<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Edward Caissie <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:edward.caissie@gmail.com">edward.caissie@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
This is the link I see:
<a href="http://www.pagelines.com/free-themes/WhiteHouse.zip" target="_blank">http://www.pagelines.com/free-themes/WhiteHouse.zip</a><br>
<br>
Which is neither here nor there, the point being is they are still
offering a free version of the theme is all I am writing.<br>
<br>
... and I agree with Otto on this, its a very fine line we are walking.<br>
<br>
Although similar, the "pro" version does seem to offer several
enhancements with features and functions, but the author is not using
the Theme URI as their credit link which IMO means it should be
addressed but not necessarily in the same manner as credit links.</blockquote><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;"><br>Let's go to the Theme Review page:<br>
<a href="http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Credit_links" target="_blank">http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Credit_links</a> which states: <br>
<ul><li> Theme URI, if used, is <b>required</b> to link to a page
specifically related to the Theme.
</li><li> Themes are <b>recommended</b> to provide at least one of these
two links, in order to ensure Theme users have a point of contact for
the Theme developer.<br></li></ul>So unless you want to split hairs over the dis-similarities of the Pro version versus the Free version what part of the above are they not meeting?<br></blockquote><div><br></div><div>There are two issues, as commented in the ticket:</div>
<div><br></div><div>1) The Theme URI is inaccurate</div><div>2) The footer credit link is neither Theme URI, nor Author URI. (The Theme actually fails to define Author URI.) </div><div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">
<br>Call me argumentative today, but I am just not seeing what's egregiously
wrong with the link they are using ... it's a little dark on the
greyscale, but if we say no to this author, then lets remember to say no
to all the authors that link to a site selling their "pro", "enhanced",
"premiuim", etc. version of their themes. </blockquote><div><br></div><div>I always check Theme URI and Author URI (the former being scrutinized more than the latter). I'd point out the same thing for any other Theme that I come across.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Besides, the issue isn't that the Theme Developer is selling a "pro" version of the Theme. That's perfectly acceptable (although, a breakdown of the differences between "free" and "pro" would be nice in such circumstances, to ensure that the "free" version isn't crippleware).</div>
<div><br></div><div>I suppose I'm having a difficult time articulating exactly what it is that is bothering me about this circumstance - though, it revolves *entirely* around the use of Theme URI. If Theme URI didn't point to the "pro" version of the Theme (e.g. if it pointed to a landing page for the free version - or if it was left undefined entirely), I wouldn't have any issue with it, per se.</div>
<div> </div><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex;">This, of course, mean
recognizing author's who have themes currently available for use on
WPCOM!<br>
<br></blockquote><div>And we have little (read: no) control or influence over what happens on WPCOM.</div><div><br></div><div>Chip </div></div>