WordPress MU

Hey guys. I am currently using my WPMU in Firefox, and it looks a little funny in the footer. So is it okay if I modify some of the text, and make the Wordpress link to wordpress.org rather than mu.wordpress.org? Thanks.

Yes. Actually you should be linking back to your main site.

Okay, thanks. But then I can add links and what not as well, correct?

drndrw, you can customize WPMU any way you want and nobody can stop you. Requirement that you link all over the internet because links happen to behardcoded into numerous PHP corefiles is not indicated. You may proceed with your extermination of not-your-site links.

There is some creative commons license out there which is commonly used for themes which states that you can not despam the footer part of them or other remove other spam placed in the theme, those are another story and must be avoided.

WP/WPMU is GNU GPL and this grants you permission to despam your WPMU installation.

Ah, okay. Thank you! And not that I would, but that also means that I can remove the Wordpress link (I will keep it, but just wondering.)

Depends on how you read the GPL. The devleopers have stated on occasion that while they would like to have the wp.org link remain, they're not going to hold you to it.

Because, technically, they can't.

Once you get it, you're free to modify it for your needs, as long as those needs are private, for your own use. Meaning, you can't redistribute it.

However, the question comes into play as to whether or not a link to a site constitutes a copyright notice. Technically, since it's just a link, it doesn't.

Even if the code output (C)2007 Wordpress.org, for personal use it could still be removed from display. Where it really gets into it, is distribution. As long as you aren't giving anyone the source code, and only using it on your site, (again) you are free to modify it to fit your needs.

Now, you couldn't claim you wrote the software, mind you, but you get the point.

This post does not constitute as legal advice, nor constitute as what is morally right in someones opinion. It is plain, cut and dry. What you consider may be morally the right thing to do may differ greatly from what is a bare minimum requirement.

Well again, that's how you read the GPL. I can point at many places on the net and from review with my own attorneys that the link has to remain.

Matt has said that you can remove it. That's all you need to worry about it.

Ditto on the legal butt covering.

Oh, okay. I think it would be wrong to get rid of the creator's link so I will keep it.

Isn;t wordpress a fork of other open source, anyway, where is the link to the original code?

Depends on how the fork was handled, and what the original code's copyright notice would have been.

But, just a link (like in a footer) doesn't constitute a legal copyright. Although the recent meddling of the FSF has given me the impression that they should take their license and stick it. Granted, it's how they interpret its intent, but it isn't very nice at all.

But, just a link (like in a footer) doesn't constitute a legal copyright.

Again, that's a matter of opinion and some readings of the GPL see the outputted link as a copyright statement.

Matt says you can remove it. You have the copyright owner's permissiosn to do so. That's all you have to worry about.

But I agree with Luna. It's a mess.

Yep, it definitely is a mess. Many interpretations across the globe, and even the lawyers can't agree on the nit-picky stuff.

Granted, that's where my interpretation came from, but doesn't mean my opinion is legal advice.

It's no wonder that a lot of programs are drawing the line and either creating their own license, or moving on to a more web-software friendly one.

You can all what you want...
Remove copyright ? No problem!
Remove link (like in a footer) ? No problem!
Put your copyright for wp? No problem!

You not a robot or programm?

Just for reference, I found another "Open Source" project that specically states that you have to keep in the copyright and links within the footers:

http://www.phpizabi.net/index.php?L=about.faq&cat=licensing

But, "Open Source" doesn't mean "GPL" though.

Of course, I'm not downloading it just to read their license, but if it were GPL, then it would be what the FSF terms as a modified GPL with exceptions, which is allowed as they are publicly stated.

For example, SMF is open source, but it is under their own license. Mainly because the GPL and FSF shafted them on previous projects which were "GPL".

Just an example, although there are plenty more out there.

As a note, if something is GPL and you go by the strictest interpretation of the GPL (according to the FSF), then if you are GPL with exceptions, but include code which is strict GPL from another source, you can not release your code as GPL with exceptions and have to be strict GPL. Unless of course you have permission from the copyright owners of that code you wish to include, and they allow your exceptions.

This goes for bridges as well.

Let's say you have Program A (P-A) which is a stand alone open source program under the GPL, and Program B (P-B) which is open source under its own private license.

Someone builds a script that bridges P-A and P-B. If that bridge calls any functions from P-B, then according to the FSF that bridge is now a violation of the GPL.

What it would have to do to be completely "legitimate" would be to find a way to bridge the two scripts without using any functions from either script. Which, in many cases, isn't quite possible. You have to make them talk somehow, right?

Granted, the FSF isn't necessarily legal council, and they can't "go after" the bridge script unless P-A asks them to do so.

Seems freakin ridiculous, right? Well, it's happening all over, and I even read a thread about such an occurrence where this exact scenario is playing out. And it was a looooong one.

Of course you can make your own bridge which does the same thing, you just can't give it to anybody. Once you "distribute" that bridge, that's when it gets into problems.

So, to stop the length and get back to basics, it depends on the license under which the program is released, and if it's GPL then it also comes down to whether or not the copyright owners add exceptions to it.

The main thing, is to remember that Open Source != GPL.