[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 15:40:33 UTC 2012

The change is perfect Chip, thanks!

Unless there's somewhere it would be used, I don't think a parsable
readme.txt should be required... are there plans to change extend to take
advantage of it?..

On 10 February 2012 10:23, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120210/0fc2de69/attachment-0001.htm>