[theme-reviewers] Licensing

[Chip Bennett]

On Monday 14 June 2010 4:47:00 pm you wrote:
> > 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?
> 
> As long as the licensing terms are compatible with the GPL fonts/icons
> are fine.  The easy way to remember this is that a theme (all of the
> theme) should grant the same freedoms that WordPress itself does.

Well, there is an issue there: because "compatible with the GPL" and 
"acceptable for the repository" are two different things.

Most "free" fonts that I have seen, that GNU considers incompatible with the 
GPL, are incompatible due to two aspects:

1) A restriction against selling the font alone (packaged with other fonts or 
files, or part of an application, etc. is acceptable).

2) A restriction against using the font name for distributing any modified 
versions of the font, which GNU recognizes as not *technically* against the 
GPL, but only marginally so (apparently, GNU are as opposed to Trademark as 
they are to Copyright). 

So, really, what most fonts come down to is a restriction against selling the 
font file solo - which is really a fairly non-applicable restriction for the 
vast, vast majority of WordPress theme users.

But, as it currently stands, such fonts are excluded from eligibility for 
inclusion with themes hosted by wordpress.org (even though the fonts are 
freely usable, distributable, and modifiable - and can even be sold, albeit as 
part of a package and not by themselves).

> > 1) A listing of known GPL-compatible icon sets would be awfully handy in
> > the Codex.
> 
> Anyone is welcome to start and maintain such a list.

I'm working on such a list. I'll be happy to do a write-up for the Codex. 
Where would be the best place in the Codex for this information.

> > 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.
> 
> Icon sets like Silk are fairly nice, and common.  Has anyone asked the
> author about providing them under other terms besides CC?

Never hurts to ask, eh?

And I take it from the question, there isn't much likelihood that CC-By-SA (or 
similarly) licensed icon sets would be considered as acceptable for inclusion 
in wordpress.org repository-hosted themes?

(I'm having a harder time finding GPL-compat icon sets. But I'll keep trying!)

I understand the philosophical argument, and am doing my best to support and 
abide by it. I'm just wondering if we aren't needlessly limiting ourselves - 
and the variety/quality of repository-hosted themes - by prohibiting 
otherwise-libre fonts and icons that aren't 100% GPL-compatible.

Unlike CSS, HTML, and most theme image files, which most theme developers can 
do themselves, very few theme developers can create their own icon sets - and 
I would venture that virtually none of them can create their own fonts.

> >> - 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.
> 
> Most theme authors have been pretty good about this sort of thing, but
> it might be worth spelling out.  Perhaps tack it on to
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review ?

Explicit guidelines are usually good - for all parties involved. :)
-------------- next part --------------
A non-text attachment was scrubbed...
Name: not available
Type: application/pgp-signature
Size: 198 bytes
Desc: This is a digitally signed message part.
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/private/theme-reviewers/attachments/20100614/c980da11/attachment-0001.pgp>