When I submitted my new shiny plugin yesterday, I was surprised to find a very quick reply, which denied entry into plugin heaven on wordpress.org by a nameless reviewer.
After reading through the rejection reasons it was clear that the reviewer got confused about the submitted plugin's license - which is GPL v3 - and the license of the software it works with, which is not GPL'd but available under a free personal license or a paid commercial license.
I then responded to the Request Denied email but did not receive a quick reply, possibly due to the fact that my email server decided to take a nap when it should have been on duty. So I decided to write a new email stating and refuting, now in a very detailed manner, the how what why where who about the submitted plugin.
Actually before I started to write that email, I tried to find out what the 'right' or 'de facto' way to ask for the plugin to be admitted would be, because the denial is based on a misunderstanding of the plugin's license and other points.
I did not find much, only one post: wordpress.org/support/topic/plugin-request-denied and it isn't similar to this case.
In this post, Mark replies "... Can you re-submit ..." which I thought might be a good idea to do with mine as well, but not before having explained in detail why I would insist to have it added to the repository after it being rejected.
So, the reason I am posting this here is because I think it might be a helpful thing for others who get their plugins rejected and, should mine be eventually admitted, how to inform wordpress.org about what you pretend to do with your plugin, why you want it added and what reasons there are for you to think that your request has been denied in error.
This is the email I sent today (typos included ;), let's see how it turns out:
Yesterday I submitted a plugin to be included and got the request denied stating that the plugin violates multiple points of the guidelines but it does not violate any of these.
I sent an email explaining that the submitted plugin does in fact comply with all requirements outlined on
and that it is licensed under GPL v3.
I am sending this email because I'm actually not sure if the one I sent in reply has reached you or not - I had problems with my email server.
Anyhow, the plugin in question is wunderslider-wordpress-gallery and it is fully GPL licensed. What is not GPL licensed, and that is where whoever has done the review (the email doesn't state a name), got confused about, is the WunderSlider that the submitted plugin works with itself.
The WunderSlider code is not included in the submitted plugin and people are clearly informed on how it works: free personal license or paid commercial license. Again, this has nothing to do with the licensing of the wunderslider-wordpress-gallery plugin itself nor the way it functions.
To make it more clear, these are the points that the reviewer critized on the submitted plugin:
1) GPLv2 (or later) licensing. Your license cannot restrict use of the plugin for any reason, be it ethical, moral, or financial. if people want to use this plugin on a commercial site, they are permitted to do so. Your license is, therefore, not compatible with the GPL and cannot be accepted.
The plugin *is* licensed under GPL v3 and the stated reason for rejection does not apply.
1b) Your license cannot restrict editing of the code. This is a core tenant of GPL - the right of the next guy to edit the code and reuse. Pretty much all the clauses here - http://www.itthinx.com/free-personal-use-single-domain-license-fpusdl/ - are contrary to the rights granted in the GPL.
This license does *not* apply to the plugin submitted and this reason for rejection again does not apply.
2) Credit links. These are not permitted, save as 'opt in' - your 'little logo' at the bottom of a page is not permitted.
The submitted plugin does *not* have anything to do with that and people can chooose freely whether they want to work with the free personal version that includes a logo or the commercial version that doesn't. Again this doesn't have anything to do with the plugin I have submitted.
3) Phoning home. Per your site, your plugin sends usage data back to your servers. This is not permitted unless necessary for the functionality of the plugin, and in those cases, must be clearly disclosed to the end users.
The plugin does not do that. The free personal version of WunderSlider sends usage data home and people are clearly informed about that. Again this has nothing to do with the submitted plugin.
More clarification if needed:
The description of the submitted plugin states clearly:
"This plugin provides an automated way to convert any standard WordPress gallery that is embedded on a page using the [gallery] shortcode into a *WunderSlider*.
This plugin requires the *WunderSlider* which is available freely for personal use. A license is required to be purchased for commercial use, see [WunderSlider](http://www.itthinx.com/wunderslider/) for more details."
As is obvious from that, WunderSlider is *not* included with the plugin itself and the licenses of the wunderslider-wordpress-gallery plugin and the WunderSlider itself are not related.
The submitted plugin includes two files, COPYRIGHT.txt and the full text of the GPL v3 license in the file LICENSE.txt. COPYRIGHT.txt states clearly:
Unless otherwise stated, all code in this plugin is licensed under
the GPL License:"
You will find that the GPL license applies to all files included in the plugin and it states so in their headers.
It couldn't get much clearer now, could it? :)
My question is, shall I resubmit the whole thing or what is there to do?