https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery Gravity Support Forums Topic: Clarification -- Split License / GPL Code / Proprietary CSS & Imagery en-US Wed, 22 Apr 2026 05:42:46 +0000 http://bbpress.org/?v=1.0.1 q https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/search.php https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21841 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:19:39 +0000 Carl Hancock 21841@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>Lemonstand is definitely worth a look. It's newer than Magento, and is much quicker and easier to get up and running with and it is also easier to skin. Magento is powerful, but it can certainly be cumbersome and overkill in a lot of situations. Cart66 is also good for WordPress based ecommerce sites as long as you don't need automatic product page creation. </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21837 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 16:03:30 +0000 GeorgeStephanis 21837@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>Well, Magento is great in that it's extensible, secure, and can be PCI compliant on the right hosts. It can do anything you would ever need it to do, and can manage the biggest corporate sites.</p> <p>The only two E-Commerce solutions I ever advise clients towards are Magento and Cart66 -- depending exclusively on whether they want a E-Commerce Site that happens to have some content, or a Content site that happens to sell some things. :-p</p> <p>I'll take a look at Lemonstand if I get a chance, though. Always glad to catch the next wave on the swell.</p> <p>-George </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21744 Mon, 28 Mar 2011 10:47:54 +0000 Carl Hancock 21744@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>Have you taken a look at Lemonstand? It looks very promising. I've built a Magento site. Won't do that again. </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21713 Sun, 27 Mar 2011 14:50:58 +0000 GeorgeStephanis 21713@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>We've all got rough weeks -- I've been a bit overworked myself this past, as well. 14 hour days with little time for the wife can lead to headaches. Plus Magento and OSCommerce are not conducive to a positive outlook on life.</p> <p>Magento E-Commerce ... when you're not swearing by it, you're swearing at it! </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21693 Sun, 27 Mar 2011 13:14:06 +0000 Carl Hancock 21693@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>This week has been extremely busy and stressful with the launch of Gravity Forms v1.5, the new Add-Ons and new web sites. So I apologize if I was in no mood take some of your comments in jest.</p> <p>We will be making the changes you mentioned to the license to clarify any exceptions to the proprietary work and will also be removing any non-proprietary iconography from the plugin. Kevin is a designer and was already working on the iconography when you brought up the issue. </p> <p>I agree the licensing for these items should be clarified, and we will be doing so. </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21677 Sun, 27 Mar 2011 11:21:59 +0000 GeorgeStephanis 21677@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>For the sake of making sure that cooler heads prevailed, I've put off replying to this for several days. I've had time to think about it, turn over your response in my head, and here goes:</p> <p>Carl -- it seems like you're taking some remarks that were meant in jest in a manner apart from how they were intended. I certainly didn't mind having two people respond, it was, if anything, meant as a compliment on your responsiveness (hence the smiley afterwards).</p> <p>I've got no expectation for you to 'throw up your hands and make it GPL' -- or the like. That suggestion was meant more in jest than anything. Of course software developers have to eat. I'm one myself, and I enjoy eating perhaps more than most! I've also got a wife to look after, and tend to make sure that I support the projects that I patronize. Heck, I've even purchased a support plan for Cart66 even though I haven't actually installed it on any sites, just to support what I view as giving back to the community, and be a part of the worthwhile discussions with other developers on their zendesk forums.</p> <p>I did not say that I am an ideologue, merely that when pushed, I tend to migrate to a contrary viewpoint when the person with whom I am speaking seems to be only considering one side of an issue. That's how your remarks struck me, and I apologize if I had misconstrued your intent.</p> <p>As for documenting the images in the plugin, indicating their license, I'm somewhat confused as to how you can otherwise be genuinely explanatory under your licensing terms. To say that 'all images and css are proprietary' is patently and demonstrably false, even after you replace the creative-commons-attribution licensed ones that I had pointed out. To say that 'all images and css are proprietary except where obviously not' -- is failing to set any sort of a 'bright line' barrier, and leaves the final judgement up to the interpretation of the licensee. As you've said you're not a lawyer, and I certainly don't expect you to be, I'm merely making the point that being clear is the most essential aspect of licensing -- and to leave a murky area like that is troublesome and could lead to legal headaches down the road, which is a pity as it can be easily rectified in about five minutes of listing in the licensing terms something to the effect of "All images and css except for &lt;&lt; list files here &gt;&gt; are proprietary and may not be duplicated without ..." etc. Or perhaps putting all non-proprietary files in a sub-folder marked as such.</p> <p>It's really up to you, I'm just trying to pitch in my 2c to bring issues to people's attention -- as you said you were unaware of the licensing terms of the other projects that you had used, I just brought them up. As you said you're not lawyers -- neither am I -- but with a goodly amount of collegiate forensics training and spending more time that I would like around them, you tend to pick up a few things. And the Achilles heel of most contracts is a lack of specificity.</p> <p>Have a great weekend! We've just had a pretty annoying cold snap this past few days up in PA, I hope it's sunnier for you down in Virginia! </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21380 Thu, 24 Mar 2011 15:02:14 +0000 Carl Hancock 21380@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>Excuse me George? I said it was an honest mistake and we would update the Terms of Service as well as would be replacing any iconography that was not original. </p> <p>We aren't jumping. We are responding to a post on our support forum like we always do as we stay on top of our support requests. We weren't aware the other had responded when we had posted our responses because they were done at relatively the same time.</p> <p>I don't appreciate the attacks on your part to make it look like I or anyone on the Gravity Forms teams was trying to sweep this under the carpet or deny the issue. If we wanted to do that we would delete the thread or quit responding to it so it would be buried. Have we done that? No. You asked a question, I responded that it was a mistake on our part and we'd take care of it.</p> <p>Do you want us to document every single screenshot we use and the license it is released under? Sorry, not going to happen. I think it's pretty obvious a screenshot of reCAPTCHA is a screenshot of reCAPTCHA and not a proprietary graphic.</p> <p>I'm not sure why the antagonistic tone on your part, both in your response and how you approached the issue from the very beginning. </p> <p>If you are looking for us to throw our hands up and make the it 100% GPL, it's not going to happen. Just like your are an idealogue as you put it, so are we when it comes to protecting our hard work. This isn't a hobby. It's what we do for a living. If you don't like how we do business, there are plenty of other forms plugins available for WordPress.</p> <p>Cheers. </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21360 Thu, 24 Mar 2011 13:12:20 +0000 GeorgeStephanis 21360@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>Whoo, I feel all special. Two people jumping each remark I make! :)</p> <p>Kevin -- thanks for the genuine and amicable replies. Everyone misses things from time to time (I know I certainly do) and what counts is admitting it and doing the right thing moving forward when things are brought to the forefront. Thank you.</p> <p>Carl -- It feels like you're buckling into <a href="http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/" rel="nofollow">'bunker-down-and-deny-everything'</a> mode after getting caught with your hand in the cookie jar. Which just makes me wanna pick apart your argument even more. For example, of the 91 images bundled into GravityForms, 21 are the CC-licensed doctype icons I pointed out, 5 are the famfamfam CC-licensed ones, 4 are screenshots of ReCaptcha blocks ... which I hardly think you can own ... one is a WP logo, one is a one is a 1px by 1px gif, another is a 1px by 1px png ... none of which I think you can call proprietary either ... and already we're at 33 images, well over a third of all images bundled with GravityForms.</p> <p>Plus, I'd wager money that the loading.gif was lifted from another project, and ... well ... if I had time I could go on, but I suppose the point is made that you are probably factually accurate when you say that the 'majority' of the icons used are proprietary -- but if so, then not by much, as already about 37-38% have been shown to be sourced elsewhere, and that's just at a superficial glance.</p> <p>In the end -- and this is directed at Carl, not Kevin -- when you get caught with your pants down / hand in the cookie jar / whatever metaphor you like ... please don't do an imitation of the <a href="http://www.welovetheiraqiinformationminister.com/" rel="nofollow">Iraqi Information Minister</a>. Admit fault and move on, you'll get far fewer ideologues (like me, when pushed) annoyed.</p> <p>Anyway, that's just my 2c.</p> <p>Cheers,</p> <p>-George </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21345 Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:34:16 +0000 Carl Hancock 21345@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>As I mentioned, all iconography will be replaced with proprietary icons that are original and not from another source. So we won't be changing the licensing as far as our proprietary images and CSS goes. After that the only exceptions will be related to the reset and jQuery UI elements. </p> https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/topic/clarification-split-license-gpl-code-proprietary-css-imagery#post-21344 Thu, 24 Mar 2011 12:32:29 +0000 Kevin Flahaut 21344@https://legacy.forums.gravityhelp.com/ <p>George, thanks for taking the time to research this on our behalf. We appreciate it a lot. We'll definitely get the terms revised ASAP so there's no confusion. Cheers. </p>