[theme-reviewers] Acceptable degree of difference between derivative and the original Theme

[Caroline Moore]

In general, I'd say 1 and 2.

I think if the design is outstanding and absolutely no code (save for CSS)
has changed, that might be acceptable--even if it retains a similar "feel"
to the original theme. But I think that's another case-by-case basis gray
area, and most of the time it would have to be in categories 1 or 2 to be
acceptable.

On Wed, Feb 29, 2012 at 1:13 AM, Emil Uzelac <emil at themeid.com> wrote:

> Hi Guys,
>
> What is acceptable degree of difference between derivative and the
> original Theme (taking Twenty Eleven as example only, it could be any
> Theme).
>
>    1. *Complete Re-Design (Some PHP and general coding changes): *Look
>    and feel does not remind of the original Theme and even the codes are
>    somewhat changed (different layout)?
>    2. *Complete Re-Design (No PHP or general coding changes):* Look and
>    feel does not remind of the original Theme, no code changes (different
>    layout)?
>    3. *Re-Design (No PHP or general coding changes):* It does not look
>    like original Theme, but it feels like the original (same layout)?
>
> CSS is changed in all three to accommodate new design. 1 and 2 almost
> entirely and 3 only for re-design.
>
> What do you guys think?
>
> *P.S. The reason behind is that I personally (and other I am sure) would
> like to get your opinion about it, that's all.*
>
> Cheers,
> Emil
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>


-- 
Caroline Moore

Calobee Doodles
Custom design and childrens illustration
http://www.calobeedoodles.com
http://calobee.etsy.com

Sixhours Photography
Conceptual art photography prints
http://www.sixhours.net
http://sixhours.etsy.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120229/e0e45641/attachment.htm>