Geeklog Forums

I know personally you're fine if this line is not included, but I was just wondering if it's legally possible (regarding the GNU GPL license). I don't want to do it, just want to know if I can tell my own clients it's not possible. Thanks!

There is nothing in the GPL that compels you to include or not include the "powered by Geeklog" text on a site you create.

Is it at least encouraged or just not mentioned at all?

Actually, most of the GPL is about distribution - which doesn't happen when you simply run Geeklog on a site. So, no, it doesn't really say anything about having to mention the program's name when you're running it (you can check for yourself, it really isn't that long).

bye, Dirk

So when I install Geeklog for a client, what's the bottom line about any limits I should ask them to follow?

BTW, aren't you moving to GPL v3?

You don't need to include any link to Geeklog or anything. Although you might want to, just to be nice. I have some clients who wouldn't let me put the words "Geeklog" on their site because to them the name is lame. I truly wish it was called something else.

That is a good point, that the name is lame

It is even lamer in other languages like German. At first glance you don`t even know how to pronounce it. G-klog like the well known brands G-star or G-shock? You`d never say geek-log although the word geek probably derives from the German Jeck or Geck which is now more a local word for carnival-goer.

Anyway on a professional site I`d never keep any link to geeklog nor myself. What you can do is to write an invisible notice in the header like Typo3 does.

~~~~
http://dict.leo.org/forum/viewUnsolvedquery.php?idThread=297284&idForum=2&lp=ende&lang=de#viewunsolvedquery
"The term "geek" originally referred to the carnival performers... "

Actually, why not thinking about that a little more? What would be a good international name for geeklog? Any ideas?

gCMS
G-Portal
...

I personally don't dislike the name, but if it was called something like 'GL-CMS' it would be better. Even if the official name was still Geeklog.

That`s even one more idea I`d fully agree with a solution like that.

Personally I don`t have a feeling for the meaning of "geek" in English. Reading the discussion of the translators it is rather something strange and not necessarily positive like "power CMS", "professional CMS" or so.

I`d also like to know what problems there are in other languages.

The version number is also much too low to look mature it should raise to 3 with the next release. Drupal is at version 4.7.11 and 5.6, offering a 6rc2 and planing on version 7. Geeklog is creeping around 1.5! It is just the looks of course but that is important for a first contact. :pray:

Have you ever heard of a program with v20 or v100? Because that's where Drupal is headed according to what you say. Personally, v20 would look much more weirder than v1.5 to me.

I said version 3 not 7 and not 20. Drupal is indeed a bit skyrocketing

There are many examples for Software with a version reaching higher numbers like corel draw 11, freehand 11, illustrator 12. All these programmes try to make the appearance that non is further advanced than the other. Whereas when you see inkscape 0.45.1 you may think it is a pre 1 version.

Mambo is at 4.5#, Typo3 at 4.1.5. It would e suitable for Geeklog to go for 3.

Are we getting physcotic here?? What the hell does the version number matter ? If your client wants to use Drupal (or whatever else) ........... and you can't convince them of the benefits of Geeklog (god forbid the NAME !!!!) - and they won't listen, ............. this is entirely between you and them of you. Not that they need need to know what you are using anyway,unless you tell them. Lets forget all about security, ease of use, support, etc; ............... the VERSION number is all important !!! How about we change the version number to 5 ?? Get real - GL is what it is, if you don't like it, be stupid - go elsewhere Hey, guess I'm biased :banana:

---

"Patience is never more important than when you're at the edge of losing it !!"

True, but if you put a link in the footer out of common courtesy, then you do risk them seeing the name.

That's very true. I do agree with some of the comments in this thread - I've also had clients who don't want to display the name. However, even without a name change, it's possible to make a graphic link with something like 'GL-CMS;

As for version numbers - I gravitated to GL after using Xoops, Joomla, Drupal, PostNuke, and a couple of others. None of them fully fulfilled my needs, and I got sick to death of the security issues I had. If we want to compare it with software, how often does a higher version number just mean more 'bloat'?

And also, very importantly - none of the others offered the same (high) standards of support that GL users enjoy........and appreciate.

Maybe GL would benefit from a change of name ??? Something for the core team to ponder ??

---

"Patience is never more important than when you're at the edge of losing it !!"

Most if not all Geeks are proud to be Geeks. Just don't call us NERDS!!! Now if it was called Nerdlog then it would be a problem and I would suggest changing the name ASAP.

Bottom line is this, I'm sure you can put "Powered by GL" at the bottom if you want and you don't have to include the version unless you want too. It's what's inside that matters. Geeklog is on every PHP page and that's what matters.

I think the initials GL has been very widely used since the early years. As for the version number, I think a low number just tells everyone how well written GL is and that's what you can tell your clients.

It seems to me that the GL writers pay better attention to the way that version number go. That first number being a major rewrite, second being a major modification and the third being a minor modification. etc.

Correct me if I'm wrong!

Thanks

You've never answered that one (and will it affect the "powered by Geeklog" question?).

There is no need or immediate benefit for us to switch to the GPL v3 now. This may change some day, when we want to integrate some code that's under that license or one that's compatible with it (for example, the Apache license is compatible with GPL v3 but not with v2).

We discussed this briefly back when v3 came out.

And I don't think it would affect the use of the "powered by Geeklog". I haven't read v3 in that detail yet, but I doubt they would introduce such a clause, given that this was one of the FSF's main criticisms about the BSD license (back in the day when it had an "advertising clause" ).

bye, Dirk

Sounds good 1000ideen, but what about GL-BlogPortal? Then again In the end it's the quality of the software that matters most and the Geeklog programmers have done an impressive job so far!

And I'm proud to have a link to geeklog from my blog

---

blog.islayinfo.com

Thanks for the link! That's exactly the conversation I wanted to have here. I thought the mailing list was just for security and the forum is for everything else. I now realize you have mailing lists about many other things except security.