Removing copyright notice?

[exor]

I'm using CMS for a client, and the client has expressed the wish to have the "This website is powered by CMS" notice removed from generated pages.

Technically, this is no issue.
However, I'm more concerned on CMS' stance on removing this notice from the page.
I have told the client CMS is open source software, and the one way the creater of the package at least wants a contribution would be by leaving copyright notices on the website intact.

But what are my options, license-wise?

It's only about the bottom copyright notice on generated pages, the rest will be untouched.

[exor]

Hi Patricia,

Thanks for the quick reply. That were my thoughts (and assumptions) already.
I'd already thought about stuffing some more propaganda in the source comments to be honest, so I'll go ahead with that.

[Ted]

That should be fine.  Normally, my issue is that people will be removing that in order to make it look like they're using either their own product or some other thievery.  Obviously, the client is well aware of the fact that it's not software you wrote, so I can't see it as being a problem.

Thanks for asking, though. 

[kermit]

ahh. licensing, one of my favorite (not! ) topics. i've spent more time in microsoft licensing workshops and seminars than i care to admit.  i have received some clarifications and opinions in the past from the license experts at the fsf on a couple of matters, including this one.


the gpl does not have any provisions in it that allow a copyright holder to place any restrictions on use, including requiring attribution such as 'powered by...'  it can be requested or encouraged, but not an absolute requirement for use.  another not uncommon 'requirement' some people try to force is restricting commercial usage. such restriction is also not allowed under the gpl.


since you're doing this work for a client, as long as they're aware of the license terms and who granted them (and they would be by simply logging into the administrative interface), you're set. if you like, you can just give them a copy of the original distribution archive to further c.y.a.


i do encourage people to be proud of the gpl open source software they use and advertise that fact when possible. but i certainly understand a clients desire to not have such things present on their web site. in those cases i suggest an 'about this site' type section, or a simple output source comment, as patricia mentioned, and sometimes they agree to that instead. some people also believe it's best to not divulge any operating system, platform, or software information for security reasons (as do i, to some extent), and i understand that point of view (there is some value in 'security by obscurity') as well.


patricia: i completely agree with you about that 'other package'.. not a terrible script, but the license is awful (mandates all changes to code, including templates, be made available for download) and the guy's tactics are too hitler-esque for me.  and yes, there is something in the default contents that's a kin to 'phoning home'. an image pulled from his own server, so he gets your server info via the referer and your own browser ip. it's part of his license lecture and he even slaps your domain on the banner before sending it to your browser.  see it's demo at opensourcecms to see it. the code itself is a mess, he has to be using a code compactor to discourage people from digging through it (3k on *one* line?!?! i wasn't even that bad in my old code-crunching memory-saving commodore days)...