Andrew Fielden presented a talk at August’s WordPress Birmingham meetup in which he discussed GPL in the context of WordPress and the WordPress ecosystem of premium themes and plugins.
It was a thought provoking talk and it reminded me of a discussion I’d had that very week. I’ve summed up my thoughts here as I’m not sure I was able to fully articulate the ethical conundrum over Twitter!
I’d like to thank Andrew for again presenting at WordPress Birmingham. It’s always a pleasure.
We’re building a niche music download service, making use of WooCommerce and it’s virtual, downloadable products. However, at the scale we’re working at, local storage of the distributable files is simply not feasible.
Amazon S3 is one of the most popular “cloud” storage solutions. However, it was decided an internal solution would provide us more control and accountability.
I was in a meeting discussing an integration between WooCommerce and our internal distributed storage platform. We looked at the Amazon S3 Storage WooCommerce extension. It’s a plugin which provides the equivalent functionality to what we were trying to achieve.
It was during this meeting where I mentioned WooThemes were GPL, at which point it was implied that we could therefore just skim through the code. That it would be publicly accessible. Looking over the WooThemes page, the licensing was not made clear. We just bought the plugin at $29 and picked through the source to find the right hooks to build our own integration.
In this instance, I can’t be sure how much time was actually saved by making use of the extension. But it illustrates the ethical question I’m interested in. If you’re potentially going to save many hours of research/development, is it right to seek out the source code for free?
Authors are not discouraged from selling access to GPL software and are not required to make source freely available. And for me, I think this is where context is important. There is a difference between someone throwing their code up on GitHub for the world to see and a business selling access and support.
If code has been made available, released on GitHub for example, it’s fair game. That feels fine. If you’re working on a personal project, grabbing source code for educational purposes, I can see the freedoms granted under the GPL are beneficial. I wouldn’t feel bad going out of my way to get hold of open source code from a “premium” plugin/theme.
Where a company has chosen to licence their software under the GPL and has an intended distribution channel, such as their own online store to sell access and support. For me, if you’re going to make use of that code for profit, it feels like the right thing to do is reward the author for their work. Perhaps in the hope they’ll be incentivised to maintain and update their software.
It’s an ethical conundrum. I’ve tried to sum up how I feel, rather than what is legally permissible. Because of course, if an author has chosen the GPL licence and someone does subsequently make their source freely available. At the end of the day, that’s the nature of the licence. The freedom it gives. If the thought never crossed the authors mind, if that wasn’t the authors intention, perhaps they should have chosen a more restrictive licence.
Of course the legal view is, in the case of WordPress plugins and themes, the PHP components that use WordPress functions (and that is most of it ) must be licensed under GPL to comply with the GPL of WordPress itself.
So premium plugin developers have no choice but to comply and have GPL licenced products, or in the case of themes (and plugins) that have javascipt / css / image elements to have a split licence – GPL for the PHP & restricted for the Javascript / CSS. (this is how Themeforest restrict themes and stay ‘legal’ with WordPress through split licensing)
Whilst if you are a small player and under the radar, you might get away with a non GPL licence when using WordPress, but if you are WooThemes or WPMUdev or Elegant Themes or Themeforest or anything making substantial money out of WordPress, you can be assured that if you don’t get your licensing right WordPress will come after you.
Phil, a lot of people are obviously confused when it gets to WordPress and the GPL and its legal implications. My understanding is that is largely the case because we all grew up in a Copyright-World which makes us believe that all code that was developed by one person only belongs to this person and taking all or parts of it to create something new is “theft” or “unethical”. That is very much short sighted from my point of view. There are so many great software projects (like most parts of Linux) that can just exist because people understand software as a common good that everyone can build upon without the requirement to ask for permission. I am therefore one of the few WordPress enthusiasts who supports websites like https://gpldl.com that offer Premium WordPress products for free. I do not consider this immoral or harming the WordPress Ecosystem in any way. What we as developers need to learn is that people who buy our products do not just buy code but they buy a “product experience” including support, help in customization etc. that actually creates value for the users. We need to get this right and always allow others to build upon our code, fork it or redistribute it to make it better. Thanks for your attention!
Do you know if it is permissible to dual license derivatives of the GPL with a proprietary license for things written above and beyond the original GPL code
My understanding is the GPL is about distribution.
If you’re writing bespoke functionality for yourself or a client. The licence doesn’t dictate you distribute your code.
A plugin or system built from or around WordPress intended for sale or free distribution. That’s where the GPL is “restrictive”.
ThemeForest split licence WordPress themes. PHP and HTML within templates under GPL. Other assets such as CSS, JS and images under their licence terms.
There’s a breakdown of why this is permissible:
https://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/
Beyond that loophole. Nothing prevents you from selling the initial download, access to updates and support.