Thread

I’ve got a tiny rant here. I’ve never understood why this happens. Why is it that so many people remove the copyright and credits to the software they use? I see it on every CMS and blog software on the market.

First, isn’t it against the license agreement to remove the copyright and credit?

Second, what is the reason for it? Why would anyone feel a need to remove it?

maybe I’m naive but I can’t think of a single reason to do that unless you were trying to give the impression that your website is all your own code. But rarely is that going to be believed. So i have to be missing something.

Can someone help me here? especially to number 1?

I work on corporate/business sites, you very rarely (if ever) see misc. stuff like that anywhere unless there is an info page with partners, etc. It’s always removed on the public facing pages. The CMS is a behind the scene tool just like the camera I used to take the pics.

Or are you meaning removing it from somewhere other than the public pages?

No just the public pages. I was really talking about personal sites and blogs. But your example of course does make sense.

I am still curious as to the rule here. most software requires the copyright notices are displayed unless a re-branding fee is paid. But I guess if that’s not the case here there’s no real reason not to i spose.

However, in the example with the camera. You wouldn’t remove the manufacturer’s name from the camera would you?

bad example, i’m just kidding. I bet all these fiendish copyright removers also rip the tags off their matresses!!!

I am still curious as to the rule here

There were some discussions on this here in the Forums. Can’t recall the specifics but I generally remove on the public pages and leave within the CP.

most software requires the copyright notices are displayed unless a re-branding fee is paid

Hmmm, haven’t seen that on “commercial” software. Probably common on free or open source I suppose.
I’ve seen where you have to leave the copyright notice alone within the source code.

I am with PXLated here. I leave it on the backend (as per the licence) but remove from the footer of most pages (unless there is an “About” page, or something). The paid-for licenses for EE don’t require you to display that.

As to the “camera” analogy: No, I don’t remove the label from the camera, but I don’t stamp it on every photo made, either. Most commercial web software does not require you to display their name somewhere prominently, and you are alwas free to modify OpenSource (GPL/BSD/MIT license, etc) software. I am only aware of Coppermine (which is GPL’ed) where the developers insist on a public “Powered by Coppermine” label, which is actually obfuscated in the code and not trivial to remove.

Well, it’s definitely not just open source software. There are lots of companies that do not allow you to remove the copyright.

Here’s an example of a rebranding fee. vBulletin:

Branding Free Option
This allows you to remove all vBulletin/Jelsoft branding from this vBulletin Forum installation. This refers to the copyright information in the footer only. The logo may be changed without purchasing the Branding Free license.

Note: This is in addition to the cost of the license.

But it does make sense what you’re saying. My guess now, after thinking about it, would depend on how they license it. For instance, with vBulletin you don’t own the software. You own a license to use the software. So i gues it would be in those instances.

I’d never remove it from the backend, just because it wouldn’t make any sense to. lol. PHPCow has the option to pay a higher fee to get the version of their sofware that does not have a ‘powered by phpcow’ button at the bottom. Probably the same licensing situation.

Well this clears it up a little, and makes a bit more sense to me.