[theme-reviewers] bundled images licenses

[Srikanth Koneru]

Yes, that was my initial point. Most social networks have similar
restrictions. That make most social icons non gpl even tough the designers
of those icons license them as gpl.


On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 7:04 PM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> 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
>>
>>
>
> _______________________________________________
> 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/c60ff963/attachment.htm>