GPL violation with YAML theme

Hass is blocking the namespace in favour of his own no GPL project he published under http://www.yaml-fuer-drupal.de . There he includes YAML itself, which would be not allowed under drupal (not in the CVS). In addition he violates the GPL-Licence of drupal and PHPtemplate, as he is publishing his theme under a not GPL licence, charging the user 95€ for removing him from the visiblefooternote of the page (not for downloadingthe package, but for MODIFYING it ).

killes is on holidays and I have read a ticket, where hass has been fighting with people about a similar issue. I think it has been take offline as he distributed YAML within the package, which is third party library NOT under GPL but CCL (and not allowed).

Hass does exactly know what he is doing, on http://www.yaml-fuer-drupal.de/de/download he is even pointing to http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q7 which clearly explains, that themes haveund the GPL2, CSS and images dont have to ( but well, he has 2 lines of CSS or maybe some couple more..but he basicaly uses 95% of YAML CSS)

I would actually like to repoen that project. Of course i would provide a basic YAML theme and not distributing YAML within the package. People will have to download it from the yaml page.

--

As i did inform the assosication about this issue and Hass himself ( which actually simply ignored it ), i would not ask Hass kindly at all to "open this project namespace". He is fooling people, knowing exactly that he would have to publish under the GPL. He confuses the downloaders, because he tells them, he is building on top of yaml, which needs a footer or impressum-not (until you dont pay the licence fee). But he adds his author name and restricting to remove his name also, which violates the GPL-Licence of drupal. Its ok having the YAML disclaimer for all users not having the licence of YAML removing it, but its not ok charging people for changing the template (in any way).

And of course, iam not talking about removing his copyright. Iam fully ok he is the origin of this template, so he has all copyrights. But this copyrights stay in the code.

--

Iam mixing 2 issues here:
1. Hass beeing blocking the namespace
2. Hass is violating drupals use of term / GPL

But to explain the first, the second need to be taken into accout.

--

I will start a new YAML template, as the template provided there is pretty...[kindly mode]... "it could have been done better"

I think http://www.yaml-fuer-drupal.de is a good point, same as drupal.de to enforce the drupal EU Trademark.

Well just to point it out, iam not against charging your GPL work for downloading it. This is perfectly ok if you did some hard work (which is not the case here but..).

But charging for changing the code is exactly what GPL is not allowing you (ammong other things)

Adding legal tag.

I totally agree with Eugen. Every maintainer has accepted the license rules of Drupal CVS and Alexander (hass) is ignoring this consequently.
It seems to me that asking him to change the code or his license didn't worked in the past (referring to his other endless discussions on translations I'm sure it won't work in the future either) so its a logical step of Gerhard to unpublish the project page.
The next step would be to inform Alexander (hass) about his GPL-violation and "free" the project name.

You are not allowed to make a "yaml" theme and at least not based on MY work. Aside it's a consense that Drupal themes need to be unpublished for the reason that it's not fully complete. It's not acceptable that a theme is incomplete (UX). This is why it was refused to me to host my GPL parts on d.o. I wish I could use d.o, but the admins here don't like to have incomplete themes in the CVS.

If they change their mind I would be happy to get *my* YAML for Drupal project published back so I'm able to push in my GPL code.

We discussed more than once that we cannot change a license of other frameworks.

Well did you just dodge the "i let people charge for letting them change my DRUPAL theme" (GPL2)? And no, not CSS, not Image. I mean the template. The template which is under the GPL2.

Did you just stell us, that iam not allowed to take you GPL work and republish it? I can do with yout work, what ever i like. That actually is the same for all my work you use for you.

We discussed more than once that we cannot change a license of other frameworks.

Who told you to do so? Nobody is talking about changing any YAML licences.

---

Do you actually READ the posts or do you only comment on things you like and ignore the other parts?

Well slowly i understand why people all over "like" your attitude.

No idea why you think you are not allowed to remove the license comment from the page.tpl.php file (or the update status server link). I have *really* no idea... This comment exists mainly to stop you from simply removing the $footer variable for the reasons of the CC license in YAML code and other code and documentation I'm holding the copyright for, as it may break the license compliance of a site regarding the YAML licenses. You are free to move the backlinks over to your Impress as written in the CC licenses of the "data" part. As the creator of the RTL part of YAML I do also hold the full copyright of this part and many other parts you can find in the yaml packages, but it doesn't matter at all how many percent you think it is.

If you'd like to use my work in the way it's offered you need to accept my license. You cannot make me accept your personal wishing rules. Invoices need to get payed - maybe yours, too, but you may work for free for your customers - I do not like to guess about this.

As said I'd like to use the yaml project space as in past, but it's not possible for the reason of d.o rules. Incomplete themes are not acceptable for UX reasons if they need external download to become complete usable. Search d.o yourself - I have a few of this discussions in my list.

Soll auf die Rückverlinkung und Namensnennung des jeweiligen Projektautors gemäß der Creative Commons Lizenz verzichtet werden, müssen für beide Projekte entsprechende Lizenzgebühren entrichtet werden. Dafür steht derzeit folgende Lizenzerweiterung zu Verfügung:

Iam not sure who you are trying to fool, but this the direct wording of you page. It includes, IF you want to remove the Authors Licence, you have to PAY for BOTH PROJECTS.
Did you actually get this?
Project 1: YAML ( CCL )
Project 2: Theme ( GPL2 )

You are and never will be allowed to control ANYTHING happens with Project 2 as its GPL2. Are you playing stupid? I bet you do.

Dont forget about the wording up there:
- BOTH PROJECTs.
- you have to PAY for BOTH PROJECTS

And to make sure, that people understand that you FOOL other people and play smart in the backyard towards the drupal community, here is the exact quote of the licence in page.tpl.php of a download of you site 2 seconds ago

ENGLISH:
This back linking maybe only removed,
if you possess a YAML Framework and YAML for Drupal license.
:: License conditions: http://www.yaml.de and http://www.yaml-for-drupal.com

if you possess a YAML Framework and YAML for Drupal license.

This IS not allowed. You are just using YAML as in excuse for adapting their licence on your template. This is not needed and not possible. They would perfectly work together mixing both librarie.

Clever guy you are.
--------------
To the theme part:
It is, no doubt just something confusing.

We have to CSS files in a project like this:
1. Coming from a third party library, in our case here this is YAML. If those are more restricting like GPL ( not compatible ), we are NOT allowed to stuff it into CVS. Totally agree, totaly fine, fair and best practice in all GPL2 OS-Projects.
2. CSS and image files the author creates are NOT affected by the GPL2 out of the box, as they are not using any deep calls into the "drupal framework". They work as they are. The author can choose a licence of his own here.

So, what hass tries is to publish 2 under not GPL2 ( some other licence, in that case something hand made CCL simalr). And thats what we dont respect/allowd here in drupal, that 2. is not published under GPL2 and then stuffed int CVS as a theme.
Everthing in the CVS MUST be GPL2. Period.

But you try to lock in the user for some money - you just prove that with YAML for drupal. You charge 95€ for absolutely _nothing_ then vendor work. Using some YAML CSS files on top of garland and you are done.

I cant accept that someone like you, who is cleary missbehaving in terms of the policy (well and iam surely not the only one knowing you exactly for THAT reason...your quiet know on that "field") leading this project. You are exactly acting on purpose here.

--

I can offer help creating a theme, which is 100% under our usual GPL2 licence. When the user downloads it, he has to visit yaml and download there archive, put it into one directory and the theme runs. It makes _absolutely_ no sense not allowing this. You can the stop every WYSIWYG editor from beeing used with drupal (tinyMCE). Or other projects using third party libaries they are not able to include into this project ( print for example ).
So we have the general approach to allow third party licences, as long as the project itself stays GPL2 and the third party licence will be downloaded extra.

Should hass start this project here, i will fork right away. Iam not interested in any cooperation with someone openly and on purpose fooling people which do not know their way arround his "licence djungle".

This is a community and we should respect each member. Everybody not doing so - is not treated as a member of those.

@EugenMayer: You missed at least one important point and I'm not sure why you ignore my part of the work:

Project 1: YAML ( CCL )
Project 2: YAML for Drupal (CCL)
Project 3: Theme ( GPL2 )

I have not read more of your posting... so don't complain that I do not answer to the rest, please.

@kiam: One of the other unpublished themes is under #416022: Theme requires download of non-GPL files for CC licensing reasons of the DATA parts of theme and the discussion has been moved over after 145 comments to http://groups.drupal.org/node/24465 for the reason that there is still no public written rule for splitted downloads. Many site admins said it's not acceptable on d.o to host splitted projects with different licenses (especially not for themes). This are very long discussions and many have missed the theme data don't need to be GPL. WorldFallz have offered to work on the rules... not sure if he has finished this work.

You still trying to dodge, do you?

I did not include Project 3, as this one IS for SURE GPL2. Clear? Because this are templates.

And thats what we are left for

Project 1: YAML ( CCL )
Project 2: YAML for Drupal (CCL)

While P1 is CCL clearly, what is P2?
P2:
This are images (some many..couldnt could them) and you css(yeah, YOUR css while using yaml..).

So and P2 is exactly the central point, as you decide to chose a CCL for those few files. And to come back to the story you skiped, your licenced ( CCL ) is included IN the page.tpl.php which IS Project 3 actually. And here is where you mix all the things up.

As you see, i did not ignore anything. Just did not mention the templates of P3, which are anyway GPL2. Well try to confuse people even more.

to the story you skiped, your licenced ( CCL ) is included IN the page.tpl.php which IS Project 3 actually

Again - this is a NOTE for all who are not aware that the CC licenses apply to included data code and may remove the $footer code by fault. As said - you are free to remove this comment on your page IF you keep a backlinks in your impress or in the footer code. If you know well what you need to keep to be license compliant than you can remove this comment.

Cool note. This small note let you earn 95€.

What a poor accident.

You have missed my code and documentation included in the project. This is what you need to license. And you also help the project to have a real future, but I do not expect that you understand this.

I dont argue of what you include. this is not not primary point ( even if this could be als stated as "very very vague")

Still what a poor accident that his not is placed on the MOST sensitive part of the theme. The visual front page. The part where nobody wants to show a link on. And what a accident that you forgot to mention, that YAML would also allow to name them in the imprint..it must not be the footer.

Must be some really really really really bad and unlikly to happen accident.

It clearly shows that you have not read the CC license pages or readme... this is the real and only accident.

Feel free to use a different CSS framework or theme if you don't like my work - I know *many* others are very happy that I'm doing this work and they send my their kudos and they told me very often they do not understand guys like you. They have saved 100 times more time and money as the have payed me to keep the good work up-to-date and they do not like to re-invent the wheel. Be happy that you get rapid development with YAML for Drupal and you don't need to maintain it (500 hours per year or more is nothing).

Go with blueprint or YUI or Zen - only to name the most important others in short.

Condition: For the free use of the YAML framework, a backlink to the YAML homepage (http://www.yaml.de) in a suitable place (e.g.: footer of the website or in the imprint) is required.

Well yeah, keep up the good facts. Thats actually a direct quote of : http://www.yaml.de/en/license/license-conditions.html

Next argument or fact?

Well know your back on the ground yes? Last arguments left are that people are happy with your offer and so there is nothing to argue about? So its ok letting them pay for something, which is not allowed to pay for (changes, its fine paying for the work though)? Its ok that you violate the term thosands of Drupal-Contributor build on, rely on and believe in? So its ok if one single man thinks he is authorized when its "ok" to violate the GPL licence which is the _only fact_ that projects like drupal survive. People share, combine - work together.

I feel sorry for your attitude, really.

Feel free to use a different CSS framework or theme if you don't like my work

YOU are not YAML. And YOUR theme is not "the yaml theme". So if i would like to use YAML or i would like to use yaml with drupal and i make a theme and publish it. I do so.

You are a bit overlapping your responsibilities. Well thats the whole point in this huge flame-war.

1. There is no legal issue. There is only a guy who cannot read licenses.
2. WONT FIX for republishing of yaml until d.o allows splitting GPL theme code and CC code from different sources (currently denied by site admins)
3. If the point of view regarding splitted project may ever change I'd like to get my project back to work on it on d.o.

@EugenMayer: My theme is the YAML Theme. I own the copyright of my data and documentation and the way how it's designed (this is the CC part) and also I do own the copyright of all the RTL data of YAML them-self. The theme code that needs to be offered under a GPL license inside the YAML Theme is offered under the GPL2. I do not own the copyright of YAML core, but I have all the support of the YAML copyright owner and I'm in direct contact with him as we work together on our projects.

You are ridiculous.

Comment #18

The theme code that needs to be offered under a GPL license inside the YAML Theme is offered under the GPL2.

Well and thats exactly where your note in the page.tpl.php (which i could take to the "Theme" if you kindly allow)

ENGLISH:
This back linking maybe only removed,
if you possess a YAML Framework and YAML for Drupal license.
:: License conditions: http://www.yaml.de and http://www.yaml-for-drupal.com

violates the GPL2 you just said it should be.You even paste your OWN licence conditions (http://www.yaml-for-drupal.com) and tell us, that you offered it under the GPL2?

Well just a hint: Its not that all the others are stupid. Iam not sure if anybody believes that mirrical you just told us that you "accidently" put those "licence" into a file which is "GPL2" on a place, which is the most sensible one for the user ( page.tpl.php, shown on EVERY page ).

And hey, how cool is that, why did you add the ney "LICENCES.txt" on the 03. Dezember 21:XX CET? Why did you miss it before? Well this must be again a huge huge fortuity. Maybe my private emails helped you recognising?

Your pretty lieing all the way down. You had been not stating that the templates are under the GPL till the 3rd December. Well this is strange, on the 3rd December at 12:xx i have written you by mail, that i informed the assosiation. Just wondered, if there could be any relation?
--
Acually iam tired of this "single-person-bashing". But somebody should see this persons real face.

Ok everyone needs to calm down. I'm temporarily locking this thread for a few hours.

For whomever is reading this thread on the webmasters list and didn't notice it previously (I only found out this morning), this has nothing to do with a possible theme based on the well-known YAML data serialization format, but is an unfortunate (?) choice of initialism for Yet Another Multicolumn Layout.

Not wanting to intrude on the licensing discussion, but I think that if drupal.org/project/yaml is to exist, it should probably go to some umbrella project related to YAML the format, not YAML the layout base.

@kiam: He said in #9:

I can offer help creating a theme, which is 100% under our usual GPL2 licence. When the user downloads it, he has to visit yaml and download there archive, put it into one directory and the theme runs. It makes _absolutely_ no sense not allowing this.

And I'm able to confim, this is not allowed by the d.o rules. I've linked to the other threads discussing this and judged over someone else who offered a theme that needs an additional download from somewhere else. Otherwise the CC license of YAML also does not allow to publish it's code somewhere else without written consent from the author nevertheless it is also not allowed to host CC stuff in the CVS on d.o.

@kiam: I hope you really understand that you need to ask the previous maintainer of a namespace if he plan to re-use his previously used namespace and only if there is no reply from the maintainer it's ok to take it over, but I have replied more than once. I have never confimed or given feedback to Killes that I do not plan to develop yaml on d.o (this was the reason why he unpublished the project). So I give this feedback now. I do plan to re-use my previously used namespace! Additional You know very well that namespace conflicts only cause major troubles - for users and developers. If someone intentionally creates a second project in the same namespace only to clutter 3 year old projects used on very many sites, than this people may get very angry.

If EugenMayer like to offer a theme to the community he can use every name he'd like. Maybe "EugenMayer Theme" in the namespace project/eugenmayer. Today I believe he intentionally only plans to clutter/trash other people projects with a very long term history.

Before you give the maintainership of my project to someone else I'd please you to ask me very first. Thank you.

@kiamlaluno: Yes, i wan to create a theme based on yaml. This theme should get very generic, call it the zen theme for yaml. Later advanced version could be done, but this depends on the intereset of the community

@hass: that you plan to reuse your namespace is clear to everyone. The reason of this should also be clear to everyone, after reading this thread. You are not the maintainer fo project/YAML - you never checked something in. In common case, you even proved to be better not the mainter of a module or theme at all.

You have lived so well on you own yaml-fuer-drupal.de site, getting the all the money. Now, that i want to start a free yaml theme on d.o you have to react, as this crosses your buissiness.

--
People reading this thread should look on how the arguments of hass changed during the time, because i was giving him the facts (and some "interpretations" also). So he slowy moves away from being the "king of yaml for drupal", which everyone has to ask and pay for, who actually wants to use yaml IN drupal.
--

So i guess this should be considered before deciding. Iam even fine if the namespace goes to someone else who is intereseted in leading the project, if the site-administrator think, we both are "to hot" about it. I would help this new maintainer getting it done. If it would be hass, i would fork it, as iam not gonna contribute to someone who is missusing our GPL licence this way - in addition trys to "hide" a product in there.

@fgm: Which name do you suggest? YAML_them or yaml_base? Iam open fo those

1. Everyone can use YAML for Drupal for free.

2. I have never changed arguments during the time, I have only explained in more and more details that you are wrong and you cannot read the licenses and/or misinterpreting them only. I can change some notes in my code to be more clear - like the note inside page.tpl.php for guys like you. No problem at all to clarify this a bit more, but this does not change anything of my arguments. It's absolutely clear to me what I need to do to comply with the GPL and I have planed to add the forgotten license file in v3.2 only for the reason that re-packaging already deployed releases is not the best idea. But nevertheless I've done it on 3.12 only for you.

3. I'm the maintainer of project/yaml. Killes have only unpublished my project before I was able to commit my code and I have not given feedback to him in past. This could be my fault, but every fault can be corrected and I have done it in the case where Killes unpublished it.

4. You can build your own theme, but if this theme requires external downloads to be functional it will be unpublished by a site admin later as it breaks with d.o rules (many other projects have already been unpublished for this reason). That said, you need to create a fully working theme and this is not possible at all with yaml. I've only said this here as an early warning that you do not waste your time with a model that don't comply with the d.o rules. Take this into consideration.

5. I have no idea why you are trying to tell the readers here that I shouldn't have to maintain a module or theme only for the reason that You do not understand licenses of one project. I'm doing very hard work and spend uncountable many many hours per year for free in my spare time to help the Drupal community and I do offer all my work under the GPL except one project where it is not possible for reasons that are not in my hands. I'm pretty sure you also use one of my very bugfree modules or translations (at least ~25% of all Drupal users do and this are at very minimum over 60.000 ga users). I know David, Karen and many others have confirmed my high quality work in past and that you try to use my code shows that you think the same or you would start from scratch. David also have very high quality code, but there are others in here where I cannot trust a release. But this is all OT here. So be *much* more respectful.

Make your homework first before commenting this way, please.

The reason the project page was originally unpublished = http://drupal.org/node/178048

Well, should i really comment on this? Thank VM.

The reason the old project was unpublish is:

Can you please clarify the license? Looks you require
1) the credits to be kept and
2) this theme or its derivative can not be used for commercial purpose.

And the answer of hass, was, without any further comments:

Status: active » by design

---
Well this _excatly_ covers what i have told here. You tried to publish the _templates_ we host on d.o. as _non_ GPL, as you restrict the removing of the credits in the page.tpl.php

And you were fine that the project has been closed, as you continued making a revival of it on your own platform. With your own rules.

Now, that there is possible compition by others, you want to dodge back and play the nice guy.

How faithful.

Last comment for me here, all things needed to be clariefied have been written here. hass stop email me in private, iam not gonna answer at all. Every further email will be made public in here - be warned.

You had 2 years time to take over this namespace and "republish" your work on d.o but you never showed an interest.

@Mr Mayer: I have also changed the comments in page.tpl.php only to clarify the license a bit more for you. Hope this is now non-interpretable in the wrong way and it solves your misunderstanding. This said - text comments in general are not backlinks. From the technical point of view a backlink is a HTML tag looking in code like <a href="http://example.com">Example.com</a> that is visibly shown on a public website. Please stop trying to tell the readers your false arguments. Thank you very much.

@kiam: As the current maintainer of "project/yaml" I say WONT FIX to a maintainer change. As said - you or any other d.o site maintainer need to unpublished his theme after publishing for the reasons of incomplete themes are not allowed on d.o. Do not support destroying my long term theme project and don't make the current yaml users major troubles, please. Thank you.

As Mr Mayer suggested himself, he's fine with using the namespaces "project/yaml_theme" or "project/yaml_base".

Moved http://drupal.org/project/yaml to the "Abandoned Projects" users, made clear that the namespace is locked in the project description. This closes this thread.

Well as the namespace issue is solved, lets clear out the last topic here. the GPL-violation

Based on my understanding of licenses (*certainly no expert) and past discussions on this type of topic with reference to themes, unless I am missing something, hass is free to do what he wants with the theme provided it isn't being distributed from d.o.

images and css he is not restircted from licensing as CC if he so chooses and distribute the CC licensed theme contributions off of d.o

you are wrong. Please read the whole issue.

He is charging people for being allowed to modify the page.tpl.php and remove the "this is supported by yaml-for-drupal" link. EVERY code - progamming code - modification is FREE - or better without ANY contrfor GPL2 code. Page.tpl.php is a template and is - by drupal rules and generic rules of GPL - GPL2 ( http://drupal.org/licensing/faq#q2 ).

The only thing GPL2 allowes to restrict is the removal of the author copyright note "me has done this". But those notes are forced to be NOT programming code. That comment either have to be a comment OR a external TXT file. They are never allowed to be code - and if they are - they are allowed to be changed freely as GPL2 allows it for code. So it is _never_ possible to visually brandmark a product which is under the GPL2. HTML is programming code, so restricting changing a file which is HTML is never allowed under the GPL. But you can restrict the removal of

as this is not programming code or better, its a comment ignored by the parser for this language.

So Mr. Hass is violating GPL rules of drupal AND using the drupal trademark for it. And thats where he should get punished twice.

Slowly but steady Mr. Hass will recognise that iam doing GPL related buissiness for a much longer time then he does. And thats why i acually know the exact wording AND the court-decisions in germany about that.

--- Addition
Yes, as he is not hosting on d.o he is allowed to licence the CSS and images like he wants. And if he does not choose GPL2 here, he is not allowed to upload it on Drupal CVS and that EXACTLY the only reason why his old YAML project got abandoned here. It was not about the external licence of YAML ( CCL), it was about his free choose of licence of those files.

edited: comment removed by myself. Comment included an incorrect statement.

Drupal.org is not hosting any part of Hass' work. At this point, pursuing a possible GPL violation is in the sole hands of the Drupal association.

Yes, but they just have "eaten" my request yet. Not reactions, reminders - its like a deep black hole. Pretty bad.

As per Damien's comment in #37, dealing with licensing for code hosted outside drupal.org issues is not the purview of the drupal.org webmaster's team. The issues that we are able to deal here with have been resolved, so I'm re-marking this issue as "fixed".

Is there any other "group" maintaining this? Or is the contact form to the assosiation the only way to fire and forget this?

I dont really get why people are so less interested in fixing such issues. You kill the motivation and effort of a lot of contributors over the time, if you let others missuse their work. This happens in Joomla right now also. People start to ignore the GPL and republish the whole work under closed source - stealing the work of thousands of contributors. The result is - the number of free contributions is going down rapidly.

And why does this happen? Because most of the people inthe OS project dont feel qualified to judge on such issues or fear to go legal ways on such things. In the end, a lot of such things happen in the dark - until the mass will kill the effort of people.

I would really like to know how such violations are dealt with in drupal and maybe - improve that if needed.

We as the Drupal community with personal and/or business interests in Drupal shouldn't simply hand out issues over to the DA and then forget about them.
As long as there is an issue with Drupal it is our problem. If the DA takes care of the problem that’s great. Anyhow it is our issue so I don't think we should kill the discussion by closing the thread as fixed since it is not fixed. "Drupal.org webmasters" might not be the perfect place for this question but as long as we don't have a better place for the discussion we might as well stay here.

Correcting title.

There exists no violation! Don't change the title, please. Thank you.

The issue was about Requesting to take over the namespace yaml and this support request has been fixed in #32. Again - there is no violation and therefore, please don't name it this way.

This is a missinterpretation of inline comments. Reading the licences make everything clear. Only to stop him to be able to interpret anything wrong - I changed the wording, nevertheless the changed wording have nothing changed how the code and data is licensed.

The current title intercedes a wrong impression.

It is and stays a GPL violation.

You are not allowed to restrict changes things which are under the GPL (page.tpl.php / template.php). Restrict in the meaning of "forcing people to pay you money".

The only thing you are allowed to do is chargin for changing the drupal basemods and the few other CSS parts, which are under your CCL. But surely you recognised, you cant visually brandmark using CSS _at all_.

And visually brandmarking is your primar buissiness concept.

----- Offtopic to YAML

I have created a complete new yaml_them for drupal in the past days and i must take something back. Yes you have put some effort into it, mostly the styling part - which is completely default. You could have used Garland also.

All the other parts are _completely_ default, all the settings and the totaly broken concept of subtemplates for layouts are not worth the money at all. So there is no need to respect you charging for GPL-Changes - your work on this theme isnt outstanding at all to let you violate those golden rules.

It is by the way possible to seperate the YAML package as an external libarary without a problem in addition making the theme look nice and correct withtout having yaml installed. Yes, it wont be that flexible and x-browser compatible - but it would work just fine.

So your arguments that you mixed those licences because of the yaml structure are simply not valid.

Mr Mayer still seems to fail reading the licenses and do not understand what a comment/annotation/note is... I also suggest to use Google and search for Drupal themes offered under CC... you find thousands of other themes that really have the issue described in the topic.

In general nobody is forced by someone to pay money to change a comment someone can add/edit/delete himself. If the backlinks required by CC licenses are added e.g. to the imprint - everything is license compliant. Other GPL and CC themes also have hardcoded backlinks. If I think about how this topic have started - it started with the big lie that I need to offer all code in the theme package under the GPL for the reason that "modules" need to be GPL and the reader wasn't aware about #7 in the license FAQ on d.o. If someone can come up with a sentence in my code that is not compliant, speak up and drop me a detailed note - otherwise be quiet and never use such misleading titles, etc. Thank you.

Sum up - I very much apologize for having created such great themes for Drupal... and that your clients may force you to use this work for their future save web projects and you may not get the job if you think you don't need it - if this may be the real source of this topic. I'm still trying to understand for weeks the intention of this topic and this is the only idea I can come up.