actually, he has put in writing that the title of the story isn't true. I still think there are reasonable questions that haven't been answered but I'm not sure we'll actually get answers to those.
To be honest, I'm surprised we got this kind of response from Google at all. They generally don't weigh in on SEO theory.
Matt once told me that if I did a bad thing on my site there wasn't a penalty, I just didn't get as many points as I could. Semantics. When he says "there is no correlation between Email and search" I will maybe believe him. Maybe.
Maybe you are too young to remember the Matt Cutts "use no follow on internal links" debacle where he said that was a good idea.
I read the response from Google as Matt's annoyed a minion said something they shouldn't have, and Google's caught with their pants down on what is a pretty scary thought. "Google Reads Your Email And Does Scary S___ With It"
Matt, feel free to answer this in either place but you singled out a sentence in the post and claimed it wasn't true.
Then you followed that statement up by saying that the title isn't true.
While I most definitely appreciate you weighing in on the issue, I feel you would better serve readers by explaining whether the initial statement, the title, or both are inaccurate.
Are you saying email reputation wasn't the reason his site was penalized, that he didn't have a tip from a Google employee, or that email reputation doesn't factor into the search rankings?
No, even if Matt is correct people can still charge for themes.
GPL themes are able to be shared and redistributed however the end user sees fit.
That's the big difference. I can sell GPL themes myself for half price & they have no recourse. People can give GPL themes away for free and the developers have no recourse.
That's what the debate is about, whether themes inherit the GPL or not.
No one (that I know of) is arguing the GPL doesn't apply at all. What people, such as myself are arguing is that the GPL doesn't automatically apply to wOrdPRESS themes.
Almost - the GPL wouldn't apply to the CSS, JS or HTML of his themes, nor would the GPL nullify trademark and copyright. Still doesn't mean that his claim would hold up in court but it probably wouldn't be completely hopeless either.
In addition, if I purchased the Thesis theme, although the GPL would give me the right to redistribute it, I would not be able to market my redistributed theme as "Thesis", presuming that Chris has trademarked that mark.
So if I tried to redistribute the theme as "Thesis", Chris could (1) sue me for trademark infringement. He could also (2) file a DMCA claim against me (or sue me for violating his copyright), if my product included his copyrighted CSS/JS/images/etc.
These remaining trademark and copyright protections are why Matt asserts that applying the GPL license to the Thesis theme would not hurt Chris' business.
Did you notice that Matt wasn't able to produce a lawyer who successfully contended that themes were derivative works? Sure the SFLC chimed in but what do you think their opinion would be given that they are the Software Freedom Law Center?
While Chris may not have stuck on point about the gray areas within the license (it is FAR from explicit), that doesn't mean they don't still apply. And last I checked, we're still innocent until proven guilty in regards to the kinds of accusations Matt is making.
Matt is the one with the burden of proof here, not Chris and Matt most certainly hasn't achieved the requisite level of proof IMO.
Guys, it's important for you to not frame your opinion solely on this interview. Take a look at Matt's tweets prior to this as well as his comments elsewhere. He's far from a gentleman or patient.
And in the interview, when Chris brings up the issue of Matt being more responsible with his actions, Matt deftly dodges the questions. As I said before, while I think Chris came off a bit wound up, it's understandable given the context of the accusations that had been leveled by Matt prior to this interview.
Totally agree here. All the comments on this post are lauding Matt for being "calm and collected," but it's still possible to be a jackass while sounding calm and collected. Chris got loud and fired up in the interview because he was defending something he believes in. Nothing wrong with that at all.
As I've stated previously here, I'm no fan of Mr. Calacanis, but there may be a whole host of legitimate business reasons why he wishes to no longer have this employee on-site.
Whatever the full context, it's VERY unprofessional (also likely violating his MCA or NDA) of this employee to post what is clearly proprietary HR-related information to the public Web.
I'd say these bridges aren't just burned, but well and surely nuked.
