[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Chip Bennett]

Say a Theme includes header images (.jpg, .gif, .png... whatever): those
files, as-is, are editable, using an appropriate image editor (Photoshop,
GIMP, whatever).

I think that anything beyond that is probably beyond the scope of the
WPTRT, because it gets far too subjective regarding the "preferred"
human-editable version of a file. Bear in mind: we're not talking about
compiled executables, but rather non-executable binary blobs. (Well,
*usually* they're non-executable; we've seen some... inventive hacks
submitted to the repository before.)

Chip

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:36 AM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:

> Not by my lights. Non-SVGs are (for the most part) rendered bitmaps.
> To meet the "source code" burden, I would think the .xcf, .psd, etc.
> would be necessary.
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:26 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> wrote:
> > 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
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20120210/734454a6/attachment.htm>