[theme-reviewers] License free?

[devcorn]

;) might be,

but I looked on designer's work and I liked it .. I want to have it in my
next theme.. so couldn't stop myself contacting him.. if he allow.

-Ash


On Wed, Sep 4, 2013 at 8:41 AM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:

> Dane Morgan was probably asking a theoretical question :)
>
>
> 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
>>>
>>>
>>
>> _______________________________________________
>> 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/b8de1d68/attachment-0001.html>