[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

Fri Feb 10 16:32:08 UTC 2012

Oops - you're quite right, and I was misremembering something about BY
and SA. Strike that part, and thanks.

CC-0 is compatible, and there are enough CC-licensed assets (all
flavors) floating around out there that I think it's worth adding an
explicit comment.

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 10:08 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
> The question here is not merely one of conformance to the terms of the
> copyright license, but rather WPORG policy regarding the licensing of
> resources. Themes in the Repository have to be 100% GPL-compatible, meaning
> all resources must be released under GPL-compatible terms.
>
> CC-BY and CC-BY-SA are not GPL-compatible (*especially* given the way that
> CC-BY is all-too-often misused/abused). They are not listed as
> GPL-compatible by GNU, and are instead listed under *other* licenses,
> meaning that GNU considers them as appropriate for *other* types of works.
> In fact, GNU explicitly states that these two licenses are NOT compatible
> with GPL.
>
> The readme inclusion of licensing information is certainly the best
> approach, though it is equally important to list the *copyright attribution*
> along with the license declaration, e.g. AwesomeSauce Font, copyright 2012
> AwesomeSauce, distributed under SIL OpenFont license.
>
> Chip
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:58 AM, Amy Hendrix <sabreuse at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>> There's a lot here and I'm not going to respond to every point
>> separately. But those of you who have heard me on the subject will be
>> totally *shocked* to hear that I have licensing opinions!! ;)
>>
>> - whether an image (or text, or font, or whatever other asset) is
>> "source code" is a side issue. Maybe even a philosophically
>> interesting one, but irrelevant. We don't require that everything be
>> GPL, but that everything be GPL-compatible. GPL very helpfully
>> provides lists of what licenses they consider compatible for text,
>> documentation, fonts, and all nature of things that *aren't* source
>> code. We should use their list as an asset in our work.
>> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html
>>
>> - I'd be completely on board with asking for licensing statements in a
>> readme. I'd even be up for providing a sample (which we should do
>> anyway, if we're going to push readmes more). It doesn't need to be
>> anything more complicated than:
>>  Oswald Font (link to Google webfonts): SIL Open Font Licensed
>>  Blahblah icons (link to download site): Public domain
>>  Header image (link to flickr): CC-Zero
>> etc.
>>
>> - We really need to get down with CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, and in general
>> be sure the team has a good understanding of the different creative
>> commons licenses. Those two are on the FSF's GPL-compatible list,
>> they're explicitly designed to correspond to MIT and GPL,
>> respectively, and most important, they're the appropriate licenses to
>> use for text and image content. GPL is not designed for that.
>>
>> (and we need to be equally clear on which CC licenses really aren't
>> okay: that would be the provisions that don't allow alteration (ND) or
>> restrict what kinds of projects can use them (NC)).
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 9:47 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>> wrote:
>> > For an *executable* binary, that's certainly true. An image file !=
>> > executable binary, though. It's just a blob. An image file is, primarily
>> > (and as far as I understand), simply a compressed bitmap. It is editable
>> > in
>> > its compressed-bitmap state, unlike a compiled executable binary, which
>> > is
>> > NOT editable in its compiled binary state.
>> >
>> > Chip
>> >
>> >
>> > On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 8:43 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> The way I understand it, a binary is not, by its nature, editable
>> >> source -
>> >> the best example being proprietary software that is distributed as an
>> >> uneditable binary. These final formats are "compiled" from the editable
>> >> source, which is what the GPL requires to be available to the end-user
>> >> in
>> >> the case of distribution. (Wow, this armchair lawyer is pulling out ALL
>> >> the
>> >> sexy terms today.)
>> >>
>> >> The five questions starting
>> >> here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifiedJustBinary are
>> >> an
>> >> interesting read; it would suggest that as long as the theme developer
>> >> states where the source files are available, those sources would not
>> >> need to
>> >> be included with theme.
>> >>
>> >> Not a simple situation; I'm suggesting we just require an explicit
>> >> statement so that we know the developer has considered and stands by
>> >> the
>> >> licensing stated.
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> On 10 February 2012 09:26, 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
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>
>> >> _______________________________________________
>> >> 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
>