|
- Readme First! -
Read and follow the rules, otherwise your posts will be closed |
|
|
|
|
|
There are currently, 323 guest(s) and 0 member(s) that are online.
You are Anonymous user. You can register for free by clicking here |
|
|
|
|
|
Yet another copyright problem |
|
 morgue writes "I've tried to persuade a nuke site admin who had removcd copyright notice but failed. The website, PHPiCalendar, is still running without footer notice.
This website is promoting GPL product, PHPiCalendar. I'm for Free software and I don't want to throw a wrench to the developer. I just want to put things right and make sure they can avoid unnecessaly conflict. What do I do? I need your help.
First I send email to notice that and asked to put them back, then I pointed things out and showed link to this article at their Forum because I had no reply (the site admin said he did, but sitll I haven't).
The first answer was that PHP-Nuke contains an icon made by Apple, by which the site admin is employed, so he/she didn't have to show Nuke's copyright. At first I though Nuke have to remove that before claiming its own copyright but in the next second I startled back and read the footer text again. It said that all logos and images are belong to their authors. This means Nuke doesn't have to remove that icon.
But sadly when I replied pointing to that, the site admin announced that he/she no longer will discuss this issue.
I'm so upset now so I can't keep talking with him/her any longer either. And besides it's too difficult to me to discuss such thing and persuade such a rottweiler person in non-native language. So I need your help."
|
|
Posted on Thursday, June 05 @ 22:33:55 CEST by Zhen-Xjell |
|
|
|
|
| |
|
Average Score: 2.33
Votes: 3
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| | The comments are owned by the poster. We aren't responsible for their content. |
| | | | |
| No Comments Allowed for Anonymous, please register | | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by MikeMiles on Friday, June 06 @ 00:51:57 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Will you please stop harassing phpicalendar. You as a user have no right to tell someone else to place a notice on their pages. The only one who can enforce a copyright infringement is the copyright holder. For phpNuke that is FB not you.
Please read the GPL. It does not require a project's copyright notice on the footer of each webpage. It is only required in the source code. Take the time and learn what the term source code means.
As for icons, it is a violation against copyright laws to use them unless the creators have specifically given their permission or placed them into the public domain. Saying something like "all logos and images are belong to their authors" doesn't absolve you of anything in a court of law. If you are using a company's logo or someone else's images without permission, they very well could sue you though I don't know if any would even bother going after small sites.
|
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by morgue on Friday, June 06 @ 09:33:22 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Am I harassing? Well, depending on the perspective, I am harassing them. Although I think I'm not.
I've read GPL in English and in Japanese(unofficial translation) and my understanding is that the restriction that Nuke insists is based on 2-c. In case that kind of restriction is allowed with GPL, the problem is confined to the icons. Actually I didn't notice there is such icon in admin page because I've turned off the graphic option and never used it.
And if your opinion on icons is right, I think I have to ask FB to remove them now. I'm not a lawer and I feel like asking experts about it. |
]
| | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by allevon on Friday, June 06 @ 01:00:41 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.AlleVonTech.com | Though my site is guilty of the same action, in the case of phpICalendar, its wrong.
Why? I have been a proponent of "Moving" the copyright information especially in the case of corporate sites for a long time.
I have created an entire FAQ section (Which, if someone is really interested, will go to) dedicated to copyrights and acknowledgements.
In the case of phpICalendar, they have "Removed" it and there is no section dedicated to copyrights. Which is the wrong thing to do. |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by allevon on Friday, June 06 @ 01:55:33 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.AlleVonTech.com | I should clarify due to selective reading visitors, it is specifically listed under:
Legal and/or Unique issues. |
]
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by MikeMiles on Friday, June 06 @ 02:32:19 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | If you guys had bothered to check the page source on phpICalendar, you would have seen every single page made by PN contains this notice which they didn't even have to do:
META NAME="GENERATOR" CONTENT="PHP-Nuke 6.0 - Copyright 2002 by http://phpnuke.org"
It's not wrong for someone to follow the terms of a license which the software has been distributed under. It is wrong though for people who are not the copyright holders to try and enforce something they have no legal right to do.
If people really are so worried about copyright, then please remove all graphics, icons, and images that you cannot verify have been released by the creators. |
]
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by allevon on Friday, June 06 @ 08:34:57 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.AlleVonTech.com | I agree you have a point and what your saying about GPL terms. We posted at the same time. I did bother to read but I also think, as a professional courtesy, to include some sort of acknowledegment in the non-source area for non-computer people to find it. Thats my only input to the matter. So relax dude.
BTW, All graphics/images/models on AVT I custom shot/made. |
]
| | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by MikeMiles on Friday, June 06 @ 02:19:14 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Oh BTW, the article you quoted is missing a ton of comments which were made pointing out flaws in the guy's response. Below are portions of a mailing list exchange which occurred around the same time. In them, the guy said he gave HIS interpretation not the official standing of the FSF.
> > > Which FSF staffer advocated this extremely broad interpretation of 2c?
> > > That would be me -- and it's not orthodoxy, just my intepretation.
> > I've been wrong before. This paragraph is the only part of the
> > message where I'm speaking for the FSF. I don't think the FSF has
> > any position on any of this, and I'm not sure we want to.
> > Hm, you probably ought to be aware that the PHPNuke people seem to
> have interpreted it as an authoritative statement from the FSF:
>
I wish I had been more clear that IANAL and TINLA.
[Note: IANAL, TINLA = "I am not a lawyer; this is not legal advice"]
-- -Dave Turner Stalk Me: 617 441 0668
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200302/msg00191.html
> > I wish I had been more clear that IANAL and TINLA.
> > Well, you should at least try to set them straight now, although I
> suspect you won't make much headway; I gather from other remarks that
> have been made about PHPNuke that its author is the sort that will latch
> onto any justification for his actions that is offered, and never let go
> even if the circumstances behind that justification change.
Yeah, but I'm not even sure what straight would be here, since there seems to be a lot of disagreement. I would rather have a definitive answer first.
http://lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00071.html
> > > I wish I had been more clear that IANAL and TINLA.
> > > > Well, you should at least try to set them straight now, although I
> > suspect you won't make much headway; I gather from other remarks that
> > have been made about PHPNuke that its author is the sort that will latch
> > onto any justification for his actions that is offered, and never let go
> > even if the circumstances behind that justification change.
> > Yeah, but I'm not even sure what straight would be here, since there
> seems to be a lot of disagreement. I would rather have a definitive
> answer first.
I think he just meant that you should try to tell them that your comments weren't authoritative statements from the FSF.
http://216.239.37.100/search?q=cache:S_ubJ8GNCIEJ:lists.debian.org/debian-legal/2003/debian-legal-200303/msg00073.html+IANAL+and+TINLA&hl=en&ie=UTF-8
|
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by morgue on Friday, June 06 @ 09:50:40 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Well, it seems more discussion is needed with an eye to replacing GPL to another one that is free but restricting removing copyright notice.
What I quoted was in the article at phpnuke.org [phpnuke.org], and as you know, the comments followed the article has been lost so I couldn't read the discussion which once might be there. So I missed those comments. Thank you for your notice. |
]
| | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by TrevorS on Friday, June 06 @ 11:23:48 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.trevor.net | I am so tired of this topic. I would hope that people would get a life, but time and again, I am shown that this will *never* be the case.
To me, the copyright notice at the bottom of each page is similar to the banners that pop-up on free hosts. How many geocities sites have you landed upon, only to see banners appear with every click of the button? What if Dreamweaver tagged lines of visible text at the bottom of everypage? Frontpage? NetObjects? To many, a PHP-Nuke driven web site is just the same as a WYSIWYG built web site. Pre-Canned. How many people would use the above mentioned tools if they did that? FB's credits are in the meta-tags. That should be good enough. Thousands of people use this system. It's not like he doesn't have credit.
In my opinion, the "required" copyright notice at the bottom of the page is tacky. I feel that it is on the same level as forced banners. He might as well send pop-ups that feed a click-thru account. Oh' yeah... that was the Amazon block...
With each passing day, I continue to develop a new system that has PHP-Nuke functionality (may even support many php-nuke mods) yet is free of all the crap surrounding PHP-Nuke. If somebody wants to take it and spin their name on it, so be it. My satisfaction will be the simple fact that I continue to develop the original. Yes, I learned a lot through my workings with PHP-Nuke, but people like this "morgue" make it NOT WORTH THE HASTLE.
You don't own the copyright, buddy. God save us if you did! PHP-Nuke would be nothing. Watch for a base release of both the Atomic Portal Engine (communtiy builder) and the Atomic Site Engine (admin only CMS) in the not too distant future! If I ever hear of those using the system I developed by the likes of you... |
| | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by morgue on Friday, June 06 @ 11:43:11 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Well, it seems Nuke's copyright issue is entering a difficult period again. What must be done first is consensus-building to resolve the different interpretations of GPL. The socond is to clarify the treatment of icons included in PHP-Nuke distribution: Do they have to be replaced? FB himself claims the copyright notice not to be removed. Considering this, we have to clarify these two things.
To make sure of the first point, we have to ask FSF people to give us their official view. Then if it rejects FB's claim, number of choices is two: FB should back away from his claim, or, re-license PHP-Nuke under another, maybe the new, almost free license. In my opinion the latter will be the worst case.
The second is easier. Just ask an expert in law to give some advice and everything will be solved soon.
To stop this repeating arguments, someone should go into action. In this case I expect FB himself to write and ask FSF and lawer. But I'm afraid it must put a strain on him and I suppose he would leave it undone as usual (sorry, but he's well known by his slow response). The next best person who will start it is the first one to bring it up, I mean, it's me. Trouble is that it's too much for me to keep discussing in non-native language and I'm not the one nor one of those who represent Nuke community at all.
So I'd like to ask you NukeCops guys and anyone who read this to let things made up and give nuke a final solution.
Well, there still remains one way, and it's a kind of highly political choice. To avoid conflicts, we can choose to leave ambiguities and let any nuke site that removed copyright notice be as they are. It's FB who is supposed to be the one to ask them to put copyright notice back. Community members don't have to care about it, at least legally. Ambiguity may work sufficiently while most of the users respect developers and show it in footer notice, though this may sounds like loser. Isn't it enough? Nothing works perfctly, so do Nuke and its license. That's life. What do you say? |
| | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by jimmyjimjim on Friday, June 06 @ 15:35:59 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | Get a life. Who fricken cares if someone removes the copyright. Really! Who is anyone to judge right or wrong. Are you a good person? WHO CARES? You have taken what is a childish quarrel and made it your personal witch-hunt. Please get over it. Its FB's fight. Well; non-fight.
Believe me - FB HAS MADE ENOUGH MONEY IN HIS CLUB TO HIRE A (f-bomb) LAWYER. Let him figure it out.
Everyone rants and raves about the (f-bomb) copyright issue. You know FB does not even have a privacy policy statement?
Interpretation is always going to be open to further interpretation.
You really should educate yourself before you argue a MOOT POINT.
Do you know why FB has never formally addressed the copyright issue? I DON”T KNOW EITHER. Is it because he CAN’T copyright nuke because it’s really “thatware”? Is it because he’d rather not address public opinion because his argument is not valid?
Yes, I’ve read all the posts and his announcements. And yes I’ve read the GPL. And yes, blah blah blah… whatever. I guess my point is this. Don’t throw stones in glass houses. Just work hard and base your decisions on thought, literacy, and good conscious (otherwise known as ethical conduct).
Good luck!
|
| | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by jimmyjimjim on Friday, June 06 @ 15:39:53 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | | PS - For NUKECOPS... You should start a new topic titled "YACP"... short for Tattle-Tale... Perhaps you give out lollipops to people that tell on other people... |
| | | | |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by allevon on Friday, June 06 @ 17:47:19 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.AlleVonTech.com | After reading Mike, Jims and Trevors responses, I gotta agree with them. I personally am sick of this subject as well. But all 3 of these guys made a good point and its true, its not worth the hassle.
Love the lollipop idea. too funny! |
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by morgue on Friday, June 06 @ 20:17:50 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I am sick of your comment. Actually your comment is nothing but annoying to me. Nevertheless I'll try to look on the bright side of it though.
The most positive result with it is that it's clear to me that trying to discuss this issue here is just wasting time. You made me realize that. Thank you. It's the matter of signal-to-noise ratio. You are being so busy to make noises, aren't you? I understand you and guys like you are uninterested indeed but not disinterested about this issue. I'm so sick of seeing you just grouch saying you are bored. And your yet another self-justification too. Well well well. it's enough. It's too much for you to read about this kinds of things. And I've posted serious comment already and finished saying everything I want to say. That's all. I quit. You can enjoy your wonderful life as usual. Let's get a life, shall we? I'd have known better not to even start.
And I do love the lollipop idea. It's just right for you. |
]
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by MikeMiles on Friday, June 06 @ 22:30:19 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | morgue, you said it best here: "To make sure of the first point, we have to ask FSF people to give us their official view. Then if it rejects FB's claim, number of choices is two: FB should back away from his claim, or, re-license PHP-Nuke under another, maybe the new, almost free license. In my opinion the latter will be the worst case."
That is exactly what needs to happen. It is the copyright holder's responsibility though to do this not yours, mine, or anyone else. If FB won't get a legal opinion and then enforce the license himself either as currently written or under a relicense, it's none of our concern. As such, you need to calm down and not meddle.
The partial mailing list I pointed out had some other interesting discussion back then on this specific area by those who are non-users. FB is trying to use 2-c but people on the list pointed how he is not in compliance with GPL. For example, the copyright notice itself is worded incorrectly and there are notices in the code saying people cannot modify certain portions of the code. There was disagreement on whether PN is considered interactive in which case the notice is only required on startup.
Anyway, let FB fight his own battles in this area. He is the only one who can enforce his copyright.
|
]
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by allevon on Saturday, June 07 @ 11:56:21 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.AlleVonTech.com | Dude what is your F**king problem?
I didn't start this Crap YOU DID. Im just saying every dam* week someone is B*t*hing about this subject.
I tried to be cool with my response and gave an alternative suggestion that I believe satifisfies ALL parties. You don't like it? Tough. I fought the battle, and Im done, it's a no-win situation (As you just discovered).
But you want to sit here and call me a self-justifying GROUCH and where the F**k did I say I was bored?
As for the lollipop, I was agreeing with what SOMEONE ELSE wrote, not you and you can take the lollipop and go stick it. Hows that? |
]
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by morgue on Friday, June 06 @ 20:18:02 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I am sick of your comment. Actually your comment is nothing but annoying to me. Nevertheless I'll try to look on the bright side of it though.
The most positive result with it is that it's clear to me that trying to discuss this issue here is just wasting time. You made me realize that. Thank you. It's the matter of signal-to-noise ratio. You are being so busy to make noises, aren't you? I understand you and guys like you are uninterested indeed but not disinterested about this issue. I'm so sick of seeing you just grouch saying you are bored. And your yet another self-justification too. Well well well. it's enough. It's too much for you to read about this kinds of things. And I've posted serious comment already and finished saying everything I want to say. That's all. I quit. You can enjoy your wonderful life as usual. Let's get a life, shall we? I'd have known better not to even start.
And I do love the lollipop idea. It's just right for you. |
]
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by morgue on Friday, June 06 @ 20:23:53 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | I am sick of your comment. Actually your comment is nothing but annoying to me. Nevertheless I'll try to look on the bright side of it though.
The most positive result with it is that you made me realize that trying to discuss this issue here is just wasting time. It's the matter of signal-to-noise ratio. You are being so busy to make noises, aren't you? I understand you and guys like you are uninterested indeed but not disinterested about this issue. I'm so sick of seeing you just grouch saying you are bored. And your yet another self-justification too. Well well well. it's enough. It's too much for you to read about this kinds of things. I've posted serious comment already and finished saying everything I want to say. That's all. I quit. Let's get a life as usual, shall we? I'd have known better not to even start.
And I do love the lollipop idea. It's just right for you. |
]
Re: Yet another copyright problem (Score: 1)
by gab on Friday, June 13 @ 10:40:41 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) | It is complete nonsense to have this funny comment system here beside the forum! What a funny idea. Wouldnt it be by far better to use the forum functionality to make these comments here?
ts ts ts
:-) |
]
| | | | | |
