[theme-reviewers] Why the double standards and why Pagelines gets special treatment?

[Satish Gandham]

What special cases?

Whats the need for a top level admin menu?
What is the need to have fav icon enabled by default?
What is the need to have their logo on user blogs?
What is the need for their logo in the footer of user sites?


Why do you think that you should give them exception and let them use
WordPress to build their brand image at the expense of theme users brand
image?


"I'm not sure how you define "associated". I've met him. That's about it."


He is the co author of the plugin called Theme Check.

*****The theme was considered by the theme review admins, and
granted a special-case exception to the normal rules because of the
unusual and different store system contained within the theme.******

Were all the theme admins in this decision?

******Secondly, instead of spending time searching out and criticizing other
themes, it would be a matter of minutes to fix your own terms of
service to adhere to the guidelines. All you have to do is to make the
CSS & images GPL'd as well.*****


Firstly, I'm not criticizing the pagelines theme or anyone here. I
like their themes. If I didn't develop my own framework, I would
probably be using theirs.

I'm asking about the double standards, and why the special treatment, which
you never answered completely.

You *were* informed, by me, via email. I gave you more than enough
time to remedy the situation. You have failed to do so.

All you have to do is to make the
CSS & images GPL'd as well.

Its not as simple as you make it sound. This decision can kill our
entire business, as our motto is to build themes that do not require
support or user guides.

Anyway, we decided that having more users using our theme is more
satisfying then the money. Updated the TOS. Please add the theme back.
http://swiftthemes.com/terms-of-service/


Satish Gandham
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120325/ca21b993/attachment.htm>