[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 15:15:29 UTC 2012

I'm fine with that idea, but as a requirement it should also be noted what
the accepted verbiage is and where this information should be found as well.

Keep in mind, a long standing idea of the WPTRT is to have the readme.txt
file written in a format that can be parsed, similar to a plugin's
readme.txt file ... and thus have the readme.txt file itself become a
requirement.

Cais.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:

> Considering the discussion so far, can I suggest simply adding this under
> Licensing:
>
> "Themes are *required* to note the copyright and license for any included
> code or resources for which the theme author does not hold the copyright."
>
> I just feel the current Guidelines need to be clearer.
>
>
> On 10 February 2012 09:52, 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/ec4e8b79/attachment.htm>