[theme-reviewers] License free?

[devcorn]

I have contacted the designer, if he will reply.. then I will post in same
thread.

Thanks
Ash
http://devcorn.com


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:27 AM, devcorn <wp at devcorn.com> wrote:

> 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/c90cec42/attachment.html>