[theme-reviewers] Licensing

[chip at chipbennett.net]

Just stating up front: please, no flame wars. :)

> - At this point GPLv3 is fine, there's been some discussion back and
> forth and for now v3 fine for the theme directory

Out of curiosity: have there been discussions otherwise? I've always
understood that GPL, GPLv2, GPLv2 or later, GPLv3, and
non-GPL-but-compatible licenses are all acceptable for the repositories.

> - Part of this theme has terms that are not compatible with the GPL,
> specifically the font they include (see LicenseForSansationFont.txt).
> The entire theme needs to be under terms that are GPL or compatible.
> Lately fonts have been an issue for themes because many fonts have
> terms that are not GPL compatible.

I'm assuming the theme is using @font-face?

Perhaps the Codex (Theme Development Checklist, or elsewhere) should be
updated to discuss embedded fonts, now that @font-face has finally reached
critical mass (or so it seems)?

A listing of known GPL-compatible fonts might even be helpful. (I've been
experimenting with some, like DejaVu, TeX Gyre, Liberation, Latin Modern,
etc. - to see if I can incorporate into my theme designs. Having a list of
known-compatible fonts might be handy.

Probably where I start to veer slightly off-topic, but: I'm wondering if
the repository guidelines could be clarified (or even loosened a bit) with
respect to things like fonts and icons (see below), so that fonts/icons
that are freely distributable are acceptable in themes hosted in the
repository?

I don't want to step on any toes, but this line will get more and more
blurred (especially as more hosted-font services support @font-face). The
difference between bundling a non-GPL-compat font with a theme (which is
perfectly fine by GPL, but disallowed according to repository guidelines),
or linking to that same font on a hosted-font service is pretty minimal,
when in both cases, the theme uses the font using @font-face.

> - I'm also not entirely sure about the icons terms of use (follows
> links ending up here http://webtreats.mysitemyway.com/terms-of-use/ ),
> doesn't sound entirely compatible with the GPL (distribution
> limitations)

The same goes for icons:

1) A listing of known GPL-compatible icon sets would be awfully handy in
the Codex.

2) A little wiggle room with the repository guidelines would also be
helpful. There's not a whole lot of GPL-compatible icon sets out there
that developers can bundle with their themes. The Tango and Drupal
(lullbots?) icons are nice and all, but they don't need to be ubiquitous
for WordPress themes. :)

I currently use FamFamFam Silk, but am looking into others, because
CC-By-SA isn't GPL-compatible. Which is a shame, because Silk is one of
the most gorgeous, most useful icon sets around.

Anyway, none of that is intended to start a contentious discussion. Maybe
just food for thought to pass on up the chain?

> - The credit link in the footer appears to be SEO'ing for 'Blog
> Designer'.  I'd expect credit link text to be relevant and accurate,
> in this case I'd think something like 'Diabolique Design' or
> 'diaboliquedesign.com' would be better.  In general credit link text
> would be the name of the theme, or the site/person being linked to.
> Sadly WP themes have a history of being abused for ad/promo links as
> well as SEO'ing for specific terms.  Those are abuses I don't want to
> see in the theme directory.

Yes, please! Keep a tight rein on footer links.

Maybe even set formal guidelines that footer links must:

a) Link to the ThemeURI or AuthorURI, and
b) Use as anchor text either the Theme Name or Author Name

That would seem to be more than reasonable to me.

Chip