[theme-reviewers] CC-BY listed as acceptable in review guidelines

[Otto]

Side note: Many things other than code are "dual-licensed", which can
be fine if one of the choices of licenses is GPL-Compatible. I have
often seen Javascript code which is available under a dual-license of,
for example, CC-BY or MIT-license. Because the MIT-License is
GPL-Compatible, it's perfectly acceptable. So read closer and don't
instantly reject when you see "CC'. Do the research.

-Otto



On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 9:03 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
> As far as I can tell, no CC license is GPL-Compatible (except CC-Zero,
> which is essentially just a public-domain declaration).
>
> Because we require 100% GPL-Compatible contents in the theme,
> CC-Anything (other than zero) is not allowed. This applies to all
> content in the repository, regardless of what-it-is.
>
> For reference, CC0 is this: http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/
>
> -Otto
>
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:30 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>> Whew! Thanks – I was getting scared we were going to have to start one of
>> *those* threads again :)
>>
>> I think licensing threads are right up there with "but Twenty Eleven does
>> it!" threads...
>>
>>
>> On 21 September 2012 19:23, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:
>>>
>>> Wait; I'm hopped up on meds, and not thinking clearly. Reverting the
>>> reversion to your change. :)
>>>
>>> Chip
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:20 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If I'm reading the change history correctly, please note the section:
>>>> *FONT* licenses.
>>>>
>>>> CC-By is deemed to be acceptable for bundled fonts.
>>>>
>>>> I've reverted the change.
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for keeping an eye on changes to the Theme Review guidelines,
>>>> though!
>>>>
>>>> Chip
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Sep 21, 2012 at 6:15 PM, Kirk Wight <kwight at kwight.ca> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I noticed this evening that CC-BY was listed as accepted in the Review
>>>>> Guidelines ("Creative Commons Attribution License (CC-BY)"). I've gone ahead
>>>>> and removed it, as I think we decided that was not the case; see this
>>>>> thread:
>>>>> http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/2011-March/004506.html
>>>>>
>>>>> Do any admins know otherwise?..
>>>>>
>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>> 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
>>