That’s an entirely different post all together but my point is that Matt (who runs WordPress.org which unless I’m mistaken is not a non-profit yet) should put his money and actions where his mouth has been.

I agree that it wouldn’t make sense for Automattic as a company to file a suite but IF WordPress themes do in fact inherit the GPL it would behoove WordPress.org to establish that legal precedence.

There are some folks who are doing this under the GPL and there are some folks who are doing this under a proprietary license that restrict your freedoms and are generally evil.

I know thesis was mentioned somewhere in this interview but I can’t find it. At any rate, Thesis and Headway are good examples of themes that don’t give two craps about the software they have been built on top of. Matt has a point in that, why place restrictions on users from your theme or plugin when the software it’s built on top of does not have those restrictions. By the way, since themes can be dual licensed where the PHP code is GPL but everything else is not, I’m fine with those themes even though those are not being added to the wordpress.org repository.

As for the request of Automattic to take people to court, how stupid is that. Automattic is backed by venture capital money in the hopes of running a successful business that will pay them back and make a profit. They make money through services and addons and is a privately held company. WordPress.org is a separate, non-profit foundation that stands on its own but benefits from the resources that Automattic can provide. Instead, you should be requesting that the non profit foundation secure enough funds together probably through the likes of theme developers who take an interest in this and then see if they can push a court case forward with those funds.

I don’t develop themes so my life and business does not depend on them but as an end user, I’ve now realized how much restrictions suck on top of software that has none.

@Leland but are you ok with Matt sitting back and calling the companies evil when he’s not willing to put anything behind it?

Are you willing to call Matt and Automattic evil without equally putting anything behind your stance?

I get the nuance. The difference is this: having a GPL benefits Ma.TT. his argument is self-serving. He maintains the WP code, he can then appropriate features that wind up in the public, all while restricting the behavior of others and playing the side of good.

I myself only started caring when he used words like “evil” in that interview. i dug the guy before that.

This means that he can claim ownership on anything that’s built. This gives Matt the advantage that he can claim ownership on all things that people build near WordPress. De Facto ownership of everything that happens anywhere near WP benefits Automatic the folks that ultimately control the code.

That is incorrect. The GPL only applies upon distribution. If you distribute “derivatives”, they need to be distributed under a GPL compatible license. However, you are free to make whatever you want with WordPress and keep it private (or closed source); no one can force you to make it available. Doing work for a client doesn’t count as distribution, so contract developers are not subject to the GPL in that way. It is only when developers make their work publicly available via free or paid download that the licensing issue takes place.

To Position the GPL as anything that “protects” developers is naive. It protects Automatic from competition by forcing people to give up the goods on what’s good.

This means that he can claim ownership on anything that’s built. This gives Matt the advantage that he can claim ownership on all things that people build near WordPress. De Facto ownership of everything that happens anywhere near WP benefits Automatic the folks that ultimately control the code.

In lieu of the little guy keeping rights, it really all aggregates at the top like other socialist enterprises. Matt can seem to be crunchy and earthy. In reality, he’s a borg, assimilating all innovation under the guise of the GPL.

What I find interesting is that I read the letter Matt solicited from the lawyer that you linked to, and it seemed like a good argument. However, the letter states outright why themes and plugins are derivatives, and then in the video you’ve embedded in the post and also in a comment on another post Matt states he doesn’t think Thesis is a derivative, but that it should be GPL because it “links”. Linking is a vague terminology not even used in the license itself, but in the GPL FAQ and interpretations of the license.
You might be interested to see Brian Gardner’s response to that, or even read the whole discussion.

I agree with you Ben that there is a level of hostility and antagonism that is not necessary and I get the impression it stems from personality clashes as much or more than it stems from license interpreting issues.

Thanks Michael for the salient points you made in the discussion.