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.

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 used to say on my website about section, this site is built on top of CI. It’s not a difficult thing to do to stay in line with the license.

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.

You visit my site, which is powered by CI 3.0, and I’ve made a change to an OSL file.  I have to provide the change to you.  I asked how to do that.  He mentioned a few ways.  So are you suggesting I can put it on Github somewhere or some obscure source code repository perhaps but I don’t need to link to it on my site anywhere?  If so, then I disagree.  I think you need to let every visitor know where to see it, not hide it.

I used to say on my website about section, this site is built on top of CI. It’s not a difficult thing to do to stay in line with the license.

It’s not difficult.  I’m not even arguing that I won’t do it.  I simply said it was news to me and that I’d prefer not to be under the obligation, and would prefer the freedom not to if I felt it was harmful to my site.

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.

You visit my site, which is powered by CI 3.0, and I’ve made a change to an OSL file.  I have to provide the change to you.  I asked how to do that.  He mentioned a few ways.  So are you suggesting I can put it on Github somewhere or some obscure source code repository perhaps but I don’t need to link to it on my site anywhere?  If so, then I disagree.  I think you need to let every visitor know where to see it, not hide it.

I don’t understand why a web developer wouldn’t link to their github from their website anyway, so that point is moot as well.

I don’t understand why a web developer wouldn’t link to their github from their website anyway, so that point is moot as well.

Because you’re a developer.  I’m a webmaster using CI to power my sites similar to how I might use WordPress, as I’ve stated repeatedly in this topic.  I don’t create user code, plugins, applications, for others.  I use available tools to build my own sites.

Still, now you’ve acknowledged that a link might be necessary but you don’t see it as a big deal because it isn’t a big deal in your situation, which is different than mine.  That doesn’t make it a moot point for me, even if it makes it one for you.

re: MY_Library, found it here under Extending Native Libraries.  Maybe it’ll be useful to someone else.
http://ellislab.com/codeigniter/user-guide/general/creating_libraries.html

I think Sire thinks that just by the mere fact someone visits his website, which is built on CI, that that in and of itself is “distributing” the code.  The only code that is “distributing” is raw HTML, not the CI codebase.  If you zip up your CI dir, and give THAT to someone else, that IS distributing the code.

CroNiX, the OSL 3.0 considers external deployment a distribution, which I commented on here, and in greater detail in our series of posts on software licenses.  Sire is not mistaken in that understanding, but rather I think on what his obligation becomes at that point, as if it has to be something intrusive to his site visitors, or burdensome on his part to comply with.

One of the biggest failings of most software licenses (our old one included) is in not having a clear definition of a distribution.

This is why lawyers are rich.

Who is ever going to know, or be able to prove, what was used to make a website just by looking at the html it outputs?  That just seems silly.  Copying and altering actual CI php code, and then giving/selling it to someone else I can see.

So, whose responsibility does this ultimate lay with?  The developer or the owner of a website using it?

If I, as a developer, create a website using CI which I altered and I pass that information on to the client, the website/company owner, whose responsibility is it to tell the site visitors?  I say the owner, and will be putting that in my contractual small print from now on after I consult my lawyer, making him even richer.

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.

Derek, I must say your explanation is not easy to understand.

It is true that OSL does not require literally the examples you showed. And it is reasonable that license itself does not require specific ways.

But we can’t understand what we should do, if we see the examples what we do not need to do.

I mean, examples what we should do help us. For example, the simplest way you think.

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.

Visitors are not licensees, because they do not agree the license yet.
But “Acceptance and Termination” provision requires “You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.”
And they agree the license, they become licensees.

@CroNiX - it’s not our goal to set about policing people and making lawyers rich, as if we are deviously searching out sites to prove that they are secretly running CodeIgniter so that we could somehow benefit from that pursuit.  For us it’s solely about respect.  In an ideal world, everyone would respect each other automatically and software licenses wouldn’t be required.  That’s not the case though, so some reasonable expectations are set out as terms of a software license.  The terms are obligations of the Licensor - the one doing the distributing.  So you are correct that it is the owner of the site deploying the software that is ultimately responsible for any reciprocal obligations.  Though again, OSL 3.0 doesn’t specify mechanisms and locations, etc.  People are making this more complicated than it need be - just respect our work and that of the community who has contributed toward the software that helps you make a living using reasonable means.  The software license simply turns that from an ethical question into a legal one.

@Kenji - I’m sorry but I thought that I had, by clearly laying out how one could use GitHub to meet the requirement.  Let me restate it, and even extend it.  If you are using unmodified CodeIgniter files, so long as we are still hosting it, just point to our source code, you don’t even have to host it yourself since it’s already available in a convenient and inexpensive location.  If you are worried for some strange reason that we are going to unleash a legal fury on you for not hosting it yourself, make a public fork.  It really is that simple.

As for your ongoing concern about GPL compatibility - let me toss this scenario out there: how about simply not packaging your GPL licensed code together with the CodeIgniter files?  OSL doesn’t care if your code is GPL, and neither does EllisLab; only the GPL cares about linked software’s license.  And in the GPL’s case, compatibility and copyleft is triggered when it is distributed, not when it is used (and the GPLv3 does not consider a web app as a distribution - the AGPL however, does, so make sure you know which GPL license your code is under!)  So did you realize that if you are using GPL’d code on your CodeIgniter powered web sites, you are not in violation of the GPL?

Visitors are not licensees, because they do not agree the license yet.
But “Acceptance and Termination” provision requires “You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.”
And they agree the license, they become licensees.

Sorry, I forgot to address this.  Visitors of a web site are recipients of the output of the software, not the software itself.  There is a subtle but important difference.  Using the application as a web site does indeed require that you disclose OSL licensed source code.  But it’s when someone receives that disclosed source code that the license must be prominent and reasonable efforts for assent be made.

Visitors are not licensees, because they do not agree the license yet.
But “Acceptance and Termination” provision requires “You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.”
And they agree the license, they become licensees.

Sorry, I forgot to address this.  Visitors of a web site are recipients of the output of the software, not the software itself.  There is a subtle but important difference.  Using the application as a web site does indeed require that you disclose OSL licensed source code.  But it’s when someone receives that disclosed source code that the license must be prominent and reasonable efforts for assent be made.

I simply don’t understand where the difference you say comes from.

OSL 9)

If You distribute or communicate copies of the Original Work or a Derivative Work, You must make a reasonable effort under the circumstances to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.

and OSL 5)

The term “External Deployment” means the use, distribution, or communication of the Original Work or Derivative Works in any way such that the Original Work or Derivative Works may be used by anyone other than You, whether those works are distributed or communicated to those persons or made available as an application intended for use over a network. As an express condition for the grants of license hereunder, You must treat any External Deployment by You of the Original Work or a Derivative Work as a distribution under section 1(c).

My understanding is like this:

If I distribute CodeIgniter (Original Work), I must make a reasonable effort to obtain the express assent of recipients to the terms of this License.
And using CI as a web site is treated as distribution because of External Deployment.
So I distribute CodeIgniter, I must make a reasonable effort to obtain the express assent of my site visitors.

One provision (section 5) states that if you are externally deploying the application, you must make the work available under OSL.  The other provision (section 9) sets out requirements for you on how you give copies of that work to recipients.  Nowhere does it state that recipients of the output are obligated to actively receive copies of the work from you becoming licensees, which is where assent comes into play.  Your obligation is to make it available, and to notify people receiving the original work (not the output) of the licensing.  All web site visitors receive the output but not all will receive the work.

Your site visitors are under no obligation to take whatever reasonable efforts you made available for them to receive OSL source code, but if they wanted to, they should be able to in some manner (such as the examples I gave in a previous reply).  You would essentially be in breach of contract if you then refused.  But no one is asking for notices flying around in people’s faces, which most wouldn’t read anyway.  When is the last time you read a web site’s terms of services or privacy policy?  I make it a point to pay close attention to these things and still only rarely read them.

I just have a simple question that might clear up my lack of understanding about the OSL license and how it applies to CodeIgniter. Lets say I install the OSL licensed CodeIgniter on a shared hosting environment, then create a simple Hello_world controller, replacing the welcome controller as the default route. All the site does is say “Hello World”, and nothing more. No system files were changed. To comply with the OSL license, would I have to do anything else?