Son of a Beach wrote:
Marshalrusty wrote:I likewise don't understand why someone would purchase the product to remove the credit line; it doesn't take up much space and everyone familiar with bulletin board software knows the truth anyway, so it just looks silly to them.
This is a little presumptuous. Surely the fact that so many people do want to remove the copyright makes it clear that it does NOT look silly to remove it, at least to those people.
Firstly, you are taking my use of "silly" out of context and then attributing something to me that I did not actually say. What I said was, and you quoted it, so it's right there, is that it looks silly to people who are familiar with the software, know that it's open source, know that it ships with a credit notice, and know that we request it not be removed. So while most people don't really care about who made the software (and you said this yourself) and therefore don't care about a tiny line of text in the footer, to these people in "the know", the lack of the credit line will actually reflect poorly on the company/organization that chose to remove it.
Son of a Beach wrote:Personally, I think that it does look considerably better without the copyright notice, from a purely aesthetic point of view. It also keeps the focus on the content, rather than on who made the software which is being used to manage/present the content. I suspect that 99% of end-users don't care who made the software.
It's a tiny line in the footer. We even don't mind if people replace it with an image, if it better fits their style.
The line serves a purpose: it links back to us. Let's say that the immeasurably tiny aesthetic "hit" people take is a tribute to us, and they leave it because we appreciate it.
Son of a Beach wrote:
I find the "free software" movement to be a teensy bit hypocritical in this respect. If something is truly free (as in speech) then there are no restrictions on it. Using the "free software" argument to support the idea that such a restriction should be in place is just a little bit ironic, I reckon.
Having said all that, I understand why things are that way, and am happy to play along.
From some points of view, the GPL is terribly restrictive, and does not promote freedom very well at all. The BSD license on the other had, is a lot more free. But now I'm way off topic. Sorry.
The license does not prohibit the removal of the visible copyright. The software is released with no warranty and no guaranteed or implied support. Users do nothing illegal by removing the copyright; we simply request that they do not.
There are always varying degrees and approaches to freedom. In some senses, the GPL is more free because it guarantees that any derivative works are also released under the GPL. You can argue that this, in itself, is a restrictions of freedom, but the lack of any terms is anarchy, and anarchy invariably leads to abuse of the system and, subsequently, severe restrictions of freedom. All the things that the GPL prevents people from doing are things that would not be good for this community. As such, I see it as beneficial, rather than "terribly restrictive".