[theme-reviewers] Including Creative Commons Attribution Code

[Emil Uzelac]

Correct 3.0 is not listed as compatible or incompatible, which should be as
Otto said earlier:

So until proven otherwise, for the themes directory, I'd say no
> Creative Commons licensing is allowed


Emil

*Emil Uzelac* | ThemeID | T: 224-444-0006 | Twitter: @EmilUzelac | E:
emil at themeid.com | http://themeid.com
Make everything as simple as possible, but not simpler. - Albert Einstein



On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 3:50 PM, Mike Little <wordpress at zed1.com> wrote:

> On 13 March 2011 19:28, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, Mar 13, 2011 at 1:40 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>> > Well, let's make this simpler: This decision is above the pay-grade of
>> the
>> > Theme Review Team.
>>
>> I did some research, and while I can't find any particular reason that
>> the CC--BY-SA 3.0 would be incompatible, I also can't find anybody
>> saying that it actually is.
>>
>>
>
> CC-BY-SA 3.0 is not listed as compatible with the GNU GPL on the GNU site (
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses)
> therefore is *not* compatible.
>
> Further, CC-BY-SA 2.0, is explicitly stated as *incompatible* with the GNU
> GPL. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#ccby
>
> It is the attribution requirements in those licences which makes them
> incompatible with the GNU GPL. "You must attribute the work in the manner
> specified by the author or licensor", this clause allows an author to impose
> restrictions which are incompatible with the GNU GPL.
>
>
> Note in the reference above, the FSF are quite happy for people to use some
> CC licences for works of art or entertainment, and even for works of
> opinion
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#OpinionLicenses  but not for
> software.
>
>
>
> Mike
> --
> Mike Little
> http://zed1.com/
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20110313/19087882/attachment.htm>