[theme-reviewers] Flash objects in themes

[Edward Caissie]

Bah ... I think I need another coffee ... some very good points and
questions, Chip. Which again asks the question why would "Automattic" think
this is necessary for the Theme?


Cais.


On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:10 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> Plugins that bundle binary blobs are required to include the human-editable
> version of the file as well. I don't see why Themes would be any different.
>
> The lack of a license is not merely a red-flag, but a show-stopper. Just as
> we require explicit license declaration for font files, so would we also
> require explicit license declaration for other binaries, such as SWF files.
> (Personally, I think we're a bit lax on this point WRT bundled image/icon
> files, too.)
>
> Note that the Guidelines *do* discuss licensing, at length - but, I can
> certainly clarify on this point if necessary.
>
> But, all that said, my underlying question is: why does a Theme need to
> bundle a flash audio player to begin with? Would a flash audio player be
> rightly considered as Plugin Territory?
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 10:58 AM, Michael Fields <michael at mfields.org>wrote:
>
>> Hi Kirk,
>>
>> > Just a SWF, no FLA.
>>
>> This sounds like a red flag to me.
>>
>> It cannot be open source without the source file :)
>>
>> IMHO the presence of the FLA should be required in a GPL compatible theme.
>>
>> > There is no reference to any restrictions, nor a license.
>>
>>
>> This sounds red flag-ish as well. But maybe not ...
>>
>> If no explicit license is present, I believe that the component (SWF)
>> should inherit the license of the package as declared in style.css or
>> license.txt in the theme folder.
>>
>> I have only limited experience with flash but, from what I remember
>> seeing, license information in flash components is sometimes included
>> directly in the source (FLA) file.
>>
>> Without being able to see the source, it is impossible to know whether the
>> component's licensing conflicts with the GPLv2.
>>
>> These are just my opinions on the matter. I'm no expert when it comes to
>> licensing, but I do my best to approach situations with common sense. logic
>> and a love for open source. This is a very good topic for discussion and
>> maybe something that should be added to the theme guidelines once a
>> consensus is reached.
>>
>> Best,
>> - Mike
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20111015/88fcc399/attachment-0001.htm>