[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Doug Stewart]

Here's my question:
How does a developer provide the "source" in order to comply with GPL
licensing constraints?

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
> How do we feel about adding the following to the Guidelines, as another
> bullet under Licensing :
>
> "If the theme includes any binary files (such as images, fonts, or icons),
> themes are required to explicitly declare all GPL-compatible licenses for
> these files (this can be done in readme.txt)."
>
>
>
> On 9 February 2012 19:44, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>
>> The main question is: who holds the *copyright* on the binaries in
>> question, and is the *copyright holder's license* explicit?
>>
>> if the Theme dev has created all of the binaries (images, etc.) in the
>> Theme, then the style.css license declaration is sufficient. If, on the
>> other hand, the Theme is bundling binaries for which the developer *isn't*
>> the copyright holder, then the original copyright and license need to be
>> included explicitly.
>>
>> Chip
>>
>>
>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:35 PM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> If the media in general is GPL  I don't think that they need to
>>> be separated from the i.e. license.txt. Everything can be combined into one
>>> license, either license.txt or link to browser-based license. If the licence
>>> is GPL-Compatible, small note in readme.txt should be more than enough.
>>>
>>> Emil
>>>
>>> On Thu, Feb 9, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Speaking of: http://codex.wordpress.org/Theme_Review#Licensing
>>>> and http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-October/007141.html
>>>>
>>>> How do you all handle licensing for binaries, such as images, fonts,
>>>> etc? I've been quite a hard-ass with it lately in my reviews because of the
>>>> above two references, but I'm noticing that it's difficult to even point
>>>> people to an approved theme in the repo where it's done well. And if it's
>>>> only a few images/graphics, are people being more lenient?
>>>>
>>>> One could argue that if the explicit license isn't there for binaries,
>>>> then it falls under the general statement in style.css - but that makes me
>>>> feel funny.
>>>>
>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>> 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
>



-- 
-Doug