[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 14:58:56 UTC 2012

I do likewise - except that I list extended copyright/licensing information
in the Theme docs that are accessible via WP-Admin.

Putting such information in the Theme's README documentation is currently
the recommended approach.

Chip

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:56 AM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120210/0e5b60d9/attachment-0001.htm>