• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Apr 27, 2006
  • Posts: 3

  [17] Posted: Apr 26, 2006 - 09:01 PM

  Hello,
  
  I would like to create a "fee-based" or "for-profit" service on the web allowing people use a system based on or derived from PostNuke to update and publish information on the web.
  
  1. Is this legal to do, and if the answer is yes, what do I have to do to comply? Simply keep copyrights intact, and don't claim the work as my own?
  
  2. What is my requirement under this scenario to release source code? If I modify any of the original code then I must release? or if I choose to release I must release to everyone that requests it? or what?
  
  I am unfamiliar with the GPL [18], and I may have a follow up question, but this is basically what I need to know and I cannot find this information specifically. I need to understand the legality of what I want to do before I begin, because it would be a waste of time and money to create something that is illegal.

  • [19]
  •   [20]
• markwest [22]
  
  

  • Rank: Team Member
  • Registered: Mar 18, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 6606

  [23] Posted: Apr 26, 2006 - 10:03 PM

  The answers this thread [24] should help.
  
  Under the GPL [25] you are free to use to use the code for any purpose - commercial or otherwise. Any in-code copyrights must remain however any visual indicators of postnuke aren't required (e.g. footers, generator tags) although it's nice if you can find some way to recognise the effort that's gone into creating PostNuke.
  
  With regard to modified source code should you release any modifications to existing source then these too are GPL [26]'d due to the GPL [27]'s viral nature. You are not required to release any modifications although if you think that these may be useful to others, especially patches and bug fixes to the base package, then i'd encourage you to contribute these back to help PostNuke grow.
  
  If you write any modules from scratch and release these then we believe that these don't have to fall under the GPL [28] (although that would be nice...) - note this is a contentious issue as there are different interpretations of what forms a derivative work and how a published API fits into this. There's some published advice on this in the FAQ [29].
  
  I will state that none of what i've posted here constitutes any form of legal advice just the current feelings and opinions of the dev team. If in any doubt consult a suitable lawyer. I would also recommend that you sit down and read the GPL [30] so that your at least familiar with some of the basics.
  
  -Mark
  
  --
  Visit My homepage [31] and Zikula themes. [32]

  • [33]
  •   [34]
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Apr 27, 2006
  • Posts: 3

  [36] Posted: Apr 27, 2006 - 06:50 AM

  Thanks for the info.. So regardless of the GPL [37]'ed software, there are no clauses that prohibit you from profiting from a GPL [38] program, or charging a fee for use of the program.
  
  If I modify anything in postnuke's actual coding, not just buttons or templates, then should I release anything it is requird to be released under the GPL [39] as others can benefit from what's been created, although I am not required to?
  
  Although there are different interpretations of the GPL [40], modules that are created independently may or may not have to be released under the GPL [41] since they may not technically be part of PN, which is GPL [42]. Meaning that depending on the interpretation, the modules could be licensed otherwise.
  
  Is this correct in my and your interpretation of the GPL [43]?

  • [44]
  •   [45]
• markwest [47]
  
  

  • Rank: Team Member
  • Registered: Mar 18, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 6606

  [48] Posted: Apr 27, 2006 - 07:29 AM

  There is nothing to stop you making money from GPL [49]'d software but should you distribute a GPL [50]'d piece of software to a customer you must make thier rights clear which include thier ability to distribute the software further. If you don't intend to distribute anything then none of this applies.
  
  You don't *have* to release any modifcations at all if you don't want too. But we encourage anyone that makes what they think is a useful modification to contribute it back. This more about the growth of the application and good manners than any legal requirement.
  
  The question of modules, derivative code, API's, dynamically linked code etc. is a complex issue. There are many takes on this including one that states that everything is a derivative work. We tend to take a pragmatic approach in that we publish an API and that use of the is API doesn't form a derivative work - although if you copy an existing module and then work from there it would be derivative..... So if you build code using the PostNuke API from scratch you are free to licence it how you wish - again this only comes into play if you release the code.
  
  We definately encourge companies to utilise PN in thier business and hope that, as well as your business gaining from the use of postnuke, that you can also make some contribution back. A german company, value4business, in the form of Robert Gasch are active contributers to the code, key members of the dev team and part of the PN steering commitee.
  
  -Mark
  
  --
  Visit My homepage [51] and Zikula themes. [52]

  • [53]
  •   [54]
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Apr 27, 2006
  • Posts: 3

  [56] Posted: Apr 27, 2006 - 11:41 AM

  Thanks for your answer Mark. This solves lots of questions. Well it's almost time for my project to start, and should I create anything unique and useful I'll be happy to give back! I agree that sharing and collaboration made this software possible, and without further sharing this would be the end of PN, and I hope that'll never be the case.

  • [57]
  •   [58]
• pnDev [60]
  
  

  • Rank: Softmore
  • Registered: Jul 16, 2004
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 406

  [61] Posted: Jun 29, 2006 - 11:48 AM

  I have a question to add to this.
  
  You mention

  Quote

  Any in-code copyrights must remain however

  . So this means the copyright in the code and not displayed on the module. The reason I ask is I find that to make a professional looking site alot of the times the modules you use show the copyrights at the bottom of them. Sometimes the module is so old that the credits link doesnt even work or it points to a sourceforge page. I would like to have a credits page and give credits to postnuke and all the module developers but I find it makes my site look like amateur by having all these broken and non-templated links displayed at the bottom of the module and would rather list them all on a completely different page.
  
  DO you know what I mean, and is that allowed? Cause in a way its just modifying the module credit out which in one interpretation seems to be allowed under GPL [62] since you can modify the code. So far I"ve left all the credits because I dont want to do something illegal but when I look at these it just makes the site look like junk in some cases.

  • [63]
  •   [64]
• MACscr [66]
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Dec 31, 1969
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 1437

  [67] Posted: Jun 29, 2006 - 05:34 PM

  pnDev

  I have a question to add to this.
  
  You mention

  Quote

  Any in-code copyrights must remain however

  . So this means the copyright in the code and not displayed on the module. The reason I ask is I find that to make a professional looking site alot of the times the modules you use show the copyrights at the bottom of them. Sometimes the module is so old that the credits link doesnt even work or it points to a sourceforge page. I would like to have a credits page and give credits to postnuke and all the module developers but I find it makes my site look like amateur by having all these broken and non-templated links displayed at the bottom of the module and would rather list them all on a completely different page.
  
  DO you know what I mean, and is that allowed? Cause in a way its just modifying the module credit out which in one interpretation seems to be allowed under GPL [68] since you can modify the code. So far I"ve left all the credits because I dont want to do something illegal but when I look at these it just makes the site look like junk in some cases.

  
  
  I think this depends on what has been specified by the individual script developer. Some specify that it has to remain publicly viewable. This is just my opinion though.
  

  • [69]
  •   [70]
• markwest [72]
  
  

  • Rank: Team Member
  • Registered: Mar 18, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 6606

  [73] Posted: Jun 29, 2006 - 08:11 PM

  The GPL [74] only covers in-code credits not credits displayed in the output (HTML source). As macscr says this will depend on any other conditions attached by the module author - read the docs or consult with the author.
  
  In most cases there won't be a problem removing the visual credits as part of the design process of a site. PN itself doesn't require any outward credits to itself (footer and generator meta tag).
  
  -Mark
  
  --
  Visit My homepage [75] and Zikula themes. [76]

  • [77]
  •   [78]
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Jul 21, 2006
  • Posts: 22

  [80] Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 03:42 AM

  markwest

  The GPL [81] only covers in-code credits not credits displayed in the output (HTML source). As macscr says this will depend on any other conditions attached by the module author - read the docs or consult with the author.
  
  In most cases there won't be a problem removing the visual credits as part of the design process of a site. PN itself doesn't require any outward credits to itself (footer and generator meta tag).
  
  -Mark

  
  so this means if i use postnuke on my site I can remove the copyright at the bottom of the page? if so what file do i need to edit to remove it?

  • [82]
  •   [83]
• MACscr [85]
  
  

  • Rank: Expert
  • Registered: Dec 31, 1969
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 1437

  [86] Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 03:44 AM

  Its not a file (in most themes). You should be able to remove it by going to the Administration Panel --> Settings --> Scroll down to footer. You should be able to edit it their.

  • [87]
  •   [88]
• **unknown user**
  
  

  • Rank: Registered User
  • Registered: Mar 16, 2002
  • Last visit: Jul 21, 2006
  • Posts: 22

  [90] Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 03:45 AM

  thanks for the fast responce.

  • [91]
  •   [92]
• slam [94]
  
  

  • Rank: Team Member
  • Registered: May 03, 2004
  • Last visit: May 31, 2010
  • Posts: 509

  [95] Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 04:16 AM

  Quote

  The GPL [96] only covers in-code credits not credits displayed in the output (HTML source). As macscr says this will depend on any other conditions attached by the module author - read the docs or consult with the author.

  
  
  Sorry Mark, but I need to disagree here partially. Correct, the GPL [97] covers in-code credits only. But no, nobody has the right to attach conditions to GPL [98] released work - this restriction actually is a vital part of the GPL [99]. So, all those attached conditions about leaving credits/logos/links intact are useless and can be ignored from a legal point of view.
  
  However, practically it is always a good idea to stay in contact with the developers when going into commercial use or further development of GPLed work, and I suggest to consult them in order to find a fitting way to give credit not just in-code.
  
  Greetings,
  Chris
  
  --
  an operating system must operate [100]
  development is life [101]
  my repo [102]

  • [103]
  •   [104]
• markwest [106]
  
  

  • Rank: Team Member
  • Registered: Mar 18, 2002
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 6606

  [107] Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 05:03 AM

  [quote=slam]

  Quote

  But no, nobody has the right to attach conditions to GPL [108] released work - this restriction actually is a vital part of the GPL [109]. So, all those attached conditions about leaving credits/logos/links intact are useless and can be ignored from a legal point of view.

  
  
  Yes and no.... I didn't really explain myself that well... As the copyright owner of a piece of code you can attach whatever conditions you like to a piece of code. Since the GPL [110] only covers the code itself the GPL [111] can apply to the code but the copyright owner could also request leaving of an output credit on top the license applied to code. This is the way I understand it from my very limited legal understanding....
  
  I stand to be corrected on this though....
  
  At the end of the day IANAL.....
  
  -Mark
  
  
  --
  Visit My homepage [112] and Zikula themes. [113]

  • [114]
  •   [115]
• larsneo [117]
  
  

  • Rank: Software Foundation
  • Registered: Dec 31, 1969
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 3814

  [118] Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 05:14 AM

  well - the postnuke copyright line in the footer can be removed for sure but there exists a way, to output a (c) line and protect it with the help of GPL [119]§2c (this is done e.g. in phpnuke).
  
  as a reference a snippet of a conversation between jens ferner and dave turner of FSF:
  

  Quote

  >Thanks for your answer, but now it is getting more difficult: On 19.9.2002 the FSF said, that the ©-Output is coverd by 2c of the GPL [120]
  
  In 2002, I made a mistake. I've been speaking with the primary PHPNuke developer, and have informed him of this error. I hope he will correct that article. I'm sorry for any confusion I caused. I have answered thousands pf licensing questions, and I don't know of any other mistakes of this kind or magnitude, so I hope that this will not hurt FSF's reputation.
  
  > Yesterday, you wrote me, it is not 2c (as i think, too). Could you please explain, why it this not covered bei GPL [121] 2c?
  
  It's not covered by (2)© because it's doesn't include a no-warranty notice, and it doesn't tell you where you can read the GPL [122].
  
  Perhaps, it should be good, to put a notice about this really well discussed topic in the GNU GPL [123] FAQ, so there is a refernce where programmers and users can link to.
  
  Good idea. I'll propose that to the committee that manages the FAQ.
  
  --
  -Dave Turner
  GPL [124] Compliance Engineer
  Support my work: http://svcs.affero.net/rm.php?r=novalis&p=FSF [125]

  
  
  so if there is a full §2c compliant copyright notice you must'nt remove it.
  
  note: this does not affect postnuke at all!
  
  --
  regards from germany
  ..::[Zikula Application Framework [126]]::.. ..::[SEO-Blog [127]]::.. ..::[CMS Sicherheit [128]]::..

  • [129]
  •   [130]
• uheweb [132]
  
  

  • Rank: Helper
  • Registered: Sep 16, 2004
  • Last visit: Oct 21, 2009
  • Posts: 731

  [133] Posted: Jul 21, 2006 - 06:07 AM

  Related question -
  
  Clearly, copying a module (or even significant code snippets) and modifying existing files carries over the GPL [134] to the modified code...what about this scenario?
  
  Example module is viewed and practiced with. Seperate code (or even just a simple spreadsheet that generates some of the code snippets) is written that implements techniques of the example module - ie, by inputting field names for a new module, and outputting basic code - pntables generation, simple list functions, pnRender snippets of the fields in "postnuke usable form", etc.
  
  The Example module code was not modified, yet what was learned from it (ie, the postnuke coding techniques) was implemented into creating a new module.
  
  I guess the idea of creating a module from "scratch" allowing it to be used with a non-GPL license is a fuzzy line. Do the files all have to be written OUTSIDE, with no similarity of even the techniques used in other modules -ie, not CUT and PASTE, but READ and LEARN and DO in your own but similar form?
  
  I have custom modules that I've created that are clearly GPL [135] when I release them...but upcoming projects that are commercial in nature and outside the scope of the general PN community. I'd like to keep it open source, yet offer a different license than the GPL [136](ie, use and modify all you want, need permission to redistribute to 3rd parties or used commercially).
  
  My coding techniques for postnuke are heavily flavored by learning from others modules, and I would never cut and paste code if doing anything but GPL [137], but some similarities are sure to be found.
  
  So, is coding "the postnuke way" enough to require the GPL [138], or is "from scratch" mainly referring to the code logic (rather than merely PHP techniques that are postnuke oriented)?
  
  Any thoughts?
  
  UHEweb
  
  

  • [139]
  •   [140]
•  
•  

Users on-line

• craigh [144]

This list is based on users active over the last 60 minutes.