[theme-reviewers] Pagelines Themes: Theme URI

[Chip Bennett]

On Wed, Oct 6, 2010 at 1:36 PM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> This is the link I see:
> http://www.pagelines.com/free-themes/WhiteHouse.zip
>
> Which is neither here nor there, the point being is they are still offering
> a free version of the theme is all I am writing.
>
> ... and I agree with Otto on this, its a very fine line we are walking.
>
> Although similar, the "pro" version does seem to offer several enhancements
> with features and functions, but the author is not using the Theme URI as
> their credit link which IMO means it should be addressed but not necessarily
> in the same manner as credit links.


> Let's go to the Theme Review page:
> http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Credit_links which states:
>
>    - Theme URI, if used, is *required* to link to a page specifically
>    related to the Theme.
>    - Themes are *recommended* to provide at least one of these two links,
>    in order to ensure Theme users have a point of contact for the Theme
>    developer.
>
> So unless you want to split hairs over the dis-similarities of the Pro
> version versus the Free version what part of the above are they not meeting?
>

There are two issues, as commented in the ticket:

1) The Theme URI is inaccurate
2) The footer credit link is neither Theme URI, nor Author URI. (The Theme
actually fails to define Author URI.)


>
> Call me argumentative today, but I am just not seeing what's egregiously
> wrong with the link they are using ... it's a little dark on the greyscale,
> but if we say no to this author, then lets remember to say no to all the
> authors that link to a site selling their "pro", "enhanced", "premiuim",
> etc. version of their themes.


I always check Theme URI and Author URI (the former being scrutinized more
than the latter). I'd point out the same thing for any other Theme that I
come across.

Besides, the issue isn't that the Theme Developer is selling a "pro" version
of the Theme. That's perfectly acceptable (although, a breakdown of the
differences between "free" and "pro" would be nice in such circumstances, to
ensure that the "free" version isn't crippleware).

I suppose I'm having a difficult time articulating exactly what it is that
is bothering me about this circumstance - though, it revolves *entirely*
around the use of Theme URI. If Theme URI didn't point to the "pro" version
of the Theme (e.g. if it pointed to a landing page for the free version - or
if it was left undefined entirely), I wouldn't have any issue with it, per
se.


> This, of course, mean recognizing author's who have themes currently
> available for use on WPCOM!
>
> And we have little (read: no) control or influence over what happens on
WPCOM.

Chip
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101006/79355b95/attachment.htm>