13 replies to this topic

[Pete]

I thought I'd ask a question about copyright, and whilst I'm at it thought I might as well ask a less popular question about whitelabelling software

Am I right in assuming that when altering the admin templates, we can do pretty much anything we like aside from removing the copyright in the footer? So I can take off the Processwire logo at the top and put in the logo for the company whose website it runs if requested to do so by a client?


And now on to the less popular question - is a white label version allowed? As in, without the copyright in the footer, but obviously leaving all copyright in the files themselves? I've personally not had this request crop up yet, but I have heard of companies wanting to take any branding off CMS admin templates before and stick their own logo at the top - purely to use it on their own site from what I gather and not to redistribute as "their own" work.

What's your stance on this ryan?

Most folks don't allow this but I thought it was worth asking whilst I was asking about the templates. Another CMS I've worked with actually made money working with honest^*1 companies this way by selling a license to allow removal from the admin templates. Again, we're talking the templates and not touching the copyright in the code itself.

^*1 By "honest", I think that what they were doing was removing branding and replacing it with links to their internal support department's contact pages in some cases, though I have no doubt that a useful side-effect of this for them is that people would then assume that they've built the software in-house. You'd have to hope they were being honest with their users and management as well and giving credit to the actual authors when asked who built the software.

[jbroussia]

I don't know about the licensing issue, but you'll have technical issues then, because you'll have to manage each upgrade manually (edit files) or chose to keep an outdated version for your client.

[SiNNuT]

Processwire is free software released under GPLv2 license. I am no expert on this subject but i think GPLv2 allows you to make both modifications you metioned as long as this 'derived work' remains under the same license terms.

[Pete]

I don't know about the licensing issue, but you'll have technical issues then, because you'll have to manage each upgrade manually (edit files) or chose to keep an outdated version for your client.

Aha, well in this case you'd just copy the templates-admin folder into your /site directory and upgrades are fine - if PW finds a templates-admin folder in the /site directory, it doesn't use the one in the /wire directory, so you can upgrade without breaking your templates. You would still have to check that an update doesn't introduce new features though I'll admit, but the theoretical scenario in question would probably only involve changing CSS, a few images and the footer so I imagine for the most part upgrading would be as simple as it is with a default installation.

Remember, I'm not actually considering the second option myself - just asking the question about white-labelling in case it comes up in the future. The first option, removing the PW logo from the top, is something I'm interested in doing though.

EDIT: In fact, Apeisa has already done what I'm asking with regards to removing the logo from the top in his admin theme, so I guess that's okay: http://processwire.c...opic,252.0.html

[apeisa]

EDIT: In fact, Apeisa has already done what I'm asking with regards to removing the logo from the top in his admin theme, so I guess that's okay: http://processwire.c...opic,252.0.html

Don't count on me on this one, I have very little knowledge on what comes to software licences. Ryan hasn't sued me yet, so I think that is pretty safe to remove the logo

[Pete]

Don't count on me on this one, I have very little knowledge on what comes to software licences. Ryan hasn't sued me yet, so I think that is pretty safe to remove the logo

Hehe, well I figured it was safe to do so as he's also installed your theme to have a look at and put a link up on the site

[apeisa]

It might be a trap. I call my lawyer now.

[ryan]

Much of this defers to the GNU v2 license. My thoughts are that people should feel free to make their own admin theme and put their logo (or their clients logo) wherever they see fit. But regardless of admin theme, I do think the software name ProcessWire, version number and copyright should always remain in the footer of the admin at least.

The reason for this is that I don't ever want ProcessWire to be a burden on a client. Web sites very often outlive the relationship of the site developer to the client. I think it's important for the client to know what software and version they are using and where it came from. Without that, if some future issue surfaces, the client would be blind and ProcessWire would be a burden on them. Can you imagine white label installations of any other major open source CMS out in wild, and what a security nightmare that would be?

Keeping this information in a place where the client can find it keeps everyone honest about how the software is licensed. If someone just provided a re-branded PW to a client and charged them $25k for it, I think it's important that the client knows they are paying for a service from their developer and not the software.

If a company still felt strongly that they needed to remove the software name, version and copyright from the admin, then I'd want them to keep and maintain a long term support contract with us and make the GNU license really clear to the users of the software.

[Pete]

Cheers for that ryan - I totally agree with all of that

Whenever I build a site for a client, aside from telling them what platform it's on (and leaving copyright notices in-tact) I actually put the cost of the CMS down on the invoice as FREE and more recently the name of the CMS as well. Sometimes it's a good selling point too - "if I had to build this system from scratch the website would be £xxxx more costly" Either way, they've got the name of the CMS on a piece of paper they're not going to throw away.

That selling point doesn't work when the client things your "cheap" quote is still to expensive of course, but you can't win every time!

I personally think it's important in relation to how open source software is usually licensed to show the client that the software is totally free and it's actually the setting up, development and templating that is being charged for.  It's still all skilled work that you're charging for at the end of the day, but the CMS is giving you a massive help in developing the site quicker, causing developers and users less headaches and keeping costs down.

[biotech]

Hi Ryan,
Thanks for all your work...really! Someone releasing their project like this truly speaks for itself.
How do you feel about removing the name of individual (you of course) from the admin side in the footer but leaving the software info?

ProcessWire 2.2.0 © 2012 Ryan Cramer
vs.
ProcessWire 2.2.0 © 2012

The reason being, the moment I showed the admin login the first question I was asked is "Who the heck is Ryan, I though you will be doing the work?". So it just looked like I 'stole' an app from another individual. Is there a perhaps a 'company name' that we can use as an alternative?

Again, please don't take this the wrong way just asking so I don't step on anyone's toes.
As always, thank you.

[ryan]

I'm unfortunately not trained in legal matters well enough to know what the distinction is or if it even matters. The GNU license doesn't like copyrights removed, but don't know how specific it is. So I can't give a solid answer one way or another here. I'll make a note to ask this the next time I come across someone that knows about this stuff though. However, outside of this, there are a couple reasons you may not want to remove it: 1) unless you make your own admin theme, you'll have to do the same thing every time you upgrade (which would be a pain); 2) With GNU software, it's required that the client gets the same GNU license, and they should understand it and that it's copyrighted software. You don't want them to think they are paying you for the software itself rather than your services.

[biotech]

Excellent, thank you.
Honestly I know very little about licenses, laws and how it all works; but it is nice to have some answers ready and as I said, just want to know the general rules and boundaries. Having #1 as an option will help deter the request for additional (and billable) work needed in order to make the theme. This puts us in position to say that it can be done if needed but at much higher cost than just butchering the footer. Some corporate users are big on ego and branding.

Thank you again, I am really liking PW so far and...can’t believe it is free.

[arjen]

I have never removed or slightly suggested that the stuff I use is made by me or the company I work for. Andy Rutledge also has a very interesting point of view regarding white labeling (and branding) and why it isn't really fit for the web.

[joshuag]

@arjen - that was an awesome article. Thanks for the share.