Removing CMSMS Branding from Admin section? Illegal or awesome?

[nate22]

Calguy, what is your point in explaining copyright law here in relation to everything else already discussed? I know copyright law, I'm not breaking copyright law nor do I intend to, and finally I specifically went out of my way to ask what is acceptable and what is not.

FYI, several CMS have the Licensing option which removes branding automatically or allows you to remove it yourself legally. This licensing helps sustain the project, too. It may even be partially why such projects are started-- I have no idea why coders give stuff away for free, so I'm only guessing.

When I read the Licensing page for CMSMS it was not immediately clear, which is why I posted this. Now the problem is solved and maybe I'm just being sensitive, but it  seems like you're trying to lecture me (quite unfairly) about being "fair".

[calguy1000]

It seems fair if I pay the Licensing Fee, which is the whole purpose of a Licencing Fee.

Sure.... just be exactly, and precisely sure that you're only using the core modules.... none of the GPL licensed addon modules (which are available via the forge, and the module manager).  if you do, then you could possibly be breaking the GPL.

Thank you.  Because of this discussion, I am seriously considering editing the license on all of my modules so that explicit mention of CMS made simple is in at least the admin pages is a requirement to use them.

[calguy1000]

Just to specify explicitly:

ALL of my addon modules to CMS made simple (modules originally authored by me) that are currently in the forge at dev.cmsmadesimple.org are intended to be released explicitly under the GNU public license (GPLv2), and are copyrighted by me.  Wether their current description specifies it or not.

Any modules not originally authored by me rely on their original licenses (which is usually the Gnu Public License (GPL) ).

Therefore, if you intend to 'distribute' your website or configuration of CMS made simple packages from your local installation to your clients web host, and/or to others, AND you are using any modules authored by me, wether the copyright notice on the top of the file is correct or not, I feel that you are obliged by the rules of the GPL.

I will make my best effort in the near future to correct any errors in the text of the license ontop of each file, and/or included with each release to correct any errors in any files that may obfuscate the intention that the GPL is inforce for any of my modules

[nate22]

It seems fair if I pay the Licensing Fee, which is the whole purpose of a Licencing Fee.

Sure.... just be exactly, and precisely sure that you're only using the core modules.... none of the GPL licensed addon modules (which are available via the forge, and the module manager).  if you do, then you could possibly be breaking the GPL.

Thank you.  Because of this discussion, I am seriously considering editing the license on all of my modules so that explicit mention of CMS made simple is in at least the admin pages is a requirement to use them.

Actually, it wouldn't possibly be breaking the GPL at all to remove CMSMS branding with a paid License. The only way it would be is in the case you specified in your follow-up paragraph where the module maker specificallly prohibits use of module if CMSMS branding is not visible.

It looks like you didn't realize what you were getting into when you started making modules, which means you must not have read the Licensing information too clearly... so, interesting that you expect people to read the stipulation that CMSMS branding remain visible on the admin page in order to use your modules (???) ... I doubt anyone will notice that unless you make it in giant bold type at the very top of your license agreement for the module. Anyway, I definitely won't be using your modules for this project and I'll make sure to read all module licensing more clearly in the future, so thank you for that.

[Nullig]

I think you two are arguing at cross purposes here.

I don't think nate22 is really talking abut copyright at all. I think he is only talking about the Admin logo and login title text and the Admin panel logo and title (the branding"). As far as I know, these have nothing to do with the GPL or copyright. I don't think nate22 is talking about the "hidden" copyright notices at the top of the php files.

Is this correct, nate22?

Nllig

[nate22]

I think you two are arguing at cross purposes here.

I don't think nate22 is really talking abut copyright at all. I think he is only talking about the Admin logo and login title text and the Admin panel logo and title (the branding"). As far as I know, these have nothing to do with the GPL or copyright. I don't think nate22 is talking about the "hidden" copyright notices at the top of the php files.

Is this correct, nate22?

Nllig

Yeah, that's exactly correct. But, I think that was already explicitly clear. I think Calguy just doesn't like the idea too much. I guess it never occurred to him or maybe he was unaware of the Commercial Licensing agreement. Not sure, exactly, but he seems upset about the idea altogether. I can see why he'd be upset about it if he never thought about it before, but I'm not arguing with him. Just trying to explain what my intentions are and why.

[vaughnt]

For branding purposes, I change the theme in admin panel so it shows our company logo instead of the cmsms logo. Also, since we call CMSMS "iSite" in our marketing materials, I change the language file so it says "iSite" instead of "CMSMS", etc, to not confuse the customer. 

I leave the CMSMS link to cmsmadesimple.org in the footer of all pages, but change it so it says "Powered by CMS Made Simple".  The "this is free software" statement was generating a lot of "then why did I just pay you" questions. Many non-technical clients do not understand what goes on behind the scenes to make a website, even if you explain custom graphics, template creation, content input, and so on. All they read is "this is supposed to be free", and it sours the relationship. So rather than beat my head on the wall, I nip it in the bud, while still giving credit.

[calguy1000]

vaughnt:  and this is perfectly fine with me.... putting your company name on the admin package, while still giving credit where credit is due.... a simple 'powered by cms made simple' statement or graphic on the admin page is a great idea.

On the 'why did we just pay you' subject.... we simply tell our customers that we use and contribute to open source packages as much as possible to keep the costs down.  if we didn't use open source software, the costs would be a helluva lot greater.

On the subject regarding nate's original question and where it went to.  I'm not confused.  He wants to remove all CMS branding from the admin section, and I disagree with this.  In my opinion it's a little dishonest.  At least some notion of the package should be there.  The conversation then went to licenses, he wanted to purchase a license so that he could remove all the branding, and I reminded him that by mixing the licensed version of CMS and other GPL licensed modules and then 'distributing' this software that he could be in violation of the GPL.

I also indicated that I would be changing the licensing of my modules in the near future to  require at least some notification in the admin section that CMS Made simple is being used.  But nate22 seems pretty nonchalant about that anyways.

[vaughnt]

On the 'why did we just pay you' subject.... we simply tell our customers that we use and contribute to open source packages as much as possible to keep the costs down.  if we didn't use open source software, the costs would be a helluva lot greater.

I hear you, but this is my take on it:  I've had the discussion enough times (and tried several different approaches, including yours), and concluded that I'm happiest to not have the discussion at all. Changing the verbiage to "Powered by CMS Made Simple" has accomplished that. It sidesteps the misunderstanding entirely. Besides, to my way of thinking, if someone can't understand that I should get paid for the hours I put in, explaining open source to them is unlikely to succeed. 

That said, I have explained open source and CMSMS to many clients, especially those concerned with the portability of their website, who want to make sure they aren't using proprietary software they will be locked in to. And I try to contribute back to CMSMS, posting tips and how-to's in the forums.

For what it's worth, I'm looking for a client that will help finance the development of a proper ecommerce module or modules. "Proper" of course meaning "what I think it should be". We have a lot of ecommerce-oriented projects in the forge with no files released. If I can get someone who needs one and can pay for the time, I plan to publish it in the forge for all.

[brin]

Legal but not very awesome....shitty thing to do!


My husband and I are huge fans of open source and use it at least 2-3 open source daily. I personally think it is wrong to not keep a credit link in the admin section....come on it's only the admin section.

I give my clients a choice between a custom CMS (which is more costly) or an open source.

I also explain to my clients why I will not work for peanuts, even when working with an open source. The reason I give them is simple: "It takes time to find the right CMS to fit your companies needs." Even though i hope I never have to use anything other then CMSMS ever again.

If the client wants to do it themselves, tell them to give it a go.....they will soon figure out why we are worth paying.


Also, If I use CMSMS to produce a site for a client, proceeds of the sales will be donated to the developers. It is only fair!

I also plan on including a section on my website where I will be letting my clients choose their fav. open source to donate to such as debian, open office, CMSMS, Mozilla, ect....

We use them everyday and it is only fair to give a little back. Because without open source we would be paying outrageous amounts for blotted software.

[nate22]

I also indicated that I would be changing the licensing of my modules in the near future to  require at least some notification in the admin section that CMS Made simple is being used.  But nate22 seems pretty nonchalant about that anyways.

What exact wording gave you this idea? Was it when I said I would respect your wishes and not use your modules?

Legal but not very awesome....shitty thing to do!

It would be awesome if it was totally cool with everyone. And I used the wording "illegal or awesome" specifically to get the immediate attention of anyone who was concerned.

[tonypb]

Im glad it is OK to change the "branding" as long as credit is given...

where would i have to go to change

CMS Made Simple 1.2.3 "Black Rock"
CMS Made Simple is free software released under the General Public Licence.

to something like

Powered by CMS Made Simple <- with a link to CMS Made Simple site

NEVER MIND - found it...

defaultTheme.php

Code: Select all

	function DisplayFooter() {
		global $CMS_VERSION;
		global $CMS_VERSION_NAME;
		echo '<p class="footer"><a class="footer" href="http://www.cmsmadesimple.org">CMS Made Simple</a> '.$CMS_VERSION.' "' . $CMS_VERSION_NAME . '"<br /><a class="footer" href="http://www.cmsmadesimple.org">CMS Made Simple</a> is free software released under the General Public Licence.</p>';
	}

[nate22]

vaughnt:  and this is perfectly fine with me.... putting your company name on the admin package, while still giving credit where credit is due.... a simple 'powered by cms made simple' statement or graphic on the admin page is a great idea.

That's cool, then. I'll probably go for this option. Basically, the words "FREE" and "SIMPLE" are what I wanted to eliminate from the admin more than anything else. Makes it look like utter child's play (maybe it is once you get used to it, I don't know).

[brin]

Another issue with removing the tags or not letting a client know that their site is in fact powered by CMSMS.....

Let just say you design a site for a client and remove all indication that it is in fact CMSMS. Then you move on to bigger and better design projects and don't keep in touch with the client.

The client has no way of knowing to install security patches.....this is a big deal.

It is irresponsible of the designer to design a website and not leave clients with a link to this site,m where they can get future updates or get the required support/documentation.

[calguy1000]

Or if (heaven forbit) your company folds and the user doesn't have any support.

Good point... and I'd call that 'un-professionalism'....