General Community > Off-Topic
License breach or not?
chio:
Looks like WB2.6
This is an often problem: those cloners cannot update anymore. Not good for their clients.
ruebenwurzel:
@argos
--- Quote ---So it is allowed to rename WB and pass it on as your own CMS, without mentioning WB anywhere? As long as you put the GNU link there?
--- End quote ---
Unfortunately that is what GNU GPL says. All Copyright notices in the files must stay and all links to Gnu GPL. Nothing more. We discussed this a few times with ryan and he is the same opinion.
Matthias
mickpage:
i apologise for my earlier incorrect answer.
mickpage:
So can someone change the FAQ on http://help.WebsiteBaker.org/pages/en/faq.php that states:
This license give you a maximum of freedom. However, you have to stick to the following rules:
...
the link in the footer of the WB backend (WebsiteBaker is released under the GNU General Public License) must be visible and untouched
I thought I had to keep both links - not just the GPL one
Argos:
--- Quote from: mickpage on January 13, 2009, 09:39:11 PM ---So can someone change the FAQ on http://help.WebsiteBaker.org/pages/en/faq.php that states:
This license give you a maximum of freedom. However, you have to stick to the following rules:
...
the link in the footer of the WB backend (WebsiteBaker is released under the GNU General Public License) must be visible and untouched
I thought I had to keep both links - not just the GPL one
--- End quote ---
Yes, that's why I asked about it. I always thought this was the rule to follow. I have no problem showing the WB link in the admin personally, but it should be clear what the minimum rule for use is.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version