Understanding the GPL

MBMedia said
I don’t think you were fully giving thought to what I was bringing up though, instead just finding the first evidences you could find to the contrary and posting them, and there’s bound to be plenty of evidence both for and against: it’s law, that’s how it works

But of course licenses are upheld under copyright law, but that doesn’t mean a license can’t have a legal mistake in one where it causes contrast to a law. If I snuck a .txt file in my item download that said “by putting this template on your server, you are agreeing to sell me your home for $1” no court would uphold that, ever. Of course that’s more extreme than what we’re discussing, but it’s along the same lines; someone violating your license doesn’t automatically give you absolute power over them to claim whatever you want about their property.

And of course authors are expected to read/abide by a license, but the question is: what are WP’s rights when the license is violated? Is it that they can demand the author/markeplace stop or even compensate them? (that seems logical) Or is it that they can then basically own that content and license it how they want? (not quite as logical…) Just as I can’t say that by putting my file up on your server your house is now mine, WP very well may be overextending their limits with the license terms in question. I don’t know for sure obviously (no one does, two different courts could make 2 different decisions on it on the same day). But the point is that it’s worthwhile to give thought to how that affects this argument.

EDIT : I should add in: The reason people are getting frustrated arguing against you is that you aren’t actually giving stock to anything against your viewpoint that people are giving. I think most can agree that law is never pure black & white, there’s often valid points both ways, it just comes down to who has more valid points. And when those points disagreeing with yours are brought up you act as if they aren’t valid at all even if there is some pretty obvious validity to them. That’s discrediting you in people’s eyes, and not helping your argument. I actually agreed with much of your argument license-wise, but just added a completely new point that is debatable, but is definitely worth discussing, and you dismissed it as though I just told you 1+1=5. So even after previously agreeing with many of your points, if find myself going “maybe I should read them again, sounds like he really isn’t deciding using as much fact based non-emotional analysis as I thought he was”. Basically: no one trusts a zealot

Because all other things which are NOT text from GPL are simply irrelevant. This is not about what all people in the world think. Even what i think. The only thing which matter is GPL text of license.

You are talking about this txt file – but before putting this txt file you have to give me to read full license text which is compatible with license which was written for this product. If inside your some work which is for example based on gpl, you would put txt file which says something contrary to gpl – this what you added has NO meaning. why ? because its addition to work based on already existing license.

Ok, second part was about executing this law – would wordpress do that ? i dont know…. and i dont care very much about it. maybe in 40%. What i care in most is that because of GPL i am completely allowed to do everything what GPL allows me to do with themes from themeforest. Or from any other place. GPL allows me to download themes from warez sites and use it for commercial purpose. And buy them here and spread them around as GPL allows me. And this is what i mostly care. Even if i will never do it. Only thing is that GPL allows me to do that and no existing law can touch me. Why ? because GPL says that everyone can. And no other license can win with GPL .

YOU are DEVELOPING for wordpress SO you HAVE TO conform to wordpress license. So it simply does not matter what wordpress will do. Or what anyone will do. The thing that matter the most is that i and you are allowed to do all this things, as long as they comply with GPL .

Because all other things which are NOT text from GPL are simply irrelevant. This is not about what all people in the world think. Even what i think. The only thing which matter is GPL text of license. You are talking about this txt file – but before putting this txt file you have to give me to read full license text which is compatible with license which was written for this product. If inside your some work which is for example based on gpl, you would put txt file which says something contrary to gpl – this what you added has NO meaning. why ? because its addition to work based on already existing license.

I don’t sell on TF, I wasn’t talking about adding to the GPL . Jaff was right, you really gotta pay attention to what you’re rebuking in order to rebuke it correctly. My example was a simile to illustrate the same issue in completely different situation, files where I make my own license, and how it is possible to create a shady license that wouldn’t be legally upheld even if technically agreed to and then subsequently breached. You’re off on some other tangent about modifying the GPL , reel it back in bud.

Ok, second part was about executing this law – would wordpress do that ? i dont know…. and i dont care very much about it. maybe in 40%. What i care in most is that because of GPL i am completely allowed to do everything what GPL allows me to do with themes from themeforest. Or from any other place. GPL allows me to download themes from warez sites and use it for commercial purpose. And buy them here and spread them around as GPL allows me. And this is what i mostly care. Even if i will never do it. Only thing is that GPL allows me to do that and no existing law can touch me. Why ? because GPL says that everyone can. And no other license can win with GPL .

Again, you’re off on something else entirely. I’m not talking about another license modifying/superceding the GPL . I’m talking about the possibility of flaw within the GPL itself where it possibly claims more rights than is has right to claim. Does it truly have the right to modify the license of other files? Because that’s what it does, and that would seem contrary to many intellectual property rights. For example if someone packaged a stock photo in with their theme, both the author AND any buyers could be legally required to cease and desist using that photo in a way it wasn’t licensed to them. The GPL simply wouldn’t have the right to modify the original license of that photo, regardless of whether it claimed that right upon the author breaching the terms. Take it a step further and it’s not that much of a stretch to say that even though the content in question is owned by the person that created the breach of terms, the terms still very likely don’t have the right to claim ownership of that content either, only the right to call it a breach and take other action.

YOU are DEVELOPING for wordpress SO you HAVE TO conform to wordpress license. So it simply does not matter what wordpress will do. Or what anyone will do. The thing that matter the most is that i and you are allowed to do all this things, as long as they comply with GPL .

Again, lack of reading comprehension here bud. The issue I brought up was not whether license rules were broken, it was about the rights of the victim of the broken license terms. When someone breaks the WP license what rights does WP have? They certainly have cease and desist type rights, probably even monetary compensation rights. But can they claim to automatically have ownership of the material that was part of their broken license terms in order to have the right to change the license terms of that material? I’m saying I have doubts that that is within their rights to claim within their license. And that is very relevant to the topic.

MBMedia said

Because all other things which are NOT text from GPL are simply irrelevant. This is not about what all people in the world think. Even what i think. The only thing which matter is GPL text of license. You are talking about this txt file – but before putting this txt file you have to give me to read full license text which is compatible with license which was written for this product. If inside your some work which is for example based on gpl, you would put txt file which says something contrary to gpl – this what you added has NO meaning. why ? because its addition to work based on already existing license.

I don’t sell on TF, I wasn’t talking about adding to the GPL . Jaff was right, you really gotta pay attention to what you’re rebuking in order to rebuke it correctly. My example was a simile to illustrate the same issue in completely different situation, files where I make my own license, and how it is possible to create a shady license that wouldn’t be legally upheld even if technically agreed to and then subsequently breached. You’re off on some other tangent about modifying the GPL , reel it back in bud.

Ok, second part was about executing this law – would wordpress do that ? i dont know…. and i dont care very much about it. maybe in 40%. What i care in most is that because of GPL i am completely allowed to do everything what GPL allows me to do with themes from themeforest. Or from any other place. GPL allows me to download themes from warez sites and use it for commercial purpose. And buy them here and spread them around as GPL allows me. And this is what i mostly care. Even if i will never do it. Only thing is that GPL allows me to do that and no existing law can touch me. Why ? because GPL says that everyone can. And no other license can win with GPL .

Again, you’re off on something else entirely. I’m not talking about another license modifying/superceding the GPL . I’m talking about the possibility of flaw within the GPL itself where it possibly claims more rights than is has right to claim. Does it truly have the right to modify the license of other files? Because that’s what it does, and that would seem contrary to many intellectual property rights. For example if someone packaged a stock photo in with their theme, both the author AND any buyers could be legally required to cease and desist using that photo in a way it wasn’t licensed to them. The GPL simply wouldn’t have the right to modify the original license of that photo, regardless of whether it claimed that right upon the author breaching the terms. Take it a step further and it’s not that much of a stretch to say that even though the content in question is owned by the person that created the breach of terms, the terms still very likely don’t have the right to claim ownership of that content either, only the right to call it a breach and take other action.

YOU are DEVELOPING for wordpress SO you HAVE TO conform to wordpress license. So it simply does not matter what wordpress will do. Or what anyone will do. The thing that matter the most is that i and you are allowed to do all this things, as long as they comply with GPL .

Again, lack of reading comprehension here bud. The issue I brought up was not whether license rules were broken, it was about the rights of the victim of the broken license terms. When someone breaks the WP license what rights does WP have? They certainly have cease and desist type rights, probably even monetary compensation rights. But can they claim to automatically have ownership of the material that was part of their broken license terms in order to have the right to change the license terms of that material? I’m saying I have doubts that that is within their rights to claim within their license. And that is very relevant to the topic.

1.You dont sell on TF – i explained to you that this example can not be happened, because even if you would make another license not valid with another, previously existing, your license would be not important. Why ? Because developing for this X you are obligated and you HAVE to read license of that X and obey to license of X. When knowing about license of X you are making contrary license Y end distributing it with something what comply to license X you are confusing people on PURPOSE and its your choice that your license Y invalidates herself.

2.Yes it does have. WHy ? because GPL was written before this other license. For product or group of products which exist later. Or authors of this product choose license which exists already-GPL. GPL itself can not modify license of other product. But if someone is buying photo on stock and is not allowed to use it as GPL – he breaks law. He breaks license for this photo by using this photo in terms of GPL which he MUST read before. You simply and every author of any product HAVE to read on what license is this product made.And when buying photo you have to read license of this photo. This example has similar sense to this: example: I will buy photo on istock for personal use and i will spread it over internet and i will add license text that it is free to distribute, and you will copy it and make folders for your company etc. It would be YOUR CHOICE to not check origins of this phot. Yes, i would be guilty but you choose not to check from this photo come from, so you would be guilty in the same way as me. But now, if you WOULD CHECK from this photo come from and you would found that I AM ISTOCKPHOTO , that this is MY company and i have all rights to do whatever i want with this photos including full distribution ? You would be guilty ? NO !!! You would be completely CLEAN . Why ? Because you got this photo from owner of istockphoto, from me and no in the world would SUE you because no one would have more rights than me ! (istockphoto is only example). And the same thing is for THEMEFOREST . They sell it ! TF distributes themes. And it is up to them to distribute this themes legally and according to GPL . Back to example of istockphoto again – if as in first case- i am not owner, and i gave it to you illegally, but this is really your photo stolen from your camera, and you have all rights to it, when sued you would be completely clean because you would prove that you have rights to it. And the same as in wordpress and GPL . You have the same right to use wordpress on terms of GPL as any other person who is using or part or any portion of wordpress GPL . So this rights are already yours. TF in license terms is just trying to remove them from you and sell you own rights.

3.If you are not sure about doing something you are doing it without risk ? If tf choose to distribute themes whithout FULLY understanding what GPL allows, and how it works in context of distribution – THIS was tf choice. What was already distributed as GPL – is GPL .Its just lesson for future. If you buy something in shop – is that really in every place in the world to return it and get money back ? in the same way TF can not suck back all selled themes from internet again to their servers.they are already distributed.

move this to ThemeForest, they love stuff like this there

damn I just can’t read these epic long posts lol. But after a year of starting this thread I know two things:

- The creator of WordPress supports premium themes for sale.
- ThemeForest complies with WordPress GPL licensing

And as far as jQuery is concerned, I’m not sure the actual licensing terms have been viewed:

Notice the “MIT or GPL” part

Lastly, I’m not sure it’s worth having a conversation with someone who isn’t an author, a buyer or a staff member. Just my 2 cents.

CodingJack said
Lastly, I’m not sure it’s worth having a conversation with someone who isn’t an author, a buyer or a staff member. Just my 2 cents.

That’s kinda the note I ended on. After many explanations he still didn’t understand my first simple theoretical example of a non-GPL file with a poor license term and was rebutting it with “but the GPL overrides other licenses” no matter how many times I explained I didn’t mean a GPL file, just a file in general with a poor license term that I was using as an example of a possible situation that mirrored a point I wanted to discuss. At that point I realized I was conversing with someone who was never going to slow down and read/comprehend what was being typed, nevertheless give it actual though to be able to converse about it. So really there’s no point in continuing the conversation.

A. Most flash dev` I know never use GPL as they make there on class or use MIT .

B. Really bro`s if it’s not MIT I don’t touch it if its regarding flash, or if i need a pay commercial licenses.

C. I can show you hundreds violation staring from fonts images js /class atc ` on tf so spare us the time with GPL licenses.

+1 for it’s not worth having a conversation with someone who isn’t an author/ buyer