Clarification -- Split License / GPL Code / Proprietary CSS & Imagery

Hey all,

I'd like some clarification about some seeming misleading statements provided in the GravityForms Terms & Conditions regarding Licensing.

Under Paragraph 1, it says that GravityForms is licensed under the GPL. As there are later amendments and limitations to this, namely asserting that "All iconography, imagery, CSS and branding is licensed under a proprietary license" -- perhaps the Paragraph 1 statement would be more correct if amended to say that "All PHP Code in GravityForms" is licensed under the GPL, as the plugin as a whole clearly does not seem to be.

Or am I misunderstanding the thrust of this?

The more critical portion of my question, however, is your assertion in Paragraph 4 of the Terms and Conditions, as follows:

All iconography, imagery, CSS and branding is licensed under a proprietary license for unlimited personal use and cannot be redistributed without the express written consent of Rocketgenius, LLC.

I would have to question this, as it seems like you do not have the right to claim some portions of the imagery and CSS as proprietary. Specifically,

1. gravityforms/css/jquery-ui-1.7.2.custom.css
2. gravityforms/css/reset.css -- as this is merely a subset of Eric Meyer's public domain reset
3. gravityforms/css/ui.tabs.css
4. gravityforms/images/cross.png -- famfamfam.com
5. gravityforms/images/error.png -- famfamfam.com
6. gravityforms/images/exclamation.png -- famfamfam.com
7. gravityforms/images/stop.png -- famfamfam.com
8. gravityforms/images/tick.png -- famfamfam.com
9. gravityforms/images/doctypes/*** -- all twenty-one images here are excerpted from the creative-commons licensed http://www.brandspankingnew.net/archive/2006/06/doctype_icons_2.html

All famfamfam.com references are excerpted from their fantastic website at http://famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/ ( preview at http://famfamfam.com/lab/icons/silk/previews/index_abc.png ) -- and licensed under a "Creative Commons Attribution" license -- which -- as you don't seem to be crediting them anywhere -- aren't you actually violating?

The DocType icons are licensed under a CreativeCommons Attribution ShareAlike license -- which you seem to be violating as well, by not providing any attribution to the original source. And if you made any changes to the original work (which you don't seem to have done) -- you would be required to release it under a similar license, not a proprietary license prohibiting redistribution as you have been attempting to do up to this point.

I wanna believe the best of GravityForms, but it's looking to me right now like you guys are just snapping up publicly licensed icons, repackaging them, failing to provide an attribution, and claiming that they are proprietary.

I look forward to your reply, with the earnest hope that this was some miscommunication, and can be explained as such.

Whoo, I feel all special. Two people jumping each remark I make! :)

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.

Carl -- It feels like you're buckling into 'bunker-down-and-deny-everything' 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.

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.

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 Iraqi Information Minister. Admit fault and move on, you'll get far fewer ideologues (like me, when pushed) annoyed.

Anyway, that's just my 2c.

Cheers,

-George

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:

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).

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.

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.

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 << list files here >> are proprietary and may not be duplicated without ..." etc. Or perhaps putting all non-proprietary files in a sub-folder marked as such.

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.

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!

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.

Magento E-Commerce ... when you're not swearing by it, you're swearing at it!

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.

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

I'll take a look at Lemonstand if I get a chance, though. Always glad to catch the next wave on the swell.

-George