And I think this is as far as we should take it, too. We're going for due diligence, which IMHO extends to ensuring that the Theme developer has noted the copyright and license for any code/resources for which he doesn't hold the copyright. I would treat *any* images interchangeably here, whether a photograph or a created image. Icons generally are distributed as a compilation of images, under a license for the compilation - so that should be pretty straight-forward. Likewise with font files, that are distributed under a license.<div>
<br></div><div>Chip<br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:46 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 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>
<div class="HOEnZb"><div class="h5"><br>
On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Chip Bennett <<a href="mailto:chip@chipbennett.net">chip@chipbennett.net</a>> wrote:<br>
> Say a Theme includes header images (.jpg, .gif, .png... whatever): those<br>
> files, as-is, are editable, using an appropriate image editor (Photoshop,<br>
> GIMP, whatever).<br>
><br>
> I think that anything beyond that is probably beyond the scope of the WPTRT,<br>
> because it gets far too subjective regarding the "preferred" 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 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>> wrote:<br>
>> >><br>
>> >> Here's my question:<br>
>> >> How does a developer provide the "source" in order to comply with 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>> 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 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>> 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<br>
>> >> >> the<br>
>> >> >> Theme, then the style.css license declaration is sufficient. If, on<br>
>> >> >> the<br>
>> >> >> other hand, the Theme is bundling binaries for which the developer<br>
>> >> >> *isn't*<br>
>> >> >> the copyright holder, then the original copyright and license 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>
>> >> >>>> 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 even<br>
>> >> >>>> point<br>
>> >> >>>> people to an approved theme in the repo where it's done well. 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 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>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>