[theme-reviewers] License free?

[devcorn]

I do agree with chip, for any work to qualify for free, it should
explicitly give following four freedoms.


   - The freedom to run the program, for any purpose (freedom 0).
   - The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does
   your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a
   precondition for this.
   - The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help your neighbor
   (freedom 2).
   - The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others
   (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to
   benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for
   this.

source : http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html

As per gnu when above four things are not there, or no license is attached
then it is not gnu compatible
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html#NonFreeSoftwareLicenses

I believe above mentioned author have good intentions, if you have reach
then you can educate him.. if he can add gnu compatible license or mention
above four things.

Thanks
Ash
http://devcorn.com


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 4:05 AM, Chip Bennett <chip at chipbennett.net> wrote:

> The main problem with that isn't that the terms aren't GPL-compatible, but
> that no explicit license is declared. Without an explicit license, there is
> a risk that, at some point in the future, the copyright owner could chose
> to change the terms to be more restrictive - and you wouldn't have much of
> anything to rely on at that point.
>
> I've actually had that happen. In previous versions of Oenology, I used
> icons from a set called IconSweets2. That set was originally released under
> ambiguous terms much like the ones you mention - but later, the copyright
> owner changed the terms, to restrict redistribution. Now, I was in the
> clear, because I bundled the exact terms under which I was conveyed the
> iconset, and I was free to continue using the icons under those terms. But
> I decided to switch to Genericons, just on principle.
>
> As for those terms specifically: they address use, but they don't address
> redistribution, or creation/distribution of derivative works. So, just
> saying that something is "100% free to use anywhere you like" doesn't make
> it explicitly GPL-compatible.
>
>
> On Tue, Sep 3, 2013 at 5:35 PM, Dane Morgan <dane at danemorganmedia.com>wrote:
>
>>  I see questions about this license and that license from time to time,
>> but what about a resource the author declares 'license free'? Can that be
>> presumed to equal CC0, and thus be GPL compatible?
>>
>> "All resources found on this website are created by Amit Jakhu<http://www.amitjakhu.com/>
>>  and they are 100% free to use anywhere you like. I will always use my
>> own photos & etc to make the resources completely reusable. My intention is
>> to give you a close look at how to create & build something & have it
>> entirely open for you. I hope to see some great learning from everyone."
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/20130904/d32eeba9/attachment-0001.html>