<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: ⇥ WordPress and the GPL: the day after</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/?utm_source=rss&#038;utm_medium=rss&#038;utm_campaign=wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after</link>
	<description>Stumbling on since 1997</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Fri, 07 Oct 2011 08:06:16 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.2.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: mario</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1435</link>
		<dc:creator>mario</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Thu, 29 Jul 2010 08:59:26 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1435</guid>
		<description>First off, it&#039;s called the GNU GPL, not the GPL. Second one shouldn&#039;t circumvent the license definition by adding own terms and restrictions. And third, Matt didn&#039;t choose the license. WP is a derivative work.

Most importantly, if themes are sold or distributed with different mixed licenses, they still can fulfill the GNU GPL. The overarching license condition and reasoning behind the Four Freedomz BS is availability of source code. This is a given with themes, in CSS and PHP snippets (unless obfuscated). Claiming license violation needs to be substantiated not based on musings and interpretations on a license you didn&#039;t actually pick yourself. -- Sorry, being blunt day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>First off, it&#8217;s called the GNU GPL, not the GPL. Second one shouldn&#8217;t circumvent the license definition by adding own terms and restrictions. And third, Matt didn&#8217;t choose the license. WP is a derivative work.</p>
<p>Most importantly, if themes are sold or distributed with different mixed licenses, they still can fulfill the GNU GPL. The overarching license condition and reasoning behind the Four Freedomz BS is availability of source code. This is a given with themes, in CSS and PHP snippets (unless obfuscated). Claiming license violation needs to be substantiated not based on musings and interpretations on a license you didn&#8217;t actually pick yourself. &#8212; Sorry, being blunt day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Marco Tabini</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1373</link>
		<dc:creator>Marco Tabini</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 11:05:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1373</guid>
		<description>Larry: I didn&#039;t say that the GPL is unenforceable—I said that it is not tested as far as derivative works goes in the specific context of this problem. Also, I don&#039;t feel that I can answer your question on the use of precedent conclusively from a legal perspective, but your argument is circular: “all contracts” that are based on rules clearly established by precedent don&#039;t have to be tested in court, because those rules have already been. Given that contracts and courts have been around for a long time, the majority of contracts that deal with well-established scenarios is probably enforceable if written by a competent lawyer.

And finally, my beef is not with what the GPL means, but with what those who adopt think it means and the fact that it is confusing and unclear on some points. If you bought a car, wouldn&#039;t you want to be clear on what the terms of the purchase are?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Larry: I didn&#8217;t say that the GPL is unenforceable—I said that it is not tested as far as derivative works goes in the specific context of this problem. Also, I don&#8217;t feel that I can answer your question on the use of precedent conclusively from a legal perspective, but your argument is circular: “all contracts” that are based on rules clearly established by precedent don&#8217;t have to be tested in court, because those rules have already been. Given that contracts and courts have been around for a long time, the majority of contracts that deal with well-established scenarios is probably enforceable if written by a competent lawyer.</p>
<p>And finally, my beef is not with what the GPL means, but with what those who adopt think it means and the fact that it is confusing and unclear on some points. If you bought a car, wouldn&#8217;t you want to be clear on what the terms of the purchase are?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: saulgoode</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1372</link>
		<dc:creator>saulgoode</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 08:18:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1372</guid>
		<description>&lt;blockquote&gt;Matt doesn’t enforce the license: that’s for a court of law to do. Therefore, what he thinks at this point only has value, from a legal standpoint, if a competent court determines that the terms of the GPL agree with him.&lt;/blockquote&gt;

The terms of the GPL would not enter the picture until after a court decided that the themes are derivative works. Matt would not be suing because a theme violated the GPL, but because it infringes upon his copyrights. If the courts decide the theme is a derivative work then the theme&#039;s author needs to show that he is somehow authorized to distribute the theme. If the GPL is examined at all during the case, it will be because the theme&#039;s author has had to introduce it (and will be asked to show that he is satisfying its terms and conditions).

This is the same process that would be followed regardless of the license. It&#039;s the same process that is followed hundreds of times every year with all manner of licenses. 

If you base your work on somebody else&#039;s copyrighted work then you need to have authorization to do so. This is not demanded by the GPL, it is demanded by copyright law. If it is not demanded by copyright law then the GPL lays no claim.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<blockquote><p>Matt doesn’t enforce the license: that’s for a court of law to do. Therefore, what he thinks at this point only has value, from a legal standpoint, if a competent court determines that the terms of the GPL agree with him.</p></blockquote>
<p>The terms of the GPL would not enter the picture until after a court decided that the themes are derivative works. Matt would not be suing because a theme violated the GPL, but because it infringes upon his copyrights. If the courts decide the theme is a derivative work then the theme&#8217;s author needs to show that he is somehow authorized to distribute the theme. If the GPL is examined at all during the case, it will be because the theme&#8217;s author has had to introduce it (and will be asked to show that he is satisfying its terms and conditions).</p>
<p>This is the same process that would be followed regardless of the license. It&#8217;s the same process that is followed hundreds of times every year with all manner of licenses. </p>
<p>If you base your work on somebody else&#8217;s copyrighted work then you need to have authorization to do so. This is not demanded by the GPL, it is demanded by copyright law. If it is not demanded by copyright law then the GPL lays no claim.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Larry Garfield</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1369</link>
		<dc:creator>Larry Garfield</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 04:40:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1369</guid>
		<description>I find it curious that you spend so much time saying that &quot;if you&#039;re not a lawyer or judge your opinion doesn&#039;t matter&quot;, yet as far as I&#039;m aware you are neither a lawyer nor a judge.  Does your opinion that your opinion doesn&#039;t matter not matter? :-)

That argument of course would render any and all contracts worthless until tested in court.  It would also render any and all laws worthless until tested in court.  If the GPL is meaningless until someone is successfully sued, then so is every other software license out there.

And yet legal opinions are rendered by attorneys on a daily basis, and are followed by most parties.  

Quite simply, the logical conclusion of this argument is that there is no law or contract other than case law.  That is an incredibly silly argument to make.  Certainly in the US system a substantial body of case law makes an argument more convincing, but law and contract still exist in its absence.

And lest anyone think that the GPL is untested, it has been tested and enforced in Germany (as noted above).  In the US, the SCO case took the better part of a decade but has more or less ended quite conclusively against SCO (one of whose arguments was that the GPL was unenforceable; the court disagreed).  And there have been many many GPL violation cases brought up, either to the point of lawsuit or not, and in all cases in the US the alleged violator has *backed down and settled out of court*.  It is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw that they all realized that the GPL was enforceable, did apply, and they&#039;d lose if they went all the way to a judicial ruling.  That should tell you something.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I find it curious that you spend so much time saying that &#8220;if you&#8217;re not a lawyer or judge your opinion doesn&#8217;t matter&#8221;, yet as far as I&#8217;m aware you are neither a lawyer nor a judge.  Does your opinion that your opinion doesn&#8217;t matter not matter? <img src='http://blog.tabini.ca/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /> </p>
<p>That argument of course would render any and all contracts worthless until tested in court.  It would also render any and all laws worthless until tested in court.  If the GPL is meaningless until someone is successfully sued, then so is every other software license out there.</p>
<p>And yet legal opinions are rendered by attorneys on a daily basis, and are followed by most parties.  </p>
<p>Quite simply, the logical conclusion of this argument is that there is no law or contract other than case law.  That is an incredibly silly argument to make.  Certainly in the US system a substantial body of case law makes an argument more convincing, but law and contract still exist in its absence.</p>
<p>And lest anyone think that the GPL is untested, it has been tested and enforced in Germany (as noted above).  In the US, the SCO case took the better part of a decade but has more or less ended quite conclusively against SCO (one of whose arguments was that the GPL was unenforceable; the court disagreed).  And there have been many many GPL violation cases brought up, either to the point of lawsuit or not, and in all cases in the US the alleged violator has *backed down and settled out of court*.  It is not an unreasonable conclusion to draw that they all realized that the GPL was enforceable, did apply, and they&#8217;d lose if they went all the way to a judicial ruling.  That should tell you something.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: GPL and WordPress: Failure? &#171; The-Source.com</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1367</link>
		<dc:creator>GPL and WordPress: Failure? &#171; The-Source.com</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 20 Jul 2010 01:24:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1367</guid>
		<description>[...] of the reading at this point walks well-trod ground, but  one bit of commentary by The Accidental Businessman (Marco Tabini) deserves special attention: You could say that Matt’s opinion counts, because he [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[...] of the reading at this point walks well-trod ground, but  one bit of commentary by The Accidental Businessman (Marco Tabini) deserves special attention: You could say that Matt’s opinion counts, because he [...]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Shawn Stratton</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1365</link>
		<dc:creator>Shawn Stratton</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 15:52:19 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1365</guid>
		<description>It seems to me that one of the major lacks in the open source community is an actual understanding of the license and how it applies to not only the project but it&#039;s consumption.  Perhaps that would make a good issue of PHP Architect, licensing and contrasting the various major projects and their licenses.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>It seems to me that one of the major lacks in the open source community is an actual understanding of the license and how it applies to not only the project but it&#8217;s consumption.  Perhaps that would make a good issue of PHP Architect, licensing and contrasting the various major projects and their licenses.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Lukas</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1364</link>
		<dc:creator>Lukas</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:18:12 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1364</guid>
		<description>actually over here in Europe contracts and their content usually stand on their own and its not up to a judge and what he ate for breakfast to decide how things go. it seems the US legal system (not sure if this applies to Canada too) however is more based on previous cases (aka decisions of other judges and the lawyers in question being able to pull out the right one to make their case).

that being said, there are some doubts about how the GPL applies for example to germany law, but still there isnt that much of a feel of uncertainty in germany (actually IIRC the GPL was once enforced in germany). so i think when discussing topics like this (the merit of CLA&#039;s is a similar topic) probably requires clarifying on what continent of the world one lives.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>actually over here in Europe contracts and their content usually stand on their own and its not up to a judge and what he ate for breakfast to decide how things go. it seems the US legal system (not sure if this applies to Canada too) however is more based on previous cases (aka decisions of other judges and the lawyers in question being able to pull out the right one to make their case).</p>
<p>that being said, there are some doubts about how the GPL applies for example to germany law, but still there isnt that much of a feel of uncertainty in germany (actually IIRC the GPL was once enforced in germany). so i think when discussing topics like this (the merit of CLA&#8217;s is a similar topic) probably requires clarifying on what continent of the world one lives.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Andreas Nurbo</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1362</link>
		<dc:creator>Andreas Nurbo</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:11:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1362</guid>
		<description>Good article except for one point. Matt didn&#039;t choose the GPL license. WordPress is a fork of b2 which was GPL.

The biggest problem with this debate is that it has shown how many ill mannered folks there is in the community of WordPress.

The second biggest problem is the attitude that there is only one correct interpretation of the license and if you don&#039;t agree with that interpretation you&#039;re breaking the law.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Good article except for one point. Matt didn&#8217;t choose the GPL license. WordPress is a fork of b2 which was GPL.</p>
<p>The biggest problem with this debate is that it has shown how many ill mannered folks there is in the community of WordPress.</p>
<p>The second biggest problem is the attitude that there is only one correct interpretation of the license and if you don&#8217;t agree with that interpretation you&#8217;re breaking the law.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: fritz the cat</title>
		<link>http://blog.tabini.ca/2010/07/wordpress-and-the-gpl-the-day-after/comment-page-1/#comment-1361</link>
		<dc:creator>fritz the cat</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 Jul 2010 14:08:04 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.tabini.ca/?p=776#comment-1361</guid>
		<description>I agree with you, it&#039;s weird seeing people who are not law professional making suggestion based on their own interpretation of the law.

It&#039;s also weird seeing all this excitement over Thesis... I only used it once, and that was because of a client who fancied himself a tekkie and wanted to use it. I say sure, you want it you pay for it and it&#039;s yours. Do real developers use Thesis at all??</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I agree with you, it&#8217;s weird seeing people who are not law professional making suggestion based on their own interpretation of the law.</p>
<p>It&#8217;s also weird seeing all this excitement over Thesis&#8230; I only used it once, and that was because of a client who fancied himself a tekkie and wanted to use it. I say sure, you want it you pay for it and it&#8217;s yours. Do real developers use Thesis at all??</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

