I do likewise - except that I list extended copyright/licensing information in the Theme docs that are accessible via WP-Admin.<div><br></div><div>Putting such information in the Theme's README documentation is currently the recommended approach.</div>
<div><br></div><div>Chip<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Doug Stewart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zamoose@gmail.com">zamoose@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
I state the license my images fall under in my README.md. Any<br>
objections to looking to have similar behavior be the standard?<br>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Chip Bennett <<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">chip@chipbennett.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> And I think this is as far as we should take it, too. We're going for due<br>
> diligence, which IMHO extends to ensuring that the Theme developer has noted<br>
> the copyright and license for any code/resources for which he doesn't hold<br>
> the copyright. I would treat *any* images interchangeably here, whether a<br>
> photograph or a created image. Icons generally are distributed as a<br>
> compilation of images, under a license for the compilation - so that should<br>
> be pretty straight-forward. Likewise with font files, that are distributed<br>
> under a license.<br>
><br>
> Chip<br>
><br>
><br>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Doug Stewart <<a href="mailto:zamoose@gmail.com">zamoose@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> I agree, in the case of simple photographs. In that case, the image IS<br>
>> the source.<br>
>><br>
>> However, if we're talking about header images, logos, icons, etc.,<br>
>> then I'd say the slope gets a lot slipperier.<br>
>><br>
>> In the case of photographs, it's a simple matter of copyright, IMHO.<br>
>><br>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Chip Bennett <<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">chip@chipbennett.net</a>><br>
>> wrote:<br>
>> > Say a Theme includes header images (.jpg, .gif, .png... whatever): those<br>
>> > files, as-is, are editable, using an appropriate image editor<br>
>> > (Photoshop,<br>
>> > GIMP, whatever).<br>
>> ><br>
>> > I think that anything beyond that is probably beyond the scope of the<br>
>> > WPTRT,<br>
>> > because it gets far too subjective regarding the "preferred"<br>
>> > human-editable<br>
>> > version of a file. Bear in mind: we're not talking about compiled<br>
>> > executables, but rather non-executable binary blobs. (Well, *usually*<br>
>> > they're non-executable; we've seen some... inventive hacks submitted to<br>
>> > the<br>
>> > repository before.)<br>
>> ><br>
>> > Chip<br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Doug Stewart <<a href="mailto:zamoose@gmail.com">zamoose@gmail.com</a>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Not by my lights. Non-SVGs are (for the most part) rendered bitmaps.<br>
>> >> To meet the "source code" burden, I would think the .xcf, .psd, etc.<br>
>> >> would be necessary.<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Chip Bennett <<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">chip@chipbennett.net</a>><br>
>> >> wrote:<br>
>> >> > The binary *is* the editable source, isn't it?<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > Chip<br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Doug Stewart <<a href="mailto:zamoose@gmail.com">zamoose@gmail.com</a>><br>
>> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> Here's my question:<br>
>> >> >> How does a developer provide the "source" in order to comply with<br>
>> >> >> GPL<br>
>> >> >> licensing constraints?<br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Kirk Wight <<a href="mailto:kwight@kwight.ca">kwight@kwight.ca</a>><br>
>> >> >> wrote:<br>
>> >> >> > How do we feel about adding the following to the Guidelines, as<br>
>> >> >> > another<br>
>> >> >> > bullet under Licensing :<br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > "If the theme includes any binary files (such as images, fonts, or<br>
>> >> >> > icons),<br>
>> >> >> > themes are required to explicitly declare all GPL-compatible<br>
>> >> >> > licenses<br>
>> >> >> > for<br>
>> >> >> > these files (this can be done in readme.txt)."<br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > On 9 February 2012 19:44, Chip Bennett <<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">chip@chipbennett.net</a>><br>
>> >> >> > wrote:<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> The main question is: who holds the *copyright* on the binaries<br>
>> >> >> >> in<br>
>> >> >> >> question, and is the *copyright holder's license* explicit?<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> if the Theme dev has created all of the binaries (images, etc.)<br>
>> >> >> >> in<br>
>> >> >> >> the<br>
>> >> >> >> Theme, then the style.css license declaration is sufficient. If,<br>
>> >> >> >> on<br>
>> >> >> >> the<br>
>> >> >> >> other hand, the Theme is bundling binaries for which the<br>
>> >> >> >> developer<br>
>> >> >> >> *isn't*<br>
>> >> >> >> the copyright holder, then the original copyright and license<br>
>> >> >> >> need<br>
>> >> >> >> to<br>
>> >> >> >> be<br>
>> >> >> >> included explicitly.<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> Chip<br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Emil Uzelac <<a href="mailto:emil@themeid.com">emil@themeid.com</a>><br>
>> >> >> >> wrote:<br>
>> >> >> >>><br>
>> >> >> >>> If the media in general is GPL I don't think that they need to<br>
>> >> >> >>> be separated from the i.e. license.txt. Everything can<br>
>> >> >> >>> be combined into one<br>
>> >> >> >>> license, either license.txt or link to browser-based license. If<br>
>> >> >> >>> the<br>
>> >> >> >>> licence<br>
>> >> >> >>> is GPL-Compatible, small note in readme.txt should be more than<br>
>> >> >> >>> enough.<br>
>> >> >> >>><br>
>> >> >> >>> Emil<br>
>> >> >> >>><br>
>> >> >> >>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Kirk Wight <<a href="mailto:kwight@kwight.ca">kwight@kwight.ca</a>><br>
>> >> >> >>> wrote:<br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>>> Speaking of: <a href="http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Licensing" target="_blank">http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Licensing</a><br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>>> and <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-October/007141.html" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-October/007141.html</a><br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>>> How do you all handle licensing for binaries, such as images,<br>
>> >> >> >>>> fonts,<br>
>> >> >> >>>> etc? I've been quite a hard-ass with it lately in my reviews<br>
>> >> >> >>>> because<br>
>> >> >> >>>> of the<br>
>> >> >> >>>> above two references, but I'm noticing that it's difficult to<br>
>> >> >> >>>> even<br>
>> >> >> >>>> point<br>
>> >> >> >>>> people to an approved theme in the repo where it's done well.<br>
>> >> >> >>>> And<br>
>> >> >> >>>> if<br>
>> >> >> >>>> it's<br>
>> >> >> >>>> only a few images/graphics, are people being more lenient?<br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>>> One could argue that if the explicit license isn't there for<br>
>> >> >> >>>> binaries,<br>
>> >> >> >>>> then it falls under the general statement in style.css - but<br>
>> >> >> >>>> that<br>
>> >> >> >>>> makes me<br>
>> >> >> >>>> feel funny.<br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> >>>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> >>>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> >> >> >>>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> >> >> >>>><br>
>> >> >> >>><br>
>> >> >> >>><br>
>> >> >> >>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> >>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> >>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> >> >> >>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> >> >> >>><br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> >> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> >> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> >> >> >> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> >> >> >><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> > theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> > <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> >> >> > <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> >> >> ><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >><br>
>> >> >> --<br>
>> >> >> -Doug<br>
>> >> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> >> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> >> >> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> >> >> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> > theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> >> > <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> >> > <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> >> ><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >><br>
>> >> --<br>
>> >> -Doug<br>
>> >> _______________________________________________<br>
>> >> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> >> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> >> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> ><br>
>> > _______________________________________________<br>
>> > theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> > <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> > <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
>> ><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>><br>
>> --<br>
>> -Doug<br>
>> _______________________________________________<br>
>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
>> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
><br>
><br>
><br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
> <a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
><br>
<br>
<br>
<br>
--<br>
-Doug<br>
_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org">theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org</a><br>
<a href="http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers" target="_blank">http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>