You do. Or, all of us do because WordPress is not owned outright by anyone specifically.
Design is Philosophy shares their perspective on this interesting tension between ownership, copyright, and development:
This begs an obvious question: If WordPress is not owned outright by any one entity or even a definable group of entities, and anyone can get a copy, modify it and add to it any way they want, and pretty much treat it as their own, who calls the shots?
The answer: The contributors. And chief amongst them Matt Mullenweg. Matt is by an large the originator of WordPress and the driving force behind the application, and he is also one of the chief contributors to its code. Around Matt sit several concentric rings of developers, separated by their level of contribution.
The first ring containing the lead developers is heavily populated by employees in Matt’s company Automattic and/or employees of the WordPress Foundation which holds the WordPress name and logo trademarks. Next sit more developers and around them even more developers. These are the people that by committee call the shots through a democratic-ish process.
Remember how I said “the copyright to WordPress is held by thousands of individuals”? This is the result.
What’s cool about this is that you can be part of the decision making and application building process. And if you’re good, you might end up at the very top of the pyramid.
What’s disturbing is that because of this structure you can easily get infighting, clique building, branching, and there is even room for of something resembling a coup or hostile takeover. Think politics and you’ll see what I mean.
At present the evolution of WordPress is very much influenced by Automattic and Matt himself, and there is no reason to think this will change any time soon.
As the owner and operator of WordPress.com Automattic has a vested interest in WordPress, and by investing heavily in contributions to the core of the application the company is in essence controlling its evolution and future development.
Morten Rand-Hendriksen continues to also share how this creates a lot of tension (as we’ve experienced recently with WordCamps, GPL, and Envato as well as his suggestions on how to profit and build a business around GPL wisely.
Read more of his thoughts here as it’s comprehensive and well-worth it.
So if we own it, how do we change it?
Not with our feet as that would kill it… what if the community wanted more protection for the assets they created to work on/with WP? What if we didnt want sites that offer EVRY single wootheme for $15?
Where is the forum for that debate? on sites like this.. well there are thousands..?
“How do we change it?” Through participation. The Foundation is doing a better job of centralizing activity on the make.wordpress.org site(s). It’s a good place to start.
“What if we didnt want sites that offer EVRY single wootheme for $15?” Boycott those sites and get others to do the same. Let the risks (e.g. no Woo support) and damage (e.g. not compensating developers for their work) be known. You won’t dissuade everyone, but if you’re serious about it, at least you’ll be helping in some way (however small).
If you want to see things happen, take action.
I think the key here is the idea of “protection for the assets they created”. The assets are protected under your (or your clients) copyright, but that copyright along with the GPL gives either you or your client the ability to share, alter, and build upon the product once it’s completed. And once it’s shared, the person who gets a hold of it inherits the same rights. Protection of assets therefore stands and falls on two things: If you make the product publicly available, you can’t expect to get any more money out of it. If you hand off a product to a client, make sure you get paid the full value of the product up front. What this boils down to is that the idea of selling a theme again and again under a theme foundry is inherently dissonant with the GPL and will not ensure that you will earn money in perpetuity for the theme.
Rather than sell the theme itself, consider selling services associated with the theme. Gravityforms for example does not sell their plugin but rather access to updates and support.
As for “how do we change it”? The GPL is going to stay because WordPress inherited it from B2. So even if all users of WordPress en masse decided to replace the GPL for something else, it would not be possible because of the inherited license.
That site should be shut down, but I doubt it’s doing much harm.
The only people who could possibly want “all” WooThemes (as of a certain date, with no support or future upgrades) are incredibly stupid, very poor, and/or really crooked and incompetent. This means ignorant individuals who want to try their hand at DIYing WP sites; shady developers who try to sell low quality services and make such low profits they obsess about cutting every little cost; or developers in very depressed economies who may well be providing the best quality services accessible to individuals and small businesses in their depressed market.
I expect all these types of people to sabotage themselves and fail in their efforts, especially if they are trying to sell their services in a first world economy where value added is way more important than shaving off minor costs. They may realize they are better off buying a WooThemes subscription and do so for exactly this reason. If they do not, they never would have anyway, so no real loss.
They’re all serving the worst possible markets, which in some cases makes the piracy seem less stupid and unethical. If their market improves, it is more likely to involve people who buy legit subscriptions, so that’s good for everyone. If they improve, they will probably move into a better market where its necessary, advantageous, and more possible to buy their tools and materials the right way.
Thanks for the link, John. Looks like an interesting read!