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

Fri May 18 13:29:40 UTC 2012

I guess it's the part where we are interpreting others intentions that
worries me, and makes me want to require everything in a theme be released
under an explicit and recognized GPL-compatible license. It feels to me the
users of the themes directory would be better served, with less effort
required on the part of reviewers.

Rather than maintaining a whitelist, we could refer to FSF's own page of
what is GPL-compatible:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#GPLCompatibleLicenses

On 18 May 2012 09:23, Edward Caissie <edward.caissie at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c2a45aff/attachment-0001.htm>