[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Chip Bennett]

For an *executable* binary, that's certainly true. An image file !=
executable binary, though. It's just a blob. An image file is, primarily
(and as far as I understand), simply a compressed bitmap. It is editable in
its compressed-bitmap state, unlike a compiled executable binary, which is
NOT editable in its compiled binary state.

Chip

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/cf5e12ca/attachment-0001.htm>