[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 16:31:25 UTC 2012

I don't think we'd need buy-in merely to require README files that conform
to the Plugin readme.txt standard - though integrating such readme files
into Extend is certainly above our pay grade.

I think it's a discussion worth having, at least.

Chip

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:41 AM, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com>wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120210/3760360b/attachment-0001.htm>