License breach or not?

[mickpage]

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?

[mickpage]

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.

[filterstb]

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?

[Xagone]

o... k... ?

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

[mickpage]

OK. I'll wait a few more months.

[ruebenwurzel]

Hello,

please be patient. It is not forgotten. 

Matthias

[mickpage]

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]

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

[Argos]

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.

[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

[mickpage]

 i apologise for my earlier incorrect answer.

[ruebenwurzel]

@argos

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

[chio]

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

[mr-fan]

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

[Argos]

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?

[ruebenwurzel]

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

[mickpage]

A clear breach.

[Argos]

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.