[theme-reviewers] theme-reviewers Digest, Vol 33, Issue 45

Fri Feb 15 13:57:34 UTC 2013

That was my reasoning, you can't just re-license images that you find
online, it doesn't make sense.
And there's still the recycle bin icon whose license is uncertain too

On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 10:41 AM, <
theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org> wrote:

> Send theme-reviewers mailing list submissions to
>         theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>         http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>         theme-reviewers-request at lists.wordpress.org
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>         theme-reviewers-owner at lists.wordpress.org
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of theme-reviewers digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>    1. Re: bundled images licenses (Srikanth Koneru)
>    2. Re: bundled images licenses (Chip Bennett)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 19:06:30 +0530
> From: Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com>
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] bundled images licenses
> To: theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> Message-ID:
>         <CAL9qNWs69GnJfHHV0+kwGQ80XOx65-uhM8f5_=
> R4M9pjSJrvcg at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> 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-0001.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Fri, 15 Feb 2013 08:41:28 -0500
> From: Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net>
> Subject: Re: [theme-reviewers] bundled images licenses
> To: "[theme-reviewers]" <theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org>
> Message-ID:
>         <CAPdLKqfjAJt6Tq9ZCbyw2CzPs7=
> DH124KctFeg8QvgOdNZLdew at mail.gmail.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
>
> Again: trademark != copyright.
>
> If a designer makes an original set of social media icons - that is,
> creates them him/herself, from scratch - then that designer, as the owner
> of that original work, gets to determine the license. There may be
> trademark issues involved with using those icons, but those are separate
> issues from the copyright issue.
>
>
> On Fri, Feb 15, 2013 at 8:36 AM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 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
> >>
> >>
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> > 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/20130215/7e5db7ce/attachment.htm
> >
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> http://lists.wordpress.org/mailman/listinfo/theme-reviewers
>
>
> End of theme-reviewers Digest, Vol 33, Issue 45
> ***********************************************
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.wordpress.org/pipermail/theme-reviewers/attachments/20130215/c4e4cce5/attachment-0001.htm>