[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Doug Stewart]

I agree, in the case of simple photographs. In that case, the image IS
the source.

However, if we're talking about header images, logos, icons, etc.,
then I'd say the slope gets a lot slipperier.

In the case of photographs, it's a simple matter of copyright, IMHO.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> 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
>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>



-- 
-Doug