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

Fri May 18 14:08:25 UTC 2012

I totally get where you're coming from. I'm actually going to be swapping
some icons in my own Theme, because the icon designer changed the license
since I first got them. While I know I'm fully within my rights to use the
icons under the license terms under which I downloaded them, I'd rather
remove even any hint of ambiguity.

What I would prefer to avoid is arbitrarily limiting usable resources,
which I fear would be the result of moving to a known-license
whitelist. Part of the problem is that bundled resources like icons are
binary blobs, and aren't 100% analogous to parsed/compiled code. The GPL is
a known entity among programmers/developers, but far less known outside of
that community - including icon set designers. Those who design them don't
think or behave like programmers. The very concept of GPL compatibility may
very well be foreign to them, *even if their intent is to provide all the
same freedoms to their end users*.

In an ideal world, more designers within the community would release
GPL-compatible icon sets - and then we would be able to reap the benefits
of a known-license whitelist for icon sets without adversely limiting Theme
developers' available options.

We need to ensure that we are doing what is best for end users, while also
taking into account any unintended consequences.

Chip

On Fri, May 18, 2012 at 8:29 AM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20120518/9e2715d2/attachment-0001.htm>