Is this a usage of Coppermine without the copyright/link???

[Pioneer]

Just ran across this site....kinda nice actually, but noticed how *very* similar it was to the test install of Coppermine I just did on one of my sites. Looks like a *couple* of modifications...which are good actually, but otherwise looks like deadpan Coppermine to me. So, I checked the bottom of the page to see if indeed it was.....and NO notice on the bottom saying it's powered by Coppermine. Looked it over more, compared to my test install and really looks like Coppermine to me! Thought I'd check the documentation as I figured that was required, and that's what your docs say indeed....as well as there is apparently no purchasable license to remove that line. Hmmm.....

http://gallery.cybertarp.com/

Anyway.....just wanted to bring this to your attention and wondered if indeed it is an improper usage of Coppermine or what not?

BTW....not sure if I'll be using Coppermine myself, but do like it quite well. I have to play with my test install more to see if it fits my particular needs. Hopefully it will, but even if it doesn't, I know I can recommend this to others! Good work!

[Tarique Sani]

Yes this looks like Coppermine am reasonably sure - written to them

I notice that at http://gallery.cybertarp.com/index.php you are using Coppermine ( http://coppermine.sf.net ) It is licensed under GPL with an additional clause that you have the Powered by Coppermine and the link to the Coppermine site at the bottom.

Either remove the gallery OR insert the said link ASAP.

Awaiting your response

Dr Tarique Sani
Developer Coppermine

[Tarique Sani]

Their reply

I will notify the developer in the morning. I was unaware of any "additional clause" appended.
 
He found and corrected several major bugs in the software / database and also recoded large sections that were incorrect, however.
 
I will have him add the link in the morning, although I suspect we will not be using this software package much longer.
 
Wade Hanchar
 

My answer

Wade Hanchar wrote:

> I will notify the developer in the morning. I was unaware of any "additional clause" appended.

Thank you for your understanding

> He found and corrected several major bugs in the software / database and also recoded large sections that were incorrect, however.

This being a Open Source software depends on the community supporting it with bug reports, mods and hacks, advertising etc - It would have been to our mututal benifit if these things were understood.

> I will have him add the link in the morning, although I suspect we will not be using this software package much longer.

Thank you again, Sorry to know that you won't be using the software for long - The software has past 90,000 download mark in a short period at http://coppermine.sf.net

Cheers
Tarique

Case closed

[cheese]

The GPL is the GPL - not GPL+something or GPL-something. If you add additional clauses to the GPL, you are changing it - you can't do this and still call it the GPL (hint - you are violating FSF's copyright).  See the GPL FAQ on modifying the GPL - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#ModifyGPL.

Also, the Coppermine FAQ says something about not being able to sell GPL software - this is wrong - it is perfectly legal for someone to take a copy of Coppermine and sell it.  Again see the GPL FAQ - http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLCommercially.

If you want these kinds of restrictions - then you shouldn't have used the GPL...

Yes this looks like Coppermine am reasonably sure - written to them

I notice that at http://gallery.cybertarp.com/index.php you are using Coppermine ( http://coppermine.sf.net ) It is licensed under GPL with an additional clause that you have the Powered by Coppermine and the link to the Coppermine site at the bottom.

Either remove the gallery OR insert the said link ASAP.

Awaiting your response

Dr Tarique Sani
Developer Coppermine

[hyperion]

1. No one here had a problem with anyone selling Coppermine. A simple search on Google will reveal a number of people reselling Coppermine as a service.  There would only have a problem if the person sells it without providing the source or without directing potential customers to the source here via the CPG link. Surely your intimate knowledge of GPL would have told you that, right?

In this case, the software was being resold without the source, a link to the source, or a notice of where the source might be obtained.  In short, the software was being resold in clear violation of the terms of the GPL. People  do not disparage it as a viral licensing agreement without reason, you know.  In this instance, the developer in question would need BSD licensed software to do what he was doing legally.

2. Everyone here is aware of the limitations of the GPL and the linking notice in individual installations.  The design group still has a right to ask, and most honorable people comply.

No, they can't be sued because the software is GPL, but they can certainly be embarassed.  Imagine how you would feel if you paid a web designer several thousand dollars/euros to create a photo gallery, and then someone came along and told you he had simply taken a free package and removed the notices of its creation group.  I think I would fire the web designer, get my money back, and charge him with fraud.

Curious, do you still have a job?   :wink:

[cheese]

1. No one here had a problem with anyone selling Coppermine.

Then why does the FAQ say:

As Coppermine itself is based on OpenSource software published under GNU/GPL (which allows the modification of the code, but disallows to sell the code, modified or not), you can not purchase a version of coppermine with the credit line removed. Read the file COPYING that comes with the distribution of Coppermine for details.

This is just plain wrong and should be corrected in the FAQ. Someone had enough of a problem to put that statement in the FAQ.

A simple search on Google will reveal a number of people reselling Coppermine as a service.  There would only have a problem if the person sells it without providing the source or without directing potential customers to the source here via the CPG link. Surely your intimate knowledge of GPL would have told you that, right?

You are mixing two issues here - selling a photo service is not the same as selling the Coppermine software.  

In this case, the software was being resold without the source, a link to the source, or a notice of where the source might be obtained.  In short, the software was being resold in clear violation of the terms of the GPL. People  do not disparage it as a viral licensing agreement without reason, you know.  In this instance, the developer in question would need BSD licensed software to do what he was doing legally.

Are you making this up as you go? What are you talking about? The site mentioned above was providing a free photo service. Nothing was being sold or resold. And that is beside the point. Even if they charged for the hosting, they would be providing a hosting "service" not  "selling the software".  The service is an output of the software - they are not redistributing the software itself. If they want to redistribute the software  with their modifications then they have to do as the GPL states but there is no evidence they are redistributing the software.
Note: I have no relationship with this free hosting site.

2. Everyone here is aware of the limitations of the GPL and the linking notice in individual installations.  The design group still has a right to ask, and most honorable people comply.

You can ask all you want - this guy, Dr Tarique Sani, didn't ask - he said "Either remove the gallery OR insert the said link ASAP. ". That isn't asking - that is harrassing. Where is the honor in harrassing people?

No, they can't be sued because the software is GPL, but they can certainly be embarassed.  Imagine how you would feel if you paid a web designer several thousand dollars/euros to create a photo gallery, and then someone came along and told you he had simply taken a free package and removed the notices of its creation group.  I think I would fire the web designer, get my money back, and charge him with fraud.

Embarrassed about what?  Why should a web site have to have "Powered by ..." for every piece of code used in it... It gets silly after a while - Powered by Coppermine... Powered by PHP... Powered by Apache... Powered by GCC... Powered by libc... powered by readline... Powered by Dell/IBM/HP/.... Powered by my electric company... Give it a break - you put the credit in the "code".  End users of a web site give a crap about Powered by...

The thing I don't think you get is that I could pay a web designer several thousand dollars to personalize (take out Powered by....) a site. and it is perfectly allowed by the GPL and it may be worth the money.

[Zarsky]

Cheese,

IANAL....but the devs here respect copyright and the GPL....I am not an expert on the GPL or copyright.  I do appreciate you bringing these issues to light, and if the devs need to clarify our position or coppermine's license... we will do it.  I do not think the tone of your message is helpful (it comes off extremely argumentative), but we will discuss this further and see if anything regarding the copyright or how we operate in the future needs to ammended.  Keep in mind everyone here is a volunteer and we do our best to keep this project open source, as well as navigate complaints from users, etc.  Many of us here are not full time programmers, and it is possible that some of the issues you bring up are not sufficeintly or correctly stated.  We will discuss this further internally and make any changes or clarifications, if they are needed.

One other note....tons of GPL software out there requires the "Powered by..." and a link to stay visible.  So I doubt we are doing anything wrong there.  :?

Thank you for your input.

[cheese]

zarsky99,

I apologize if I've come across argumentative - I've tried to keep my postings factual but I suppose it goes with what you are responding to.

I truely appreciate the time and effort that the developers put into making the code and fully understand you are not full time and legal experts.

My interest in this issue is that, I too am have been thinking about using Coppermine for a web site. I have some enhancements in mind, that if developed, I would have no problem contributing back under the GPL.  But if it turns out it is GPL+ or GPL- then I will have wasted my time.

The free in GPL is about the freedom to do what I want with the software - if I don't want a "powered by" line on my web pages, the GPL gives me the freedom to remove it. That's the beauty of it.

Why are we developing software under the GPL if we don't want others to use it?  Wouldn't you love to see a large site like CNN use Coppermine? - I don't believe it will ever happen with restrictions like "Powered by ..." - you don't see any other "Powered by"'s on those type of sites now but you know they are powered by "Weblogic" or "Websphere' or "Active Server Pages"....
They need the flexability to brand the site they way they see fit - it is after all their site. If I had any argument - it is that "Powered by" hurts the adoption of free software - not helps.

[cheese]

One other note....tons of GPL software out there requires the "Powered by..." and a link to stay visible.  So I doubt we are doing anything wrong there.  :?

Also, just because some software may have the "Powered by..." link doesn't mean it's required.
For example - see what the phpBB folks have to say about this issue: phpBB FAQ on Copyright

[Zarsky]

Cheese,

Your points have been noted....now please give us some time to formulate a proper response.  If any changes are necessary they will be announced soon.

[nor]

I think you're throttling on a water cup. I see over the net a lots of software pieces that offer a free version with "powered by..." and for a price a version without this message. Both versions are the same.

I think that these copyright owners are more opened to this option, no more.

It's simple only put a price to get the right to remove "powered by..." message from web output (not from source code) and anyone that need or want to remove it can do it.

If you don't want to receive any payment for it's ok and really is very appreciated, I remember some months ago I found a "software company" that all his income they receive are donated to non profits, this is very similar to GNU, and give the option to remove "powered by..." without dirty anyone with money or so.

ok, ok, this is only an idea :oops:

[Tarique Sani]

OK, Here is the summary after which I am asking Gaugau to lock this thread as the language is getting to b bit more agressive than I would like.

"Powered by ..." can be construed as copyright notice in several countries.

It is perfectly legal under section 2c of GPL to ask for a copyright notice being displayed in an interactive software.

So we are well within our rights given by GPL to ask for what I did.

My only mistake was using the word "Additional" in my original mail.