[theme-reviewers] bundled images licenses

[Chip Bennett]

That page appears to involve mostly trademark issues, not copyright issues.
That said, there is this line:

Do not modify or alter the marks or use them in a confusing way


To me, that says that the downloads on that page are not distributed under
a GPL-compatible copyright license.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:28 AM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> A little confused, what i want to know is, can i download the twitter logo
> from here https://twitter.com/logo and make an icon and release the icon
> as gpl
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:53 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>
>> If you are not the owner of a work, you cannot re-license that work.
>>
>> So, if you get a social network icon directly from that social network's
>> site, and the site hasn't distributed that icon under a GPL-compatible
>> license, then you can't arbitrarily re-license it as GPL. Instead, you'll
>> need to find a GPL-licensed icon to use instead (or make your own, and then
>> license them under GPL).
>>
>>
>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:18 AM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>wrote:
>>
>>> If i download the social icons from respective social networks and
>>> create social icons, can i license them as gpl?
>>> Because most social networks have rules about how to use their logos and
>>> thats not GPL?
>>>
>>>
>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:44 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>
>>>> Well, if you've said that "bundled images are too GPL licensed", then
>>>> you've explicitly stated the license. :)
>>>>
>>>> Just be sure that the "unless stated otherwise" is accompanied by
>>>> actually stating otherwise, where applicable.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:11 AM, Abhik Biswas <abhik at itsabhik.com>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Chip,
>>>>> That's my theme Paul is reviewing. I need a little more help here.
>>>>>
>>>>> Since those social icons are downloaded directly from their official
>>>>> sites, do I really have to mention the license? Or just a note about that
>>>>> will be suffice?
>>>>> I am thinking something like this in the *readme.txt*.
>>>>>
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>     License:
>>>>> -------------------------------------------------------
>>>>> The Theme, WPBoxes, is licensed under GPLv3.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Social Media icons, bundled images are too GPL licensed and owned
>>>>> by the respective sites, unless stated otherwise.
>>>>> --------------------------------------------------------
>>>>>
>>>>> Please share your thoughts
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 6:19 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> You should require the user to state the license explicitly. The
>>>>>> links to the source information are good, and should be retained. But the
>>>>>> license terms for any and all bundled resources need to be included in the
>>>>>> Theme itself, so that end users and downstream developers don't have to go
>>>>>> searching for license information.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 5:08 AM, Paul de Wouters <
>>>>>> pauldewouters at gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Hi there,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I'm reviewing a theme which has a number of bundled social media
>>>>>>> icons and another one that I traced back here
>>>>>>> http://rocketdock.com/addon/icons/2724
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I asked the author to provide links to the original sources of the
>>>>>>> icons and he did
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://themes.trac.wordpress.org/attachment/ticket/10557/resources.txt
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> but nowhere is the license stated. What do other reviewers do in
>>>>>>> this case?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> thanks
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> _______________________________________________
>>>>>>> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/20130215/702c360c/attachment-0001.htm>