You are missing our premiere tool bar navigation system! Register and use it for FREE!

NukeCops  
•  Home •  Downloads •  Gallery •  Your Account •  Forums • 
Readme First
- Readme First! -

Read and follow the rules, otherwise your posts will be closed
Modules
· Home
· FAQ
· Buy a Theme
· Advertising
· AvantGo
· Bookmarks
· Columbia
· Community
· Donations
· Downloads
· Feedback
· Forums
· PHP-Nuke HOWTO
· Private Messages
· Search
· Statistics
· Stories Archive
· Submit News
· Surveys
· Theme Gallery
· Top
· Topics
· Your Account
Who's Online
There are currently, 406 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
Help Requestsmorgue 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
 
Related Links
· More about Help Requests
· News by Zhen-Xjell


Most read story about Help Requests:
Dazzle CMS Looking for Beta Testers / Developers

Article Rating
Average Score: 2.33
Votes: 3


Please take a second and vote for this article:

Excellent
Very Good
Good
Regular
Bad


Options

 Printer Friendly Page  Printer Friendly Page

 Send to a Friend  Send to a Friend

Threshold
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 Netrioter on Friday, June 06 @ 00:19:55 CEST
(User Info | Send a Message) http://www.die-pernodler.de
If the site is running under 5.5 or lower, they can remove the copyright information. its legal



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 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 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 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!


Powered by TOGETHER TEAM srl ITALY http://www.togetherteam.it - DONDELEO E-COMMERCE http://www.DonDeLeo.com - TUTTISU E-COMMERCE http://www.tuttisu.it
Web site engine's code is Copyright © 2002 by PHP-Nuke. All Rights Reserved. PHP-Nuke is Free Software released under the GNU/GPL license.
Page Generation: 0.115 Seconds - 199 pages served in past 5 minutes. Nuke Cops Founded by Paul Laudanski (Zhen-Xjell)
:: FI Theme :: PHP-Nuke theme by coldblooded (www.nukemods.com) ::