As WordPress developers, both themes and plugins, the answer is simple. The code belongs 100% to us unless we say otherwise.

Open source makes it a wee bit trickier, however, as we believe in that too! So what we basically tend to do is to not release the code (we don’t have to - even if we write the code under GPL) but the client can if they so choose.

I don’t believe that all WordPress plugins are GPL either, but that’s down to an interpretation of how the linking works. It’s untested stuff legally, so we can never be sure. So we write code both with and without the GPL license. We give a bit, we get a bit. We do need to pay the rent though, so have to be a little careful

Incidentally, in the arts worlds it’s the same - the copyright of a photo belongs to the photographer by default unless there’s a contract that’s signed that over to someone else. At least, that’s how it is in the UK.

(» Read David Coveney’s last blog post..Anvil GPL WordPress Theme)

It is confusing for non-technical consumers (sometimes even for technical ones!).

I do understand what you’re saying about code that relies on a GPL code base … I think this guys outrage is that he just didn’t know, and made assumptions about his purchase.

We (developers, designers, consultants) can’t be held responsible for their assumptions - but can probably do a lot towards avoiding those false assumptions to begin with.

Maybe, with a little up front education on the GPL-ness of it all, the guy wouldn’t be so upset about his blog toast being released.

1. Copyright
2. License

The copyright is basically who owns the code. The license is what you can do with it.

Plugins and add-ons that rely on a GPL’d codebase are generally considered to have “caught” GPL as a result, and distribution of this code triggers a GPL license accordingly.

Note: IANAL and you should definitely read about copyright, license and the GPL on your own if you are doing professional work around any or all of these areas.

(» Read Alex’s last blog post..20 minutes or so on why I am 4Barack (Lessig Blog))

(» Read Amy’s last blog post..Kinda Goes Along With the Whole Theme Here.)

(» Read Debbie’s last blog post..Road Rage Missed)

So I said all that to say, the idea is the product. The code is the “mass manufacturing” and can be outsourced. Thanks for the lesson in jurisprudence.

(» Read Debbie’s last blog post..Road Rage Missed)

(» Read The Lisa Show’s last blog post..Delurking Day 2008)

I doubt if most developers are well versed in the work-for-hire concept. I think it’s the sweat-of-the-brow concept that they’re going by: “I did the development work, so it’s mine.” In this case, without any documentation to prove otherwise, they’re correct. (Copyright is so much fun.

(» Read Mike Goad’s last blog post..BIG BUMP in the road for my online plans?. perhaps.)

It’s like commissioned art. The ceiling of the Sistine Chapel was commissioned by the Pope, and it belongs to the Church to do with as they please. However, you always hear it referred to as Michaelangelo’s Sistine Chapel . . .

And I think that both parties should approve release to the general public if that is what the client wants to do with it. These things should all be discussed up front . . .

(» Read Lindsey’s last blog post..She’s finally able to rest . . .)

Regarding your question whether he can sue — I’m sure he can attempt to sue.. it would be a very costly matter to pursue, however.. and most likely, as Mike suggested above - since it wasn’t in writing that it was a ‘work for hire’ - he’d probably lose.

They are informed of this up front - so there are no questions later. I think that’s what should have happened in this scenario.