Thread

@Derek, I guess I should’ve emphasized “unique to my site” because I think you’re just retorting to win an argument that doesn’t exist, because I’m not sure you’re even reading my posts.  The context is completely lost if you don’t understand I’m talking about my own preferences, and my own sites.  I don’t make a living with CI.  I use for rapid development of my own small sites, not much different than I use WordPress or other.  I’m not in the least bit interested in the restrictions of OSL for my own uses.  The fact that I may sometimes resort to “obscurity” is not permanent (I’ve indicated temporarily above too but you avoid that point also), is still better than nothing at all as a temp fix.  When I learn more about how to get things done the right way, I’ll be doing it that way.  Find it as disconcerting as you want, when I’ve clearly indicated my concerns were unique to my own sites, and also indicated if it was a bug fix or new feature I didn’t mind sharing that at all!  I find it a bit disconcerting you don’t bother to read what I’m posting and instead choose to modify it to suit your reply.

I am absolutely reading your posts, Sire, and am replying with what your actual obligation is for changes made to OSL licensed CodeIgniter files.  I have asked questions to try to understand your specific use case, including asking for a specific scenario, which you have not shared.

On the other hand, if you’re taking the extreme view that EllisLab requiring you under any circumstances to share changes you make to CodeIgniter files is unfair, then you’re right, you should probably choose a different framework, as at this time, we feel it has immense value for the product and the users.

Please show me where in OSL it says that you have to provide the source of your modified OSL licensed files to every visitor of your site.  This is patently false.

And now you’ve taken a 180 and confirmed that it was exactly as I stated.  If you modify an OSL licensed file you are obligated to make this change known to everyone.  External distribution (every single person that visits your web site).

Sire, if you are genuinely interested in understanding this, please humor me and describe what that sentence actually means to you, the mechanics of it.  What do you think you will have to do for your visitors and on your sites?  Are you imagining a click-thru?  A dominant logo and link on your site?  I have no idea what your expectations are.  But to say that you have to provide the source to every visitor combined with your comments conveys to me something very different from what the license actually requires, namely making the code available in a way that is “reasonably calculated” to be “inexpensive” and “convenient”.

And so that it’s referenced in this thread, here are some further thoughts from our blog post on what OSL does not require:

here are some things that OSL 3.0 does not place as obligations on Licensors:

* Placing a prominent download link to your independently written code or even CodeIgniter on a web site you build with CodeIgniter.

* Demanding the location or method that you use to disclose the source code.

* Making your users and site visitors click anything to acknowledge that they’re using an application written on CodeIgniter.

* Disclosing and licensing any of your independently written code with OSL 3.0 because it only functions with some derivative work you have made in CodeIgniter by copying and modifying OSL 3.0 licensed code from a default library in a new library that you’ve created and reciprocally licensed with OSL 3.0.

* Distributing CodeIgniter at all with a software package that is comprised solely of your independently written code (your application folder) and its contents even though it requires CodeIgniter to function.

That should provide some context to my statement that providing the source of modified OSL files to every visitor of your site is false.  It’s that such a statement inflates the actual obligations set upon you as an OSL licensor, implying mechanisms or prominence that the license does not burden you with.

Edit-add:  Lastly, visitors who receive the output of your program are not licensees.  You are externally deploying and therefore the copyleft provision is triggered requiring you to in turn make OSL source code available under the same terms, but you are not providing your application (or CodeIgniter) to every visitor, nor does their use of your externally deployed application require them to agree to any licensing terms.  Receipt and use of the OSL licensed files is what makes one a licensee.

@derek, first thing to note is that I misunderstood the current license.  I didn’t realize until the OSL discussion, that I was already obligated under the current license to make it known that if I build a site, my site was powered by CodeIgniter.  It matters to me only in that I would prefer not to reveal the software and version number I was using.  I understand that OSL 3.x takes this even further and I must also provide source code if I make any changes to any of the OSL licensed files.  I’m not 100% clear yet if a link to CI on Github or codeigniter.com is required.  My previous example was hacking the files for reasons unique to my site, not including a bug fix or a new feature that would benefit anyone else.

My understanding:

* “Placing a prominent download link to your independently written code or even CodeIgniter on a web site you build with CodeIgniter.”
I understand this to mean my own files, not any of the files currently licensed otherwise.  There’s no misunderstanding on my part about this.  I realize that new files or classes I create independently of the system/ files are my own and can be licensed however I wish.

* “Demanding the location or method that you use to disclose the source code.”
What is the least intrusive way to comply with this?  Could you give some examples?

* “Making your users and site visitors click anything to acknowledge that they’re using an application written on CodeIgniter.”
Unless you modify a file licensed with OSL, then you must allow the users/visitors, not just other developers, the opportunity to view these modifications.

@derek, first thing to note is that I misunderstood the current license.  I didn’t realize until the OSL discussion, that I was already obligated under the current license to make it known that if I build a site, my site was powered by CodeIgniter.

Where exactly did you find this statement? I haven’t seen that requirement anywhere.

I know lots of sites built with CodeIgniter, and note of them advertise that fact. Including sites of people participating in this thread…

Thanks Sire.  Hacks to core files that are externally deployed publicly do need to be shared under OSL in a way that satisfies the “reasonably calculated to be inexpensive and convenient”.  If you are hacking your local development environment or a private remote environment that is not accessible outside of yourself (or your company in the case of a web firm), no copyleft is triggered.

In any case, there is nothing in OSL that requires you to put the license and files in the face of each person that receives output from your application.  You are required to treat it as a distribution, but as I added to my post above, visitors are not automatically licensees of your application.  Your visitors, like anyone else who takes your distribution, should have reasonable access to the source, and if they take and use the source, they become licensees.

* “Demanding the location or method that you use to disclose the source code.”
What is the least intrusive way to comply with this?  Could you give some examples?

Not a definitive list, but examples that are reasonably convenient and inexpensive:
A download or source browser on a domain under your control (without excessive expense or something unreasonably inconvenient), GitHub, BitBucket, Sourceforge, Google Code, Assembla, etc.

Unless you modify a file licensed with OSL, then you must allow the users/visitors, not just other developers, the opportunity to view these modifications.

Yes, they should have the opportunity, but there is no specific mechanism or location required by the license.  It’s quite reasonable.

@derek, first thing to note is that I misunderstood the current license.  I didn’t realize until the OSL discussion, that I was already obligated under the current license to make it known that if I build a site, my site was powered by CodeIgniter.

Where exactly did you find this statement? I haven’t seen that requirement anywhere.

I know lots of sites built with CodeIgniter, and note of them advertise that fact. Including sites of people participating in this thread…

He’s referring this requirement of the 1.x and 2.x CI license:

5. Products derived from the Software must include an acknowledgment that they are derived from CodeIgniter in their documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Why on Earth anyone would hack *any* of the core files for “reasons specific to my site” is completely beyond me. There’s really only two use cases for hacking a core file, which Phil already stated earlier in the thread. So this whole page of the thread is moot, simply because people posting here trying to get Sire to understand haven’t dumbed it down enough, which isn’t their problem.

Any changes you want to make to a core file should be done inside a MY_Library file anyways, unless you’re fixing a bug, or introducing a new feature that you want to share. The whole idea of having any reason to mess with a core file for any reason is silly, when there are ways to edit the behaviour of libraries without editing the files themselves.

And the whole part of you (Sire) thinking that you need to give everyone a download link to your changes is simply you completely misunderstanding everything that’s been said. If you’re not going to read the replies in this thread then what’s the point in telling people “I’m leaving to use something else.” if you don’t actually plan on leaving to use something else?

He’s referring this requirement of the 1.x and 2.x CI license:

5. Products derived from the Software must include an acknowledgment that they are derived from CodeIgniter in their documentation and/or other materials provided with the distribution.

Isn’t that a bit odd?

This point speaks about distribution. If something is distributed that contains CodeIgniter, everyone can see what it is. Not like it’s compiled or something. Also, when distributing it, you also distribute all your changes with it. There is no way to hide it.

@Sire referred to a personal website (that is not distributed I presume). So I still don’t see where it says it’s required to add a ‘powered by Codeigniter version x’ to your website.

I realize it’s not wise or good practice to modify core files.  I’m not yet familiar enough with the MY_Library thing, to know how to do it and what to avoid if anything.  Is there documentation on this anywhere?

Adam, if you make a change to a file licensed with OSL then you have to provide the change in some way.  Derek said either a link to the download, or a display of the source in the browser, or a source code repo, etc…  Tell me how I’m misunderstanding that.

What does it matter to you whether I use something else instead of CI 3.0 or not?  If I want more freedom and less restriction with the development of my sites that’s really up to me to decide.  I provided my reasons, because they were requested.  I was asked questions, and I answered them.

@Wan, I thought I read that somewhere from Derek.  Maybe on the blog, or the uservoice, or in this thread.  The definition of “distribution” has been modified a bit here and there, specifically with OSL to include external distribution or simply putting your website online accessible to anyone else.  Either way, it’s required when version 3.x hits.

I realize it’s not wise or good practice to modify core files.  I’m not yet familiar enough with the MY_Library thing, to know how to do it and what to avoid if anything.  Is there documentation on this anywhere?

Adam, if you make a change to a file licensed with OSL then you have to provide the change in some way.  Derek said either a link to the download, or a display of the source in the browser, or a source code repo, etc…  Tell me how I’m misunderstanding that.

What does it matter to you whether I use something else instead of CI 3.0 or not?  If I want more freedom and less restriction with the development of my sites that’s really up to me to decide.  I provided my reasons, because they were requested.  I was asked questions, and I answered them.

That’s where you misunderstood. derek said a source code browser, not the web browser. A source code browser would be the list of files in a github repo etc.