Apparently, several TYPOlight users forget to add the invisible copyright notice to the source code of their custom templates and thus violate the terms of the LGPL. Since the number of copyright infringements has increased recently (also see this thread), the copyright notice will be inserted automatically from version 2.6.2, to protect innocent users from accidental license violations.

If you have created custom page layouts (templates) with the invisible copyright notice, your are officially allowed to remove it after you have updated to version 2.6.2, so the notice does not appear twice in the page source.

I hope that this post does not light me as being negative towards the hard work and professionalism of the TypoLight project, for which rewards, revenue and accolades are worthy.

I am interested in understanding the philosophy and expected outcome of having a prominent copyright notice in the presentation markup. I understand and agree about the fair right to copy protection and ownership.

However, I know of no other credible CMS that commands the head of the presentation markup as their own. Please do not coat me as a would-be thief, cheapskate or passing off but I'd like to know your views on why major CMS suppliers do not use a copy notice model.

The price of 199 euros for any commercial license is a big consideration and of course when choosing you will stack up the competition. TypoLight comes without big drawcards (ie: substantial self help and dedicated assistance) that others offer. A good example would be Expression Engine, full source code, lots of documentation and a team of paid development and dedicated support people who's function is to help and answer questions. All for 75 euros (community) or 185 euros (commercial). Or, I can use the free community core version if I am happy to go it alone.

So for 199 euros, what do I get as a commercial TypoLight customer apart from the ability to remove the copyright notice from my template? That makes it costly just to push my markup back up the page. I doubt I will ever want to change login or remove hard earned copyright from the application source, I would never want to.

The auto upgrade is a great feature of TypoLight and rare, would it not make sense to offer a more tiered pricing structure?

1/ Free: Upgrade yourself and copyright notice included.
2/ Community: Auto upgrade and removal of copyright from template only.
3/ Corporate: Auto upgrade and right of copyright removal from front and back end if you want.

Make it affordable and go for volume, because that is where you get your community driven support and important word of mouth marketing from. I doubt that copy statements in the markup will help to bring web professionals to the TypoLight fold, in fact I would bet that it will have the opposite effect unless of course, it is transparently dealt with.

Anyway, do you really want the copyright in the presentation markup?, by which I mean that many 'entry level' designs will inevitably have the project name stamped in them. There is a potential of low quality (ie: beginner or badly taught) being incorrectly assumed as TypoLight produced or endorsed. Any professionals and opinion formers (ie: target audience) reading the wrong markup may get the wrong first impression.

And lastly, I also believe that a pillory or 'wall of shame' is somewhat flawed, will you be listing the webmaster of the violation or will it just be the website specific that gets listed?, you know, the one where the customer has no idea why they are being 'shamed' or even how they are now part of a copyright dispute. Its negative spin for any project and shaky legal ground at best.

An enforced copyright notice, I understand the point of it, but I fail to see the real benefit of it.

Of course this all may be dismissed as very picky and my opinion only and therefore maybe not a concern at all, like who am I to ask for justification or explanations of actions? I will of course, ensure the copyright notice is in place in accordance with the LGPL should I use TypoLight.

I may be helpful for new customers to understand when reviewing the feature list that only commercial licenses will have 100% template based output.

http://typolight.org/features.html

• Front end output 100% template based

Sorry but I don't get your point? Could you explain a bit more what you mean?

Though it's not "traditionnal" to automatically insert a copyright in the templates, I have no qualms about it, except one : security.

It would be at least safer to exclude the version number from this (maybe this is the case), or else you'll facilitate hacking attempts. Now from what I have seen and read (just 2 moderate secunia advisory and none critical : ), Typolight is very secure but nevertheless, security notices can occur and get published on the web.

Nothing major but just a thought...

lew:

I doubt that copy statements in the markup will help to bring web professionals to the TypoLight fold, in fact I would bet that it will have the opposite effect unless of course, it is transparently dealt with.

I don't think so. For a real professional the amount for a commercial license is peanuts, especially when it helps the project survive which he is building upon.

No commercial license was yet bought AFAIK. I however believe it is not because of the price tag, but because it is quite new and a lack of communication / marketing.

Quote:

An enforced copyright notice, I understand the point of it, but I fail to see the real benefit of it.

Credits is the only reward for developers releasing software for free. Also a history of not enforcing the copyright will put you in weak legal position in case you ever need to defend your rights in a court.

Open Source has always been the best thing ever since computers were invented. I'm a contributor to TL and its development, because I did some research, carefully selected it as my CMS of choice to install, test and to develop for.

Guys wanting to remove the copyright are just crazy... most free developers MUST have the copyright remain... because that is all they have -- a credit notice.

Look at Apple:
http://www.apple.com/macbooks/ (as an example)

In the source code, they link to various open-source javascript frameworks and tools (which they have linked to their own site). They use prototype, scriptaculous and some of their own stuff, but BOTH of the copyrights for the open-source stuff have remained intact.

Prototype

Code:

/*  Prototype JavaScript framework, version 1.6.0.2
 *  (c) 2005-2008 Sam Stephenson
 *
 *  Prototype is freely distributable under the terms of an MIT-style license.
 *  For details, see the Prototype web site: http://www.prototypejs.org/
 *
 *--------------------------------------------------------------------------*/

Scriptaculous

Code:

// script.aculo.us scriptaculous.js v1.8.0, Tue Nov 06 15:01:40 +0300 2007

// Copyright (c) 2005-2007 Thomas Fuchs (http://script.aculo.us, http://mir.aculo.us)
// 
// Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining
// a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the
// "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including
// without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish,
// distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to
// permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to
// the following conditions:
// 
// The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be
// included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.
//
// THE SOFTWARE IS PROVIDED "AS IS", WITHOUT WARRANTY OF ANY KIND,
// EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO THE WARRANTIES OF
// MERCHANTABILITY, FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE AND
// NONINFRINGEMENT. IN NO EVENT SHALL THE AUTHORS OR COPYRIGHT HOLDERS BE
// LIABLE FOR ANY CLAIM, DAMAGES OR OTHER LIABILITY, WHETHER IN AN ACTION
// OF CONTRACT, TORT OR OTHERWISE, ARISING FROM, OUT OF OR IN CONNECTION
// WITH THE SOFTWARE OR THE USE OR OTHER DEALINGS IN THE SOFTWARE.
//
// For details, see the script.aculo.us web site: http://script.aculo.us/

If a company like Apple complies to this method, then you should as well. Apple would have paid a fortune to have this removed if they felt it was necessary, but no, even with all their bucks, they want to use and reward open source with credit due, so they do use it, and they credit the developers.

If we all followed your way of thinking, to be completely commercial, technically you would ALSO have to buyout the licenses to remove all the copyright notices from all the plugins as well, that would be Calendar, domPDF, dpsyntax, mootools, phpmailer, simplepie, slimbox, tablesort, tcpdf, TinyMCE, dfGallery, UFO, etc.. you get the idea. Most of which are free, so you cannot buyout the license anyway. Not to mention all the licenses for all the TL Modules you wish to use (most don't require a copyright notice, but if you want I can always add that to all my templates from now on forward -- your code will be really messy then!!)

I'm maybe not the best developer (which is probably leo) and I do my bit, but TL's copyright notice doesn't bug me or any of my customers in the least! I actually create an extra link in the footer which states designed by TYPOlight with a link to the site as well.

If you're that keen on a commercial product, why not try a Microsoft solution like Windows Sharepoint Server or any of the proprietary on the list on Wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_con…t_management_systems

thyon:

If a company like Apple complies to this method, then you should as well.

This is one of the best arguments and examples ever!!!

I find it somewhat ridiculous that Leo and the other developers should have to care about this, at all. Seems to be necceessary, though, and Thyon hopefully supplied the ultimate argument.

Only for people who pretend to know the major content management systems around

Quote:

However, I know of no other credible CMS that commands the head of the presentation markup as their own.

I have one little thing to add:

Quote:

This website is powered by TYPO3 - inspiring people to share!
TYPO3 is a free open source Content Management Framework initially created by Kasper Skaarhoj and licensed under GNU/GPL.
TYPO3 is copyright 1998-2006 of Kasper Skaarhoj. Extensions are copyright of their respective owners.
Information and contribution at http://typo3.com/ and http://typo3.org/

Enough said I reckon (even if it's only a mini-player in the cms market ;-). And I hope you grasp the idea, lew!


cheers
Antipitch

"I don't rip the dedication from books I get for christmas"

Lew,

You bring up some interesting points, regarding licensing schemes and tiered pricing. I think the simple response to your post is, "This is how things are done here."

I am proud to display Leo's copyright in the source of every site I produce. Although I've made financial contributions to Leo far greater than the cost of a commercial license, I do not care to remove any copyrights.

Copyright issues aside, I hope you stick with TYPOlight. I don't know of any other cms that has the "full package" that is available here. By that, I mean:

1. powerful software
2. strong and active development
3. excellent community

One more osCMS copyright to add to the list:

Quote:

phpwcms | free open source content management system
created by Oliver Georgi (oliver at phpwcms dot de) and licensed under GNU/GPL.
phpwcms is copyright 2003-2005 of Oliver Georgi. Extensions are copyright of
their respective owners. Visit project page http://www.phpwcms.org for details.

just to add....
Personally i would like to see a much cheaper license option that just allows removal of the /typolight/ backend login screen copyright notice ...(payable per domain).
I think this may supply Leo a steady revenue stream from non-professional developers like myself who don't really make much(any?)profit from what they do.

I think you have some perfectly valid questions regarding the copyright notice, and while I'm not here to speak towards Lew specifically, I do want to speak towards anyone else who may be asking the age-old question "how do I make money if I'm giving away the technology?". For us, we primarily make money on design and secondly on setup and customization of TYPOlight. That includes design, template building, installation, setup, content loading, training, and any custom work required to meet the needs of our clients. We have never once been asked where the value is, or "Why am I paying for a free CMS" by a client. This is because we are very clear with our clients that we are not selling the CMS. In fact, when meeting with potential clients and presenting, we spend a portion of our time talking about why TYPOlight and open source is a viable option and in our opinion, the way forward when it comes to content management systems. Our clients have always ended up appreciating the virtues of open source and TYPOlight as a result.

Anyone who has a problem with the copyright notice likely needs to better grasp what they service they provide or in general what they are paid to do by their customer. A lot of people try to sell the CMS and then try to hide the fact that it is an open source package, which of course is a very large mistake. I would recommend (those of you who are wondering about this) that you disclose to the client up-front that the technology that you use is a wonderful open source CMS that you believe is the best available and there will be no question later as to what the client is paying for. You will never need to fear the client calling you up one day down the road asking you someting like "Why did I buy this when I could have downloaded it for free".

Anyway, I hope that helps anyone out there who might wonder how ensure full disclosure to clients and to make sure they are happy with what they pay for.

Regards,

Fred

Very good points Fred.
I just like to add that recently we get specific inqueries asking specifically for help with TYPOlight. They have selected TYPOlight first as their CMS of choice and then looked for a partner that can help them with setting up the site. So TYPOlight is actually bringing customers to us. Why would I want to remove the copyright notice?

I agree with you Fred, I also offer services around CMS platforms. Any selling of CMS software as your own is never going to help anyone especially a client. I can not imagine why anyone would not want to inform a client about the virtues of what CMS they are using and why. It is the purpose of the designer/developer to sell those services around the CMS and to up sell the power and functionality that they have carefully chosen as their preferred platform, the client is an important part of the any selection process.

I think I may know where I have got my wires crossed, whilst TypoLight gives flexibility in templating there has obviously been a great deal of work to produce a template framework that will work well for the majority, so by using the out of the box template framework it therefore comes with copyright notification. It was not the templating features that drew me to TypoLight so in hindsight I'm probably better off using other CMS' like cms made simple for example if I want ownership of my own templates and do not require template support.

Fabster:

Why would I want to remove the copyright notice?

I have not seen any suggestion that anyone should.

Quote:

I'm probably better off using other CMS' like cms made simple for example if I want ownership of my own templates and do not require template support.

Could you explain a bit more what you mean by this?