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

Fri May 18 13:23:25 UTC 2012

Although I currently release everything under GPLv2, my interpretation is
simply: It's Yours, Have At It ... if I was not aware of the GPL licenses
or similar I would likely have released it under my interpreted conditions
as noted. They are not specifically GPL-compatible but the intent is there.
I would accept (for the most part) anything of a similar nature from
another author ... the only additional condition is that it be "in print"
somewhere publicly visible.

Cais.

On Thu, May 17, 2012 at 4:36 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120518/68e04365/attachment.htm>