Comments on: Number 10, Wordpress and The Commons http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/ The Magic of Open Source Sun, 07 Mar 2010 11:37:49 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2 hourly 1 By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-9815 Alan Lord Sun, 01 Feb 2009 08:45:58 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-9815 Hi there. Well, the issue wasn't about them using the theme. It was that they had taken it, modified it and not provided any attribution for it. The two important lines from this post are: <blockquote>The simple fact is this: the Number 10 website which New Media Maze claim to have designed is based on original work by somebody else. </blockquote> and <blockquote>Irrespective of the legal position New Media Maze believe themselves to be in, the right (as in decent, proper, common) practice in these circumstances is to attribute the work in a suitable manner. Such as a simple line somewhere on the site saying something like: “This website is based on an original idea by…”.</blockquote> Open Source is really a marketing term that covers a whole raft different but similar licenses. Most, if not all of them, whilst allowing the recipient full access to the source also respects the originator's copyright and requires that the original work's pedigree and license terms are complied with when you modify and redistribute. The real issue with this was that a commercial company, had taken a template design freely donated by someone else and used it but provided any credit to the original author. And, they had altered not included his copyright notice on the site and in fact IIRC chnage the copyright to be that of the Crown. This is not "proper" and could probably be challenged in the courts although IANAL. Good question though and thanks. PS: I had to check your website first just to make sure this wasn't spam - you will probably get a lot of traffic with a name like that! Hi there.

Well, the issue wasn’t about them using the theme. It was that they had taken it, modified it and not provided any attribution for it. The two important lines from this post are:

The simple fact is this: the Number 10 website which New Media Maze claim to have designed is based on original work by somebody else.

and

Irrespective of the legal position New Media Maze believe themselves to be in, the right (as in decent, proper, common) practice in these circumstances is to attribute the work in a suitable manner. Such as a simple line somewhere on the site saying something like: “This website is based on an original idea by…”.

Open Source is really a marketing term that covers a whole raft different but similar licenses. Most, if not all of them, whilst allowing the recipient full access to the source also respects the originator’s copyright and requires that the original work’s pedigree and license terms are complied with when you modify and redistribute.

The real issue with this was that a commercial company, had taken a template design freely donated by someone else and used it but provided any credit to the original author. And, they had altered not included his copyright notice on the site and in fact IIRC chnage the copyright to be that of the Crown. This is not “proper” and could probably be challenged in the courts although IANAL.

Good question though and thanks.

PS: I had to check your website first just to make sure this wasn’t spam – you will probably get a lot of traffic with a name like that!

]]> By: Eight Women Dream http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-9813 Eight Women Dream Sun, 01 Feb 2009 05:40:43 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-9813 we are a little lost as we thought "Open Source" doesn't just mean access to the source code. Per Open Source Legal Definition: The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with free Redistribution which means that the "license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale." and "The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties." There is much more but we are confused as to why this issue ever came up at all. Was the Wordpress Theme not Open Source and we are missing something? we are a little lost as we thought “Open Source” doesn’t just mean access to the source code. Per Open Source Legal Definition: The distribution terms of open-source software must comply with free Redistribution which means that the “license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.” and “The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.” There is much more but we are confused as to why this issue ever came up at all. Was the Wordpress Theme not Open Source and we are missing something?

]]> By: The Open Sourcerer » Timber! (More on Number 10’s website) http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8560 The Open Sourcerer » Timber! (More on Number 10’s website) Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:51:59 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-8560 [...] out of 24 files in the original theme package, only three files have been removed. If you look here in the comments from my post of yesterday, you can read what Dave Smith of NMM said: 1. The only [...] [...] out of 24 files in the original theme package, only three files have been removed. If you look here in the comments from my post of yesterday, you can read what Dave Smith of NMM said: 1. The only [...]

]]> By: Kevin http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8558 Kevin Fri, 22 Aug 2008 09:11:24 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-8558 @Dave : Considering all the time you must be spending posting and monitoring the blogsphere and defending your position, I think it might have been more cost effective for you to write your own theme. Hindsight eh? IMHO you should either change the theme to one you have written from scratch or play nice and attribute the original author in a reasonable way. IF you don't want his name associated with your project then contact him and arrange a special license. Oh, you might have to share some of your spoils, which it seems you're not so keen to do with anyone other than your legal team. @Dave : Considering all the time you must be spending posting and monitoring the blogsphere and defending your position, I think it might have been more cost effective for you to write your own theme.

Hindsight eh?

IMHO you should either change the theme to one you have written from scratch or play nice and attribute the original author in a reasonable way. IF you don’t want his name associated with your project then contact him and arrange a special license. Oh, you might have to share some of your spoils, which it seems you’re not so keen to do with anyone other than your legal team.

]]> By: Alan Lord http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8557 Alan Lord Fri, 22 Aug 2008 07:13:57 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-8557 @Jack, Yep. They nicked his stuff and no one has denied that. How they end up getting an apology (http://antbag.com/my-regrets-about-the-copyright-dispute/#comments) from the creator of the original work is beyond me. But in reading through the comments (especially the one from "Dad") then I certainly know who has come out of this smelling of roses and who smells like --- well something very smelly indeed. @Dave, it may be your last word on this. I doubt it will be mine, or others... @Roy, great idea! Thanks for the notice. @JonB, I completely agree. They've nicked his work. I can't see how Downing Street can continue with this site now. Even though NMM believe they are in compliance with the law, and they may well be for all I know (but don't they say "the law is an ass?") they are certainly NOT in compliance with best practice and common decency. @Jack, Yep. They nicked his stuff and no one has denied that. How they end up getting an apology (http://antbag.com/my-regrets-about-the-copyright-dispute/#comments) from the creator of the original work is beyond me. But in reading through the comments (especially the one from “Dad”) then I certainly know who has come out of this smelling of roses and who smells like — well something very smelly indeed.

@Dave, it may be your last word on this. I doubt it will be mine, or others…

@Roy, great idea! Thanks for the notice.

@JonB, I completely agree. They’ve nicked his work. I can’t see how Downing Street can continue with this site now. Even though NMM believe they are in compliance with the law, and they may well be for all I know (but don’t they say “the law is an ass?”) they are certainly NOT in compliance with best practice and common decency.

]]> By: JonB http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8556 JonB Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:37:02 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-8556 I can't understand, at all, how ANYONE could believe its OK to remove attribution if that is part of the usage grant. Did they not understand the term derivative work? Maybe the real problem is they didn't take an Ethics course along with their 'Surly Dweeb' courses at university. I also can't fathom why the appropriate counsels to the PM's office didn't perform 'due diligence' before they decided to write this notice - http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/copyright whomever is responsible for that should be sacked. Of course I'm a stupid Colonial and what could I know? JMHO I can’t understand, at all, how ANYONE could believe its OK to remove attribution if that is part of the usage grant. Did they not understand the term derivative work? Maybe the real problem is they didn’t take an Ethics course along with their ‘Surly Dweeb’ courses at university.

I also can’t fathom why the appropriate counsels to the PM’s office didn’t perform ‘due diligence’ before they decided to write this notice –

http://www.number10.gov.uk/footer/copyright

whomever is responsible for that should be sacked.

Of course I’m a stupid Colonial and what could I know?

JMHO

]]> By: Roy Schestowitz http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8555 Roy Schestowitz Thu, 21 Aug 2008 19:07:10 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-8555 http://slated.org/british_government_violates_copyright Sent to Lessig, Mullenweg and others too. http://slated.org/british_government_violates_copyright

Sent to Lessig, Mullenweg and others too.

]]> By: dave smith http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8550 dave smith Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:53:21 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-8550 Ok so the article I wrote was quite lengthy, so i'll summise and that's the last you'll hear from me: 1. The only file that was drawn upon from Ant's theme was the css file. Ant accepts this fact: http://antbag.com/my-regrets-about-the-copyright-dispute/. 2. Under Ant's theme license (CCL), there was no requirement to attribute the work to him in the footer. 3. Under the CCL, he was correctly attributed in the CSS file that was used. 4. Therefore we have abided by the license of Ant's work. regards, Dave Ok so the article I wrote was quite lengthy, so i’ll summise and that’s the last you’ll hear from me:

1. The only file that was drawn upon from Ant’s theme was the css file. Ant accepts this fact: http://antbag.com/my-regrets-about-the-copyright-dispute/.

2. Under Ant’s theme license (CCL), there was no requirement to attribute the work to him in the footer.

3. Under the CCL, he was correctly attributed in the CSS file that was used.

4. Therefore we have abided by the license of Ant’s work.

regards,

Dave

]]> By: Jack http://www.theopensourcerer.com/2008/08/21/number-10-wordpress-and-the-commons/comment-page-1/#comment-8549 Jack Thu, 21 Aug 2008 08:41:52 +0000 http://www.theopensourcerer.com/?p=317#comment-8549 From reading NMM's response I was a touch baffled how they were trying to paint themselves as the wronged party. They are NOT! They've admitted to copying at least some CSS code so they should abide by the licence of the copied work. From reading NMM’s response I was a touch baffled how they were trying to paint themselves as the wronged party. They are NOT! They’ve admitted to copying at least some CSS code so they should abide by the licence of the copied work.

]]>