Walking a fine line.(when is it your and when is credit due)

Nuke Soldier Joined: Jun 06, 2003 Posts: 12

This is probably a hot topic that people will argue a lot about but I wanted to know opinons of people and will post my opinion after I get back from vacation (need a clear head to answer this question). I'm asking that people please give reasons for there responses and please refrain from flaming others for there answers.

The Question is If someone takes a block or a moodue or all of phpnuke for that matter and changes it at what point does it become a fix/mod and then become something the person created?

If I have a block php file that is 100 lines of code (not count copyright) and someone likes what it does but not 100% (I'm sure we all have been there). After changing it around some then some more and finaly some cleanup. suddenly you realize there is maybe 90% of the code rewriten is that now your code therefore ok if you take the copyright off the bottom?

Some might say if you start from someones idea at all they should always get credit but try telling that to pepsi or the second person to make a car... get the idea.

I just wanted to get some opinions on this not to cause an argument so lets see hoe this goes.

Nuke Cops Founder Joined: Nov 14, 2002 Posts: 5939

If released under the GNU GPL, one's copyright is required to stay:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit

I can't find anything per se about your situation in reference to the GPL, but it appears that since the original source was taken from a GNU GPL licensed source, it must remain GNU GPL.

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#CanDeveloperThirdParty

There recently was a discussion about porting a GNU GPL program to the CPL, and per the FAQ section:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhatIsCompatible

such licenses are not compatible and cannot be combined.

You'll see a list of compatible and incompatible licenses here:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html

CPL is one of them.

I for one started to use the CreativeCommons license, but there is no explanation as to if its compatible or not. Reading thru it, it would seem to me that at least the bulk of the license I selected is compatible.

So basically my take on it is, if you start with someone elses work and its licensed GNU GPL (since we're phpnuke focused), it requires to stay as a GNU GPL license due to the modifications made, enhancements, etc:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#WhyDoesTheGPLPermitUsersToPublishTheirModifiedVersions

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2003 6:54 am

Hello,

I'm not a programmer, coder or anything of the source. I'm a simple end user therefore, I can only voice my opinion based on a hypothetical situation.

If I took any software under the GNU/GPL agreement to improve it performance removing 75% of the coding, personally it would become my software utilizing their ideal and 25% of the original codes.

I'd give credit to the originator of the codes with a changelog stating what was added, removed, improved etc within now "my codes."

If I decided to sale my software (the new & improved version with 75% of the coding mine), are they entitle to any of the profit because it was their original coding? I'd suppose not therefore, are they really entitle to any credit mention in the new and improved version?

If I decide to buyout the pepsi company should I give the original founder of pepsi credit? Once again, I'd suppose not although, out of common courteous and professionalism I would give them credit for whatever portion of the code originally came from them.

General Joined: Mar 22, 2003 Posts: 5233 Location: USA

foxyfemfem wrote:

If I decide to buyout the pepsi company should I give the original founder of pepsi credit? Once again, I'd suppose not although, out of common courteous and professionalism I would give them credit for whatever portion of the code originally came from them.

Unfortunately your analogy is not plausible because Pepsi has patents upon patents and copyrights upon copyrights. You would have to give credit where credit is due which we should do in ALL cases, regardless.

Nuke Cops Founder Joined: Nov 14, 2002 Posts: 5939

Raven's right about the patents, but extend that to the GNU GPL. Any license that talks about the use of patents isn't compatible with the GNU GPL license, such is the case of the CPL mentioned above.

My 2 cents on this matter is, if the code is turned into a derivative then credit still must be given. Look at phpnuke and postnuke for example. They still credit their predecessors, if even in only a credits file.

And thats all I have to say. Wink

Posted: Sat Jun 28, 2003 9:54 pm

Now, I am going to study how to write blocks for phpNuke using a studybook on PHP.
I also print out scripts from more than one block supplied with phpNuke and written by a dozen or so clever people.
I use HTML_Kit and start to write a script.
Now and then I stop and test.
Something wrong.
Have a look on the printed pages of the blocks, just using it as a study guide.
I find that some of the sample code of the book are identical to some of the printed pages but I can see on the printed pages more clearly what I have done wrong.
Mind you all put together with HTML and PHP.
When I am finished, I think I have a bonzer block, works like a charm and it is exactly as I planned.
Now comes the difficult part. What is it. Did I copy, steal, or whatever any of the script?
It is PHP and HTML and they are structured languages. You have to follow straight patterns to make it work.
And then horror, I find that somebody else has written almost an identical script and put his/her name to it!
Do I claim what I have written as mine, do I mention all the names of the dozen people or what should I do?
I think it is mine but what does anyone else think?