Question about GPL and NON-PHP Themes

I have been lurking your threads. I'm sure you mean well. But your quest is getting a bit much.

Your question is easily answered by doing a google search:
http://dev.perl.org/licenses/

Perl is GPL'd as ALL open source languages are.

SO... if your motivation is to create a theme for Drupal and hold an exclusive copyright to the code, good luck. We are at a historical point in time where that model won't work due largely to the nature of the Internet. Anything that is open source is going to be GPL'd. I guess you could write your template in machine language, then no one could copy it.

If you are searching for a way to hold an exclusive copyright on something to make money, and use the Internet, you are facing the same issues that software companies all over the planet have struggled with for years. It is something that photographers face as well, and writers, and many, many other people who create intellectual property.

Your point about Drupal having a steep learning curve for designers is well taken, but given the complexity of problems Drupal is attempting to solve, there isn't much to be done about it. I think people have tried to explain this in many different ways. A rose is a rose is a rose by any other name.

I would like to not have to unsubscribe from themes, seeing as I am always seeking to learn about them, but I'm not sure your missives are really helping me gain that understanding.

Why you would want to write anything in Perl when you could write it in PHP is beyond me. It's like reaching round your head to scratch your nose.

Give it a rest, OK? :)

Keep in mind that the GPL doesn't require you make something free -- or even publicly available. The GPL simply requires that GPL'd works be self-perpetuating: Anything derived from GPL'd work must itself be licensed under the GPL. You are free to sell it, give it away for free, or not give it away at all.

My so called "quest" is to find a way to help designers to be more motivated to work in the Drupal world, period. I believe, as many do, that we need to do this to grow Drupal. It is my opinion that improving the economic incentive is a keystone to attracting the best & brightest to our community. Is that a bad quest ?

The problem is that Drupal intentionally removes a major avenue of economic incentive.

This is not my opinion, it is the explicitly declared policy of the Drupal Association as you will see if you continue reading ...

I am a coder who cannot draw a straight line without a ruler but I am a writer & poet and I do understand the artistic mentality. The best designers are able to be the best because they have a passion for what they do, much the same as the best coders have a similar passion. We are not so dissimilar, we artists and coders. :)

Web & Theme designing is hard work requiring copious amounts of visual artistic talent, a variety of skills with advanced tools plus significant investments of production time and, like all artistic endeavors, invaluable investments of one's self to some degree.

Add in the web and the physical media artists must adapt to become "Web Designers". To make this transition the artists must buy new tools (a fast computer with a high quality monitor at least) and invest a lot of personal time learning & practicing new skills. Such an investment may also require buying certain softwares, books, classes, peripheral devices, etc.

Now along comes Drupal and to become a "Drupal Theme Designer" we add more requirements of investments similar to those required to be a web designer. In the Drupal world you must learn a respectable amount of PHP and study the way our theming system works. For this investment you get to sell your art to a whole new market, but there is a problem ... the Drupal / GPL system intentionally removes a major avenue of economic incentive.

Visual artists by any name earn their living either:

(A) by selling one creation to one person/company for a (relatively) large price (hundred$ to thousand$),
or
(B) by selling one creation to many people for the same price shared around in smaller amounts.

Model A ("commercialization") is more stable (profit is negotiated for each work) but the market is narrow with fewer buyers that are both able and willing to pay the larger fees for art.

Model B ("commoditization") is less stable (profits may be positive or negative depending on unpredictable volumes) but the potential market is vastly larger and more varied.

Unless someone can show me otherwise, there are NO other business models for artists (except perhaps teaching which is economically "futile" - see below).

The principal is simple: The more buyers you have the less you need to charge each buyer to cover costs.

GPL proponents and some Drupalistas are quick to talk about how coders can make money providing customized services and support but that business model simply cannot be applied to art. (It also cannot be applied to some kinds of code but that is not a discussion for this forum).

If what madame philosophe says above is true then that raises serious concerns, because it means that artists will be forced to return to the pre-industrial era where the only ones who can afford great art will be the wealthy elite who are willing and able to pay for their creations (model A). Art requires tools, materials and time .. artists require food and shelter. In today's world the only way to obtain these consumable items is money. So artists will either be forced to either make art their secondary occupation or else to work for the elite. Art will suffer because the elite will determine what is acceptable art (voting with their purses). DaVinci would have created so much more if he were not restricted to focusing what his patrons approved of.

Drupal is a rising star, but I have been told point blank by the Director of Legal Affairs for the Drupal Association that the GPL and Drupal will support "commercialization" (model "A") but they will not support "commoditization" (model "B" above):

It is, however, directly contrary to the spirit and intent of Free Software because of the "redistribution prohibited" part. The GPL was written specifically with the intent of removing that clause when applied to software, on the argument that it was unethical. That the removal of that restriction makes that business model more difficult and frequently untennable is not a bug but a feature of the GPL and of Free Software.

As a supporter of Free Software principles, you are correct that I am not "suspending my doubts" to try and find ways around that policy. I am trying to explain why it is impractical and/or impossible to do so. As Director of Legal Affairs for the Drupal Association, I am representing the official position of the Association in this matter as documented in the Legal FAQ, which is quite clear on these matters.

Yes, the GPL supports making money as long as the 4 Freedoms are kept intact. Commoditization does not keep those 4 Freedoms intact. Therefore the GPL does not support Commodization. QED.

All of that investment just to become a Drupal Theme Designer and then the artist is blocked by policy and license from the more viable of the two business models available to them. Is Drupal shooting itself in the foot?

Drupal is the #3 (#4 in Germany) CMS and the two largest complaints we keep hearing are that the learning curve is too big and the available themes are too poor compared to our competition. We need to solve those issues if we want to improve Drupal's future.

I love Drupal, I promote Drupal and, yes, I make money with Drupal as a Web Developer. All I ask is that we recognize that some of the business models available to coders are NOT available to artists and we need to find a way to balance that out and give them more economic freedoms to justify the investment they will have to make.