[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Kirk Wight]

The way I understand it, a binary is not, by its nature, editable source -
the best example being proprietary software that is distributed as an
uneditable binary. These final formats are "compiled" from the editable
source, which is what the GPL requires to be available to the end-user in
the case of distribution. (Wow, this armchair lawyer is pulling out ALL the
sexy terms today.)

The five questions starting here:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary are an
interesting read; it would suggest that as long as the theme developer
states where the source files are available, those sources would not need
to be included with theme.

Not a simple situation; I'm suggesting we just require an explicit
statement so that we know the developer has considered and stands by the
licensing stated.


On 10 February 2012 09:26, 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120210/71a3bb66/attachment.htm>