[theme-reviewers] License free?

[Dane Morgan]

That was pretty much what I was worried about when I saw that. It leave 
a lot of "oh but what I meant was" room. I figured someone would have 
some experience with something similar.

Chip Bennett 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.