WordPress.org bans Themeforest members from participating in official WordCamp gatherings

doru said

greenshady said
Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com does not run WordPress.org, own the WordPress software, or run the WordPress Foundation.

I’m not even trying. click here http://en.wordpress.com/about/ read first paragraph

Nowhere in the first paragraph or anywhere on that page do they say anything that contradicts my statement. In fact, they confirm it.

Their text:

WordPress.com is brought to you by some of the same folks who work on the open source blogging software available at WordPress.org.

Mine:

Automattic, the company behind WordPress.com does not run WordPress.org, own the WordPress software, or run the WordPress Foundation. They are a business built on top of the open-source software we all love: WordPress. They are not “the people who created WordPress” (though some of them work for the company).

Just like I could write on my own site: “This site is brought to you by one of the guys who works on the open source blogging software available at WordPress.org”.

greenshady said
Are not sleezy people re-selling people’s work regardless of the license? There tends to be a new thread around here every day or so about this sort of thing. I can pretty much find any TF theme I want for free or a lower price tag with a Web search.

I’ve seen more people make that argument and it’s a fallacy. Let’s not bring this up again as it helps nobody and nothing good comes out of it.

greenshady said
You’re misunderstanding what “free” means. Free doesn’t mean “no monetary cost” in open-source language. It’s talking about the freedom to use, modify, and distribute code.

We get that. But why isn’t wordpress.com supplying the code to the themes purchased with a GPL license attached. You say it is fine as long as the service is hosted and no distribution occurs. The split license is just fine too. The end result in both business models is the same.

Yet, authors from Envato cannot talk at wordcamp! Screams of hypocrisy

Typps said

greenshady said
Are not sleezy people re-selling people’s work regardless of the license? There tends to be a new thread around here every day or so about this sort of thing. I can pretty much find any TF theme I want for free or a lower price tag with a Web search.

I’ve seen more people make that argument and it’s a fallacy. Let’s not bring this up again as it helps nobody and nothing good comes out of it.

Just because you state something as a fallacy doesn’t make it so. I’ll continue to bring it up until someone convinces me otherwise.

Typps said

greenshady said
You’re misunderstanding what “free” means. Free doesn’t mean “no monetary cost” in open-source language. It’s talking about the freedom to use, modify, and distribute code.

We get that. But why isn’t wordpress.com supplying the code to the themes purchased with a GPL license attached. You say it is fine as long as the service is hosted and no distribution occurs. The split license is just fine too. The end result in both business models is the same.

WordPress.com doesn’t sell themes. They sell a service. The GPL kicks in when distribution occurs. WordPress.com is not distributing themes to users. “Distribution” is a fundamental part of the GPL.

I agree that a split license is perfectly fine. I haven’t made any arguments to the contrary. Any one of us is free to use a split license for our work.

Typps said
So now you want to talk legalese ?

The split license is perfectly valid and does not stop innovation at all.

In all honesty, if people want to distribute their code under the GPL, they can already do so on wordpress.org ; So release your stuff there. I don’t understand what the fixation is with wanting to do that here ?

Caldazar said
Yes, it is but I can’t modify, copy and distribute javascript nor CSS, I have to remove it and start it from scratch.

When a theme is purchased on wordpress.com, I cannot modify, copy nor distribute it. How is this business model different ?

Caldazar said
What? What has that to do with the topic at hand? It’s the theme authors who build their income on GPL. Tell them if you like.

That is what Wordcamp is asking, that a GPL option be provided in the marketplace. It is not necessary as any author that wants this option can very well use the wordpress.org repository.

greenshady said
WordPress.com doesn’t sell themes. They sell a service. The GPL kicks in when distribution occurs. WordPress.com is not distributing themes to users. “Distribution” is a fundamental part of the GPL.

So here’s how ThemeForest can get around this. Instead of offering direct downloads, they can just sell a subscription to a “download service” run by a third party. Then they’d just be selling a “service” and the two situations would be exactly the same.

After spending time with half a dozen blogs, comments:

CodingJack said

greenshady said
WordPress.com doesn’t sell themes. They sell a service. The GPL kicks in when distribution occurs. WordPress.com is not distributing themes to users. “Distribution” is a fundamental part of the GPL.

So here’s how ThemeForest can get around this. Instead of offering direct downloads, they can just sell a subscription to a “download service” run by a third party. Then they’d just be selling a “service” and the two situations would be exactly the same.

I don’t see a need for ThemeForest to “get around” anything. They’re legally in line with the GPL.

I’m simply answering the question about why WordPress.com doesn’t have to distribute their code since several people asked.

CodingJack said
That is what Wordcamp is asking, that a GPL option be provided in the marketplace. It is not necessary as any author that wants this option can very well use the wordpress.org repository.

CodingJack said
So here’s how ThemeForest can get around this. Instead of offering direct downloads, they can just sell a subscription to a “download service” run by a third party. Then they’d just be selling a “service” and the two situations would be exactly the same.

^ think you meant to quote Typps on that first comment there