I've been watching with interest, and some dismay, as a real kerfuffle has broken out in the WordPress community over the past few days surrounding the matter of copyright.

At issue is interpretation of the GNU Public License (GPL), the "copyleft" license under whose terms WordPress software is released, how developers of premium themes offer their product, and also honouring the GPL.

Among the many posts that have appeared with commentary and opinion on the issue, The Next Web summarizes the situation nicely:

[...WordPress founder Matt] Mullenweg called out developers of "premium" themes for WordPress (the ones you have to pay for) that are not released under the GPL as 'evil'. WordPress itself is released under GPLv2, and Mullenweg feels that the products developed on top of WordPress (such as those premium themes) need to be GPL as well. To Mullenweg, if you build off of free software, and depend on it, to license them under other means is a breach of ethics.

[Premium theme developer Chris] Pearson disagrees with Mullenweg, and has been having a war of words over Twitter for the past few hours to reinforce his points. In Pearson's logic, he should be able to license his own work in whatever manner he sees fit, regardless of the platform on which it is built. However, the GPL has a specific clause (according to the Mullenweg interview) that states that anything built on a GPL licensed platform must also be under GPL licensing.

As you can imagine, supporters and detractors of both sides have been tweeting their opinions. As far as I can tell, there's no dominant view among the thousands of tweets on what is right about GPL in this case.

A number of knowledgeable WordPress developers have posted some well thought-out commentaries on the issue, notably Drew Blas, David G. Larson and Rob Diana.

It looks like only some kind of legal involvement - ranging from the benign clarity of meaning to the aggressive filing of a lawsuit - will bring some light on interpreting the GPL.

But it seems to me this goes beyond just legal definitions of copyright. Isn't it about doing what's right in a community that's founded on values of freedom of expression and open sharing of intellectual property to the benefit of many?

Does Chris Pearson's business model, and that of other premium theme developers who don't use the GPL, drive a huge wedge into the heart of everyone in the WordPress community who do adhere to the principles of the GPL?

I asked Chris Pearson via Twitter (and a little impolitely) what he thought of that. He said he wasn't doing that. My reply that he should therefore support the GPL didn't get a further response.

I use Chris' Thesis theme in this blog (I bought a developer license in 2008). I like it a lot. I didn't really pay much attention to GPL or any other kind of licensing until this all blew up.

Do I ditch Thesis? That question has crossed my mind. I really hope a smooth resolution will result from this kerfuffle, and soon, that will help me make up my mind.

Maybe a legal route is the only way to get that.

• Related: 52-minute discussion between Matt Mullenweg and Chris Pearson on licensing, ethics and community, recorded on July 14.

© 2010 - visit NevilleHobson.com for more great content, or connect with him on Twitter: @jangles.