For an *executable* binary, that's certainly true. An image file != executable binary, though. It's just a blob. An image file is, primarily (and as far as I understand), simply a compressed bitmap. It is editable in its compressed-bitmap state, unlike a compiled executable binary, which is NOT editable in its compiled binary state.<div>
<br></div><div>Chip<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Kirk Wight <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:kwight@kwight.ca">kwight@kwight.ca</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The way I understand it, a binary is not, by its nature, editable source - the best example being proprietary software that is distributed as an uneditable binary. These final formats are "compiled" from the editable source, which is what the GPL requires to be available to the end-user in the case of distribution. (Wow, this armchair lawyer is pulling out ALL the sexy terms today.)<div>
<br></div><div>The five questions starting here: <a href="http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary" target="_blank">http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary</a> are an interesting read; it would suggest that as long as the theme developer states where the source files are available, those sources would not need to be included with theme. </div>
<div><br></div><div>Not a simple situation; I'm suggesting we just require an explicit statement so that we know the developer has considered and stands by the licensing stated.</div><div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5">
<div><br></div><div><div><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On 10 February 2012 09:26, Chip Bennett <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net" target="_blank">chip@chipbennett.net</a>></span> wrote:<br><blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex">
The binary *is* the editable source, isn't it?<span><font color="#888888"><div><br></div></font></span><div><span><font color="#888888">Chip</font></span><div><div><br><br><div class="gmail_quote">
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Doug Stewart <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:zamoose@gmail.com" target="_blank">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">Here's my question:<br>
How does a developer provide the "source" in order to comply with GPL<br>
licensing constraints?<br>
<div><div><br>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Kirk Wight <<a href="mailto:kwight@kwight.ca" target="_blank">kwight@kwight.ca</a>> wrote:<br>
> How do we feel about adding the following to the Guidelines, as another<br>
> bullet under Licensing :<br>
><br>
> "If the theme includes any binary files (such as images, fonts, or icons),<br>
> themes are required to explicitly declare all GPL-compatible licenses 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" target="_blank">chip@chipbennett.net</a>> wrote:<br>
>><br>
>> The main question is: who holds the *copyright* on the binaries 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.) in the<br>
>> Theme, then the style.css license declaration is sufficient. If, on the<br>
>> other hand, the Theme is bundling binaries for which the developer *isn't*<br>
>> the copyright holder, then the original copyright and license need to 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" target="_blank">emil@themeid.com</a>> 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 be combined into one<br>
>>> license, either license.txt or link to browser-based license. If the licence<br>
>>> is GPL-Compatible, small note in readme.txt should be more than enough.<br>
>>><br>
>>> Emil<br>
>>><br>
>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Kirk Wight <<a href="mailto:kwight@kwight.ca" target="_blank">kwight@kwight.ca</a>> 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>
>>>> 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, fonts,<br>
>>>> etc? I've been quite a hard-ass with it lately in my reviews because of the<br>
>>>> above two references, but I'm noticing that it's difficult to even point<br>
>>>> people to an approved theme in the repo where it's done well. And if 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 binaries,<br>
>>>> then it falls under the general statement in style.css - but that makes me<br>
>>>> feel funny.<br>
>>>><br>
>>>> _______________________________________________<br>
>>>> theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
>>>> <a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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" target="_blank">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>
</div></div><span><font color="#888888">--<br>
-Doug<br>
</font></span><div><div>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">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></div></div>
<br>_______________________________________________<br>
theme-reviewers mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:theme-reviewers@lists.wordpress.org" target="_blank">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></blockquote></div><br></div></div>
</div></div><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></blockquote></div><br></div>