As for charging for plugins, I think this will simply result in many WordPress users finding a free alternative.

When you buy a theme, you can *see* what you are paying for. When you buy a plugin, not only do you not see what you’re paying for (you’re depending on the author’s description alone), but you don’t even know how well or poorly it will function. How many dozens of plugins have I burned through only to find that they are w3c invalid, break some other code on the site, or just dont work? Why would I pay for that?

Paying for Uber themes > paying for plugins
.-= Dave Ursillo´s last blog ..July 11 Mega-Launch =-.

No, the GPL means that any other developer can pick up the reins and carry it on.

That’s not a strength of the GPL in relation to other open source licenses, which is what this question is really about, that’s a strength of any open source license.
.-= Michael C. Harris´s last blog ..Fluid + GMail + Vim =-.

Other licenses allow their code to be used in restricting licenses, which gives users very few rights, even though the author benefited from a license that gave him more rights. Is it fair for people to use other people’s code, add to it, then not allow customers and clients those same rights. I’m not really talking about GPL vs. MIT or BSD or LGPL, but other non-open source licenses. Differences in open source licenses are small. Sure they can lead to big differences, but I don’t think picking one open source license over another is going to kill any project.

Allowing developers to pick between different open source license would likely be beneficial, as long as that code doesn’t make it’s way into close source projects. But in the end, WordPress is GPL because B2 was GPL.

if your income depends on selling the Theme (rather than the support) you a) shouldn’t have licensed it under the GPL and b) shouldn’t have based your business on a license that doesn’t allow you to protect your income.

Theme coders are promoting the fact that their themes are GPL compliant, that includes allowing people to re-distribute them how they see fit.
.-= Ben Cook´s last blog ..WordPress & Twitter: a Match Made in Heaven =-.

“Or what if Matt and the other community leaders made a few decisions that the community wasn’t happy with? What can we do then? With a more free license, the answer is simple; anything we want.” The GPL allows any customer / person who has the software to fork it. WordPress is a fork of B2, because B2 developers ran off…. luckily B2 was licensed under the GPL, so users like Matt could go there own route.

I really don’t see how WordPress could have a more open or free license. It would either have to switch to the MPL (Mozilla Public Liecense) or the Public Domain. Any other license is going to be less open and is either going to take rights away from the end users or away from further developers.

The GPL makes sure the original author gets his fame in any fork, while allowing developers to fork, modify, and distribute the work, yet protects the customers’ rights. By forcing other developers who use the software to keep the code as GPL, it protects the customers of the forked software, e.g. John Doe can’t take away the right you would have had with WordPress if you buy his forked WordPress.

Situation remains (and likely will remain because GPL wasn’t made for non-compiled languages like PHP as far as I know) unclear in legal sense and that means everyone is twisting it how they see fit.

As for specific impact I can only share what I feel. In one year (tomorrow) with WordPress I see WP itself going strong, but theme and most of plugins I use code rot with scary speed.
.-= Rarst´s last blog ..Do publishers like syndication as much as readers? =-.