Another License Question

[agraddy]

Okay, I guess this question is specifically for Wishy, but anybody else, please feel free to make any comments.

First of all, let me congratulate you on a great project. I am very impressed with the set up. After installing it, and working with it figuring it out, I realized that I had spent quite a bit of time figuring out the system without touching a piece of code. Usually, with these kinds of projects, I find myself quickly digging into the actual source code to see how to modify it for my own needs. CMSMS let me make tons of modifications without touching a piece of code, which is a great alternative to my normal workflow with opensource software packages.

Now that I have finished doling out the praises, let me move on to my question.

Doing a search on the forums about license issues, it appears to me (just looking at the responses) that Wishy's response to license issues and rebranding has changed over time.

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... 240.0.html
In late 2004, a user asks about rebranding the system. The response then was that pretty much anything goes as long as the hidden comments and PHP source attribute comments are not changed and also that the user does not simply repackage the system and sell it acting like it is their own.

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... 451.0.html
In early 2005, another rebranding question comes up about changing the admin as well asking if link backs are necessary. Again the response is that link backs are not necessary, and the admin can be easily changed.

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... 165.0.html
In the summer of 2005, the response seems to be changing. A user posts a link to a site built using CMSMS and it is pointed out that the admin does not have a link back to the site or a CMSMS logo (there is a link now, so I don't know if that was later changed). Wishy responds with a *sigh* that dealing with this license stuff is tiresome. There is mention of being sneaky and even laments over releasing open source software. It seems like it was being perceived that the user was simply reselling  CMSMS under their own name (I'm not sure if this comment was made while the link back to CMSMS was there, or if the link was later added because of the thread). The thread does have a happy ending with the user announcing that nothing was charged for the system and the end-user has access to the code.

http://forum.cmsmadesimple.org/index.ph ... 128.0.html
The final piece of this very long post comes from a thread about a month ago. The user has a client who wants to remove "This website is powered by CMS". Now I'm not sure exactly what this is referring to, but I am assuming it is referring to the "This site is using CMS Made Simple version 0.11.2 Scarborough" note at the bottom of the default install. The response seemed to indicate that it was okay to remove, but the tone of the thread seems to be very different from the rebranding thread in 2004.

Now that you have a complete timeline, I wanted to explain my plans in advance so that in the future I am not one of those people making Wishy *sigh*.

My goal is to create websites for clients using CMSMS as a framework. I want to target small non-technical businesses that do not have a website or the knowledge to create one. I plan to host most of the sites myself where ultimately the only thing the client sees is the CMSMS admin system where they can edit some of their pages. All of the copyright information will be left in the HTML and PHP source code. I do not plan to have links or make mention of CMSMS on the actual pages of the site itself. Many small business owners who are paying for a site will not appreciate that info at the bottom of their pages.

On the admin panel, I plan to rebrand it myself with my business name, logo, and contact info, but I will keep a Powered by CMSMS and a GNU notice. At the bottom of the login page and admin pages I plan to put something like this:

Copyright 2006 My Business Name (Not Decided Yet)
Powered by CMS Made Simple
CMS Made Simple is free software released under the General Public License.

The copyright is for the graphics that I have added. It would seem to me that this is a legitimate use of CMSMS, but I wanted to make sure before I start moving along with plans, and find out later in the game that I have made some people upset by my actions.

- Anthony Graddy

[Ted]

Wow, that's quite a lot of research.  Honestly, as the project has progressed, I've learned more about the GPL license.  Basically, with a web project such as this, I really don't have a lot of rights with it.

Basically, the only thing it seems I can enforce is that you can't sell the software as your own.  You can sell services supporting it.  You can't remove any copyright notices.

There is still a point of contention for me on whether you have to make changes to the copyrighted code available to the public or not.  Some say yes (as Tivo and Linksys both did), and others in the forum say it's optional.  I really don't know...

Anyway, here is my current (and most likely not the last ) stand on this.  Rebranding of the admin is fine.  You don't have to show the CMSMS logo or name if you don't want.

However, I still feel that it's kind of cheap if people completely take the thing over and try to make it like they wrote it.  Though, there is nothing in the license that says they can't, so I won't argue.

Right now, there is a company using CMSMS as their own for major sites.  They've changed the admin, the name of the product and also the message that appears in the bottom of the source code, but it's still obviously CMSMS.  I believe that at some point they're breaking the GPL, though I'm not entirely sure how and will have to contact someone on the subject.  I probably don't have any rights, to be honest.

In reality, the GPL seems to not be a good license for a CMS product because it seems you have to toss a lot of the rights away that it gives you because of it's nature.

Anyway, thank you for your inquiry.  I promise not the *sigh* in response to your usage of CMSMS.  Just asking is good enough for me. 

[agraddy]

Thank you for the response.

That was quick!

I wanted to get your response before I proceeded ahead. Like you, my understanding of the GPL is that legally it doesn't leave you with many rights. I wanted to get some input from you though and approach my use from an ethical standpoint and not just a legal standpoint. Even if I become a large company with "major sites" CMSMS will get the due credit it deserves. 

If it helps for your futures stands on the issue, the ability to reskin the admin is a major draw for me to use your product as I am sure it is for others. If you did not allow that, I may have been back on opensourcecms trying to find another package. As was mentioned in one of the threads that I listed, the freedom that open source software allows to its users is what drives a product forward. When a lot of restrictions are required, it can discourage the adoption of the project by others.

Thanks again for such a great product. I realize the first part of the original post may come across as me trying to brownnose, but it really isn't. I really have been very impressed with the product.

[Ted]

Nah, brownosing is never bad.  All developers have sensitive egos. 

Anyway, yeah, I knew that doing the admin skinning thing would probably lead to some people taking CMSMS as their own.  But the flexibility (something we try to maintain overall throughout the product) is king, so it's something that has to be delt with.

As I've worked on this thing, I'm starting to realize that open source software and how people deal with the licenses are just like life.  Most people will be great.  Some people will be jerks.  Que sara, sara.

Thanks for the kind words.  I hope CMSMS really helps you out with your future endevours.