I've read the entire GPL license and I still do not have a clear answer to my question. So I figured I would ask here.
I have an application which is written in PHP and I wish to release as GPL. I have copyright notices at the bottom right of each page as part of the standard template. As well as my name/logo at the top left as part of the logo.
I read a section of the GPL on copyright-ing the output of GPL'ed programs and apparently you cannot copyright the output unless a significant amount of the output comes from the source code. If the output is nothing more than text, the user can leagally remove that text and no longer be bound to that rule.
As I understand it, you are not allowed to remove copyright notices from source headers and likewise, I imagine you would not be allowed to remove copyright notices from the visible GUI? Either as a consistent header/footer or an flash screen at login.
Am I correct in assuming this? Is removal of any copyright notice not an infringment of the license?
GPL and copyright notices
Moderator: General Moderators
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
- The Phoenix
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:12 pm
Re: GPL and copyright notices
The version matters greatly in this question. GPLv2 has some hooks that give the protection you seek, but GPLv3 explicitly calls it out.Hockey wrote:I've read the entire GPL license and I still do not have a clear answer to my question. So I figured I would ask here.
In GPLv2, its tricky. While you cannot remove a copyright notice, there is no explicit restriction that bans you from moving it. For example, if the copyright notice printed on every page, I could move it to a single 'about' page without much legal ramification.Hockey wrote:As I understand it, you are not allowed to remove copyright notices from source headers and likewise, I imagine you would not be allowed to remove copyright notices from the visible GUI? Either as a consistent header/footer or an flash screen at login.
In GPLv3, however, if your program is coded to produce that copyright notice, its substantially more difficult to legally move that notice. Also note that a sneaky way around the limitations is to have a 'view source' link on every page, which then would show the "un-removable" copyright notices from the files. GPLv3 requires that you do NOT remove such a feature if it exists.
Yes and no. Removing a copyright notice is a license violation, but moving it, and reducing its frequency isn't. Thankfully, you can get around that in GPLv3.Hockey wrote:Am I correct in assuming this? Is removal of any copyright notice not an infringment of the license?
-
alex.barylski
- DevNet Evangelist
- Posts: 6267
- Joined: Tue Dec 21, 2004 5:00 pm
- Location: Winnipeg
- feyd
- Neighborhood Spidermoddy
- Posts: 31559
- Joined: Mon Mar 29, 2004 3:24 pm
- Location: Bothell, Washington, USA
Have a read through all the licenses listed ... http://www.fsf.org/licensing/licenses/index_html
- Kieran Huggins
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 3635
- Joined: Wed Dec 06, 2006 4:14 pm
- Location: Toronto, Canada
- Contact:
also check out:
http://creativecommons.org/license/
http://creativecommons.org/license/
- Maugrim_The_Reaper
- DevNet Master
- Posts: 2704
- Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 5:43 am
- Location: Ireland
You won't find one approved by the FSF.You wouldn't be aware of a specific license which restricts the removal of any kind of copyright/recognition, would you?
You can add a copyright to source code which, AFAIK, can't be removed but adding a copyright to output is more limited in that the end User will typically have the right to isolate it to a single location. I know people like the new GPL's optional clauses, but it's up to each individual nation's law to determine whether source code output remotely read constitutes a "distribution". I think the point is that you hold the copyright on the code, but rights over output of a copyrighted work are far harder to pin down and the user is not literally running the source code themselves. Isn't there US Case Law from past years disputing remote distribution and output?
I should also note, that enforcing a brand is definitely out of the question in open source. Is a brand part of the source code being licensed? No, it's a specific output like an image.
I think you'd prefer a CC style license. This carries a risk that it's not approved for source code (rather works of creative arts) so you'll have difficulty working with other OS licensed code alongside it unless the License poses no linkage requirements (e.g. New BSD is "ultra" permissive).
- The Phoenix
- Forum Contributor
- Posts: 294
- Joined: Fri Oct 06, 2006 8:12 pm
All F/OSS licenses restrict the removal of the copyright. From the BSD to the CCL to the GPL, all of them are 100% the same - they do not allow you to remove the copyright.Hockey wrote:You wouldn't be aware of a specific license which restricts the removal of any kind of copyright/recognition, would you?
I basically want to allow all OSS freedoms, minus the removal of copyrights or branding.
Branding, and selective display of copyright on interactive use of the program is a whole different beast. The only license (to my knowledge) that specifically tries to deal with that is the GPLv3. Most of the other licenses were written prior to it being a serious issue, or simply don't bother with that specific issue.