[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 15:23:24 UTC 2012

Then, perhaps for 3.4, we should consider making a Plugin-parsable style
readme.txt a requirement, rather than merely a recommendation?

Chip

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:15 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120210/74348c8a/attachment-0001.htm>