[theme-reviewers] Theme License Declaration

[Chip Bennett]

Right now, we require *either* a full-text license.txt file, *or* the header
tags, which does ensure that the Theme is GPL-compat.

The reason that I bring it up is that I'm seeing a few Themes that have
license.txt only. The issue with *only* a license.txt file is that a bundled
file really isn't an explicit license declaration. So, for developers for
whom the differences between GPL versions (primarily, GPLv2 vs GPLv3), it is
important that the Theme explicitly state the license.

(Technically, IIRC, GPL-licensed code should have both a copyright statement
AND a license statement. And derivative works should retain the original
copyright statement along with the copyright statement for the original
content. But, that's delving far too deeply into licensing issues than we
need to deal with, IMHO.)

At the moment, I'm listing as a "strongly suggested" comment to add the
header tags. I like the idea of making header tags *required* as part of the
3.1 version-specific changes.

Chip

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:13 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> Currently the requirement we look for is GPL-compatible as far as themes
> go; and, the basis of this topic, as I read it is how do we recommend a
> theme be clearly documented as GPL-compatible for inclusion into the Extend
> Themes repository?
>
> I like the idea of using "header tags" in the style.css title block as it
> would be a minimal load to add a couple of lines to that particular
> mandatory file. While a full copy of the relevant license text is nice to
> include, appropriate link(s) and verbiage would suffice as I see it.
>
> Personally I have taken to adding "header tags" to all of my themes as a
> proactive/preemptive measure, if this is an acceptable method of indicating
> a theme's GPL compliance then I would suggest this as a possible requirement
> to fall in line with the release of WordPress version 3.1
>
>
> Cais.
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:01 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> Greetings, all,
>>
>> I've been thinking: in light of Hakre's recent escalation of the, erm,
>> license discrepancies with WordPress core*, I'm wondering if we shouldn't
>> look at making the License/LicenseURI header tags *required* for Themes at
>> some point in the near future? As we've seen with WordPress, merely bundling
>> a full-text license really isn't sufficient, and can lead to
>> assumptions/misunderstandings/problems later.
>>
>> What do you think?**
>>
>> Chip
>>
>> * Is WordPress "GPL", "GPLv2", "GPLv2 (or later)", "GPLv2 (may NOT assume
>> any later versions)"? As it turns out, based on the actual copyright notice
>> (and that of its predecessor, B2), WordPress is merely "GPL".
>>
>> ** Personally, I just like the standardization of using header tags. But
>> merely liking the standardization, IMHO, isn't sufficient reason to require
>> header-tag use. The license confusion issue, though, might be.
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> theme-reviewers mailing list
>> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20101012/08e4bfa5/attachment.htm>