[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 15:41:08 UTC 2012

I think we'll need a buy-in from above ... but before we can do that we
need to work out the details of what is required in the readme.

Cais.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:23 AM, 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/ad4ea561/attachment-0001.htm>