Can I use Webwbsitebaker for a commercial site?

[DarkViper]

I think we should end this discussion now.
The conditions for licensing are clearly defined and everything else will show us the future.

[Stefek]

It was just the lack of a well issued 'end user license' in the module package itself.

Nach Rücksprache mit dem Vorstand und aufgrund meiner Aufgaben als Forenadmin fordere ich Dich hiermit offiziell die Downloads aus diesem Forum zu entfernen.
Alternativ könntest Du die Module unter eine Lizenz stellen die eine gefahrlose Nutzung ermöglicht.

GPL was not the issue.

[BlackBird]

No, I was FORCED to delete the module, as NorHei stated it can't be accepted if it's not released under GPL. I HAVE published a license for this module.

[Stefek]

@Stefek, seems you forgot to post any text.

Nope, I didn't forget anything.

But I can remind you, that few weeks ago you've been asked
to attatch a end user license to the wbProfiles package.
But you didn't - instead you just deleated the module 

[BlackBird]

@Stefek, seems you forgot to post any text.

[Stefek]

Any kind of license is possible.
But, the license must be really clear defined by a EULA...

[BlackBird]

Great. So I can publish wbProfiles here again.

Thanks for clarification.

[DarkViper]

Maybe you should ask this questions to all the software vendors out there. (Like Microsoft)

That vendors normaly will give me a license number, and, very important, i must accept a long, long EndUserLicenseAgreement which describes detailed what i can do and can do not with their software. (I think that to you a lawyer can explain the connections for license right rather well. Just how our company lawyer has explained to me.)

But anyway, the question was not what is wrong with ... , but what kinds of licenses are allowed for WB modules.

Any kind of license is possible.
But, the license must be really clear defined by a EULA if there is no global License available like for GPL, CC, MIT, Apache and something else.

[BlackBird]

On other hand, why 'all rights reserved' if you negate your own license in next sentence?

Maybe you should ask this questions to all the software vendors out there. (Like Microsoft)

Seems you do not understand the difference between "All rights reserved" and "Free to use". ("Free like in Beer") I've published free and commercial software for more than 10 years now, nobody ever had a problem with an "All rights reserved"-notice in the copyright header.

But anyway, the question was not what is wrong with an "All rights reserved"-notice (in your opinion), but what kinds of licenses are allowed for WB modules.

[BlackBird]

So please state which licenses are allowed for modules.

[DarkViper]

There was no Problem with the license itself.
Everybody can publish a module under a 'all rights reserved'-License.

To use such a module, a written and signed permission is mandatory. Without it's not possible to install it.
It's a question of actual law only.
Sure, in forum you told that everybody can use the module. But it was a 'all rights reserved' and you do not explain precisely which of the reserved rights you gave for free. On other hand, why 'all rights reserved' if you negate your own license in next sentence?
So this is an absolutely unsafe legal situation. Nobody have a guaranty, that next month it's still allowed to use this module for free. A simple forum post is not a valid document to prove your permission later if necessary.

Unfortunately the right is not what we think with our common sense, what right shall be. The right has it's own life, own language, own meaning.

I hope you will understand now, why we can't accept  '' 'all rights reserved' but you can use it as you want".


Werner

[BlackBird]

Should make no difference.

[kweitzel]

@kweitzel, DarkViper: You said modules can have their own license. As NorHei was trying to force me to use GPL for a module of mine about two weeks ago, I wonder which licenses are allowed for modules. Can you please make a reliable statement concerning this point? Thank you.

Please give more Details ... "a module" is not enough information.

cheers

Klaus

[BlackBird]

@kweitzel, DarkViper: You said modules can have their own license. As NorHei was trying to force me to use GPL for a module of mine about two weeks ago, I wonder which licenses are allowed for modules. Can you please make a reliable statement concerning this point? Thank you.

[DarkViper]

WebsiteBaker is free under the GPL license.

You can use it for any kind of comercial sites and you can sell all your service around - but you can not sell WebsiteBaker itself.

Where you must be carefull is the use of additional modules or templates. Each of them can have it's own license. Information about you can find inside the related info.php file.

[BigSmoke]

Ok thanks!

The most realeses have GLU, how I can recognize which releases are only for non commercial sites?

[kweitzel]

Yes, you can use it for a commercial page. Module and snippets depend on the license that they are released under. But there are also quite some people here, who can offer services like template creation, etc ...

cheers

Klaus

[BigSmoke]

Hi,

the site shows only the services of a company, there is no advertising like Google Adsense on the site.

Can I use Wb for this site?

If yes, what about the templates and modules with GLU licence?

Thanks in advance