The drop is always movingYou know that saying about standing on the shoulders of giants? Drupal is standing on a huge pile of midgetsAll content management systems suck, Drupal just happens to suck less.Popular open source software is more secure than unpopular open source software, because insecure software becomes unpopular fast. [That doesn't happen for proprietary software.]Drupal makes sandwiches happen.There is a module for that

Drupal is not a simple system to theme (even for Monsters)

Submitted by nk on Mon, 2008-04-14 22:33

And because of that we need Drupal specific theme sites like and not generic template sites like Template Monster selling you an oversimplified template that's so simplified it's unusable.

Edit: oScommerce users have already been burned. Beware!

Commenting on this Story is closed.

Submitted by mcneelycorp on Tue, 2008-04-15 01:56.

Yeah, TM is OK to make a purchase and have the files, but sometimes installations are terrible and the xHTML is not good. Outside of the purchase, the customer support sucks. But, I think it is a good thing for Drupal, bringing new CMS users to Drupal. As Drupal gets more theme developer friendly more and more people will theme for Drupal. Themers visit TM just to compare. That is what I am hoping for, those themers will jump into Drupal and embrace the future!


Submitted by on Tue, 2008-04-15 15:20.

Lets first see if they sell/license the themes conform Drupals GPL license. If not than Bert will most likely shut them down :)

Submitted by quicksketch@dru... on Wed, 2008-04-16 03:49.

Be sure to read the FAQ section of the site. All template code (.tpl.php and template.php) is licensed under GPL, as it has to be. However, the CSS and images are NOT GPL. Making it so you could potentially redistribute the markup, but that's not the point. They're selling design, which doesn't have to be under the GPL.

You might read Dries' article on Drupal's use of GPL 2 (but not 3) in his post "Long live the web services loophole. Although themes aren't a web-service, the premise is the same. CSS and Images can't execute the GPL'd code of Drupal, and so therefor they're not "infected" with the license.

Submitted by Matthew Davidso... on Thu, 2008-04-17 03:59.

Please bear in mind that the "web services loophole" is most definitely _not_ addressed in the released version of GPLv3, so disagreeing with Affero GPL style copyleft is not a reason to not use GPLv3.

There was discussion very early on in the GPLv3 draft process of possibly making "software as a service" a trigger for copyleft, but it was decided that it wasn't clear that providing a service that depended on a piece of software was the same as distributing (or "conveying" in GPLv3-speak) a copy of the software, and that the freedom to make private modifications to your own software was more important than any potential restrictions on the users' freedom in these cases. So the Affero GPL (which closes the "loophole") remains a separate license, but there are clauses in both GPLv3 and AGPLv3 to allow projects covered by either license to share code.

Most criticisms of GPLv3 you'll find date back to the draft process, and don't apply to the released license; the changes are actually pretty conservative (as far as everyone except TiVo, Microsoft, and Novell are concerned).

Personally I think Drupal should move to GPLv3 ASAP, to avoid the problem of "TiVoization", or the threat of a Microsoft-Novell-style patent covenant between a patent holder and one or more - but not all - Drupal distributors.

Submitted by nk on Wed, 2008-04-16 05:48.

I say that TM themes will lack the detail a proper theme requires.