Thread

Well, for the record, I’m not nearly as paranoid as my clients and their NDAs and contracts which I have to abide by or I could lose my livelihood, house and savings.  It’s good to know that EL will consider closed licensing terms, and I bookmarked your post for future reference.  It would help your bottom line more than OSL3 anyway 😊

Thank you for the consideration.

Derek Jones
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.
http://ellislab.com/forums/viewthread/202562/P165/#957764

Derek Jones
unmodified core, no changes to OSL licensed CI files, our official repository satisfies the reciprocal obligation in our eyes.  By the letter of the license, perhaps, you should fork our repo since you are technically the Licensor for your distribution (your public web site).
http://ellislab.com/forums/viewthread/202562/P165/#958129

Derek Jones
once you trigger copyleft by distributing CI, including running it over a network (like a public web site), you are obligated to make any OSL licensed files and their changes available to others under the same terms that you received them, in a way that is reasonably calculated to be convenient and inexpensive.
http://ellislab.com/forums/viewthread/202562/P180/#958135

Sire
You have to acknowledge that you are using CI, and make it known in some way where your web site visitors can view the code for any files that are OSL licensed.  Even for a simple Hello World site.
http://ellislab.com/forums/viewthread/202562/P180/#958143

skunkbad
Even if you did not modify these files, you still have to make them available. If could be link to the official repo, or perhaps a fork. Maybe it could be a download on your website.
http://ellislab.com/forums/viewthread/202562/P180/#958151

I wonder if all or most CI users know the obligation.
Because CodeIgniter License and Terms of Use FAQ does not tell it at all.

I don’t feel that there is anything of more value I can contribute to this thread; I’ve done my best to convey both OSL 3.0 and EllisLab’s reasonableness in what is being asked for in return for using CodeIgniter; I think our FAQ reflects that well.  But I would like to point out for those that may read this thread at a later date or via a search engine that the quotes in Kenji’s post above are not all from EllisLab; please click the links to see attribution for the quotes, as well as the context of the comments.

But I would like to point out for those that may read this thread at a later date or via a search engine that the quotes in Kenji’s post above are not all from EllisLab; please click the links to see attribution for the quotes, as well as the context of the comments.

Are any of them untrue?  It would be of value to the community and avoid confusion if you could point them out.  Actually, if the statements in quotes are all correct, then what does it matter?  Even those of us who are completely fine with OSL still need to know what might be the least obvious way to comply with it’s acknowledgement (advertising clause) requirements once 3.0 is released.

Add:  In any case, thank you for being patient enough to help us easily confused members of the community to understand the OSL better and how it applies to our public web sites.  No doubt this can be very frustrating.

I don’t feel that there is anything of more value I can contribute to this thread; I’ve done my best to convey both OSL 3.0 and EllisLab’s reasonableness in what is being asked for in return for using CodeIgniter; I think our FAQ reflects that well.  But I would like to point out for those that may read this thread at a later date or via a search engine that the quotes in Kenji’s post above are not all from EllisLab; please click the links to see attribution for the quotes, as well as the context of the comments.

I am sorry that I can’t understand your true meaning, because of lack of English skills.
But I also do my best to understand OSL and EllisLab’s opinion.

I added the author name to the quotes in my previous post for convenience.

At least I understand all quotes in my previous post are saying the same thing. I quoted both you and others posts. I added others posts, because they are more clear than your statements.

... because they are more clear than your statements.

I have a feeling that more than 90% of websites that are “powered by” the new OSL licensed CodeIgniter will not be in compliance with the actual requirements of the license, mostly because people will not bother to understand the license. Even though this thread has made clear the requirements, these requirements should be made more widely known, in plain English, and not in legalese.

Derek, I get that you are not in a position to give legal advice, and neither am I, but why not post a news article or sticky here in the forum such as “5 easy ways for website owners to comply with OSL 3.0”, or “OSL for dummies”. I think something like this might make this thread die.

Just for kicks, I was checking out other software that uses the OSL license, and learned that Magento is using it. I checked out their license FAQs, and they seem completely ignorant to the actual terms of the license, or they just aren’t telling people the truth.

I was also checking out EE, and it’s freelancer, non-commercial, and commercial purchasing options. I don’t know how robust EE is compared to CI, so I have no ability to suggest pricing for CI, but I think I could squeeze a few extra bucks out of some of my clients if CI had a paid license option that was reasonable.

Even though this thread has made clear the requirements, these requirements should be made more widely known, in plain English, and not in legalese.

Derek, I get that you are not in a position to give legal advice, and neither am I, but why not post a news article or sticky here in the forum such as “5 easy ways for website owners to comply with OSL 3.0”, or “OSL for dummies”. I think something like this might make this thread die.

I second that - can anyone put in plain English what one is supposed to do when:
1. You deploy an application without changing any of the core
2. You deploy an application when you edit the core

My company was planning to use CI for our upcoming project and its on hold now and looking to evaluate other frameworks as we are not at all sure what all this means - and its cheaper to switch framework right at the start that re-engineering everything later on.

RE Skunkbad:

Derek, I get that you are not in a position to give legal advice, and neither am I, but why not post a news article or sticky here in the forum such as “5 easy ways for website owners to comply with OSL 3.0”, or “OSL for dummies”. I think something like this might make this thread die.

I’ve been following this thread with great interest and I confess to still being confused about “exactly” what is needed to comply with OSL 3.0.  I very much like Skunkbad’s suggestion, quoted above.

Do we have a legal type community member who can write such a document?  Will Ellislabs vet such a document and allow it be Prominently posted here?  I think this is a a serious concern for those of us who want to continue offering CI for our client’s projects.

I have no problem with advising my clients that my bill will include an additional fee for customer licensing with Ellislabs, but I’d rather not have to do that IF I can simply add a “plug” for CI somewhere in the public depths of the project.

I don’t think mine is the last word on this subject. I will watch for more information and would like more guidance from Ellislabs. Don’t go away Derek…

My company was planning to use CI for our upcoming project and its on hold now and looking to evaluate other frameworks as we are not at all sure what all this means - and its cheaper to switch framework right at the start that re-engineering everything later on.

I’m sure you’re not the only one.

Even those of us who are completely fine with OSL still need to know what might be the least obvious way to comply with it’s acknowledgement (advertising clause) requirements once 3.0 is released.

What advertising clause is in the OSL???

Derek, I get that you are not in a position to give legal advice, and neither am I, but why not post a news article or sticky here in the forum such as “5 easy ways for website owners to comply with OSL 3.0”, or “OSL for dummies”. I think something like this might make this thread die.

By asking for “five easy ways” you are indeed asking EllisLab for legal advice.  Have enough hypothetical examples not already been given?  Before we consider whether or not we can and should delve into such specific and limiting examples, may I ask an honest question?  Why is the license’s own statement of obligation conditioned upon something reasonably calculated not sufficient?  Surely you make similar decisions for your business on a daily basis.

Also, has everyone with questions taken the time to read the official OSL 3.0 Explained document?

I’m on the road today so will not be free to frequently reply; don’t take my silence as indication of not listening.

Derek, I get that you are not in a position to give legal advice, and neither am I, but why not post a news article or sticky here in the forum such as “5 easy ways for website owners to comply with OSL 3.0”, or “OSL for dummies”. I think something like this might make this thread die.

By asking for “five easy ways” you are indeed asking EllisLab for legal advice.  Have enough hypothetical examples not already been given?  Before we consider whether or not we can and should delve into such specific and limiting examples, may I ask an honest question?  Why is the license’s own statement of obligation conditioned upon something reasonably calculated not sufficient?  Surely you make similar decisions for your business on a daily basis.

Also, has everyone with questions taken the time to read the official OSL 3.0 Explained document?

I’m on the road today so will not be free to frequently reply; don’t take my silence as indication of not listening.

I’m not talking about myself. I’ve taken the time to understand, but if EllisLab desires for any majority of CI users to be compliant, then my suggestion would be beneficial. If anyone that is not part of Ellislab were to write such an article, then it wouldn’t be deemed “official”. Yes, I’ve read the official document, as well as numerous other articles and comments. Again, I’m not talking about my own understanding.

Let’s be honest, without a short and easy explanation of what makes for compliance, especially in regards to deploying CI as a simple website, the license compliance percentage will likely be very low, I’m guessing single digit. Does EllisLab not desire for compliance by the majority?

@Derek
Thanks for the reply and your concerns are acknowledged.

May I suggest that the link you provided to the document on the website of the originator of OSL, Lawrence Rosen, be made more visible on this forum?

The link, again, is:

http://rosenlaw.com/OSL3.0-explained.htm
(“OSL 3.0: A Better License for Open Source Software”)

Perhaps add a reference on the CI home page and on Ellislabs website?

I have taken the time to read the document, which takes about a hour to digest.  It gives an acceptable, to me, explanation of how to comply with OSL 3.0.

Mr. Rosens document, linked above, and the actual OSL 3.0 license itself, in PDF format, are short enough to be included with my software distributions.  Note that this is a personal choice and not a legal recommendation.

@everyone
I dislike reading legal documents as much as most of you, but I do recommend reading this explanation from Mr. Rosen.

We are all facing the need to implement the new OSL 3.0, so bite the bullet and read these two documents.

Opinion: There are two major variations in compliance.  Either you have modified the CI CORE code or you have not. Read Rosen’s document with this in mind.

I think our FAQ reflects that well.

Why do you think so?

The FAQ obviously does not tell the obligations when we do not change OSLed files.

Would you please add LGPL in the FAQ. I think LGPL is Yes.

I think our FAQ reflects that well.

Why do you think so?

The FAQ obviously does not tell the obligations when we do not change OSLed files.

Would you please add LGPL in the FAQ. I think LGPL is Yes.

Doesn’t the license state the copyleft only comes in when you start editing core files? Surely that means you don’t need to do anything provided you don’t mess with the core.

I have taken the time to read the document, which takes about a hour to digest.  It gives an acceptable, to me, explanation of how to comply with OSL 3.0.

@everyone
I dislike reading legal documents as much as most of you, but I do recommend reading this explanation from Mr. Rosen.

1. Everyone here is not a native English - so what may be simply 1 hour for you may take ages for someone else (and still not be 100% comprehensible). The request to translate the requirements in a simple bulleted list is primarily for all those people.

2. I think if someone can just put the stuff into 2-3 broad categories then it will work out nicely for everyone and end the topic.

a. What happens when you modify core files?
b. What happens when you just use the core provided by CI?
c. Is it ok to integrate 3rd party plugins that are under GPL/MIT/BSD

Once these details are clear in non-lawyer terms then I think we can all be on our way developing apps!