This whole issue has become so dissapointing. The most recent posts are laced with incorrect information. For instance, in the 1989, the USA enacted the Berne Convention Implementation Act which does not require use of the term "Copyright". Specifically, the US copyright office states "
The use of a copyright notice is no longer required under U.S. law, although it is often beneficial. Because prior law did contain such a requirement, however, the use of notice is still relevant to the copyright status of older works.
It is still advantageous to use the term, and among other things prevents a "I didn't realize" defense, but that only has the potential of reducing damages, not changing the outcome of infringement. A list of the 163 countries, including the UK and Germany, which subscribe to the policies of the Berne Convention can be found here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_co ... Convention.
I think there is much confusion between the fact that s9y, its plugins, and templates are licensed works, and not "public domain". There also seems to be confusion about copyright vs. license. Copyright is, according to the US Copyright Office, "a form of protection provided by the laws of the United States to authors of “original works of authorship.” Nearly every country extends the same kind of definition. A license dictates the terms of use. An author holds copyright to the work, and dictates the terms of the use of that work via a license. S9y itself contains components that are copyrighted by people & organinzations other than the s9y developers. These components sometimes contain their own licenses. The wysiwyg editor is a good example, containing its own copyright notices, and its own license. Complying with the license terms of s9y, but violating the license of the wysiwyg license is still a violation, should it occur. You could not, for instance, remove the author name/copyright and license from the wysiwyg editor, then claim to be in compliance simply because you left s9y's copyright in tact.
There is also no requirement that I know of to present license terms to a user prior to useage, although most End User License Agreements (EULA) do so. There are well known, popularly used license formats - such as the Berkely variations (BSD) and GPL. However, anything identified as "terms of use" is, in fact, a license. Don't agree with the terms? Fine. Don't use it. Want an exception to the terms - try asking for the exception.... it just might be granted. Really value what you are using? Try a contribution and ask for the right to modify the terms of use as a result of that contribution.
Bulletproof is a copyrighted work, and contains terms of use, as Garvin has noted earlier. The only CURRENT terms of useage are the preservation of the author identification links. Bulletproof is also unique in another aspect - it ENCOURAGES people to develop their own templates. That is exactly what it was designed to do. But if someone uses it with little more than subtle css modifications, that does not become a uniquely different template. It is still bulletproof, still copyrighted by the authors, and still subject to the stated terms of use. S9y's license states that it's copyright message must remain in tact within it's source files. BP's license states that the author identification links must remain in tact where they are located, which is limited exclusively to index.tpl. Copyright law protects the author identification within the css files. Satisfying s9y's terms does NOT automatically satisfy bp's terms.
In my second post, I said "forget about the legal implications for a moment".... and while I did not use the term "ethics", that was my implication.
But enough about legal speculation. Prior to this post, I have only posted twice on this thread, yet Carl has described my position as an "outburst" and Brian has accused me of threatening him (not sure how that conclusion was reached).
I started by asking a simple question - why...
WHY were the LINKS removed. Conclusions were immediately drawn suggesting I meant the bulletproof button. That is certainly ONE of the links. The others are the "powered by s9y" and "template by bulletproof devlopment team" links. I did not initially demand they be reinstated, I initially wanted to know WHY. I stated further that knowing WHY might help the bp developers form a better perspective on the inclusion of these links as this subject is one of several we have on our to-do list. That question has STILL not been answered. Once Brian became defensive and assertive about HIS rights, and Garvin explained that it was likely a license violation, I requested the links be reinstated until, and if, we changed our position regarding the links.... but I still wanted to know WHY they were removed, even telling him via PM that knowing this could well change our collective position on the inclusion of any or all of the links.
Then an attempt was made to spin this into an advertising issue. It is not about advertising. The team thought a button would be cool for people who create templates using the framework to show their support for the underlying framework and clearly indicate that their template was, in fact, based on bp since bp is quite different from any s9y template to date. If some want to call that advertising, they are in error. That button might have a graphic representation, but the generated content includes the original author imformation "based on the bulletproof template framework". The "template by" link identifies actual authorship of THIS template (not a derivative). That link clearly identifies the author of "an original work of authorship".
The BP team has already recognized the possibility that the button may not be for everyone. Chickens has already mentioned he removed the button. I have seen his site. Has any BP team member ever said anything to him about the removal? No... he stated WHY: it conflicted with the esthetics of his site, and he preserved the (slightly modified) "template by" link. Another person recently created their own bp-based colorset/tempalate, changing the colors of the button:
http://blog.the-world-in-our-eyes.de/ Did the bp team say anything to him? No. He wanted something consistent with his colorset. Still another user removed all links from the footer, but created a static page called "credits" to recognize all involved in her site here:
http://www.duchessjane.com/index.php?/p ... edits.html. Any objection from the bp team? No. She preserved the intent, and went above and beyond by truly demonstrating appreciation for those who make her site possible. Finally, I believe the other bp authors have been PAID to customize the bp template, sometimes removing the links in exchange for that payment.
What has happened in this particular instance? The user has removed every credit reference, never once even suggesting "hey great template, much appreciated, but I do not want the footer links BECAUSE OF ___________.... would you guys find [some proposal] acceptable if I remove or modify them". Instead, all we have heard is everything imaginable to assert WHY he has the RIGHT to remove all credit references. That is hardly something I would characterize the way Carl did as "his integrity remains untarnished". It is, at the very least, unethical, and at most, a copyright and license violation. In fact, I do not understand how you could say protection of these links is ethically correct, but this user's elimination of them perserves the users integrity. Can't have it both ways.
This issue was NOT solely for the benefit of BP - it was for all template designers - trying to increase awareness of, and appreciation for, the efforts of this particular open source community. I realize there will always be abusers, but ignoring the issue simple leads to more and more abusers. Raising awareness, regardless of the legal implications, might make more people realize that there is substantial effort involved and much more to be gained by supporting those efforts rather than disrespecting the efforts. There are certainly legal implications as well, and I am not trying to dismiss those. I certainly do not want to be in a position where, not only does someone remove all references to an author's efforts, but takes credit for the effort themselves.
This user has removed the original author identification and added his OWN copyright message, implying that HE is the author and/or owner of everything contained on that site, including the viewable template.
Carl - I find much of what you have been saying interesting to say the least. You too have defended your links/copyright:
http://board.s9y.org/viewtopic.php?t=7602 saying this about the removal of links from one of YOUR templates:
carl_galloway wrote:If you do remove that you are effectively breaching my copyright, and this goes against the principles of open source software.
I probably have as much time into BP as many others have into an entire library of templates.... and I am only one of the contributors. There are 2 other primary authors, and dozens of others who helped make bp a reality. I did it because I enjoyed the effort. I did it to give something back to a community I respect and appreciate and, like any other designer, possibly make a few bucks from future templates I might develop, to serve as an incentive to spend more of my extremely limited personal time on such endeavors and offset the expense of hardware and service providers involved in the effort.
Carl has said "wanting something to be different doesn't make it so". This user WANTS to believe that there has been no copyright or license violation.... but, as Carl said, "wanting" doesn't make it so. I do, however, invite and encourage this user to exercise any of the available options to remedy this situation.
)