I've been spending a lot of time today wondering why Matt cares so much about what license Chris uses - it seems like no real harm is being done to either party here, but both parties are digging in their heels so strongly I find it hard to believe it's purely a philosophical difference.
I just had a thought, and I'd like to sanity check it. I don't know Matt or Chris, but I use both Wordpress and Thesis every day, so consider this 100% speculation based on my experience:
1. I use Thesis to manage almost all of my Wordpress sites because it makes my work significantly easier - Thesis extends WP in many useful ways that aren't built into WP core. I'm capable of doing it all myself in the code, but it's much easier to handle it in Thesis, which I think is a major reason why it's so popular.
2. If Thesis adopted the GPL, that means the code is open to be distributed and reapplied by anyone for free. That means Thesis features could legally be added to WP Core without paying Chris royalties. In Matt's eyes, that would be great - it would make WP better by incorporating many new features that users have demonstrated they like/want/need. (I'm pretty sure some former WP plugins have been added to core over time in this way.)
3. If Thesis' features are incorporated into WP Core, Chris' very profitable business evaporates almost immediately - the value is in the added functionality, not the stylesheet, so there'd be no reason for anyone to purchase Thesis. That means if Thesis is forced to adopt the GPL, Pearson stands to lose big time.
4. If Thesis' commercial license is legal (which the post at http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2009/12/why-the-gplderivati... makes a strong case for, depending on the definition of "derivative work" when it comes to software), any IP from Thesis incorporated into WP Core without permission or royalties would violate Chris' rights and potentially generate a valid IP infringement lawsuit.
5. Based on the tone of the conversation so far, I don't think Chris would ever give Matt (or anyone else) permission to use IP from Thesis in WP Core without a massive royalty payment.
6. If Matt wants to have the freedom to incorporate Thesis features into WP Core, but doesn't want to pay Chris royalties, he'd have a vested interest in publicly pressuring Chris into adopting the GPL, which is what Matt appears to be doing. Chris finds that offensive, so he's telling Matt to fuck off and sue him if he really wants to push the issue. To Chris, a lawsuit (which will be easier to defend because his business partner, Brian Clark, is an attorney) is a small price to pay to prevent losing millions in revenue, and he believes Matt will lose in the end.
Again, total speculation, but this is the only reason I can think of right now they'd go after each other so strongly. Thoughts?
We've never incorporated anyone's code without their full participation and there's no code in Thesis I would want anywhere near core anyway. Thesis is a triumph of marketing, not technical competence. (In fact it relies on people not being able to question its incredulous claims about structure and SEO.) The few cool ideas it has were done in other themes first anyway. On a tech level, WooThemes is doing far more interesting work. (And they have been involved in core development.)
What's your opinion on that fair use argument? That's the only way I could see Chris having a legal leg to stand on. It seems pretty clear that Thesis is a derivative work, especially given that it extends a Wordpress class[1], but if a theme's use of Wordpress does fall under fair use, he wouldn't be violating the license.
It seems that if you buy the FSF's position[2] that linking from a proprietary program violates the license (meaning that linking is not fair use), Wordpress themes are definitely not fair use. But I'm not sure if that's been established in court.
I don't think this is a case of fair use. There is linking, which in the manner which themes work and are loaded inside of WordPress is very deep, and there is also copy and pasted WP code included in Thesis.
I find that believable because Thesis was a waste of money. I'm more comfortable picking and choosing which plugins and themes I want to use and getting into the code if I have to. Thesis never came me anything faster than I could do with the those things alone. Their most compelling argument to me was the structure/SEO claims which were never well explained. None of my sites, Thesis or otherwise, ever did well from an SEO standpoint, so in that respect I have no preference.
To me it seems like they just got popular because they were promoted on Copyblogger with a huge readership and all of it's partners/affiliates. You can't go to a site about copywriting/SEO/online marketing/Wordpress/blogging without getting hit over the head about how "Thesis is the greatest thing ever".
It could be that the GPL license increases software adoption.
If Thesis was GPL, there would be a lot more Thesis powered Wordpress blogs out there. I think Matt attributes a lot of Wordpress' success to the open community the GPL allows, which evidently leads to more and more people using Wordpress as the platform of choice.
And like Matt said, if the members of the Wordpress community start thinking that its OK to not use GPL, it could be slippery for Wordpress as it will effect growth.
I just had a thought, and I'd like to sanity check it. I don't know Matt or Chris, but I use both Wordpress and Thesis every day, so consider this 100% speculation based on my experience:
1. I use Thesis to manage almost all of my Wordpress sites because it makes my work significantly easier - Thesis extends WP in many useful ways that aren't built into WP core. I'm capable of doing it all myself in the code, but it's much easier to handle it in Thesis, which I think is a major reason why it's so popular.
2. If Thesis adopted the GPL, that means the code is open to be distributed and reapplied by anyone for free. That means Thesis features could legally be added to WP Core without paying Chris royalties. In Matt's eyes, that would be great - it would make WP better by incorporating many new features that users have demonstrated they like/want/need. (I'm pretty sure some former WP plugins have been added to core over time in this way.)
3. If Thesis' features are incorporated into WP Core, Chris' very profitable business evaporates almost immediately - the value is in the added functionality, not the stylesheet, so there'd be no reason for anyone to purchase Thesis. That means if Thesis is forced to adopt the GPL, Pearson stands to lose big time.
4. If Thesis' commercial license is legal (which the post at http://perpetualbeta.com/release/2009/12/why-the-gplderivati... makes a strong case for, depending on the definition of "derivative work" when it comes to software), any IP from Thesis incorporated into WP Core without permission or royalties would violate Chris' rights and potentially generate a valid IP infringement lawsuit.
5. Based on the tone of the conversation so far, I don't think Chris would ever give Matt (or anyone else) permission to use IP from Thesis in WP Core without a massive royalty payment.
6. If Matt wants to have the freedom to incorporate Thesis features into WP Core, but doesn't want to pay Chris royalties, he'd have a vested interest in publicly pressuring Chris into adopting the GPL, which is what Matt appears to be doing. Chris finds that offensive, so he's telling Matt to fuck off and sue him if he really wants to push the issue. To Chris, a lawsuit (which will be easier to defend because his business partner, Brian Clark, is an attorney) is a small price to pay to prevent losing millions in revenue, and he believes Matt will lose in the end.
Again, total speculation, but this is the only reason I can think of right now they'd go after each other so strongly. Thoughts?