21 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}
21 {{ upvoteCount | shortNum }}

How Can WP Developers Sell Their Plugins/Themes With Multi-Site Licenses? [GPL Myth Uncovered]

by lirikh
17 replies
Hey all,

I've been doing research about Wordpress plugins/themes, and how it is mandatory for them to be released under GPL.

Now I have a question, how can developers sell their plugins with multiple licenses?

There is some legal grey area regarding what is considered a derivative work, but we feel strongly that plugins and themes are derivative work and thus inherit the GPL license. If you disagree, you might want to consider a non-GPL platform such as Serendipity (BSD license) or Habari (Apache license) instead.
Source: WordPress › About » License

I understand if WP developers would restrict their support to single/multi sites, but they have no right to restrict how we use their WP plugins. Heck I could even resell their plugins if I wanted to. WP developers are developing for WordPress, so they have to conform with WP's license. Just as the authors of WordPress state, if you don't like the idea of your work being under GPL, then just choose another platform that isn't GPL licensed.

The GPL is all about freedom. Did developers pay to use WordPress? Did they pay for a WordPress developer's license? No. So they should respect the GPL and pass those same freedoms on. Of course they can charge a price for the transfer of the files, but they can't make up bogus licenses for multi-use or developer-use, that's just plain wrong.

Now I hear people saying: "Oh but images/css/javascript are not covered by GPL". WRONG !!!

Section 2: [...] These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.
Source: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html

Since all files are received under a .zip file, as a whole work (plugin/theme), the images/css/javascript are considered to be part of the work, thus they are covered by the GPL license.

I have to agree this is a delicate issue, so let me know what you guys think. If you have a degree in law, I would very much appreciate your input.
#developers #gpl #licenses #multisite #myth #plugins or themes #sell #uncovered
  • Profile picture of the author konakid
    Wow, I've never heard of this, and it could be huge!

    If this was true you could buy any premium plugin, and then turn around and sell it for yourself. Here's another relevant line from the license:

    "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

    It seems like it would be technically legal to resell a plugin, although I would feel guilty doing it.

    I've love to hear a lawyers opinion on this.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796734].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lirikh
      Originally Posted by konakid View Post

      Wow, I've never heard of this, and it could be huge!

      If this was true you could buy any premium plugin, and then turn around and sell it for yourself. Here's another relevant line from the license:

      "You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee."

      It seems like it would be technically legal to resell a plugin, although I would feel guilty doing it.

      I've love to hear a lawyers opinion on this.
      There's also much controversy on the Web revolving around this issue.

      Envato, the guys that own ThemeForest and CodeCanyon, have implemented "split-licenses" to protect the work of their authors. A conflict emerged between them and Wordpress.org, as they banned Envato members from Wordcamps, the largest "official" gatherings surrounding WordPress.

      Technically, any license could be made up. I could create a license.txt and put it into my .zip. Then, I could write that upon downloading this file, you are obligated to sell me your house for $1. But that doesn't mean it would stand up in court. The same goes for this split-license non-sense that tries to exploit the GPL license. I haven't found any cases online that mention anyone getting sued by Envato for breaking this split-license. In my opinion, it's a marketing scare-tactic to force people to spend more money.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796789].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author WillR
    That's great if you don't want any support, any updates, any marketers innovating new plugins for you.

    Take away the reason for people to create plugins and very few people will.

    So be very careful what you decide.

    Most people are honorable individuals who believe in the integrity of the open source community and the GPL license and thus why it's never been an issue.
    Signature

    .


    .

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796766].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author lirikh
      Originally Posted by WillR View Post

      Most people are honorable individuals who believe in the integrity of the open source community and the GPL license and thus why it's never been an issue.
      This is exactly why they shouldn't offer multi-use or developer-use licenses because if they believe in the integrity of the open source community and the GPL, then they should sell their product under the GPL, just like StudioPress or WooThemes does.

      Will, you're off-topic. This thread is about the multi-use and developer-use licenses, and not about stealing someone else's work and selling it as your own, because that would be unethical of course.
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796793].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author WillR
        Originally Posted by lirikh View Post

        This is exactly why they shouldn't offer multi-use or developer-use licenses because if they believe in the integrity of the open source community and the GPL, then they should sell their product under the GPL, just like StudioPress or WooThemes does.

        Will, you're off-topic. This thread is about the multi-use and developer-use licenses, and not about stealing someone else's work and selling it as your own, because that would be unethical of course.
        As far as I understand, if someone releases a plugin that uses code to check their server for a license key for each install, that is perfectly acceptable. So long as the source code is distributed in regards to the GPL license. GPL does not mean people have to give things away for free and does not mean people cannot lock functions of their plugin and charge to use certain things that connect to their server such as license keys.

        Also keep in mind if you do use someone elses's code to create a plugin you must give attribution to the person who originally created the plugin and you can only claim author for the parts of code you added.
        Signature

        .


        .

        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796818].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author butters
        Originally Posted by lirikh View Post

        This is exactly why they shouldn't offer multi-use or developer-use licenses because if they believe in the integrity of the open source community and the GPL, then they should sell their product under the GPL, just like StudioPress or WooThemes does.

        Will, you're off-topic. This thread is about the multi-use and developer-use licenses, and not about stealing someone else's work and selling it as your own, because that would be unethical of course.
        I'm pretty sure if I sold woothemes website and kept 100% of the profit (as you say is allowed) they would be sueing the crap out of me!! Especially if I took a large chunk of their business based on me taking their hard work... How does copyright laws come into this? No matter what your work is copyrighted under the Berne convention, even under the GPL.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796828].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
    Gpl requires derivatives works of thie main work must also be licensed under the gpl. Failure to do so means the author of the derivative work is violating the main author's copyright.

    The theory (untested in court, as there are a lot of questions about what is and isn't a derivative work as regards software) is that wp plugins and themes are
    Derivative works of wp (as they contain both derivative elements of wp, and new elements created by the plugin author).

    If that is the case, then the a plugin author who distributes under a non-gpl license is violating the wp copyright.

    Please note however this does NOT allow somebody else (you, or wp, etc) to take that plugin and treat it as if it were gpl, as in that case you would be violating the plugin author's copyright.

    Instead the remedy for the plugin author violating the wp copyright is for wp to sue him for damages and/or an order to stop him infringing (by stopping him distributing his plugin). Neither wp nor you can make the plugin author follow the gpl - although the plugin author might perhaps agree to do so, as part of a legal settlement, or to avoid bad publicity, etc.

    (I am not a lawyer, just I'm just a software guy who follows the news, so this is my layman's understanding)
    Signature
    ClickBank Vendor?
    - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
    - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
    - Killer Graphics for Your Site
    SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796841].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author butters
    Also... Quoted from smashing magazine...

    Selling themes on the open market is a gray area, because distribution must be under the GPL. The GPL allows you to sell this work, but it also allows others to redistribute and sell it, too; you can’t do much about that. However, theoretically, the only derivative work that falls under GPL is the PHP code; any images, CSS and other content in your project remain yours. On top of that, you are free to charge extra for technical support and so on.

    Remember that while WordPress is open source and free under the GPL, it is still copyrighted. You have to respect its chosen license.

    Source: Understanding Copyright And Licenses | Smashing Magazine
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796868].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author lirikh
    As far as I understand, if someone releases a plugin that uses code to check their server for a license key for each install, that is perfectly acceptable. So long as the source code is distributed in regards to the GPL license. GPL does not mean people have to give things away for free and does not mean people cannot lock functions of their plugin and charge to use certain things that connect to their server such as license keys.

    Also keep in mind if you do use someone elses's code to create a plugin you must give attribution to the person who originally created the plugin and you can only claim author for the parts of code you added.
    Okay I see what you mean, but I feel you're still off-topic Will.

    API keys and multi-use licenses are completely different ways of restricting the use of your plugin. API keys are used to restrict access when the plugin needs to connect to a server (example: Akismet), so not only it's a plugin but it's a service as well. In this case, the developer would of course restrict access to his server.

    If the plugin does not connect to any server to perform its functions and still has API keys, then that would just be a ruse to exploit the GPL. In this case, I could just modify the source code and still have the plugin working, which wouldn't work with a plugin like Akismet because you NEED their servers and that is a why they provide API keys.

    Let's get back to the multi-use / developer-use licenses issue.

    any images, CSS and other content in your project remain yours.
    Yes, any images, css and other content in your project remain yours, unless it is part of your theme/plugin that you are selling or transferring. Distribution is an important factor, so if you are selling a theme/plugin and you explicitly put them together (in a .zip file), then it would mean the images, css and other content are part of your work so they are covered under GPL.

    I would recommend reading GNU General Public License v2.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation as it is a better source than smashing magazine.

    I do not have a degree in law, so I may be wrong. But I think I'll make a good lawyer, lol.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796897].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
      The FSF takes a very expansionist interpretation of the GPL (for example in their FAQ), which AFAIK has not yet been tested in court. Some authors and lawyers, take a narrower view.

      The problem of interpretation is what is and isn't a derivative work in software

      The FSF seems takes the view that merely calling an APIs can make something a derivative work (and therefore a copyright infringement if not placed under the GPL). Courts don't necessarily agree - there have been cases (albeit with proprietary licenses) where courts have lent towards saying you can call and/or emulate APIs without permission for compatability reasons. Even the FSF contradicts themselves on this to an extent.

      And to make it worse, the FSF FAQ is written from the point of view of compiled languages, and the FSF takes the view that uses an API makes something derivative when done using technical method A or B, but not method C or D, which is entirely arbitrary.

      In any case, even if the FSF is right on every point of interpretation, you still don't get the right to take non-GPL WP plugins and treat them as if they were GPL.
      Signature
      ClickBank Vendor?
      - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
      - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
      - Killer Graphics for Your Site
      SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796936].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author WillR
      Originally Posted by lirikh View Post

      Okay I see what you mean, but I feel you're still off-topic Will.

      API keys and multi-use licenses are completely different ways of restricting the use of your plugin. API keys are used to restrict access when the plugin needs to connect to a server (example: Akismet), so not only it's a plugin but it's a service as well. In this case, the developer would of course restrict access to his server.

      If the plugin does not connect to any server to perform its functions and still has API keys, then that would just be a ruse to exploit the GPL. In this case, I could just modify the source code and still have the plugin working, which wouldn't work with a plugin like Akismet because you NEED their servers and that is a why they provide API keys.

      Let's get back to the multi-use / developer-use licenses issue.
      I mentioned that because you are talking about licenses. The difference between license levels such as a single use or multi use license is in the number of domains you can install it on. If I have a license system setup whereby you must use a license key to unlock each install of the plugin then yes, I can control how many copies you can install and thus there is a perfectly acceptable reason to charge for different license options. When talking about license options you also need to consider things such as customer support. The more domains people are installing your plugin, the more customer support you are likely to get and thus the more you will want to charge for those licenses that offer installs on more than one site.

      Different license levels make perfect sense.
      Signature

      .


      .

      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7796946].message }}
      • Profile picture of the author lirikh
        Originally Posted by WillR View Post

        When talking about license options you also need to consider things such as customer support. The more domains people are installing your plugin, the more customer support you are likely to get and thus the more you will want to charge for those licenses that offer installs on more than one site.
        So why not charge for single-site support and multi-site support instead?

        you still don't get the right to take non-GPL WP plugins and treat them as if they were GPL.
        But how can WP plugins be non-GPL in the first place? Anyhow, this issue is very complicated, and I don't suppose we can reach a conclusion today.

        However, I still feel strongly, just like the authors of WordPress, that themes/plugins are derivatives of WP and therefore should be covered under GPL with all of their contents (css/images/javascript/etc.) as explained in section 2.
        {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7797082].message }}
        • Profile picture of the author WillR
          Originally Posted by lirikh View Post

          So why not charge for single-site support and multi-site support instead?
          Why not charge for licenses since that is what you are selling. The right to use your plugin on x number of domains as controlled by your license system.

          Originally Posted by lirikh View Post

          Anyhow, this issue is very complicated, and I don't suppose we can reach a conclusion today.
          Definitely agree with that. It's very complex and way too much room for interpretation, I think. The fact is developers who innovate and sell plugins are doing Wordpress a favor by making their platform more popular, more desirable and allowing it to do more things. So Wordpress would be shooting themselves in the foot if they were to mess around with any developers, and they know that.

          Originally Posted by lirikh View Post

          However, I still feel strongly, just like the authors of WordPress, that themes/plugins are derivatives of WP and therefore should be covered under GPL with all of their contents (css/images/javascript/etc.) as explained in section 2.
          Your previous quote from Wordpress basically sums up how sure they are about that point...

          There is some legal grey area regarding what is considered a derivative work, but we feel strongly that plugins and themes are derivative work and thus inherit the GPL license. If you disagree, you might want to consider a non-GPL platform such as Serendipity (BSD license) or Habari (Apache license) instead.
          "But we feel strongly" certainly is no legal term. From that comment alone I can tell they know it's a very grey area and that it would be very hard for them to enforce that point.
          Signature

          .


          .

          {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7797103].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author Istvan Horvath
    Originally Posted by lirikh View Post

    The GPL is all about freedom. Did developers pay to use WordPress? Did they pay for a WordPress developer's license? No. So they should respect the GPL and pass those same freedoms on.
    The problem is when you start the discussion with a flawed argument... everything gets derailed

    To quote the proverbial example about GPL: it is FREE as in free speech not FREE as in free beer.

    So, in your sentences above talking about "freedom" and "payment" as if they were mutually exclusive - make people think that your whole theoretical construction that follows... will not stand. Too bad.

    You correctly identified a potential issue (should we say a grey area in a bigger grey area?) of single and multisite 'licensing'. Just that your argument starts on the wrong foot
    Signature

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7797642].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author sbucciarel
    Banned
    Whether or not a developer complies with GPL is between the owner of Wordpress and the developer, not you and the developer. If they don't distribute it under GPL licensing, don't buy it if you don't like it.

    Personally, I am glad there are developers who develop great plugins and themes and I comply with the license they have on their sales page, not what Wordpress dictates. If they have a developer's license and I want to use it on unlimited sites, I buy the developer's license.

    I even buy the developer licenses from Woo Themes, which is licensed under GPL, but offers developer licenses, even though people don't have to buy them. I prefer to reward the hard work of developers.
    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7797808].message }}
    • Profile picture of the author SunilTanna
      Originally Posted by sbucciarel View Post

      Whether or not a developer complies with GPL is between the owner of Wordpress and the developer, not you and the developer.
      Precisely

      The developer's stuff is a mix of his own stuff, and code that connects (and arguably is derived from WP, and thus infringing WP's copyright if not GPLed).

      You have no legal standing to enforce WP's copyrights, so you have no legal or moral capability to stop the developer doing that.

      WP (assuming the developer's code is derivative) does have legal standing. But the most they can ask in court is to make the developer stop future infringement and pay damages for past infringement.

      WP doesn't have the legal right to force the developer to GPL his own code.

      And you, a person with no legal standing whatsoever, certainly have no right to force him.


      Here is a quote from Eben Moglen, FSF's attorney
      "Because the GPL does not require any promises in return from licensees, it does not need contract enforcement in order to work. A GPL licensor doesn't say in the event of trouble "But, judge, the licensee promised me he wouldn't do what he's doing now." The licensor plaintiff says 'Judge, the defendant is redistributing my copyrighted work without permission.' The defendant can then either agree that he has no permission, in which case he loses, or assert that his permission is the GPL, in which case he must show that he is obeying its terms. A defendant cannot simultaneously assert that the GPL is valid permission for his distribution and also assert that it is not a valid copyright license, which is why defendants do not 'challenge' the GPL.

      "The claim that a GPL violation could lead to the forcing open of proprietary code that has wrongfully included GPL'd components is simply wrong. There is no provision in the Copyright Act to require distribution of infringing work on altered terms. What copyright plaintiffs are entitled to, under the Act, are damages, injunctions to prevent infringing distribution, and--where appropriate--attorneys' fees. A defendant found to have wrongfully included GPL'd code in its own proprietary work can be mulcted in damages for the distribution that has already occurred, and prevented from distributing its product further. That's a sufficient disincentive to make wrongful use of GPL'd program code. And it is all that the Copyright Act permits."
      And if you treat the developer's code as if it were GPLed (when it's not), then YOU are the infringing party, and the developer might sue you to stop you infringing his copyright and for copyright damages.
      Signature
      ClickBank Vendor?
      - Protect Your Thank You Pages & Downloads
      - Give Your Affiliates Multiple Landing Pages (Video Demo)
      - Killer Graphics for Your Site
      SPECIAL WSO PRICES FOR WARRIORS + GET THE "CLICKBANK DISCOUNT" TOO!
      {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7797958].message }}
  • Profile picture of the author mojojuju
    There is some legal grey area regarding what is considered a derivative work, but we feel strongly that plugins and themes are derivative work and thus inherit the GPL license. If you disagree, you might want to consider a non-GPL platform such as Serendipity (BSD license) or Habari (Apache license) instead.
    I don't agree with this and I think the WP guys are just in for a power grab. It doesn't make sense that because some software makes use of functions from another software which is licensed under a GPL licence, that it also must inherit the GPL license. That's like saying that all software that runs on Linux based operating systems must be released under the GPL simply because the Linux kernel which that software ultimately depends on is released under a GPL license.

    I like the GPL and freedom and unicorns and shit, but this is a misuse of the GPL in my opinion.
    Signature

    :)

    {{ DiscussionBoard.errors[7798202].message }}

Trending Topics