Author Topic: License breach or not? (Read 18101 times)

Argos · « **on:** January 13, 2009, 11:37:23 AM »

Hi,

this website offers WB under their own name: http://www.thewebdepartment.com.au/admin/login/index.php

There is no mention of WB whatsoever. Is this allowed? I read the license info, but I don't understand if you can take WB, and offer it as your own CMS. If you study http://www.thewebdepartment.com.au and the function demos, it seems to be just a standard WB.

mickpage · « **Reply #1 on:** January 13, 2009, 01:43:07 PM »

A clear breach.

ruebenwurzel · « **Reply #2 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:15:37 PM »

Hello,

there is no license issue on the backend above.

WB is licensed under Gnu GPL. As long as the link to gnu gpl stays there is no license violence.

The Wish to let the link and name WebsiteBaker also on the backend is not intgrated in Gnu GPL and can be deleted.

Not fine but legal.

Matthias

Argos · « **Reply #3 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:22:17 PM »

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?

We don't see the admin account (logged in, that is) of course, but if there isn't a mention of WB either, it is still legally okay?

mr-fan · « **Reply #4 on:** January 13, 2009, 06:34:03 PM »

it's funny that this cms-clony comes from sydney-australia.....ryan's homecountry...

chio · « **Reply #5 on:** January 13, 2009, 07:05:51 PM »

Looks like WB2.6
This is an often problem: those cloners cannot update anymore. Not good for their clients.

ruebenwurzel · « **Reply #6 on:** January 13, 2009, 07:26:39 PM »

@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?

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 · « **Reply #7 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:30:58 PM »

i apologise for my earlier incorrect answer.

mickpage · « **Reply #8 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

Argos · « **Reply #9 on:** January 13, 2009, 09:52:09 PM »

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

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.

ruebenwurzel · « **Reply #10 on:** January 13, 2009, 10:08:39 PM »

Hello,

as soon as Ryan is back from holiday's i will infrom him about this and then, you are right, it should be changed to makt things clearer.

Matthias

mickpage · « **Reply #11 on:** January 28, 2009, 11:02:52 AM »

as soon as Ryan is back from holiday's i will infrom him about this and then, you are right, it should be changed to makt things clearer.
Is Ryan back from his holiday yet?

ruebenwurzel · « **Reply #12 on:** January 28, 2009, 12:59:44 PM »

Hello,

please be patient. It is not forgotten.

Matthias

mickpage · « **Reply #13 on:** March 05, 2009, 12:41:45 PM »

OK. I'll wait a few more months.

Xagone · « **Reply #14 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:24:33 PM »

o... k... ?

there not even a need to AT LEAST aknowledge the original product somewhere ? weird...

filterstb · « **Reply #15 on:** March 09, 2009, 04:30:47 PM »

Yeah, it seems a little counter-intuitive to me. You could lose a lot of exposure and reputation by allowing others to essentially rename it. Maybe a revision of the copyright notice could be more specific about that?

mickpage · « **Reply #16 on:** April 01, 2009, 05:24:52 PM »

Quote

please be patient. It is not forgotten.

From another unrelated post I now realise how this project is relying on a few members spending their spare time to keep things running. So, I have no problem in being patient for as long as it takes to make the correction to the website.

mickpage · « **Reply #17 on:** February 19, 2010, 04:06:50 PM »

I see the incorrect instruction to keep the footer unchanged has now made it to the new website license page too! http://www.websitebaker2.org/en/download/license.php
Or have the rules on GPL now changed?

News

Support WebsiteBaker

Your donations will help to:

You can donate by clicking on the button below.

Author Topic: License breach or not? (Read 18101 times)

Argos

mickpage

Argos

mr-fan

chio

mickpage

mickpage

Argos

mickpage

mickpage

filterstb

mickpage

mickpage