[theme-reviewers] Theme License Declaration

Tue Oct 12 14:27:59 UTC 2010

This is what I am using (from the latest version of Shades):

...
> License: GNU General Public License v2
> License URI: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> */
>
> /* Revision date: Sept 9, 2010, v1.6 */
>
> /*  Copyright 2009-2010  Edward Caissie  (email : edward.caissie at gmail.com
> )
>
>     This program is free software; you can redistribute it and/or modify
>     it under the terms of the GNU General Public License version 2,
>     as published by the Free Software Foundation.
>
>     You may NOT assume that you can use any other version of the GPL.
>
>     This program is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
>     but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
>     MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE.  See the
>     GNU General Public License for more details.
>
>     You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
>     along with this program; if not, write to the Free Software
>     Foundation, Inc., 51 Franklin St, Fifth Floor, Boston, MA  02110-1301
> USA
>
>     The license for this software can also likely be found here:
>     http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-2.0.html
> */
>

Which was borrowed heavily from Otto's (suggested?) text for use with
plugins discussed in a completely unrelated place and topic.

I am not putting this forward as *the* way to document a theme's licensing,
this is just an example of what I believe could be a potential starting
point of "boilerplate" example text that may be suitable to use.

Cais.

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:19 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20101012/6dccf1ae/attachment-0001.htm>