[theme-reviewers] Licensing

[Joseph Scott]

On Mon, Jun 14, 2010 at 4:59 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>> 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).


I try not to over think these things too much.  And not being a lawyer
I prefer simple and direct over having to make a licensing judgement
call.

In the area of fonts what I've seen is that many of them do have
restrictive terms, that are not compatible with the GPL.  As a result
any time that I see a JS encoded font included with a theme I look for
licensing info.

As for GPL compatible fonts, I've see the SIL come up more -
http://scripts.sil.org/cms/scripts/page.php?site_id=nrsi&id=ofl I've
read through that, chatted with Matt about and looked over
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html and we agreed that fonts
under the SIL would be fine to include with a theme.



>> > 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.

http://codex.wordpress.org/GPL_Icons ?  Others who are more familiar
with codex management may have some good input there as well.  I
didn't include 'theme' in the page name suggestion as plugins might
benefit from this too.

Woo Themes released a GPL icon pack if I recall correctly.


>> > 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.


Yes, we are limiting ourselves, that is intentional.  I've looked at
lots of web app focused icon packs over the years (since my graphic
skills are very minimal) and I agree that is a challenge to find good
quality icons under terms that play nice with open source licenses.
This is a trend that I've slowly seen change and I'm hopeful that this
an area where we'll continue to see improvement over time.




>> > 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. :)



-- 
Joseph Scott
joseph at josephscott.org
http://josephscott.org/