[theme-reviewers] Theme License Declaration

Tue Oct 12 14:34:19 UTC 2010

For what it's worth, I agree.  I think some soft of license statement in the
theme, even if it's just in style.css needs to be there.

Marty

On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 10:32 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> Perfect example, actually.
>
> I would put something nearly identical in the Codex, when we bump up the
> criticality to *required* for the header tags.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Tue, Oct 12, 2010 at 9:27 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/f3fff983/attachment-0001.htm>