[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 14:56:43 UTC 2012

I state the license my images fall under in my README.md. Any
objections to looking to have similar behavior be the standard?

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:52 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> And I think this is as far as we should take it, too. We're going for due
> diligence, which IMHO extends to ensuring that the Theme developer has noted
> the copyright and license for any code/resources for which he doesn't hold
> the copyright. I would treat *any* images interchangeably here, whether a
> photograph or a created image. Icons generally are distributed as a
> compilation of images, under a license for the compilation - so that should
> be pretty straight-forward. Likewise with font files, that are distributed
> under a license.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:46 AM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> 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
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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