[theme-reviewers] Why can't theme authors have a second version of a theme?

[Emil Uzelac]

And the problem was unsolvable in the ticket where we began? Just curious
that's all :)

On Friday, September 26, 2014, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com> wrote:

> I really do not want to go in circles over this issue.
>
> Problem: I need to be able to release Responsive 2.0 without breaking
> several million websites. We updated the grid to make it mobile first, and
> updated our code structure to be HTML5 compatible. If we make these changes
> to Responsive 1.x then we will break millions of websites.
>
> Purposed solution: Release it as “Responsive II” and maintain it as a
> separate theme, and maintain both Responsive, and Responsive II.
>
> What alternative solutions do the admins purpose?
>
> --Trent Lapinski
> =============
> CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
> http://CyberChimps.com
> Twitter @trentlapinski
> Skype: mobiletrent
>
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 5:05 PM, Trent Lapinski <trent at cyberchimps.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','trent at cyberchimps.com');>> wrote:
>
> Otto,
>
> 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?
>
> --Trent Lapinski
> =============
> CEO of CyberChimps Inc.
> http://CyberChimps.com <http://cyberchimps.com/>
> Twitter @trentlapinski
> Skype: mobiletrent
>
> On Sep 26, 2014, at 3:38 PM, Otto <otto at ottodestruct.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','otto at ottodestruct.com');>> wrote:
>
> On Fri, Sep 26, 2014 at 5:25 PM, Srikanth Koneru <tskk79 at gmail.com
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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.
>
> -Otto
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> theme-reviewers mailing list
> theme-reviewers at lists.wordpress.org
> <javascript:_e(%7B%7D,'cvml','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/20140926/4250bf1e/attachment.html>