[wp-hackers] [ wp-hackers ] A question about donation link
jcanals at alkivia.net
Tue Jan 19 13:29:48 UTC 2010
2010/1/19 Mark Jaquith <markjaquith at gmail.com>
WordPress is released under the GPL version 2. No "or latest version"
> clause is included. It is "stuck" at version 2, in perpetuity. As
> such, licensing plugins or theme code under the GPL version 3 is a
> problem, as that isn't compatible with WordPress' license. We've been
> admittedly lax about pressing this distinction... it may be time to
> start taking a closer look and making sure people are using the GPL
> version 2 (or another *compatible* license).
Thats good to know. Thanks for clarifiying. Also would be so nice to include
the copyright and disclaimer notices at the top of each source code file to
make it so clear.
If this was written anywhere would help developers to choose the right
license version, as on WordPress info only says "GPL" bot especifiying if
can be ported to any later version of the license or not.
Knowing now that WordPress is stuck to GPKL version (Not allowing any later
version), I have no trouble to change my theme or puliuns the license to
Just I would suggest to add the "or any later version" to make it more
compatible with new GPL versions. Just a suggestion.
> > All this said, the original question was about the checkbox to remove the
> > public author attribution (as I removed the donation link that was beside
> > it) . Do you think that explicitly granting the user to remove the author
> > attribution from output violates the GPL license? Just that is what
> > my theme on the repository. If there was a problem because my theme uses
> > GPLv3, I had no problem to switch the theme to GPLv2.
> The donation link and the option to remove the public author
> attribution have no bearing on the GPL issue. Those are separate
> issues. As I understand it, the issue with the donation link and the
> attribution removal option was a perceived lack of clarity. Remember,
> the theme (and plugin) directory has other concerns than just the
> license. You should already be in contact with one of the theme
> repository maintainers to resolve the concerns about the clarity of
> the wording of that section. Takeaway: asking for a donation is fine,
> offering to remove credits is fine, but you should be absolutely sure
> that there is no implied quid pro quo.
I was asked about this because the person who revised it considered not so
clear. Immediately I removed the link to the donations page to avoid it and
make clear that you are allowed to remove the credits. Now the checkbox is
just the checkbox " Remove theme public credits". The person who revised
the theme asked me to change or to remove the donation link and I removed it
and submited the new version. Really I don't understand why this is now a
problem for the person who revises my theme as he says my theme is not GPL
because GPL already allows for credits removal. Being allowed by GPL and
having a checkbox to do it violates the GPL? I'm sure not. It's just a way
to make easier to the users to remove or leave the footer credits if they
> And I agree with Matt Mullenweg and Mike Little... section 2C doesn't
> apply. A theme is not "run interactively." That's clearly meant to
> apply to command line programs where you enter into an interactive
> command mode for a particular program (say, your Bash prompt changing
> to a mysql> prompt). Think of it this way: what if GIMP (a FLOSS image
> editing program) put a copyright watermark on every image it saved
> out, and they maintained that removing that watermark was a violation?
> I think most people would regard that as absurd. I don't see it as any
> less absurd to maintain that a copyright notice must be maintained on
> every web page generated by a GPL'd theme.
This is clear now. But no problem with the theme we're talking about as
removing the credits was explicitly granted to end users. Your examples are
not exactly the same, but I can understand the sample as if the program was
a word processor or any file editor.
This discussion really has been interesting to me to clarify some things.
Just the one sole thing is not clear, as the person who revises the themes
didn't told me is why my theme cannot be considered fully GPL compliant
(having the trouble link removed when asked to do it).
More information about the wp-hackers