Posted by Ben Cook as Blog Monetization, Site News, WordPress Information, WordPress Plugins, WordPress Themes
Last night I logged in to Blogging Experiment to set the schedule of posts for this week and noticed a comment awaiting moderation. The comment was from David Peralty, the author behind the popular BloggingPro.com blog. The comment was this:
Most of the code of this theme, as well as the graphics comes from the Blogging Pro Theme which is not GPL, it is Creative Commons. Which means you can’t sell this theme. You are profiting off of code you do not own. A quick look at the graphics, CSS, and even theme structure compared to the Blogging Pro theme will let you know this is the case.
Please do not sell this theme any longer, and I will be contacting the creator of the Blogging Pro theme, Design Disease, as well as the owners of the copyright, Bloggy Network LLC.
Obviously this is not the type of comment that any blogger likes to see. However, I didn’t want to just sweep the comment under the rug as it raises several questions that should probably be addressed.
First and foremost, yes, the Blogging Experiment theme does integrate portions of the BloggingPro theme. However, it is hardly “most of the code.” Our theme has gone through SEVERAL extensive modifications and best I can tell, the only aspects of the BloggingPro theme that remain are the comment images. So, does the use of those images prevent us from selling the theme?
The answer to that question hinges on the type of license the BloggingPro theme was released under. As Mr. Peralty states in his comment, the theme mentions that it is released under a Creative Commons license. Unfortunately for Mr. Peralty and Design Disease, just because you SAY you release something under a specific license, doesn’t mean it actually applies. You see, WordPress is distributed under the GNU GPL license and stipulates that products (including themes) that are based on WordPress be distributed under the GNU GPL license, rather than the Creative Commons license that would prohibit us from selling the Blogging Experiment theme.
But don’t just take my word for it. You know the license that you get when you download WordPress? It states
You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.
Also, over in the WordPress forum, Matt Mullenweg states clearly that
themes link and use lots of internal WordPress functions, which make them linked under the GPL and subject to being a GPL-compatible license.
If a theme (or a plugin) used no internal WP functions or APIs, then it could probably be considered independent, but that would be really really hard for a theme.
In light of all of this information, I’m fairly confident that we are well within our rights to sell the Blogging Experiment theme. However just to be safe, the sale of the Blogging Experiment theme will be suspended until the issue is fully sorted out.
Now that I’ve had time to do a bit of research, get some advice and sleep a bit, here’s what I have:
1. If it was a pure copyright issue, the button graphics would definitely be an issue. The XHTML related to the buttons might be an issue although they’d have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove or justify that. The CSS might be copyrightable as part of the design of the pages.
Since the graphics have now been replaced in the version for sale and the XHTML in question removed, that should no longer be an issue. As several people have stated, the design differs so substantially that no one would confuse the two, so I don’t believe the CSS issue has ever been a valid one.
2. In the case of the Creative Commons license, under the Share Alike 3.0 License which Blogging Pro claims is applicable:
“This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.”
from: http://creativecommons.org/abo…..e-licenses
So commercial use is clearly allowed under the Creative Commons Share Alike license. If they did not intend to allow commercial use they could have chosen the Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.
BTW, the phrase “license their new creations under the identical terms” replies to the terms of the Share Alike license not any additional terms that someone might want to apply.
A credit has been added to the style.css file (that’s where it goes in WordPress themes) of the for-sale version as follows:
This theme was designed by James Cook of studioJMC (http://www.studioJMC.com/) and incorporates elements from the Blogging Pro Theme by Elena G (http://blog.designdisease.com/) as well as elements from the Default WordPress theme by Michael Heilemann (http://binarybonsai.com/) and others.
That is based upon the attribution information in the Blogging Pro theme and should resolve that issue.
3. Of course if the GPL applies, as I still firmly believe, none of that makes a difference.
Speaking strictly for myself and not Blogging Experiment or Ben, I believe I am now in compliance no matter what standard is applied and I feel comfortable resuming sales of the theme when I choose to. Out of deference to the Blogging Pro folks I won’t offer the version with their button graphics.
First off, I want to say that the theme was released under CC-Attribution. With the added text to your CSS, changing the graphics, and whatever else you have done, I don’t see ANY reason why I would want to continue to press this issue, and honestly, I am VERY sorry that it went down the way it did.
All of these exchanges should have been done privately, and they should have been done between myself, you, and Ben.
I am very happy to see that you have complied with the changes I originally asked for. And while I don’t like seeing the theme sold, I do agree that you guys are now within your right to do so.
With this latest change, I would like to put out an olive branch and let you know that despite how everything went down, I would like to mention the Blogging Experiment theme release on Blogging Pro, if you guys are interested.
This did bring up some very interesting and heated issues and discussions, and despite not resolving the bigger issues, I hope I can say that we have reached a conclusion to our back and forth on this whole mess.
Whew. That was quite a bit messier than I had hoped for but in the end it looks like all parties are agreed and comfortable with the Blogging Experiment theme being sold. With that said, the Blogging Experiment theme is once again for sale!
37 Responses
pops
December 10th, 2007 at 9:52 am
1@Ben, it’s not correct to say it’s only the images, if you look at the code, you’ll still find significant remnants from BloggingPro’s PHP and CSS. This doesn’t change the point of your argument but I want to be very clear about what is involved.
@Shane. The GNU Public License doesn’t prevent anyone from charging a fee for distribution. That fee can be nothing, minimal or substantial. The license only requires that, once someone has the theme, program, etc., they have full access to the source code and are free to use, modify and distribute it.
David
December 10th, 2007 at 10:44 am
2Actually, this isn’t really a legal issue, or even one where Matt can come in and save you.
It is as simple as this. If Matt Mullenweg’s rule applies, then ALL themes released for WordPress under ANY business model would be doomed.
I could purchase your theme, and put it on Blogging Pro for the world to download for FREE, thus compromising your business model. I could then do the same with ANY and ALL premium themes AND plugins without worry of legal recourse.
I don’t think this is the case, as Matt has also been very strong in creating a system that doesn’t destroy said business models. As much as he believes in GPL, and would like to extend it fully to everything that touches WordPress, this just isn’t the case.
I have watched as many premium theme makers have had to deal with this kind of insanity at the WordPress user base, and its only becoming a bigger and bigger problem.
Do what’s right. The theme is licensed under CC, so don’t sell your theme, and give public attribution in each download to Bloggy Network.
You use a lot of the CSS from Blogging Pro Theme, as well as the whole comments area, some graphics, and xhtml.
Why create such issues in the community for a few bucks?
Ben Cook
December 10th, 2007 at 11:26 am
3David, I don’t see how it’s not a legal matter. Either the licensing applies as you state, or it doesn’t and anyone is free to distribute any theme as they see fit.
Your position is that the theme is licensed under CC and my position is that it is licensed under GPL. If I am correct then selling the theme would be “doing what is right.” However, if you’ve noticed, I’ve suspended the sale of the theme temporarily until this issue is settled so please, save your morality lectures for someone else.
Also, you ask why create such issues in the community for a few bucks? Well first and foremost compensation for the considerable amount of work that has been put in would be the main reason. Also, if I don’t raise this issue, you can be certain someone else will down the road.
Again, let me stress that I’m not a lawyer but certainly everything I have read to this point suggests that I am correct. David, if you have other information to present other than your opinion on the matter, please feel free to drop links in the comments or email me or whatever. But as of right now I’m fairly confident I’m on the right side of this issue.
Adam McKerlie
December 10th, 2007 at 11:31 am
4This entire thing is ridiculous. First of all Blogging Pro needs to show beyond a shadow of a doubt that 1) They coded it first 2) Ben’s theme is more than 30% the same (US law against programming copyright).
Proving that code has been “copied” is extremely difficult especially with wordpress. So g’luck
Theres been 1 or 2 cases in the US where a person has actually won in a court when they tried to prove that their code was stolen. Don’t worry Ben, your fine.
pops
December 10th, 2007 at 11:45 am
5@David, Contrary to your assertion, the code included in the comment area actually works against your argument. If you take the time to compare the BloggingPro code in the comments area to the comments code in the default WordPress theme you’ll see that Blogging Pro is not built from scratch but actually built on top of the default WordPress theme (I can share the code with you if you like). Yes, there are modifications BUT those modifications do not give anyone the right to change the WordPress license.
Michael VanDeMar
December 10th, 2007 at 12:01 pm
6@Ben - as I mentioned in PM, I do not believe that themes or plugins are necessitated to be GPL just because they happen to work with Wordpress, and I cited my research to you there. However…
David… I have to ask… looking at the two side by side, apart from the comments graphics I actually see very little similarity between the two sites.
I just took 2 minimal content from both pages, and plugged them into WebConf’s Similar Page Checker:
http://www.webconfs.com/similar-page-checker.php
The pages I compared was each sites 404 page:
http://bloggingexperiment.com/.....eview=true
http://www.bloggingpro.com/?p=.....eview=true
That tool comes up with a 25% similarity ratio. Now, compare yours with Matt Mullenweg’s blog:
http://photomatt.net/?p=200000&preview=true
and you get a 10% similarity. Compare with my Smackdown blog, and yours is 13% similar. Same with Problogger. Many many aspects of Wordpress themes are going to be inherently similar, based solely on the fact that there really is only so much code involved with a css driven template. If you ignore the base similarities between blogs in general, then purely on a code level you have what, a 10-15% similarity between the two?
Do you really think this modified theme dilutes from your brand?
Ben Cook
December 10th, 2007 at 12:15 pm
7I really think there are two separate issues going on here as Michael’s comment reflects.
First of all, is the Blogging Experiment theme close enough to the Blogging Pro theme to constitute a copyright violation?
The other question is whether or not the GPL that WordPress is distributed under requires themes to be licensed under the GPL as well?
To the first question I would say, no I don’t think so. However, the designer (pops) is removing the graphics for the theme as he feels that will remove any doubt on this issue.
To the second question, I think that in fact themes ARE required to be released under the GPL. To further support that belief, I’d point you to this section of gnu.org. The language talks about plugins but in essence themes are plugins so the language would still apply. It states:
Let me once again say that I’m not interested in breaking any valid licensing and our intent was not to somehow plaigerize BloggingPro’s theme. I think simply comparing the two themes will show that the two themes are quite different. However, I think this issue is much larger and wide reaching than just this blog. As David alludes to in his comment above, this could have some major implications across the blogging (specifically) WP community.
Ahmed Bilal
December 10th, 2007 at 12:30 pm
8Ben’s position is that he doesn’t recognise Bloggy Network’s legal right to release their own content under their own terms.
Ben: Unfortunately for Mr. Peralty and Design Disease, just because you SAY you release something under a specific license, doesn’t mean it actually applies.
Unfortunately for Ben, it does, simply because that IS how licenses work.
The situation with *everything* WordPress being GPL is most interesting - however, quoting Matt Mullenweg as a legal authority is a mistake, you should, if you wish to press ahead with this, consult someone better versed in legal matters (your commenters do not count). Jonathan Bailey from plagiarismtoday.com is bound to have solid advice, do ask him.
The issue, however, is not so much of legality as it is of business ethics. You’ve used someone else’s work. The kind, respectful thing to do is to give them credit for it. It will help you, rather than hurt you, in the long run.
As far as selling the theme is concerned, once again, get legal advice if you want to go through with it because you don’t want your ass handed to you in a lawsuit (if I’m wrong, ignore that last part) if you’re breaking the law. My personal view here is that since Bloggy Network created the theme (and let’s not get into petty discussions over whether BN *really* created the theme or not - they did), the least you should do is give them credit, and if you’re looking to sell a derivative of their work, then ask them for permission first.
David
December 10th, 2007 at 12:32 pm
9I, personally, have no problem with them releasing the theme for free (with attribution, as our CC license requires), as I love to see themes being added to the WordPress community.
What I do have a problem with is that whoever made the theme only changed some xhtml and a few lines of CSS and called it their own to profit on.
In this case, I would like to see attribution to the original framework he built his work on, and that he not profit from it.
I am not trying to stop him from releasing it, and I do think its a great theme that many people would use, but I don’t want them thinking that everything seen here was his idea, when in fact Elena of Design Disease spent a ton of time and effort on everything.
I think that her time and effort, as well as our work at distributing the theme gives us a certain amount of creative control over what happens with the work and honestly, that is one of the reasons why we chose not to go the GPL route.
Not because we don’t like GPL or because we wanted to stifle anyone’s creativity, but instead, we wanted to make sure that the community didn’t take advantage of our good nature by profiting or building credibility from something that isn’t their own.
I really don’t want to fight about this, and like Ben said, it has much wider reaching implications than just this one blog or this one theme.
I only want credit for Design Disease, where credit is due. Again, I ask, release this theme freely, credit Design Disease properly, and heck, I will even mention it on Blogging Pro, as a derivation of the original Blogging Pro Theme.
I want WordPress theme makers to be successful as I have a lot invested in the community, but I want them to do so through their own creativity, their own graphical work, their own CSS, their own XHTML and their own ideas.
Ben Cook
December 10th, 2007 at 12:53 pm
10David, I take exception to your statement that all that was done was changing “a few lines of css”? If that’s the case then all your designers did was change a few lines of code from the default theme. I would argue that our theme is significantly different than yours and as such can be sold or distributed however we see fit. Just as you want Design Disease to receive their due, I think the designer of this theme deserves their due as well and in this case I’ve tried to make that possible by selling the theme.
The rest of your comment illustrates the difficulty in debating two topics at the same time. Perhaps I should split this into two different discussions but you say you chose not to go the GPL route but the WP license (at least to the best of my admittedly limited legal understanding) does not allow you to make that choice. Just so you don’t think we’re trying to have our cake and eat it too, consider the fact that as pops mentioned, anyone that purchased our theme would then be able to use it and distribute it however they saw fit. This is part of the reason we’ve not resumed sales of the theme even we believe we would be legally, morally, and ethically allowed to do so.
Michael VanDeMar
December 10th, 2007 at 12:56 pm
11@pops - emailed you a good portion of it.
The problem is that there are 2 separate and distinct issues going on here. Themes designed to work with Wordpress are no different than any other template designed to work with any other CMS. At it’s heart the entire Wordpress package remains essentially unchanged, and Wordpress does not get distributed with the templates (unless WP decides to ship them with their official release). The author of the templates are not claiming to have built something that extends Wordpress… rather, they have built a design that works with Wordpress, and that is what they are copyrighting. If I took this exact same layout and ported it to work with Blogger, that would not make the design mine (or Google’s) in any way, shape or form. Same if I took an already copyrighted design I built for Blogger, and ported it to Wordpress. So, I suggest that everyone (Matt Mullenweg included) drop the aspect that the themes must be GPL by default, simply because Wordpress is.
pops
December 10th, 2007 at 1:03 pm
12@David, first of all, do you have authority to speak for Elana, Design Disease or Bloggy Network. That’s not a hostile question but something I need to know.
Second, giving credit in the Theme Info section of the WordPress style.css file is not a problem, let me know how you would like it worded and I’ll see if I can accomodate you.
Third, you say, “only changed some xhtml and a few lines of CSS and called it their own.” I disagree about the degree of work involved in this theme, but people can make that call on their own. I’ve added theme switcher to the blog here so people can easily compare the two themes.
David
December 10th, 2007 at 1:14 pm
13pops- Yup. Jacob, the owner said I am good to go where this theme is concerned. Especially since the ownership was with Blogging Pro, a site that is owned by Splashpress Media, where I work as Head of Marketing. (There aren’t many people above me there).
Saying that though, Jacob says he’s come to an agreement with Brian, and so I will just sit back and leave this whole thing alone now.
Michael VanDeMar
December 10th, 2007 at 1:42 pm
14Also, I would like to make an observation on “code similarities”.
width: 1px; and width: 10px; are not 90% similar, just because the declarations share the same basic structure. Along those same lines, re-using naming conventions for html elements in both the xhtml and the css does not make two things look the same. It is the fusion between the two that ultimately determine how something looks and feels.
I think the relevant discussion should of course be on the look and feel of the two blogs. Honestly, I have a hard time thinking anyone would confuse the two.
pops
December 10th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
15@Chris, it’s basically impossible to build a theme without using significant portions of the default WordPress theme code (and code derived from that theme). The BloggingPro theme does that as do all other themes. The default theme is distributed under the GPL and is distributed with WordPress which is also under the GPL.
The license explicitly states:
Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs;
They can’t simply decide to change the license under which they are using code from the default theme.
pops
December 10th, 2007 at 2:00 pm
16@Chris as for the design, if that standard applies (and I doubt it) then the standard is:
“An artist may avoid infringement by intentionally making sufficient changes so that the works at issue undercut substantial similarity. ”
Here we are into the realm of the visual and the code is irrelevant. Frankly, except for the images, which I have removed from the (not currently) for sale theme, I don’t see the issue there. It looks more like JohnChow.com which we don’t share code with (other than some default theme code) than the BloggingPro theme.
Jacob
December 10th, 2007 at 2:40 pm
17I don’t think you’re near as bad as a lot of other theme poachers out there. Regardless, you took images for example that weren’t yours. Last time I checked, that can be classified as “stealing”
That doesn’t change the fact that a good basis of your code, styling, and images is from us. You’re trying to pretend like you’re open to discussion, but you’re not, you’ve already got your mind made up.
You took our images, and didn’t even bother to change a good portion of your code. You changed some, but it’s obvious to anyone who visits the 2 sites what you did.
Listen to what the commenters are saying.
SEO Blog
December 10th, 2007 at 2:43 pm
18Basing a design on someone elses design it could become a copyright issue, the fact that you use some of their graphics it is openly saying that it is based on the bloggingpro layout.
Mainly the style of your layout has been changed, but using their code (the xhtml markup language, css markup and/if any php custom codes) can seriously get you in trouble. By making these changes but keeping the same layout design there will be no copyright issue.
Ben Cook
December 10th, 2007 at 2:51 pm
19Jacob, you really don’t get it do you?
Using images from your theme would only be “stealing” if your theme was licensed under the CC as you say. However, if the GPL applies as I believe it does, then it’s not only NOT stealing, it’s perfectly ethical. Even so, we’ve removed said images from the theme. If that’s your point of contention then I guess this issue is resolved?
Also, what is obvious to anyone that visits the two sites is that this theme is MUCH different from yours and in no way would the two be confused.
Seriously, anyone that thinks the two themes are similar go look at the example of the theme we are selling and click back and forth between your theme and ours. They’re not even close. Remember that the version we are selling is not 100% identical to what you see on BloggingExperiment’s home page, there are slight differences such as no longer using the images in question (whether we are within our rights to or not).
Adam McKerlie
December 10th, 2007 at 3:10 pm
20Wow, somehow I think this would be much easier solved if it wasn’t over a comment section
Maybe the 2,3,4 or 5 of your should sit down and discuss this. Besides the point that its confusing here, Pops and Michael are ruining my chances at being the top commentator 
pops
December 10th, 2007 at 3:12 pm
21@Jacob, I’ll let Ben’s post stand for the “stealing” charge.
As for not being open to discussion.
• I contacted you once David had commented here.
• Without a request and in spite of the fact I believe the use of them was legitimate, I removed your images as they appeared to me to be the only remaining “look and feel” issue.
• Ben didn’t just publish David’s comment, he featured it in a post and answered him directly. AFAIK, no comment has been censored here.
• While continuing to believe we are fully within our rights to sell the theme, I withdrew the blog from sale while we explore the GPL vs. Creative Commons issue.
Finally, while I have seen some thought-provoking comments here that go against my position, you and David seem to be saying that you get to define your rights (and mine) without regard to the GPL. But, just because you say so isn’t a very compelling argument.
Being open to discussion doesn’t mean blindly accepting whatever you say.
Tim
December 10th, 2007 at 3:49 pm
22@ Jacob,
I’ve read and not commented. I’ve thought to myself that “at least it hasn’t come to personal attacks” everyone is taking the high road.
But you did it didn’t you. Calling Ben and Pops cowards?
I’d tell you what I’m really thinking, but they would edit me.
Just imagine it for me so I don’t have to make them edit this reply for profanity.
Tim
cowards? honestly…. whiny ass….. bah
JamieO
December 10th, 2007 at 4:16 pm
23It seems everyone writing in the comments thus far has some involvement to this situation and perhaps missing that perspective which as a non-involved random RSS reader I can hopefully provide.
1) Do they look identical? Hardly. If it hadn’t been mentioned as “derivitive / stolen / similar / other”, I wouldn’t believe they were from the same code base. Two-column blue/white Wordpress templates, nope….Never seen any of those before
There are some noticeably similar visual concepts:
-Header with blue background, white mouseover links
-Two coloured footer area with recent / active content blocks
-Buttons
But those are balanced off by a significant number of differences:
-Full white background vs white content area on grey background
-Search bar as part of header or more prominent placement
-Overpowering header w/ RSS options vs reasonably sized title
-Placement of post dates as part of post content versus single column
2) Where do you draw the line about Intellectual Property?
The button graphics are - to me - identical, but I’m sure if I opened up Photoshop with the intent of making a “post your comment / speech bubble” button I might create something similar.I want to say that “there is no true artistic skill involved in making a button” but I know that is completely wrong because the simplest concepts are often the hardest to create well. It is unfortunate that the web is flooded with similar icons which make the concept of buy/create versus take such a hard thing to defend / avoid.
3) What are CSS / Wordpress Themes?
Are they code? Not really because they don’t truly DO anything other than style the content which Wordpress produces. Are they art? No question there are artistic elements to them, but without the function of Wordpress, their form is but an empty shell.
Yet it isn’t as easy to identify plagarism in digital form. I’m just as likely to use MenuBar, TopMenu and Search as class names in one of my projects does that make mine a derivitive work? It’s that type of logic which allowed Amazon to patent “1-click buying process” which I’m sure we all can agree is as stupid as it gets next to the McDonalds Hot Coffee lawsuit lady.
I’ve kind of argued myself into a corner at this point in favour of it not being a plagarized material - and yet I myself am starting down the road towards premium Wordpress theme design and would like to think that if someone filched my work, I would be fairly compensated for it.
I think the solution to it might be found in an open summary of how Ben came to acquire the BE theme? This is probably an issue for StudioJMC / DesignDisease? If Ben / BloggingExperiment hired StudioJMC to create a template for them with the intent to re-sell it, and they derived the template from DesignDisease and pawned it off as their original work than it should be up to those parties to settle the dispute.
I’ll definitely keep an eye on this thread to see where it goes.
Jamie
HMTKSteve
December 10th, 2007 at 5:33 pm
24Themes do not inherit the GPL from Wordpress. If they did there would be NO theme business model. Once you sold the first copy that person could resell it and/or give it away for free.
Tim
December 10th, 2007 at 10:48 pm
25@ Mike,
Why is it “so wrong”?
It is free enterprise at it’s finest. Is it wrong that Polo charges 80 bucks for a shirt, or that you have to pay $90 for a bottle of designer cologne, how about 40,000 for a dodge ram all tricked out?
Things cost what they are priced at. If they are priced fairly, they will sell. If they are not, the prices will come down. Basic Supply and Demand economics. Its not for you to say that its wrong, but if you disagree, or feel this way, it is certainly your option not to buy.
Tim
Rebecca Laffar-Smith
December 10th, 2007 at 11:19 pm
26@ Jacob
Jacob said, “In the grand scheme of things, what you stole(that’s right, you copied our code and images directly, it *is* stealing) is small.”
Um… You clearly state that your theme is Creative Commons. That means it’s owned collectively by the entire world. Free to use, modify and reproduce at will. You can’t steal Creative Commons content.
When pops modified the original content more than the required 30% Michael mentioned adhere’s to coding copyright laws he affectively created a NEW product. Pops owns full rights to this new product and is legally within his right to sell it in anyway he see’s fit. Ethically it mightn’t be entirely considerate to make a profit from the adjustments made to freely available content however, this is often how most businesses and products are derived. Very few original creations are made these days. It’s all modified from former instances. The law is created to allow the growth of human development by giving creators the right to modify content originally created by others to create something new.
Legal issue over. GPU license still under dispute (but does not factor in this situation). I’m not familiar with that license well enough to solve the answer but this discussion has made me interested in finding out more.
JHS
December 10th, 2007 at 11:34 pm
27I respectfully offer the following:
1. The two themes do not look alike at all to me. Since I am not an expert at CSS, I would never have known that Blogging Experiment’s theme is based upon Blogging Pro’s. Not in a zillion years. Nor would the average reader.
2. How about some consideration in this discussion of the people who have already forked over $75, purchased the theme, and customized it. I certainly hope you are not proposing, David, that they are now prohibited from using what they purchased. Because that would take you into a whole different layer of issues / problems. If you visit the sites that have modified the theme, you will see that substantial work has been done . . . you can’t just tell those folks who paid for the theme that they can’t use it now.
What’s the plan, gentleman?
Andy
December 11th, 2007 at 3:15 am
28The most tempting part of a theme to steal is the images since they are the most costly to obtain if you want originals in my opinion.
I don’t think many people care about you stealing some javascript snippets or CSS.
So you should really get permission and maybe pay compensation regardless of licensing to the people you are deriving works of artistic nature off if you have integrity.
HMTKSteve
December 11th, 2007 at 7:12 am
29Linux uses GPL. Red Hat sells Linux and their distribution is covered by the GPL.
WordPress is GPL. WordPress themes are not GPL.
Themese are designed to work with WordPress but they are not WordPress.
If I write software that works on Linux I can license that software under whatever terms I want, not just GPL.
The theme in question is a derivative work of another theme which is licensed under a Creative Commons license. Creative Commons does not mean Public Domain! If the Creative Commons License includes “no derivatives” or “share alike” clauses than this new theme can not be sold as it breaks both of the above clauses.
Even when something is licensed under the GPL you can make all the changes you want. However, once you distribute your modified version you have to include the source code.
pops
December 11th, 2007 at 10:42 am
30Now that I’ve had time to do a bit of research, get some advice and sleep a bit, here’s what I have:
1. If it was a pure copyright issue, the button graphics would definitely be an issue. The XHTML related to the buttons might be an issue although they’d have to jump through a lot of hoops to prove or justify that. The CSS might be copyrightable as part of the design of the pages.
Since the graphics have now been replaced in the version for sale and the XHTML in question removed, that should no longer be an issue. As several people have stated, the design differs so substantially that no one would confuse the two, so I don’t believe the CSS issue has ever been a valid one.
2. In the case of the Creative Commons license, under the Share Alike 3.0 License which Blogging Pro claims is applicable:
“This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.”
from: http://creativecommons.org/abo.....e-licenses
So commercial use is clearly allowed under the Creative Commons Share Alike license. If they did not intend to allow commercial use they could have chosen the Attribution Non-commercial Share Alike license.
BTW, the phrase “license their new creations under the identical terms” replies to the terms of the Share Alike license not any additional terms that someone might want to apply.
A credit has been added to the style.css file (that’s where it goes in WordPress themes) of the for-sale version as follows:
This theme was designed by James Cook of studioJMC (http://www.studioJMC.com/) and incorporates elements from the Blogging Pro Theme by Elena G (http://blog.designdisease.com/) as well as elements from the Default WordPress theme by Michael Heilemann (http://binarybonsai.com/) and others.
That is based upon the attribution information in the Blogging Pro theme and should resolve that issue.
3. Of course if the GPL applies, as I still firmly believe, none of that makes a difference.
Speaking strictly for myself and not Blogging Experiment or Ben, I believe I am now in compliance no matter what standard is applied and I feel comfortable resuming sales of the theme when I choose to. Out of deference to the Blogging Pro folks I won’t offer the version with their button graphics.
David
December 11th, 2007 at 11:19 am
31pops - First off, I want to say that the theme was released under CC-Attribution. With the added text to your CSS, changing the graphics, and whatever else you have done, I don’t see ANY reason why I would want to continue to press this issue, and honestly, I am VERY sorry that it went down the way it did.
All of these exchanges should have been done privately, and they should have been done between myself, you, and Ben.
I am very happy to see that you have complied with the changes I originally asked for. And while I don’t like seeing the theme sold, I do agree that you guys are no within your right to do so.
With this latest change, I would like to put out an olive branch and let you know that despite how everything went down, I would like to mention the Blogging Experiment theme release on Blogging Pro, if you guys are interested.
This did bring up some very interesting and heated issues and discussions, and despite not resolving the bigger issues, I hope I can say that we have reached a conclusion to our back and forth on this whole mess.
David
December 11th, 2007 at 11:21 am
32It should say “now within your rights to do so”. I wish I could edit my own comments…
Ben Cook
December 11th, 2007 at 11:25 am
33David, that’s very generous of you and if you can give us a few minutes to get everything back in place I would love for you to mention it. I’m glad we could resolve this even if it was a bit messy, although in some sense I’m glad that it brought up the larger issue of the GPL applying to themes or not. This would have, as you mentioned, HUGE implications for any theme developers, which now includes Pops. It seems to me to be an issue that must be resolved quickly if possible.
Oh, and I’m looking for a plugin to allow people to edit their own comments but so far I’ve come up empty. If anyone knows of any please drop me a line.
Ben Cook
December 11th, 2007 at 11:56 am
34Sweet action, thanks! Any issues I should watch out for when using it?
Brandon - Call Center Job
December 12th, 2007 at 4:00 pm
35Those BloggingPro guys are real stand up people. Going to have to find their site now. Really surprised by his comment back to you in the end.
Matt Ellsworth
December 13th, 2007 at 7:20 am
36Interesting. I wonder why people don’t just use email instead of blog comments… for things like that…
The whole wordpress GNU GPL issue is sure causing a lot of pain for some developers.
Wilson
March 6th, 2008 at 3:04 am
37Well said! Absolutely fantastic! Just got through between the lines of this post and you just simply elaborate it well… If you’ll gonna ask me, bout this issue? You’ve never violated any of those rules Ben… Great post indeed!…
RSS feed for comments on this post · TrackBack URI
Leave a reply
to top of page...