Comments on: Tracking the #thesiswp matter: Part 2

By: Tracking the #thesiswp matter: Part 1 | Frederick's Timelog

Tracking the #thesiswp matter: Part 1 | Frederick's Timelog — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 17:51:14 +0000

[...] PoliciesCopyright & Content LicensingDisclosure PolicyContact XKCD = hilarious Tracking the #thesiswp matter: Part 2Tracking the #thesiswp matter: Part 1 On July 15, 2010, in Computer Matters, by Frederick Twitter [...]

By: Frederick

Frederick — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 03:27:41 +0000

What is it about the GPLv3 (summary of changes from GPLv2) that you specifically object to? I'm curious to know...

By: Otto

Otto — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:48:33 +0000

Also, some of us (myself included) don’t like some of the provisions of the GPL3. I won’t contribute to code licensed under it.

By: Otto

Otto — Sat, 17 Jul 2010 02:46:58 +0000

You can’t violate *copyright law*

Somebody should tell that to the RIAA, see what kind of response they have.

By: Drew Blas

Drew Blas — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 13:34:14 +0000

As far as themes = derivatives go I took a more in-depth look beyond Thesis at what everyone thought was the issue: Does the GPL apply to themes and plugins?: http://bit.ly/cygoRV

By: mwaterous

mwaterous — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:41:50 +0000

All the legalities of this whole debacle aside — due primarily to the fact that I am not a lawyer, nor do I have a very strong background in litigious issues — I think the real elephant in the room is not so much Chris’ arrogance anymore.

Indeed, I believe it’s his insecurity. He’s frightened to the point of arrogance that somebody is going to steal his hard work. This kind of insecurity is oft found residing with those who have a deeply guilty conscious of committing the act that they’re most afraid of.

Then again, I’m not a psychologist either.

By: Tweets that mention Tracking the #thesiswp matter: Part 2 | Frederick's Timelog -- Topsy.com

Fri, 16 Jul 2010 05:41:13 +0000

[...] This post was mentioned on Twitter by Luis Rull, Caleb Jenkins and Andrew Nacin, Frederick Ding. Frederick Ding said: Part 2 of my #thesiswp coverage explains the part about plagiarized code. http://fjd.me/9SEaZP [...]

By: Frederick

Frederick — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 01:47:12 +0000

Oh, true… if B2 didn’t have the “or any later version” phrase, the GPLv2 is the GPLv2. Sigh that GPL.

By: Mark Jaquith

Mark Jaquith — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:59:28 +0000

[...] maybe WordPress should just re-license, starting with a future version, with GPLv3 and add a specific requirement [...]

That isn't feasible. WordPress copyright is distributed, so there are literally thousands of people who would have to sign off on a relicensing. Many of them are known only by pseudonym. We don't have contact information for all of them. We are inescapably "stuck" at GPL v2, because b2 lacked the "or any later version" clause. I put "stuck" that in scare quotes because it's a blessing in some ways. We can say without any doubt, that all future versions of WordPress will be free/libre software, licensed under the GPL. As Mark Pilgrim said, you "will never be surprised by the licensing of new versions of WordPress." You certainly can't say the same about Thesis. Its license retains the right to change the terms at any time, without notice.

By: Frederick

Frederick — Fri, 16 Jul 2010 00:00:41 +0000

The thing is, in many jurisdictions a license will be enforced not under contract law but under copyright law. So yes, breaking the terms of a software license is breaking the law in a way that opens up the possibility of a civil suit, which wouldn’t be groundless.

In other jurisdictions, a software license would be enforced as a contract between the user and the licensor.

In both cases as it applies to the GPL and Thesis, it’s not a “crime” in the sense of criminal law but rather a matter of civil action.

I *do* wonder who the plaintiff will be: Automattic Inc., the WordPress Foundation, or the WordPress community?

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer.

By: Frederick

Frederick — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:56:23 +0000

The GPL isn’t exactly a EULA. Users can use WordPress without accepting the GPL as long as they don’t redistribute it. The GPL’s very clear about that.

By: Eric Marden

Eric Marden — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:29:08 +0000

Enforcing End User Licenses, which includes the GPL, is a thorny issue, and the cases that have come before the court focus on certain clauses (vs. ruling that they are all universally applicable). And in this case, they will focus on the clearly copy+pasted code.

Besides, this would most certainly be a Civil case. The question of illegal activity is a criminal matter. And for the record you can absolutely violate copyright law. Ever seen a DVD? They all start with a friendly message of exactly which federal laws you can violate. Of course this isn’t a copyright case so this last bit is largely irrelevant.

Further Reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Software_license_agreement#Enforceability_of_EULAs_in_the_United_States

By: Adam

Adam — Thu, 15 Jul 2010 23:08:08 +0000

DIY Themes is probably violating the GPL. The problem is there is absolutely no law that says you can’t violate the GPL. You can’t violate *copyright law*…whether or not that’s being done here is up for debate. And no, its not as simple as whether or not they copied WordPress code.