Rebranding websitebaker

[House]

I work for a web design company, and we are looking at using WebsiteBaker as a CMS solution to offer to our clients. What are the rules on rebranding the website baker backend to have our logo in the administration header instead of the Webite Baker logo. And perhaps re-linking the help button to a pdf document or printable html page also with our branding.

Thanks in advance,
Wayne

[ruebenwurzel]

Hello,

You can change everything in the backend you want. Except the line with the GNU General Public License.

Matthias

[Marc Geldon]

Just have a look at the GPL. I think it should be also okay to remove the shown line in the admin area (change the "templates") - if I understand the license correctly. But do not remove the copyrights/GPL notes in the source code!

[Ryan]

Marc is correct - you cannot remove/modify/add to any of the copyright/license notices.
(Note: this is a basic interpretation of the GNU GPL, but for a full understanding, please read the GNU GPL. My interpretation does not constitute legal advice).
However, if you are going to remove the credit towards WB, please consider contributing.
I think it is unfair that someone should make money out of a free product and not contribute back to it in some shape or form.
Remember, many people work hard to make WB a much better product. These people definitely deserve support.
http://start.websitebaker.org/en/contribute.html
 

[kweitzel]

@Ryan:

I have to admit, that from what I know about the license, that your Log-In Text needs to stay intact ... or is my englisch at the end not as good as I thought it is?

cheers

Klaus

[Ryan]

Klaus, which log-in text are you talking about here?

[kweitzel]

websitebaker  is released under the GNU General Public License

cheers

Klaus

[Ryan]

As far as I believe, you cannot modify/remove any copyright notices or license notices (which is, as I believe, notices that include "copyright (c)" and "license (e.g. WB is released under GNU GPL)"). I am not sure as to whether or not the WebsiteBaker name can be removed from the "release under" notice.
I think if in doubt, contact a layer for advice. I am not going to chase after you unless you clearly break the rules and are making a profit without giving back to the community. Open Source is all about community, and working together. Follow these principals, and I'm sure no-one will be too upset (I hope).

[tomhung]

why is

websitebaker  is released under the GNU General Public License

on the public view of the login page?  Doesn't this point potential attackers to know what type system they are dealing with? 

If it were me I would place that on the inside of the admin view. 

[Lonesome Walker]

Why?

I think, if you have PHP on your webspace, you also should be able to manage access via .htaccess...

All my projects are secured this way.

[tomhung]

so you make them login twice?
once for .htaccess and once for wb?

[Lonesome Walker]

Yes, why not?

2 layers security.

[Ryan]

Or you could simply restrict access based on IP address, but most times this isn't pratical

[icouto]

Just thought I'd share my experience, as it may help others.

I have used OpenSource for a while, and consistently deployed sites for clients, based on OpenSource solutions. Most OpenSource projects need consistent support of those, like us, who use it - specially those of us who use it professionally. The only way that projects like WB can continue to exist - and thrive - is if we somehow contribute, even if in a small manner, to it.

Now, one of the best ways to contribute to a project, is to promote it, by letting others know that it is good enough to be used professionally. I have grown into the habit of asking my clients, if I can keep in their site the small credit line that usually accompanies the software package - like, for instance, the unobtrusive "Powered by websitebaker" line, with a link to the WB site. So far, no client has refused, and I feel that this can indeed help the project.

Maybe I have been lucky in that respect, because my clients are mostly small to medium sized organisations - and therefore, more approachable than large corporations would be. Nevertheless, it does not hurt to ask, and it might make a huge difference to the WB community.

As far as the GPL license, my understanding is that there are a few main points that you should remember, and obey:

1) the license cannot be removed, and the package should always be distributed and deployed with the license included.

2) if you develop something - like another CMS - based on a GPL product, your product must also be distributed and deployed under the GPL.

So, when I am deploying a site authoring and management solution for my clients based on a GPL CMS, my understanding is that my solution must also be GPL. This means, for instance, that I cannot charge for the software, but I can charge for my services - customising and deploying the solution for them.

I hope this helps!

[bowenmark]

Just to put my 2 cents worth in - I always change the header in the admin area to the clients logo and the colours as well to match, but the text at the bottom of the admin log in stays where it is and have not got a complaint yet about having it there. It's quite unobtrusive, and a small price to pay (I have contributed cash a couple times to the project as well).

As for the security of letting a hacker know you are running WB, IMHO most good ones can look at the source code of a page and tell if it's Joomla, Word Press, WebsiteBaker etc.

[maddin]

Well, this can only be said, if the webmaster/designer of this site makes his work very sluggish. 

I can show you 5 projects, and you won't be able to say which is Zope, Plone, Typo3, WB or pure HTML.

But i agree with all here:

The copyright is okay, but it is a security problem.

PS:
The .htaccess is a good idea...

[Mesum]

I am also not a lawyer but have witnessed a situation in Chicago where similar situation occurred.
In past, you were able to remove all the visible references (like the line in question) as long as the copyright credit and license is in it's place in the code but since the version 2, it is required to have it available in the back-end.

[daydreamer]

Sorry to bring up such an old topic but I was curious to know if anyone looked further into rebranding WB?