I didn’t see this as GPL or something to that extent. as far as i understand it the idea is that if i create something regardless of what i make it’ll be fr my own site to make money of course in time. but i wanted to know that if i used this i can remove copyright notices. i’m just not very good with legal jargon and i never understand it fully
if i can’t how much would i have to change? i plan on using smarty, PADL, phorum and then the rest will be me and a friend.
i don’t mind putting a button that says [CI| Powered] but i don’t want a giant copyright notice there.
If I understand your question, you want to know whether you have to include a copyright notice for CodeIgniter on the web pages you create, right?
I just looked at the license agreement, and it seems to deal with distributing copies of the CodeIgniter program. If you do that, you must retain the copyright notice.
If you change the program and then redistribute it, you must remove all references to CodeIgniter, unless you receive permission from the copyright owner.
But if you simply use it, I see nothing that requires you to tell visitors to your website that they are using CodeIgniter.
That brings up another question, however. If we WANT to provide a link to CodeIgniter, are there any button or icons we can use for that? I doubt that Rick would mind linking back to his site, but I don’t see anything about it in the documentation.
well, i see this as the perfect frame work if you plan to use no globals and all OOP. which is what i wanted. and it seems wicked easy to work with.
my question (i really do have a problem with not being clear enough) pertains to my specific use of the application. if i use it for myself i shouldn’t have to keep the (C) but if i change the code by rearraging code, adding to the core and removing functions from core then and things like that. basically prepare it before it becomes my framework for my CMS. then, rename it.
if i have to keep it on it really won’t bother me. i was going to say that it was based on it anyways but i wanted to know how prominant it has to be basically. i wanted to know how strict the rules were. the licence file really isn’t too clear. at least i don’t think so.
Well, I am not a lawyer, but I am fairly familiar with open source software. My understanding of the license is that if you are using it as your CMS, whether for commercial use or not, you do not even have to identify on your website what framework you are using.
Modifying it for your own use does not change that. The copyright on it comes into effect if you distribute the CodeIgniter files. Then, if you distribute it the same way you got it from Rick, there is still no problem. But if you have modified it and then want to distribute the CodeIgniter files (not your CMS content) you need to check the terms of the license more carefully and perhaps try to get permission from the copyright holder.
Some authors of code like this will say they would appreciate it if you would place a button or something on your website to link back to them, a very simple marketing tool. But that is usually only a suggestion.
Basically, open-source allows anyone to modify it and distribute it. If you modify it and distribute it, you must still include credit to the original author. However, I’m pretty sure that doesn’t include having the copyright notice visible on your site/script whatever, but in the source of all the modified files. You cannot charge for a script that contains open-source files, unless you have permission from all authors. You can, however, charge for transfering the software. So basically, you can charge for people downloading off your website, but they can then give copies of the script they just bought to anyone or even sell it themselves.
I too just discovered this great engine and wonder about the details of the copyright. If I took my current (mostly GPL) framework and incorporated it into this framework to produce an open source application, what kind of license would I be able to use? GPL? I believe the GPL license would restrict me such.
This isn’t under GPL, it’s under a custom license. However, it’s practically the same as GPL.
GPL is aimed towards people being to take existing open-source apps, modify them and still be able to distribute them. That means, as long as you keep all CI’s copyrights in place, you can release/distribute it. If you just want to use it for personal use, then you don’t even need to keep the copyrights (although I don’t see why you’d remove them).
That means, as long as you keep all CI’s copyrights in place, you can release/distribute it.
Never did I suggest a need to change any copyright from any code except to add notes of my changes.
My understanding, CI is a framework core. The ease of adding 3rd party libraries makes it very attractive to build an application. My libs have a mix of code that is GPL, BSD, LGPL, myOwn & modified CI. My own work evolves view/control/model of an app while acknowledging resources in documentation. When distributing, does the copyright of CI restrict use of GPL type License on my app? Or does my app need to be distributed unbundled from the core? Or should I keep my present core that doesn’t have an odd copyright issue.
Rick: Would it be possible for you to provide us with a “Plain English” description of the framework licence please? Detailing what we can and can not do, what we must do if we distribute our app with the framework files (modified or unmodified)?
ok, i just want to get soething straight just to clear something up in case someone didn’t understand me. i don’t plan to sell my own CMS because it’s going to be just for me. i have no porblems with me saying that it’s powered by CI because i was expecting to do that regardless. it’s just common decency. although i did plan to change the framework name to roots because my CMS is going to be called Spuds. also, i planned to change a few things within this framework to suit my needs. most importantly the location of files and remove the whole templating system.
BUT, if someone wants to sell whatever application that they create using this or any other framework i think they should be allowed to it just has to state that it was built with CI. it’ awful rude to not say so if you plan to make your own. preferably cheap too lol. but if someone wanted to sell thier web application based on this framework i think they should. even if it’s based on it because they added thier own code and made changes or additions. it hink it’s only fair.
if someone made an eharmony based on this or any other framework and ti was to be licenced out so others can make an online dating service i think it should be completly allowed.
and for removing the comments within the actual files stating that it is code created by Rick is for speed imporvements. it’s not like anyone can really DL the PHP files because of the way that the server ‘should’ be setup. so that is no big deal either. since this is a scripted language meaning that anything you write needs to be interpreted, any extra line, extra bracket, or many commets are read from line to line. granted it’ll skip it so it’ll be fast doesn’t mean it doesn’t read it. so it does lend itself to slowing down the system.
ok, now, back to the topic. Rick? lol, we are waiting :D
removing the comments within the actual files stating that it is code created by Rick is for speed imporvements.
How slow is your server? to mind a few bytes in a file. It is not as if it required extra disk accesses. Do you also delete the comments that explains the code?
I come here while looking for a good front controller for my exsisting framework. This engine looks great considering rewriting my codebase to fit this framework. It needs a business layer and workflow engine to make a good back end. My real work is the db model and transaction processing. Intend my view to be xml/xsl based. I do have a little of my own code yet todo.
What restrictions does this front controller place on my licensing at distribution?
Correct me if I read this license wrong.
1. I add this license to my 3rd party license directory.
2. All files used leave exsisting copyright notices intact.
3. Documentation gives proper credit to Code Igniter.
4. Only files required by my app need to be included.
5. Modified files, properly documented of changes.
6. I can distribute my app, my choice of License.
Do note as written,
License makes it illegal… without written permission
- to promote a “Code Igniter xxxx Plugin”
- mentioning code igniter in a developer’s blog
if the blog also promotes such products.
You guys are making it more complicated than it needs to be. Do whatever you want with the framework. Create your own derivative product if you want, sell it, give it away, use it to wallpaper your house. It’s free to use in any manner you see fit.
Just don’t take credit for our work. If you create a CMS based on CI that’s fine. Just acknowledge somewhere in your documentation that your app is based in part on CI. And if you alter our code, make notes in the code stating the nature of the change, so that if someone in turn decides to extend your CMS or turn it into something else there is a paper trail showing where the code came from. Hundred of hours of work (thousands, actually, when you consider every single line of code) have been put into this project so it’s the right thing to acknowledge the source.
Lastly, the name “Code Igniter” is our trademark. So while you can use the code in any manner you choose, you can’t call your derivative product “Code Igniter CMS” unless you ask permission.
What I stated above applies pretty much to all open source licenses. If you read the GPL, BSD, Apache, Artistic, etc. you’ll find they all work similarly. Some are more lenient regarding name utilization, but they are all pretty similar. In fact, if you read the PHP license, you’re not suppose to use the name “PHP” in derivative products, even though they don’t enforce their license.
Regarding stripping comments, there’s absolutely no performance gain, with the downside that you’ll lose the commenting which can be valuable. And since we’ll be releasing updates periodically it seems like a ridiculous waist of time.
Thanks, Rick, for that clarification. It ought to reduce the paranoia level here a few decibels.
Regarding stripping the comments, I can remember when there were utilities to strip the comments from interpreted code to speed it up. But processors were MUCH slower then. Now a good interpreter should zoom so fast through comments that there should be no practical difference.
Verbosity in what is sent to the web browser is another story, like all the garbage FrontPage and others add. Or HTML produced directly from Word (shudder).
Anyway, thanks for making removing any excuses NOT to use CI
