[wp-hackers] Re: Removal Of Over 200 Themes?

Jeff Chandler jeffro at jeffro2pt0.com
Fri Dec 12 22:23:30 GMT 2008

Yes, I tried to verify if that line had been added or was always their 
but based on what I've read, looks like that was added to the list of 
requirements. Also, I know with David Coveney who started this 
conversation is noting that Matt has told him not to strictly tie this 
event to Automattic as Automattic and WordPress.org or two separate 
entities. I agree with that and it makes me wonder just how intertwined 
the two are? Unfortunately, an event like this that is tied to the 
WordPress.org side of things can easily be blamed on Automattic as 
people think they're all one in the same.

So if this ruling sticks, I see one of two things happening. Either 
premium theme authors adapt and give away themes while selling support 
packages and thus, the WordPress.org team single handedly forces premium 
theme authors to change their business model or, premium theme authors 
will continue to operate without the promotional benefits of links 
within free themes available in the repository. Then again, I think the 
Premium theme market for WordPress has done pretty well outside of the 
confines of the theme repository and the WordPress.org epicenter.

I hate repeating myself, but I'd like for the leader of the project to 
step up and lead and let the followers know that 'this is the way it's 
going to be' and although we might have more things to talk about, at 
least having the leaders perspective and reasoning behind all of this 
would make the entire situation a little clearer.

Chris wrote:
> Well there's the rub Jeffro. They modified their terms of putting 
> themes on the repository. If you check their terms, they added the 
> following at the bottom:
>    All themes are subject to review. Themes for sites that support
>    "premium" (non-GPL or compatible) themes will not be approved.
> I'm with you. If they wanted to do this, that's fine. Why did they do 
> it so quietly, slip this bit of text in the terms, and then kick a 
> bunch of people off of the repository? This wasn't just a "we're 
> catching up on some overdue cleanup," this is a calculated attack 
> against "premium" theme producers which has also involved innocent 
> themers that play by the rules but didn't match with the politics at 
> Automattic.
> I'm all for Automattic doing whatever they want, but I want to know 
> why they do it quietly. If they are truly doing it for the benefit of 
> the community, shouldn't they get the community involved?
> In closing, I have to share that this move by Automattic has me 
> wondering about the future of my involvement with the community. Full 
> disclosure, I work for iThemes, which you would know if you visit my 
> blog. I have previously released three plugins on the repository, two 
> of which are worth noting: WP Easy Uploader and WP Developer 
> Assistant. I am also working on developing WP-Roadmap.com, a totally 
> free service that attempts to help developers by mapping the structure 
> of calls in WordPress. Should I now fear having my plugins dropped 
> from the repository and having my WP Roadmap site blacklisted because 
> of who I work for?
> Chris Jean
> http://gaarai.com/
> http://wp-roadmap.com/
> Jeff Chandler wrote:
>> Pete's situation as per the comment reference in Najots reply is very 
>> interesting. What happened to Pete (if thats how it happened) is I 
>> think out of line. In relation to the linking issue, here is the 
>> actual statement as part of the requirements to be hosted on the 
>> repository.
>> No hidden, paid or sponsored links in the theme. Links back to the 
>> author's site are fine.
>> What if the authors site happens to be a site that sells themes? I 
>> mean, it's not paid, it's just that the theme author is releasing a 
>> decent product for free to be used by anyone and the authors site 
>> just happens to be a guy running his own pay-for-theme company? 
>> Wouldn't he be considered the theme author in which case, fall in 
>> line with the requirements?
>> Jeremy Clarke wrote:
>>> On Fri, Dec 12, 2008 at 3:44 PM, Navjot Singh 
>>> <navjotjsingh at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>> I don't understand this policy of removing theme of a author who 
>>>> only shows
>>>> ads of a premium theme. How does GPL violates in this case. Please 
>>>> refer to
>>>> http://www.jeffro2pt0.com/why-were-200-wordpress-themes-removed#comment-2952- 
>>>> Adii's comment here on what I mean. A person whos releases a GPL theme
>>>> but
>>>> only uses a affiliate banner of a premium theme site - Does this also
>>>> violates GPL in a way?
>>> No, the paid links thing is a completely different issue from GPL.
>>> It's a policy for inclusion in wordpress.org/extend (as i understand
>>> it) because they want to keep quality high and avoid exploiters just
>>> looking to make money by re-releasing existing themes with paid links.
>>> You can be as commercial as you want with GPL code as long as you keep
>>> the license attatched to your product. GPL-compliance and "no paid
>>> links" are just two seperate qualifications to be in the theme/plugin
>>> repositories.
>> _______________________________________________
>> wp-hackers mailing list
>> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
>> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers
> _______________________________________________
> wp-hackers mailing list
> wp-hackers at lists.automattic.com
> http://lists.automattic.com/mailman/listinfo/wp-hackers

More information about the wp-hackers mailing list