[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 14:58:09 UTC 2012

There's a lot here and I'm not going to respond to every point
separately. But those of you who have heard me on the subject will be
totally *shocked* to hear that I have licensing opinions!! ;)

- whether an image (or text, or font, or whatever other asset) is
"source code" is a side issue. Maybe even a philosophically
interesting one, but irrelevant. We don't require that everything be
GPL, but that everything be GPL-compatible. GPL very helpfully
provides lists of what licenses they consider compatible for text,
documentation, fonts, and all nature of things that *aren't* source
code. We should use their list as an asset in our work.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

- I'd be completely on board with asking for licensing statements in a
readme. I'd even be up for providing a sample (which we should do
anyway, if we're going to push readmes more). It doesn't need to be
anything more complicated than:
  Oswald Font (link to Google webfonts): SIL Open Font Licensed
  Blahblah icons (link to download site): Public domain
  Header image (link to flickr): CC-Zero
etc.

- We really need to get down with CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, and in general
be sure the team has a good understanding of the different creative
commons licenses. Those two are on the FSF's GPL-compatible list,
they're explicitly designed to correspond to MIT and GPL,
respectively, and most important, they're the appropriate licenses to
use for text and image content. GPL is not designed for that.

(and we need to be equally clear on which CC licenses really aren't
okay: that would be the provisions that don't allow alteration (ND) or
restrict what kinds of projects can use them (NC)).

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> 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
>>
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>