[theme-reviewers] explicit license statements for binaries

[Angelo Bertolli]

On Fri, Feb 10, 2012 at 12:31 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> I think the whole theme itself should be considered an individual "work"
> and when you use a public domain image (as I do) the entire thing becomes a
> a new work and can retain a GPL copyright as a whole.
>
>
> Except that's not true. You have every right to license the *compilation*
> under GPL, but you still can't claim (or imply) that you hold the copyright
> for the PD work itself, or that the PD work itself is licensed under GPL.
> It does suck sometimes, but these things DO matter.
>
>
Sure, I didn't mean to imply that the image becomes yours.  I guess I'm
just saying that PD stuff isn't required to be disclosed as PD.

Personally I always thought attribution should be the minimal standard for
all works, regardless of whether they're PD or not.  It seems wrong for
someone to claim they wrote King Lear, whether or not anyone would believe
them ;)
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120211/755f487a/attachment-0001.htm>