Possible Violation?

[Orge]

It has come to my attention recently by a friend that my store might be violating the licence.

Can anyone help me finding out ?

 

 

the site is Loja do Pescador

 

please if you find any violation report to me at [email protected] i wish to correct it.

 

the site was designed for me by a webdesign company and i didn't knew it was osCommerce until i stumbled in the "support" link in the admin section.

[Guest]

It has come to my attention recently by a friend that my store might be violating the licence.

Can anyone help me finding out ?

the site is Loja do Pescador

 

please if you find any violation report to me at [email protected] i wish to correct it.

 

the site was designed for me by a webdesign company and i didn't knew it was osCommerce until i stumbled in the "support" link in the admin section.

Jorge,

 

The copyright rules for osCommerce says that you may only remove the osCommerce copyright text IF you have sufficiently changed the look and feel of the site. There is NO set definition of what is "enough" to qualify. My personal opinion is that you (or you're web master) have changed it enough. But, kudos to you for caring about this issue. You can always PM soemone on the development team and ask them. They may not read this post.

 

BTW, nice site. :thumbsup:

 

ed

[Orge]

thank for the fast response,

 

i have already contacted someone on the development team to help me.

 

i think that the catalog module can be clear of copyright but the admin section must have it , right?

[Orge]

i wish to add that i don't have access to the code through ftp, and i believe (for what has been told to me) that the code is encoded with zend i believe...

[Orge]

one more thing... should the coding have the copyright even if the site is a little bit modified like my site ? because i dont have ...

[Guest]

one more thing... should the coding have the copyright even if the site is a little bit modified like my site ? because i dont have ...

Jorge,

 

The policy is very clear on those two counts, the Admin section must keep the osCommerce copyright notice and the sorce code for all files must keep the copyright notice as well.

ed

[Orge]

ok, the admin section must have it, visible or in the coding? because i don't have it visible on the admin section

[Guest]

ok, the admin section must have it, visible or in the coding? because i don't have it visible on the admin section

Jorge,

 

Both. It should be in the source code. And, at the bottom of every page in the admin, it should say:

E-Commerce Engine Copyright ? 2003 osCommerce

osCommerce provides no warranty and is redistributable under the GNU General Public License

 

Powered by osCommerce

Also, there should be an osCommerce logo in the upper left corner of the screens.

 

If that was removed by your web developer and you can't edit the source files, I'm not sure what you should do.

 

ed

[cannuck1964]

Also, there should be an osCommerce logo in the upper left corner of the screens.

This is not covered under the copyright protection, nor is the text

Powered by osCommerce

The information relating to the copyright and the GNU must be left in though. The distributor can add to this copyright info, but can not remove them, unless you rewrite the entire tool (not just the layout) these copyrights must remain in tact.

 

This is well discussed and documented here on the site

http://www.oscommerce.com/about/copyright

 

covers the policy for copyright that osCommerce has in place..

 

cheers,

Peter M.

[Guest]

This is not covered under the copyright protection, nor is the text

 

The information relating to the copyright and the GNU must be left in though. The distributor can add to this copyright info, but can not remove them, unless you rewrite the entire tool (not just the layout) these copyrights must remain in tact.

 

This is well discussed and documented here on the site

http://www.oscommerce.com/about/copyright

 

covers the policy for copyright that osCommerce has in place..

 

cheers,

Peter M.

Peter,

 

I stand corrected. Thanks for pointing that out.

 

ed

[Orge]

thank's everyone.i think i understand thing's a bit more now...

 

Ps: By rewryting the entire oscommerce tool and layout it wouldn't be oscommerce anymore i think... :)

[Guest]

unless you rewrite the entire tool

 

Just a clarification on this - rewriting just the admin tool is not sufficient - it applies to the entire application. osCommerce could choose to comply with section 2© by having the notice output on the catalog side, but chose the admin section instead :)

 

The word "rewrite" implies that the new work is derived from the original, so it is still arguable whether the notice could be removed.

 

Matti

[cannuck1964]

What I ment is writing the admin from scratch, if this was done, from what I understood from previous discussions, the admin tool would then not be osC (it may use other logic parts) but definately would not fall under the 2c section.

 

The copyright on the front side was given away without this restriction, so there is no issue there, but a total rewrite of the admin tool, I think you would have a hard time proving your case in any court that the tool was copywrited to osC ;)

 

A total rewrite of the admin tool is not something that many people would be doing anyways, so really is not much of an issue...

 

Peter M.

[Guest]

2c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively

when run, you must cause it, when started running for such

interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an

announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a

notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide

a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under

these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this

License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but

does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on

the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

 

Section 2c has to do with both protecting the original authorship and the distribution of the software. The display of the "appropriate" copyright notice is mandatory to compliance with the section. You can read on what is appropriate at gnu.org - you will find that original authorship for derived works, ie. the original copyright notice should be displayed along with the notice of the person who modified the work appended to it.

 

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If

identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,

and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in

themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those

sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you

distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based

on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of

this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the

entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

 

The notice applies to the entire software package - separation of the admin tool from the remainder of the work is a fantasy - you could write an admin tool from scratch, but would still need to include the code that displays the notice - it *cannot* under any circumstances be removed from the software (its also illegal to remove modify a copyright notice without permission - even the law only allows appropriate notices to be *appended* (suitably modified).

 

The only way is to write (not re-write[derived]) an entirely new software package, not just the admin tool, or to distribute the new admin as a separate package. You cannot distribute osCommerce without the admin as this would constitute removal of the notice and would not be the full source code :)

 

Matti

[cannuck1964]

From what I remember, the osCommerce package can not be modified in anyway or it is considered a fork and not osCommerce anymore. So it is well known that osCommerce is indeed what is released here only.

 

Also from what I remember, the copyright on the catalog side is not manditory, but is on the admin toolwhich from what I remember was decided that this tool is a key component and subject to the 2c section, but not the catalog side of the project.

 

If someone were to rewrite the entire admin tool, then A) it would not be covered as the package wouldd no longer be osC, but a derived work based partialy on osC . There is no copyright associated with the new admin tool other then what is already there (GPL) since only parts of osC logic were used.

 

I have had lawyers look into this already and they too agree if the admin tool was re written, then the copyright could be removed, since the application (MS2) is really devided up into two distinct applications which run together.

 

The catalog side of the project was already given away (not having to show the copyright) and the admin side which is a stand alone application that is packaged with osC has to have the copyright maintained. But this only applies if the package was not rewritten.

 

I can make up a stand alone application call it what even I like, add it to the cat side, and then rename it a different name, and it is a derived work, but not one which has to display the osC copyright other then in any code used from the osC logic (in the source code).

 

 

As for packaging, you say it can not be distributed with the cart (it would not be osC once modified by the rules here) well, would it matter if the person had to download one or two files (ie download cart, download admin). I kinda doubt that, as they are separate apps (MS2) where the admin is not needed to run the cart, nor is the cart needed for the admin. I understand that they really will not do much without the other, but they are still fully functional.

 

So, I think you might want to consult with lawyers first before stating that there is no way to do this, it is not really muych of an issue, but one that I if it ever came up, would the osC copyright hold on someone elses work ;)

 

Peter M.

[Guest]

I'll let the next release settle that question :)

 

Matti

[cannuck1964]

I'll let the next release settle that question smile.gif

Well, this is fine and when it is released, I guess things may change, but we are not talking about the next release since no one has this code other then a select few.

 

I am not advocating the removal of copyrights, as I think it is a fine idea to have them in plave, but, I also feel that correct information should be given in support of the application. You as a Team member may not want to see people removing this, I too am like this, and tell people to put it back in when I work on client sites.

 

And in reality, how many people are going to rewrite the tool so this could be achieved? Not many from all the years I have been at this, but I have run accross a couple who had both the deep pockets and the desire and they too were told the same thing from their lawyers ;)

 

Open Source is great and I would not work with other models, but it is still in it's infancy in terms of legal arguements and rights. There will be more issues arrising from the use and development of open source code development, some I am sure we would never have envisioned....

 

Peter M.

[Guest]

From what I see there one other thing. Even if somehow you write the admin side from scratch you cannot make it commercial and sell it as a complete package. It cannot be functional because you still need to include the sql tables and dbase structure which is osc specific and btw, links the catalog and admin sides. Maybe you could sell it as a plugin like we see with the front-end templates, but it will still be dependent 100% on the dbase sql tables which brings back the original requirement for the copyright to be present.

[cannuck1964]

From what I see there one other thing. Even if somehow you write the admin side from scratch you cannot make it commercial and sell it as a complete package.

Well no one is is discussing a commercial package, tht is a totally separate issue. And yes, it could be sold as a commercial package, heck you can grap a standard osC version and sell it as a comercial package, but the licenising and copyright info must still be maintained. Commercial and GPL are not mutually exclusive in nature ;)

 

It cannot be functional because you still need to include the sql tables and dbase structure which is osc specific and btw, links the catalog and admin sides.

Actually, I believe that both data and a DB structuce can not be copyrighted, I could be mistaken here, but I seem to remember that the DB and it's information can not be copyrighted ;)

 

Maybe you could sell it as a plugin like we see with the front-end templates, but it will still be dependent 100% on the dbase sql tables which brings back the original requirement for the copyright to be present.

You could do with as you like with any developments made other then breach the licensing terms. The DB data/schema would not be enough to force a copyright though a totally rewritten admin section though. That would be like saying the product information contained within the DB and it's structures is also copyrighted to osC, which is simply a falsehood, but the logic controling the getting and storing of the data would be a copyrighted algorithm, since it is unique to the osC frame work (if this was not changed).

 

Data is too difficult to copyright, so it is left out completely, and a DB table without the logic to control it really is not worth much to anyone other then the owner. The copyright issue is really who wrote the code and to what degree is other code used to develope the functionality. This is a very gray area, and one which is open to interpertation in different countries, regions etc.

 

cheers,

Peter M.

[Guest]

No I am not refering to the data itself but to the dbase structure. The table column convention names, the way the tables relate to each other and in general the structure itself, I understand is specific to osc fundamental design and I do not see why it is not part of the copyright. And without it you cannot have an independent admin or catalog tool.

 

For instance you have the products table and then the order_products and there is a relationship between the 2, unique to the osc design.

 

Another example if you had another package like say, a picture browser for every image format you process and integrate, don't you have to go through the copyright requirements of whoever developed the format in the first place?

[cannuck1964]

No I am not refering to the data itself but to the dbase structure. The table column convention names, the way the tables relate to each other and in general the structure itself, I understand is specific to osc fundamental design and I do not see why it is not part of the copyright. And without it you cannot have an independent admin or catalog tool.

Without some of the data, osC would not run ;)

 

I am not saying I am 100% right in the copyright of the DB and it's structure so here is a good link which gives information on this:

 

http://www.bitlaw.com/copyright/database.html#data

 

This relationship may or may not be protected, but then by introducing logic changes to the code base, this does not have to be dependant solely on the data structure. As well, how many changes to the DB schema are needed before it is a different schema?

 

By re writing the entire admin tool and leaving the DB intact, would not imply that the osC section 2c copyright has to be maintained, since other applications / carts also store product info, account information etc. The idea behind this is that osC has developed two unique tools, both of which are independant of one another.

 

If the admin is not needed to operate the cart (you could always elect to add the data through phpmyadmin (not perfered but attainable), then no copyright is displayed. If you elect to build a simple tool to extract this information, is this tool any different the phpMyAdmin?

 

They are not dependant and hense the copyrights do not extend to the tool used to get this information. If this is the case, then any tool made up exclusively will have this copyright issue (ie MS word and Word Perfect), so the copyright can not extend through the data to another application ;)

 

Like I said, it is a matter of degrees and changes from country to country, and then is also acted on by additional developments etc. that have been introduced into the overall work in question.

 

cheers,

Peter M.

[Guest]

Why osc would not run without the products data lets say? I mean there were some bugs with empty tables and some of those were fixed. Are you refering to the configuration tables? theoretically as long as the tables are present even without data, the engine will be functional since the sql layer takes care of errors.

 

This relationship may or may not be protected, but then by introducing logic changes to the code base, this does not have to be dependant solely on the data structure. As well, how many changes to the DB schema are needed before it is a different schema?

When someone designs a shopping cart the dbase structure is one of the basic things to start working on. I mean that's what crossed my mind when I mentioned it's a fundamental part of the overall design.

 

For the phpmyadmin tool you mentioned it does not claim copyrights on the dbase structure nor it attempts to take ownership of the dbase contents. Another example would be a debugger say. I mean you can access executables and programs in general but that does not imply ownership of an application. Now theoretically with a debugger or a hex editor you could modify every aspect of a program but at the end, is it practical? To modify an application so much that it will be a different one instead of creating one from scratch?

 

 

By re writing the entire admin tool and leaving the DB intact, would not imply that the osC section 2c copyright has to be maintained, since other applications / carts also store product info, account information etc. The idea behind this is that osC has developed two unique tools, both of which are independant of one another.

Ok so what the copyright its going to say, if someone does that?

"E-Commerce Engine Copyright by Company-X"??? Because I am pretty sure the dbase structure is part of the engine. Or its just going to say "Admin Tool copyright by Company-X".

 

They are not dependant and hense the copyrights do not extend to the tool used to get this information. If this is the case, then any tool made up exclusively will have this copyright issue (ie MS word and Word Perfect), so the copyright can not extend through the data to another application ;)

I am sure there are different requirements there for products not covered by gnu, but briefly I would ask, can a company produce a pdf editor without authorization about the format?

[cannuck1964]

Why osc would not run without the products data lets say? I mean there were some bugs with empty tables and some of those were fixed. Are you refering to the configuration tables? theoretically as long as the tables are present even without data, the engine will be functional since the sql layer takes care of errors.

Without the data present in the configuration tables, the system will fail, this information is needed for many aspects of the system. The DB layer does not take care of this, and errors will be seen throughout the site.

For the phpmyadmin tool you mentioned it does not claim copyrights on the dbase structure nor it attempts to take ownership of the dbase contents. Another example would be a debugger say. I mean you can access executables and programs in general but that does not imply ownership of an application. Now theoretically with a debugger or a hex editor you could modify every aspect of a program but at the end, is it practical? To modify an application so much that it will be a different one instead of creating one from scratch?

You are correct in that phpMyAdmin does not try to take ownership of the copyrights, and conversely, osC can not take ownership of the tool used to manipulate the data, it is a two way street.

 

Any application which uses data, the storage structure aside, can not claim ownership, nor can the data transfer any rights, these are two independant things. The data can not be used to transfer copyrights to an application, nor can the application transfer copyrights to the data, these are totally separate entities.

 

What this implies is that any tool using the data stored in the DB can not be forced to use the copyright licence associated with the data. This is stsandard, it does not matter how the data is stored, it simply can not transfer copyrights by using the data. so what this means is that any tool using the data maintains it's copyrights, and these copyrights are not transferred to the data or conversely to the application.

 

Ok so what the copyright its going to say, if someone does that?

"E-Commerce Engine Copyright by Company-X"??? Because I am pretty sure the dbase structure is part of the engine. Or its just going to say "Admin Tool copyright by Company-X".

The rewritten tool can have whatever copyrights the designer/code writer wanted to place there. If the application was a completely stand alone application without any GPL code used, then it would not even have to be GPL, but if any GPL code was re-used in the tool, then the code would remain GPL.

 

The DB is not part of the engine, it is a storage medium, it is like saying since mysql is used to hold the data, this data and it's design is copyrighted to MySQL as well, which is simply not true. Do not confuse data storage and code development, they are separate as well, the stoage medium does not transfer copyrights to an application, this just does not happen. For this to happen, there would not be any storage copyrights at all, since the copyrights would revert to the DB engine, since you are using it...

 

I am sure there are different requirements there for products not covered by gnu, but briefly I would ask, can a company produce a pdf editor without authorization about the format?

The use of the data is not protected in that it can be used by a variety of applications, the creation of this data can be copyrighted, but not in a DB, since the data belongs to the user, hense the data is not covered.

 

Like I said, if you can use phpMyAdmin to manage the cart (difficult but not impossible), then any other application which uses the data also has this same property, ie the copyright of the DB is maintained (no one is contesting that the DB structure belongs to osC). The data within it though is not, and the use of this data or storing additional data in the DB is also not covered by osC copyrights. The osC copyrights extend to the logic written by the osC team, and not to other logic written solely by others using non osC logic.

 

PS. I do like to discuss issues like this as they are very difficult for many people. Do not think I am in the mind set that the osC admin tool needs to be rewritten or that it is not a very good tool. I like to discuss things like this since many others may have similar questions/thoughts.

 

cheers

Peter M.

[Guest]

I understand by refering to different countries you mean EU and US where there some differences. Ok so I found some links through the Stanford university that refer to these questions for US. For EU 96 act, the dbase terms I understand they're clear protecting osc for such cases.

 

http://fairuse.stanford.edu/primary_materi...ase/hr3531.html

 

I read a bit from it, see SEC.4 (a) 1. last line of this paragraph:

 

.....adversely affects the actual or potential market for the database;

so someone who creates a dedicated tool and places his own copyright for the parts of the application (including the dbase) will have to follow section-4. As he is going to affect the potential market of osc.

 

I don't know if you have any arguments for sections 2,3. I think the osc development meets those terms.

[cannuck1964]

in section 2 terms are defined, so nothing is stated other then what is defined by the act.

 

In section 3, Quote from the page directly:

 

(d) Computer programs are not subject to this Act, including without limitation any computer programs used in the manufacture, production, operation or maintenance of a database. However, the contents of a database otherwise subject to this Act remain subject, notwithstanding their direct or indirect incorporation in a computer program or other work.

So, from this I read a computer program is not covered under this act if performing maintainance or operation (s) on the data. The rewritting of a stand alone application is a computer program as defined and the admin interacts with the DB in performing maintainance and operation (s) on it.

 

the next section #4

 

(1) extract, use or reuse all or a substantial part, qualitatively or quantitatively, of the contents of a database subject to this Act in a manner that conflicts with the database owner's normal exploitation of the database or adversely affects the actual or potential market for the database;

Relates to the data contained within the actual database. It does not relate to the schema (design) of the database. By using your own data, you are not deminishing the value of it from osC. Nor by use of the database by an external program doing this as you own the data, and you are not removing the osC copyrights associated with it.

 

This reference from what I see refers to the contents of the database and the use of the data from external references (not the owner). The actual database schema is still the work from osC, but the data contained within it is not.

 

Since this does not effect other computer programs (it is a stand alone application), as well we are not extracting data from the DB for any explotation, rather we are using a management tool which is deployed to manage the data within the DB (since this is what the admin tool does) we are all set, so that a stand alone program will not violate any copyrights :)

 

cheers,

Peter M.