[theme-reviewers] Flash objects in themes

[Kirk Wight]

I love the simplicity of having all additional license declarations being in
readme.txt, in one place (REQUIRED), and RECOMMENDing proper docblocks as
Chip just outlined.

On 15 October 2011 12:57, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> The overall Theme copyright/license is covered by style.css License: and
> License URI: header tags, but other bundled resources need to be listed
> eplicitly. I would recommend that license declaration be required to be in
> at least one of the following files:
>
> 1) index.php phpDoc header docblock
> 2) style.css header docblock
> 3) readme.txt
>
> Best practice would be:
>
> 1) ALL php files have phpDoc header docblocks, that include @copyright and
> @license. Derivative works should declare the copyright and license of the
> original work, as well
> 2) ALL php file header docblocks include @package: theme-slug
> 3) All php function declarations should have phpDoc docblocks, and if the
> function is copy-pasta, it should include @copyright and @license from the
> original source, as well as an @link TO the original source, wherever
> possible
>
> I've tried to implement these best-practices in Oenology, so if anyone has
> any suggestions for improvement, please let me know, so I can update
> Oenology's inline docs.
>
> Chip
>
> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:39 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com
> > wrote:
>
>> Which goes back to my recommended documentation. Do we want to have the
>> "explicit license declaration" somewhere more obvious, such as the theme
>> description? or inline at the first instance of the "SWF" reference?
>>
>>
>> Cais.
>>
>>
>>
>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 12:37 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>
>>> Is a link to the human-editable file format acceptable for
>>> repository-hosted Plugins? If so, that should be fine for Themes as well.
>>>
>>> But explicit license declaration is a must.
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>>
>>> On Sat, Oct 15, 2011 at 11:31 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Considering that the theme author likely just used some other
>>>> open-source package, then I'd say that it's fine as long as they
>>>> properly link back to the source of the included code, and have links
>>>> to any licenses that thereby are required. Said licenses must be
>>>> GPL-compatible, obviously.
>>>>
>>>> Personally, I'm not so strict as to require that they include the FLA
>>>> source, especially in a theme where the end-user likely doesn't care
>>>> and doesn't need it anyway. However, an HTTP link back to that source,
>>>> or to the project it originated from, should be there somewhere.
>>>>
>>>> -Otto
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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/20111015/eec95888/attachment.htm>