Themes and licencing.

Themes and licencing.

by Gareth J Barnard -
Number of replies: 13
Picture of Core developers Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers

Hello Moodlers,

As a moderator I have just removed a post because it advertised a paid for theme and as such breaks the forum rule: https://docs.moodle.org/dev/Moderator_guidelines#Unsolicited_advertising which references 'Advertising' on: https://moodle.org/mod/page/view.php?id=7080.

So, this got me thinking about licences of themes and perhaps people were not aware of what to look for in a Moodle theme and what rights they have.  In the past there has been lots of discussion about if plugins 'must' be GPLv3 licenced.  The conclusion of which was that they must because they fall under the remit 'make function calls to each other and share data structures' : http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins - that's because of the API calls, such as rendering blocks etc.

This means that any theme you use MUST be GPLv3 licenced and you have the rights under that licence: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html and therefore once you have a copy then you can redistribute for free if you so desire "This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by the Free Software Foundation; either version 3 of the License, or (at your option) any later version." - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CompanyGPLCostsMoney

There is of course slight exceptions with other bits of imported functionality (like jQuery wizzo stuff) and fonts within themes, but as long as the licence is compatible then fine: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses.  Fonts are included in this and hence in Essential and other themes I produce I have been careful to use the SIL Open Font licence: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#SILOFL.

A quick guide: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/quick-guide-gplv3.html.

And... all other plugins are included too.

I hope this information is useful to you smile.

Cheers,

Gareth

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Gareth J Barnard

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Mary Evans -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Peer reviewers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Testers

Whilst I agree with what you have done, that of deleting a post you termed as advertising, I cannot help but think that you too are also in breach of advertising your skills here on the forums. I have noticed on a couple of occasions you come accross as being somewhat frustrated that people expect you to fix Essential theme, and so ask them outright for donations to do the fixing for them. Isn't this one and the same thing?

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Mary Evans

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Gareth J Barnard -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers

No, because users have a choice.  Essential and the other themes are freely available and you don't have to donate, there is choice.  You can have the theme without any financial obligation.  Additionally all my comments have been in context and in replies to posts, unlike the post I removed: https://docs.moodle.org/dev/Moderator_guidelines#Unsolicited_advertising and in line with 'Advertising' of the site policy which states:

"Mentioning commercial products and services in discussions is OK

All participants are welcome to write about and link to commercial products or services (Moodle-related or not, yours or otherwise) if it's in the natural context of a discussion such as an answer to a question. This is not seen as advertising."

Therefore when asked such questions like 'When will Essential for Moodle 2.8 be available' I answer truthfully and honestly.  I fix issues when I can and feel morally obligated to rectify my mistakes for no charge, which goes beyond the requirements of GPLv3.  However should I provide a 'free' site specific support helpline to everybody?  I don't think so.  If posts are made on this forum then I have a choice.  If I want to help then I can, but I don't have to.  All issues posted on either the plugins DB comments or GitHub I 'have' to deal with.

I hope that clarifies the situation.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Gareth J Barnard

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Jez H -

GPL covers derivative works, i.e. the PHP that hooks into Moodles framework.

I am aware of at least one WP theme (Thesis) released under split GPL where css and js were excluded to prevent its resale as a working theme. They did that after a bust up with Automatic over a prior attemt to ship with a non GPL license and I belive it was Automatic who suggested the split GPL as a way to resolve the issue.

It is possible to produce themes that conform to GPL but are useless in production without non GPL files and equally possible to put GPL behind a paywall as Totara (and other theme developers) have done.

Its the same old Freedom vs Free Beer argument that has always existed around OS projects.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Jez H

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Gareth J Barnard -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers
RE: "It is possible to produce themes that conform to GPL but are useless in production without non GPL files and equally possible to put GPL behind a paywall as Totara (and other theme developers) have done."


As far as I understand all code must be GPLv3 or compatible.  Yes it would be possible to have 'dongle' like feature but looking on the GPL site there are words to the effect that its 'hardly in the spirit of open source'.

Pragmatically, you do not 'have' to release the code.  If you want to keep it for yourself and host but never share then fair enough.  But once you let it into the wild blue yonder, that's it.

With 'Open source' there is a spirit of freedom and choice.  You have the consumer ability to pick and choose what you do with the code, you can take what you like and go somewhere else.  This is a 'service' model rather than one based on 'we hold all the cards, have locked you in and now you must pay the ransom'.

Average of ratings: Useful (1)
In reply to Gareth J Barnard

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Jez H -

If you sell a plugin it has to be GPL as a derivative work of Moodle. If you dont adhere to that Martin can set the pro bono lawyers of the Mozilla Foundation on you.

If you sell a Theme, apply a GPL license to the PHP files and a closed license / copyright on the CSS / JS there those same lawyers are likely to tell Martin not to pursue it as trying to argue css / design is a derivative of Moodles API's is pushing it.

That is what split GPL is, php on GPL, other files under a different license.

Split GPL is widely used on themeforest, I know there are Moodle Themes on there which are most likely licensed in that way.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Jez H

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Gareth J Barnard -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers

Mozilla??

It's my understanding that you cannot combine GPL and closed licences in the same program based on this: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

As a plugin has to be GPL because of the links already stated then all components of it therefore have to be under GPLv3 compatible licences and non-closed.

Also see:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLPluginsInNF

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#LinkingWithGPL

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MoneyGuzzlerInc


Average of ratings: -
In reply to Gareth J Barnard

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Gareth J Barnard -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Particularly helpful Moodlers Picture of Plugin developers

This is interesting: https://wordpress.org/news/2009/07/themes-are-gpl-too/ - but in Moodle the CSS is read, combined with core CSS and served by the core PHP code.  Perhaps a new ruling is needed for Moodle as its a separate beast in the way it works.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Gareth J Barnard

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Jez H -

For Moodle.Org to distribute a theme then it has to be completely GPL.

However on ThemeForest its different because they are selling the themes and own the rights to all the additional files / css too.

The make the php GPL to conform to the license of the parent project (Moodle, WP etc) but not the CSS / js which they apply a different license to.

Thus you could not buy a theme from ThemeForest and submit it back to Moodle.Org or Wordpress.Org for public distribution without removing the css / js, which of course renders useless. Nor could you resell it on another stock site (which was the bigger concern).

There is a long but interesting recording of a skype debate between Matt Mullenweg and Chris Pearson (author of Thesis / DIY Themes) here:

http://wordpress.tv/2010/07/15/mixergy-interview-pearson-mullenweg/

In that Matt mentions he spoke with someone from the Mozilla foundation who provide legal advise for open source projects and threatens to take that route, he also suggests split GPL as a way for Chris to protect his work. I guess Matt was forcing the GPL issue as this was the not so thin end of the wedge in terms of protecting the GPL for Wordpress.

To my knowledge this is the closest anything like this ever came to actually being tested in court in the US, eventually Chris went for a split GPL and it all blew over... but what I remember from that interview is that the legal advise coming from the Mozilla Foundation was that its unlikely you could lock css / js into GPL as a derivative work.

Consider a designer who makes mock ups of a theme, then makes a static html template, then has that converted to WP, Joomla, Moodle... does the GPL of the respective frameworks supersede IPR / copyright on the design work? Mozilla seen to concede it probably doesn't...

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Jez H

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Danny Wahl -

Some of what you're saying could be interpreted as legally ambiguous because of it's wording, so I would like to clarify and ask if this is what you meant:

For Moodle.Org to distribute a theme then it has to be completely GPL.

A theme that is included in the core of the Moodle software package must be completely GPL because the Moodle software package is licensed GPL.  This is not to say that 3rd party themes distributed via the Moodle.org Plugins directory must (legally, not policy) be GPL or that distributing non-GPL (split-license) themes would legally violate that license for the core software package.

However on ThemeForest its different because they are selling the themes and own the rights to all the additional files / css too.

Themeforest is NOT bound to a difference license because they are selling themes, nor are they exempt from GPL because they are selling themes, or redistributing them.  Themeforest (as well as Wordpress and Mozilla) have read and interpreted the GPL to legally allow CSS and JS and Images to be considered not a core component (not dependent upon) the GPL licensed code.  In addition they have adopted and ethos that says that this decision doesn't violate the spirit of the license.  Neither of these have really been tested or discussed much in the Moodle community- though if I had to say (I'm nobody) it would probably be decided that it's legally allowable- but not in the spirit of the license or community.

And to that end there's NOTHING to stop the moodle.org or moodle.com (Moodle pty, ltd) from saying "we only approve pure GPL themes in our download directory" regardless of if it's legally allowable to do so.

Second note: themeforest does NOT own the rights to all the additional files.  Their interpretation of the GPL allows the author to retain the right to license the css/js/images separately and themeforest provides their own license scheme for those files, which the author can adopt- but themeforest owns nothing.  In addition you can distribute a full GPL theme through themeforest, you're not required to adopt their split-license scheme.

Finally, as was originally stated, it's completely OK to sell a fully GPL licensed theme.  It's also completely OK to turn around and redistribute free of charge that theme that you bought.  It's also completely OK (legally) to download a free theme and turn around and sell it to fools who need to be parted with their money.

Average of ratings: -
In reply to Jez H

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Richard Oelmann -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Testers

Very difficult (I would think) to come up with a theme where the CSS/JS was not largely based on existing CSS/JS that is already released as GPL. So you would then, presumably, even have to separate out your 'private' css/js from any that may already be subject to GPL or compatable licences - anything related to bootstrap for example.

And ThemeForest may not be a particularly good example to use - there have been examples of several themes on there that are no more than minor variations on existing free community themes but didn't seem to acknowledge the original theme in any way and so I would question whether some of those themes are necessarily complying with the relevant licences in the first place.

Average of ratings: Useful (1)
In reply to Richard Oelmann

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Mary Evans -
Picture of Core developers Picture of Documentation writers Picture of Peer reviewers Picture of Plugin developers Picture of Testers

Hi Richard, 

There is a good discussion HERE which discusses this same topic. Read David Mudrak's comments which is interesting in itself.

Cheers

Mary

PS I recall having a similar argument with Tim on this subject In 2010 so nothing new! LOL

Average of ratings: Useful (1)
In reply to Richard Oelmann

Re: Themes and licencing.

by Jez H -

Not really, consider the example I gave above where a design begins with a mockup to which the author owns the rights to graphics / design. They then make HTML template and subsequently apply that design to multiple OS projects (as has happened with more than one theme).

The design had nothing to do with any one application, it was merely "hooked" into those applications subsequently.

This is how the whole stock theme market operates now:

http://themeforest.net/forums/thread/split-vs-gpl-license/100599

Without that you could simply buy all the top themes from ThemeForest or any other marketplace and resell them for 20% less, someone else could buy them from you and undercut you again by another 20%. This in fact is what used to happen, I remember looking at premium wp themes and seeing Google Adds for zips of 100+ premium themes for $50 (each theme cost at least that much) and their sales page said it was all legal and above board because of the GPL, which it was at the time... but if you tried that now you would almost certainly find yourself on the receiving end of some threatening letters.

To get an idea of whats a stake consider this one (admittedly best selling by a margin) WP theme:

http://themeforest.net/item/avada-responsive-multipurpose-theme/2833226

$58 x 100k (give it another week) sales = $5.8 Million!!!

Average of ratings: -