[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Chip Bennett]

The binary *is* the editable source, isn't it?

Chip

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:17 AM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120210/4d520c8f/attachment.htm>