Copyright violators

Have you read ANYTHING that has been written in this thread? We've explained why it is bad. Why don't you write the owner of that template you are using and ask him what he thinks of you link? If he is cool with it, fine. I'm betting he would have preferred you linking to him the way he specifically requested.

 

Tell you what I think? It's Sunday and it'd be wrong to express how completely full of shit your thought process is here. You post a site that redirects and then fail to give the rightful copyright / credit to the make of the tools you're using, and try to rationalize it as a space-saver? You're wasting font any trying to justify it. If you're that pathological, I know a good psychologist.

 

Redirects? What are you talking about? This has nothing to do with any redirect. We're discussing the forum and template copyrights. All I did was link to them on a separate page. Anyway, I'll email the author and see if he freaks out like everyone else did.

 

Let me see if I can summarize:

1. If a webmaster removes the copyright info entirely or changes it, s/he is being immoral and (in some places) doing something illegal.

2. If a webmaster retains the copyright info but removes the link, s/he is being immoral but this is rarely illegal.

Reagarding #2 I seem to remember reading the movable type agreement years ago that said you must maintin the link. However most software says something like "you should maintain the link - if you don't we won't provide support". Then there are scripts you pay for that don't require publicly displayed copyright stuff - that's one of the reasons I use WSNlinks for my directory. I understand the temptation for a directory owner to remove the everypage links - they do drain link popularity and that's the main thing most directory owners have going for them.

And by the way, thank you for the idea of contacting the author to make a donation and hopefully remove the link. I was wondering what to do about my new wordpress template that looks great other than an ugly, ugly footer with links that I think would be distracting.

 

No one is saying you can't tidy up the footer and/or the links to make it less "ugly ugly" - design issues are up to you - that's a different issue that removing or hiding the credits and links.

 

I'm glad. If the author is fine with your modification of his copyright notice, then I'm fine with it and will quit my harassment.

 

Buh-Bye.

At least Sergey is funny.

 

Bad promotion is also promotion, don't make a list unless you threath them with FBI, CIA, FSB or something.

 

dvduval if you have a list of sites breaching your copyright/licence please send it to me, I will remove any that are on my directory list, I don't want to be seen as supporting those that won't support you.

 

Thanks for mentioning this! Quite a few open source scripts do not require that you link back. There are also templates on OSWD where the author states that you do not need to link back AND that you are free to modify it.

Minstrel- I think that you can make a point without directly attacking sites and posting an email address.

Before you all start calling out sites that YOU think are in violation, maybe you should find out if they have given the author a donation or recieved permission to remove the link?

 

Did you read the thread? Did you find any evidence presented either by the website owner or anyone else in this thread that I was wrong in what I said?

No. Case closed.

Before version 3, to be released later tonight, there was no option to pay for the right to remove the link.

"If I'm wrong, I'll go to jail quietly. But if I'm right, you will have saved the lives of millions of registered voters." ~ Bill Murray, Ghostbusters

 

Maybe there is no option, or no public option, at the very moment, but there certainly was one in the past:
"we do ask that you maintain the link to Netcreated.com in the footer of the directory OR send $25 to help this software better for all."
http://www.netcreated.com/php_link_directory.php

 

You're right, although that's a very old version (1.1). It's moot, however, because that's not the version the individual(s) in question were using (the current version is 3.02) and they hadn't paid 25 cents let alone $25.

 

Complete agreement on that. I only wanted to point out there was such an option in the past, so that such a possibility is not excluded completely, and I only knew because I was interested in it at that time... (I don't even have a clue whether such a purchase would apply/propagate to 2.x version.)

Three "violators" I accidentally noticed today:
www.illusivecreations.com/sponsors/
www.addsite-submitfree.com/
www.omega-link.co.uk