[theme-reviewers] GPL-compatible social media icon sets

Thu May 17 20:36:20 UTC 2012

I *do* agree that all license terms should be explicit. The user should,
with minimum effort, be able to find the exact terms under which bundled
resources in a Theme are released. However, I don't really see a benefit in
trying to maintain a "whitelist" of known GPL-compatible licenses on the
Theme Review Codex page.

It is imperative that we ensure end-user rights, but I see diminishing
returns to such efforts. It is the license terms, rather than the names,
that are important. As long as the reviewer - and ergo, the end user - can
readily find the terms under which the work is released, we fully ensure
that end-user rights are maintained.

For the case of the IconDock icons in question, I see no problem with
quoting the license terms in readme.txt, along with a reference URL.

That said: there is certainly no harm in *asking* a designer to release a
work under a "known" license. I just don't think we should arbitrarily
limit/hinder Theme developers (and by extension end users) because an
iconset designer chooses to use his own ad-hoc license terms - as long as
those ad-hoc license terms are GPL-compatible, of course.

Chip

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 12:03 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:

> I have to disagree. Heck, I'll even call this a "slippery slope".
>
> I would love to see all assets, scripts etc not created by the submitter
> to be explicitly released under a GPL-compatible license listed on the
> Theme Review Codex page. In turn, that license must be stated in
> readme.txt, and any submitter should be able to provide a link to that
> license upon reviewer request. If a submitter feels a license should be
> included on the approved list, a reviewer can evaluate and make a
> recommendation.
>
> It's very common to have these situations of "oh, they said we can use it
> for whatever", in which a license may or may not have even been explicitly
> declared, and it becomes the reviewer's duty to try and track down a
> license and/or make an interpretation of whatever comes up. It becomes a
> drain on reviewer resources, instead of a proper responsibility of the
> submitter to meet requirements.
>
> The wordpress.org repository is for GPL-compatible themes, and anyone
> downloading these themes should be confident that that's what they are
> getting. If someone insists on using assets that are vaguely licensed, or
> fall under the "sure, yeah, whatever" umbrella, they are free to release
> that theme however they choose, somewhere else.
>
>
>
> On 17 May 2012 11:42, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>
>> Here is the exact wording of the license, from that link:
>>
>> License Info
>>
>> Free to use for whatever purposes. If you use these icons, an optional
>> link tohttp://icondock.com would be appreciated. Thank you.
>>
>>
>> This doesn't *explicitly *state the the work is released under a
>> GPL-compatible license terms, but "whatever purposes" does implicitly
>> include use, modification, and redistribution.
>>
>> I would be in favor of considering these as "GPL-compatible".
>>
>> Chip
>>
>>
>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:09 AM, Doug Stewart <zamoose at gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Chip:
>>> He linked it up-thread.
>>> http://icondock.com/free/vector-social-media-icons
>>>
>>> On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 11:06 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> > Bruce,
>>> >
>>> > Can you link to the actual license wording/text?
>>> >
>>> > Thanks,
>>> >
>>> > Chip
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 10:00 AM, Bruce Wampler <weavertheme at gmail.com
>>> >
>>> > wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >> For what it worth, the people at IconDock sent this reply to a query
>>> about
>>> >> possibly putting a more explicit license on their social icon set:
>>> >>
>>> >> Hi Bruce,
>>> >>
>>> >> It means 100% free for any purpose. You may distribute or resell them
>>> as
>>> >> you like.
>>> >>
>>> >> Nick
>>> >>
>>> >> I personally think the license on the site also makes this clear, and
>>> that
>>> >> it meets all the intent of GPL.
>>> >>
>>> >> I realize that doesn't make it GPL-Compatible for the repository, but
>>> it
>>> >> does, to me, make it a safe set to use. Perhaps it could be provided
>>> via a
>>> >> user initiated upload or non-repository hosted plugin. It really is
>>> nice
>>> >> looking, and complete, and provides what is clearly a legal to use
>>> >> alternative.
>>> >>
>>> >> Since there seems to be such a demand for a nice set, perhaps there
>>> could
>>> >> be a special ruling made for this particular set to allow it into the
>>> >> repository?
>>> >>
>>> >>
>>> >> On Fri, May 11, 2012 at 6:30 AM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>> On Thu, May 10, 2012 at 10:34 PM, Syahir Hakim <
>>> khairulsyahir at gmail.com>
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>> > OK, so the bottom line is can we bundle these icon sets without any
>>> >>> > pre-made
>>> >>> > licences, but with the express intent that they're free for any
>>> use,
>>> >>> > with
>>> >>> > WP.org repository-hosted themes?
>>> >>>
>>> >>> If you don't *know* that it is GPL-Compatible, then you cannot use it
>>> >>> in any code on WordPress.org, period.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> -Otto
>>> >>> _______________________________________________
>>> >>> 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
>
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20120517/c53c022d/attachment-0001.htm>