[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Edward Caissie]

Hmm ... how far are we going to get into this image copyright issue?

If an author uses several images in, for example, a collage will they be
required to provide the "source" (as in the individual images) or the
license for each image, or simply state it is their creation ... which as
far as I see it (and understand it) would not be necessary as the theme
license would cover this "new" image.

Which then pushes us to revisit the header License tag, as stating only one
license there may not be entirely correct either, especially if there are
multiple licenses being used for various items in the theme.

Ideally all theme authors would be above board and provide the "necessary"
attribution for any works they are including with their theme but are we
really qualified to decide what is and what is not acceptable in  how the
licensing is being stated? Where it is to be stated? and what language
should be used? Are we going to continue down the rabbit hole and also
state where the legal jurisdiction of any related legal matters is, as
well? (Extremism, I know, but let's start looking down the road before we
get to far along it and find ourselves with no where to turn.)


Cais.


On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> The binary *is* the editable source, isn't it?
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Here's my question:
>> How does a developer provide the "source" in order to comply with GPL
>> licensing constraints?
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>> > How do we feel about adding the following to the Guidelines, as another
>> > bullet under Licensing :
>> >
>> > "If the theme includes any binary files (such as images, fonts, or
>> icons),
>> > themes are required to explicitly declare all GPL-compatible licenses
>> for
>> > these files (this can be done in readme.txt)."
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> > On 9 February 2012 19:44, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The main question is: who holds the *copyright* on the binaries in
>> >> question, and is the *copyright holder's license* explicit?
>> >>
>> >> if the Theme dev has created all of the binaries (images, etc.) in the
>> >> Theme, then the style.css license declaration is sufficient. If, on the
>> >> other hand, the Theme is bundling binaries for which the developer
>> *isn't*
>> >> the copyright holder, then the original copyright and license need to
>> be
>> >> included explicitly.
>> >>
>> >> Chip
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>> If the media in general is GPL  I don't think that they need to
>> >>> be separated from the i.e. license.txt. Everything can
>> be combined into one
>> >>> license, either license.txt or link to browser-based license. If the
>> licence
>> >>> is GPL-Compatible, small note in readme.txt should be more than
>> enough.
>> >>>
>> >>> Emil
>> >>>
>> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Speaking of: http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Licensing
>> >>>> and
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-October/007141.html
>> >>>>
>> >>>> How do you all handle licensing for binaries, such as images, fonts,
>> >>>> etc? I've been quite a hard-ass with it lately in my reviews because
>> of the
>> >>>> above two references, but I'm noticing that it's difficult to even
>> point
>> >>>> people to an approved theme in the repo where it's done well. And if
>> it's
>> >>>> only a few images/graphics, are people being more lenient?
>> >>>>
>> >>>> One could argue that if the explicit license isn't there for
>> binaries,
>> >>>> then it falls under the general statement in style.css - but that
>> makes me
>> >>>> feel funny.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> _______________________________________________
>> >>>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> >>>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> >>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> _______________________________________________
>> >>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> >>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> >>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> >> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> >> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> >>
>> >
>> >
>> > _______________________________________________
>> > theme-reviewers mailing list
>> > theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> > http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> -Doug
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120210/a2a04e30/attachment-0001.htm>