[theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second version of a theme?
trent at cyberchimps.com
Sat Sep 27 00:05:15 UTC 2014
How is it in the principles of open source to prevent theme authors from using our own brands? A restriction which is not applied to plugins. If I want to release CyberChimps Slider plugin, CyberChimps Security plugin, CyberChimps XYZ plugin I can.
Yet I cannot do the same thing for my themes?
I’m sorry, but this “rule” is ridiculous and needs to be modified not only for CyberChimps but everyone else. We should be able to control our own branding of our themes just the same as plugins.
Every major company from Apple to Samsung uses version numbers in product names. Examples: iPhone 6, Galaxy s5, etc. I shouldn’t have to rebrand an established product line because I want to release a new version.
Your slippery slope argument does not apply here. There is absolutely no harm that would come if theme authors are in control of the names of their themes and use similar branding. A simple distinction that once a brand name is established no other author can reuse it is all that is required to clarify the matter. For example, I shouldn’t be able to reuse another theme authors brand name, just as they shouldn’t be able to reuse mine.
However, this should not prevent a theme author from releasing multiple products under the same brand. Lets say for example I want to offer Responsive HD, Responsive Retina, Responsive New, Responsive XYZ, it shouldn’t matter. There is no logical argument you can make for why I shouldn’t be able to do so, as I’m already the original owner of the Responsive name and all the themes are created by the same author.
This is an open source community is it not? This a very narrow, and closed restriction that simply isn’t required. We shouldn’t be forced to retire 1.0 to reuse the name. The current system forces us to break peoples websites, how is that fair or reasonable?
CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com> wrote:
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Not taking any sides but "Responsive" is already fair game : https://make.wordpress.org/themes/2013/02/26/clarifying-guidelines-for-theme-name/#comment-29874
> With regards to that specifically, I believe he was thinking more along the lines of a theme named something like "XYZ Responsive". or something like that. In such a case, the "XYZ" part is the name, the "responsive" is just a descriptive feature. Really, it's a spammy keyword technique, and we shouldn't allow it... but, whatever, that doesn't bother me that much.
> My concern is more along the lines of "versions are not supposed to be in names". We don't allow plugins that do this. You can't make "PluginX 2.0" as a plugin name. We get submissions that do this so much that we have a form letter response to send back to them.
> If it's an update, then it should actually update the original, not be a new one. You update the original "PluginX", not make a new entry for "PluginX 2". Calling a theme "Responsive II" or "2" or "Part Deux" or whatever you like violates this rather simple and basic principle. This is just my opinion, of course.
> "Weaver II" was allowed to do it because he retired Weaver at the same time. No conflict, no problem. If a theme was submitted named "AwesomeTheme 1.0" and the "1.0" part was actually in the name, I would hope we would reject that as well. Version numbers should not be in names.
> And a new entry in the directory should be treated as would any other new entry, not as an update to another entry.
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the theme-reviewers