an actual test of the GPL in court and we haven’t seen that enough.
And, I have to admit that the argument that somehow any theme stands alone without WordPress. How anyone can think these two things aren’t inescapably linked is beyond me.
I too would like to see this battled out in court. I simply hope the theme/developers can afford to hire an amazing attorney who can spell out in plain English to the judge *what* a theme is, what it consists of, and how it is (and is not) linked to WordPress.
I think we have a Larry King-successor in Andrew! Appreciated the role he played and the way in which he lead the discussion.
Honestly, I wonder if Chris purposely paints himself in the entitled way he does to bolster a marketing persona or whether his map of the world just really works that way. In any case I feel his arguments for his position are contradictory and weak. He should read up on his Eduard de Bono.
All these arguments back and forth are really a waste of time. Lets cut to the chase and get to a court ASAP. Lets settle this thing once and for all, who knows, this case may even break new ground as far as GPL is concerned.
Personally, I would be willing to throw in some coin, behind Matt. I don’t support Matt per se, nor do I like him… I do however strong believe in the principles of GPL, and I personally fell, that Chris and his crew are stretching credulity somewhat….GPL is GPL, don’t like like or understand the license go build your skins on some other platform…
WordPress is much more important than Thesis, it’s a way of life for millions… personal and professional.
Online discussions will not rewrite GPL, so stop whining and sit down and figure things out.
We’re for one intro’ing a lot of people to WordPress nowadays – and it was Thesis that brought us to WP. WP is good – but much better with Thesis. If Thesis goes, we’ll most likely ditch using WP. So hopefully it will all work out. Our clients would be disappointed.
it is one of best articles thank for that
The GPL license states this:
“Activities other than copying, distribution and modification are not covered by this License; they are outside its scope”
I cannot see how calling APIs, hooks, or even talking to the WordPress database structure can possibly be construed as “modification”.
Unless Thesis contains duplication or derivatives of WordPress code, it does not appear to me that the GPL applies to it. Can someone explain what have I missed here?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
Why not just use Headway? It’s easier and better.
Andrew Warner is a terrible interviewer. He keeps asking Chris “if you could be convinced” as if Chris has put no thought whatsoever into his decision– right OR wrong.
Matt won’t dare sud Chris.. it would scare a ton of commercial companies away from ever using WP. I know, we build huge WP sites.
In business we all have a choice of what materials we will use, if we take a shortcut and decide to use a product that has a GPL license, we must fully comply with that license.
If that license says you can charge whatever you like but a purchaser is entitled to a copy of the code then so be it.
To me the key reason that THESIS should make their code available is because it extends the functionality of WordPress, it does this in a major way not a minor way. It should be up to the original developer to decide when a sub product of their work has passed this barrier.
Now if DIY Themes wants to create a tier of customers, say publishers who agree to only use the product to publish (for themselves or others) and developers who are free to develop that is acceptable, even if it decides to charge $5k for the latter. Developers of course would have free access to the code, but also agree to be GPL and provide copies of their work to DIY and the community.
It is a mistake to become too commercial, all it does is create a fork, consider how much Mambo lost when Joomla was created under these circumstances.
I agree with Kashif.
http://www.eLawsuit.com
very nice article
http://www.hedeya.net