[theme-reviewers] Heads up - Bootstrap icons are not GPL

Thu Feb 2 23:29:34 UTC 2012

No, you can't "do" GPLv3, unless it is distributed under GPLv3.

At most, it means that *Twitter can't legally distribute the bundled code*,
NOT that you can "assume" the icons are licensed under GPLv3.

Though, who knows? Maybe Twitter got a special licensing arrangement from
the copyright holder?

Chip

On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:28 PM, Azizur Rahman <
prodevstudio+wordpress at gmail.com> wrote:

> Chip,
>
> I am asking the same question and Twitter is Giving Apache v2 which
> means you can do GPL3.
>
>
> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 10:26 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
> > This question veers off-topic, but: how is the Twitter Bootstrap project
> > able to redistribute those icons, and not be in violation of the license?
> >
> > Chip
> >
> >
> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:22 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> Just to clear few things up. Mark
> >> was referring to https://github.com/twitter/bootstrap/tree/master/imgicons
> >> included in Bootstrap are Glyphicons. If you're using free icons the
> license
> >> for that is Creative Commons, CC is not
> >> GPL-Compatible. http://glyphicons.com/glyphicons-licenses/ there's
> also PRO,
> >> however either or "You must not resell icons or distribute it other than
> >> referring to the website glyphicons.com"
> >>
> >> Cheers,
> >> Emil
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 4:14 PM, Azizur Rahman
> >> <prodevstudio+wordpress at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>>
> >>> Since Bootstrap is Licensed under the Apache License, Version 2.0,
> >>> which I assume the icons are includes since its not explicitly
> >>> mentioned.
> >>>
> >>> And from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Apache_License#GPL_compatibility
> >>>
> >>> "a project combining GPL version 3 and Apache License 2.0 code will
> >>> need to be licensed under the GPL version 3"
> >>>
> >>> So Icons can be included as long as the theme is GPL v3.
> >>>
> >>> Please correct me if I am on the wrong track here.
> >>>
> >>> Regards,
> >>>
> >>> Azizur
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:52 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> >>> wrote:
> >>> > Licensing information, including a link to the GNU-accepted list of
> >>> > GPL-compatible licenses, is fully documented in the Theme Review
> >>> > Guidelines
> >>> > in the Codex:
> >>> > http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Licensing
> >>> >
> >>> > Personally, I would like to see a bit of flexibility with respect to
> >>> > bundled
> >>> > resources such as images/fonts/etc., for which GPL-compatibility is
> not
> >>> > as
> >>> > critical as it is with functional Theme code. But, until we are given
> >>> > that
> >>> > leeway, we operate under the 100% GPL-compatible policy. Thus, merely
> >>> > stating that a resource is "free for personal and commercial use"
> isn't
> >>> > sufficient as GPL-compatible.
> >>> >
> >>> > Chip
> >>> >
> >>> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 3:34 PM, Alex Mansfield
> >>> > <alex at sackclothstudios.com>
> >>> > wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >> What are the exact rules for licenses? I believe that Creative
> Commons
> >>> >> is not compatible with the GPL, but what about Apache, MIT licenses
> >>> >> etc. Also, what about icons that are "free for personal and
> commercial
> >>> >> use" but don't contain any licensing at all? I'm confused.
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Alex
> >>> >>
> >>> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:22 AM, George Mamadashvili
> >>> >> <georgemamadashvili at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> > Thanks Emil
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> > On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 12:13 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com>
> >>> >> > wrote:
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> approved!
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >>
> >>> >> >> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 2:09 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com>
> >>> >> >> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> Not all no I will check in the morning. Thanks for Bootstrap
> >>> >> >>> update.
> >>> >> >>>
> >>> >> >>> On Feb 2, 2012 2:03 AM, "George Mamadashvili"
> >>> >> >>> <georgemamadashvili at gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> Emil
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> I think that theme is base on Bootstrap v1, and icons were
> added
> >>> >> >>>> in
> >>> >> >>>> v2
> >>> >> >>>> (released 1 February)
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> p.s. I commented in Trac Ticket Review Queue 3 days ago and my
> >>> >> >>>> still
> >>> >> >>>> waiting moderation, is just me or all comments are moderated?
> >>> >> >>>>
> >>> >> >>>> On Thu, Feb 2, 2012 at 9:18 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com>
> >>> >> >>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> If I am not mistaking there are one or two Bootstrap Themes in
> >>> >> >>>>> trac
> >>> >> >>>>> right now, that should be checked for icons.
> >>> >> >>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>> On Feb 1, 2012 10:35 PM, "Emil Uzelac" <emil at themeid.com>
> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>> Thanks Amy that is good to know!
> >>> >> >>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>> On Feb 1, 2012 10:15 PM, "Amy Hendrix" <sabreuse at gmail.com>
> >>> >> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>> A heads up from Mark Jaquith on Twitter:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>> Note that if you're making a Bootstrap-based WordPress theme
> >>> >> >>>>>>> for
> >>> >> >>>>>>> redistribution, it *cannot* include the icons (not GPLv3
> >>> >> >>>>>>> compatible).
> >>> >> >>>>>>>
> >>> >> >>>>>>> (original:
> >>> >> >>>>>>>
> https://twitter.com/#!/markjaquith/status/164923778202214400)
> >>> >> >>>>>>> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> >>>>>>> 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
> >>> >> >
> >>> >> _______________________________________________
> >>> >> 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
> >
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120202/d6173b7b/attachment.htm>