NuWiki rips PatternSkin

Today we've learned that NuWiki (http://nuwiki.com) has ripped PatternSkin verbatim.

The letter I would like to send to them:

Today I learned about Nuwiki. When I visited the site, I was unpleasantly surprised that my front end work for TWiki (http://twiki.org) has been copied verbatim for your product. Page layout and design, style sheets and icons.

Note that the style sheet file layout.css says:
Reworked for nuWiki: (c) Arthur Clemens @ visiblearea.com
I have never had contact with Nuwiki developers, let alone that I have agreed on this or that I have taken part in this.

TWiki is an open source product, based on collaborative effort. However this does not mean that these efforts can be taken for nothing. Everything on TWiki.org is copyrighted by its authors. The copyright for the design you have taken lies with me.

The design of TWiki is one of its distinctive features and we do not allow others to copy this. The usage right of the design lies with TWiki.org, the copyright lies with me.

I hereby request that you remove all design you have currently taken from TWiki.

TWiki is being used by Google, Motorola, Yahoo and Disney amongst others.

Please correct or add ideas.

-- Contributors: ArthurClemens

Discussion

Rather than trying to restrict the redistribution of your work, why not ask them to contribute to TWiki, e.g. by crediting you for what you have let them use?

-- DenisHowe - 04 Aug 2006

I would have thought that PatternSkin was covered by the overall TWiki GPL, despite the above copyright statement (which is fine, Arthur holds copyright and can re-license beyond GPL as he sees fit) - if it isn't, or can't be distributed through GPL, surely we are violating the GPL by putting additional restrictions on this skin? I agree with Denis - since we are an OpenSource project, it's far more appropriate to encourage them to clearly credit Arthur and the TWiki project. And of course, if they make some interesting improvements, we could use those as well.

-- RichardDonkin - 05 Aug 2006

It is up to the copyright holder to decide if to take actions on a violation. If taken, it should be done with the proper legal language. Since we are not lawyers, we should get help. http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html is a start.

Personally I think that the PatternSkin is a distinct feature of the TWiki project. It can be confusing if the look & feel of an unrelated project is like TWiki.

I do not know the details of Nuwiki, but in case it is a pure hosted solution, they can do whatever they want with GPLed software. The GPL does not govern the use, just the distribution of software.

-- PeterThoeny - 05 Aug 2006

I don't have a direct interest here (I have nothing to do with Nuwiki--I am going to visit their site now), but I have some questions about TWiki and the GPL:

• TWiki is GPL'd (right?)
• Wouldn't the "related" stuff (like the Pattern skin css (is that all that's required to make the pattern skin work, or is there some Pattern skin specific code somewhere)) also be GPL'd?
• Or would it be GPL'd if the Pattern skin is distributed with TWiki (which I'm assuming it is)?

Without too much thinking, I would have assumed things like style sheets and templates, since they are, in some sense, closely associated with making TWiki work, would be covered under the same license as TWiki (i.e., GPL'd).

Does anybody (here) know the proper application of the GPL in a case like this?

-- RandyKramer - 07 Aug 2006

The GPL is very clear. TWiki is GPL. The PatternSkin being part of TWiki is GPL. GPL talks about "work" and not only code. The skin is GPL. And with the exception of the TWiki logo you cannot talk about a trademark or anything here. When you release on GPL you have to accept that other projects pick up your work. But then their work must also be GPL if it integrates the GPL work and their work is distributed. And I looked at their site. They offer to install their Wiki on servers that belong to the customer. So they distribute their work and therefore must release their entire wiki in GPL. Or lose the PatternSkin elements they ripped from TWiki. They probably do the latter. They are a US company.

-- KennethLavrsen - 07 Aug 2006

Thanks!

-- RandyKramer - 08 Aug 2006

Well, we're on shaky grounds here, GPL wise I think. The question I think is whether nuwiki is a 'derived work' or whether it is standalone and will work without the pattern skin template. Using the pattern skin as a module in the former case is not a problem for the gpl i believe, as long as they provide the source to everyone who buys their stuff.

However, if they can not deliver a version that does not have the pattern skin in it and that still works, they have created a 'derived work' I think and then they should release the entire source code of their product.

Just my 2 cents, with the usual IANAL.

The letter looks good to me, and i would probably send it anyhow.

-- KoenMartens - 08 Aug 2006

I think we should clarify the GPL status of PatternSkin as part of TWiki, and then update the letter accordingly to reference the GPL.

-- RichardDonkin - 09 Aug 2006

Richard's suggestion sounds good, but I didn't recognize until now that there are at least two aspects to the issue, and that maybe considering the two aspects separately (serially) make resolution easier):

• Does Nuwiki have a "right" to use TWiki's pattern skin (under any circumstances)?

• If they do have such a "right", what obligations do they incur if they do use it? (And for that question KoenMartens' point about whether Nuwiki is a derived work or a standalone work might be very relevant.)

If we consider the same point for TWiki (can TWiki work without the Pattern skin?), maybe there is a basis to say that the Pattern skin is not GPL'd? Or maybe because the Pattern skin is distributed with TWiki and is the default skin, it is GPL'd?

Hmm, and is the Pattern skin distributed with and the default skin for Nuwiki--would that make it (Nuwiki) a derived work? (Of which, TWiki or the Pattern skin (or both)?)

And, do I have any idea what I'm talking about?

-- RandyKramer - 09 Aug 2006

TWiki as a GPL project could never accept the PatternSkin if it was not GPL. And the customers could not accept it either because if the PatternSkin was a proprietary product than we as customers could risk that the copyright holder started charging us for the use or revoked our right to use it.

The PatternSkin is released as a part of TWiki. And TWiki is GPL. For the part of PatternSkin that are templates the number of contributors is large. And PatternSkin itself is derived from other GPL work. The skin has evolved over many years with contributions from many developers. The main developer has been and still is Arthur and especially the stylesheets are his work and he is the main copyright owner. And even for the style sheets you can find a few contributions from others. Just try the "svn blame" feature on the different files in PatternSkin. You cannot claim that the style sheets are independent of TWiki itself. The styles have been created to work with the features of TWiki. Like menus, attachments, breadcrumb etc etc. The style names in the stylesheets are found in the perl code and in the templates. They are heavily linked to each other and evolved with each other. TWiki can actually better work without a plugin like EditTablePlugin. That does not make that plugin less GPL.

It is not a criteria that some code can work without another piece of code. The GPL says If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

It is hard to believe that the NuWiki has not to some degree been adopted to work with the TWiki skin. And it is essential that the Nuwiki and the skin cannot really with any reason we considered as distributed as separate works. If Nuwiki is distributed as with a different skin. And someone makes a Nuwiki skin based on TWiki's PatternSkin, and distribute this independently, and they comply with the other requirements of GPL including making the derived skin GPL, then that is OK. They have the right to do this. But Nuwiki seems to have integrated the PatternSkin styles and scripts into their work which is not GPL and distribute it as such. And that is where they violate the GPL.

The question is what can Nuwiki do with our GPL'ed software? And here I encourage you to read the GPL. Not just the intro but the entire GPL. GPL is a very smart document.

Is "who owns the copyright" important then? Yes. Very important. GPL is based on copyright laws which are the nearly the same in all civilized countries. The copyright laws gives the copyright owner the right to make many decisions round both use and distribution. And it is this copyright that gives the copyright owner the right to license the work to other people for both use and distribution. And this is what GPL takes advantage of. GPL is a license that the copyright owner gives to anyone that receives the work. It is a license that cannot be revoked. It is a license that gives the license holder many free rights. And also a license which is very restrictive.

The GPL in itself is a beautiful piece of art. It is available in many translations.

The official GPL site is here http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. Translations here: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/translations.html

When I downloaded TWiki I received a package which was licensed under GPL and it contains also PatternSkin. I will claim any time that any part of the distributed TWiki package is licensed to me under GPL. And by using the work I have accepted this license and its conditions. And I have done this with great gratitude and respect. And have decided to contribute back. Like most of you that read topics here on Codev. And it is because of this that both Arthur and I and many others of you do not accept when someone takes our free software and use it in a none-free product.

Peter had a smart proposal, to seek advice before any letters are sent. But Nuwiki! (I am sure you read this) - it would be better if you took the appropriate actions yourself. You have a reputation and profile that you can loose before you really get started. No paying customer will dare signing up with you knowing that they have a legal timebomb ticking that could mean a total redesign of their hosted site in near future.

-- KennethLavrsen - 09 Aug 2006

Greetings Arthur, as well as everyone in the team of developers at TWiki,

My name is Lee Bacall, President of Binary Star Development Corporation. I would like to address the allegations stated by yourself.in reference to NuWiki.com, within your forum, http://twiki.org/cgi-bin/view/Codev/NuwikiRip.

It is our understanding of "Open Source projects", that the sharing of ideas and concepts is good for the community. We initially learned of Twiki through a reference on the Burning Man site

http://efalk.dyndns.org/twiki/bin/view/BurningMan/CampIAm

We liked what we saw! Seeing that TWiki was Open Source, downloaded the style sheet, leaving the copyright (possibly copyleft?) notice intact. If it was our intention to mis-appropriate, we would have obscured or removed the reference to Arthur Clemens.

If as you say, that "TWiki is an open source product...", and "Everything on TWiki.org is copyrighted by its authors", are not the two statements completely contradictory?

Being proponents of Open Source (we offer an open source distribution software package), and aware of the Open Software Foundation's definition of "Open" and it's requirements, it was our belief and understanding that TWiki being an "Open source product", would adhere to and abide by the tenets of Open source doctrines.

We have made what we think are significant improvements to the art of the style-sheets, and offer (and will continue to offer) these improvements to the community, without charge or obligation in the interest of open source.

If your claim to Copyright of Open Source remains, I would strongly urge you to re-read the Open Source Definition, found at: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.php, especially, the first article, which I quote:

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.

/ Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect./

If on the other hand, you feel that your right to copyright your work, outweighs that of your desire to participate in the Open Source movement, we would be happy to do one of the following:

1. Remove the alleged style sheet infringements
2. Improve the style sheets and contribute our improvements
3. Openly discuss other alternatives

As KennethLavrsen stated above:

If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works.

NuWiki can certainly run independently of the style sheets utilized by TWiki, as a separate and easily identifiable work (rather than as a derivative), within an extended relational database (IBM UniVerse) utilizing rules and structures defined by and within the Nucleus Application Environment http://www.nuwiki.com/cgi-bin/nuwiki.cgi?display=ABOUT%20NUCLEUS

If you feel that your right to copyright your work on a site advertised as Open Source remains, it would behoove you to re-think your strategy as an Open Source site.

I welcome your comments.
Lee Bacall
http://www.binarystar.com

NuWiki.com - Collaborative Information Management

-- LeeBacall - 09 Aug 2006

Dear Lee Bacall,

thank you for using this public forum to address the question. At this point I cannot give you a comprehensive answer. ArthurClemens, the primary copyright holder of the PatternSkin, is currently in vacation. Until we give an official answer, may I point out some items:

• The TWiki work is open source, anyone is invited to use and distribute it freely.
• There are many open source licenses, some more restrictive (such as the GPL), some less (such as BSD license).
• TWiki is released under the GPL. The GPL is the only legal document that is relevant here.
• Please ask your lawyers to study the GPL, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.html. Some points:
  • The GPL takes advantage of copyright; the GPL and copyright cannot be separated. That means, ultimately the copyright holders can decide what to do with GPLed works (such as dual license the works)
  • The GPL talks about "works", which can be code, documentation, style sheets etc.
  • The GPL governs the distribution of works, not the use. That means, you can do whatever you wish with GPLed work (such as mixing GPLed work with proprietary work), but as soon as you re-distribute the work containing GPLed work you are required to release the whole work under the GPL. In other words, you can mix GPL and non-GPL work on your website, but you cannot ship a product that mixes GPL and non-GPL work.

Please give us some time to give you an official reply of what we would like to see in regards to the NuWiki use of the PatternSkin.

Regards,
Peter Thoeny - Lead of Open Source TWiki project

-- PeterThoeny - 09 Aug 2006

Arthur Clemens said: "this does not mean that these efforts can be taken for nothing". Wrong. GPL allows Nuwiki to take Twiki efforts for nothing, and improve on them, provided (a) Nuwiki does not distribute any changes or (b) if changes are distributed, they are also under GPL.

Lee Bacal offered to release Nuwiki stylesheets under GPL. When (and if) Nuwiki does it, they can use GPLed work from Twiki. I do not believe they have to release all Nuwiki code: stylesheet names are kind of API for code. Derivative work (released according to GPL) is stylesheet, not Nuwiki code.

Entirely different issue: is it ethical for Nuwiki to use pattern skin design (look and feel) if Arthur does not approve of it. I would advice to Lee instead of hiring a lawyer, hire a graphic designer and let him pick different combination of colors and graphic elements.

-- PeterMasiar - 10 Aug 2006

I don't want to go through the whole of LeeBacall's comments here, but there is absolutely no contradiction between software being OpenSource and software being copyrighted. In fact, OpenSource is based on the idea of using copyright and then adding selective permissions to redistribute, modify, and so on. The comment about TWiki having to somehow consider whether to remain OpenSource or to assert copyright is therefore completely wrong.

The quote from the Open Source Definition in LeeBacall's comment above is not relevant here, as the term distribution applies to a collection of independent programs on a CD or website (such as Linux distribution). NuWiki is clearly not a distribution in this sense, and in addition it is not redistributing the whole of TWiki, just the PatternSkin. So, the GPL for TWiki as a whole applies, and the only question is how much of NuWiki (if anything) is therefore covered by the GPL as a result of its use of this TWiki component.

Arthur's initial position was not based on the GPL, which confused matters as he implied that PatternSkin was not GPLed - I think we have established that PatternSkin is covered by the TWiki GPL, so NuWiki need to simply release their version of PatternSkin under the GPL as well.

The interesting question is whether the NuWiki code itself is covered by the GPL - I'd say it is probably not, if they are just using the stylesheet from TWiki's pattern skin. However, if they are using the PatternSkin templates, which are designed to work with TWiki code, and use the TWiki template language, there's a strong argument that Nuwiki must either GPL its software or updates its software to remove the TWiki Patternskin templates.

-- RichardDonkin - 12 Aug 2006

So the whole issue goes to the question:

If you're using a CSS and/or a design that is part of a OOS that is licenced under the GPL in your "commercial" product, must this product be licenced under GPL too?

IANAL either, but the section 0 of the GPL is clear on that purpose:

0. This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License. The "Program", below, refers to any such program or work, and a "work based on the Program" means either the Program or any derivative work under copyright law: that is to say, a work containing the Program or a portion of it, either verbatim or with modifications and/or translated into another language. (Hereinafter, translation is included without limitation in the term "modification".) Each licensee is addressed as "you".

The other interesting part is section 2.b:

2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1 above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third parties under the terms of this License.

So, if Arthur's PatternSkin CSS and design is governed by the GPL licence, NuWiki must licence their product a GPL too, or remove the CSS and the design from the product.

-- RafaelAlvarez - 12 Aug 2006

Maybe I sounded too rude in my previous comment (mostly due lack of sleep) so I apologize for that.

My intent was to point out the relevant part of the GPL that apply in this case. As ridiculous as it may sound, a CSS or javascript under GPL can force a whole application to be GPLed if the application is distributed with it. I think that's one of the reasons that GPL is called "viral". It's quite virulent, really. And that's why all business try to stay away from GPL libraries for commercial product, and that's the reason that the LGPL licence exist to allow OOS to be used in a less "viral" way while protecting the Intelectual Property and the wish of the original author to give something for free (as in beer and speech).

I know at least one company that took a GPL software, derived a work from it, put it commercially AND released the sources. AFAIK, they have a succesful business (https://www.copilot.com/).

OTOH, don't freak out because this incident. There are a lot of business friendly OS licences out there (LPGP, BSD, Artistic, Apache, to name a few).

-- RafaelAlvarez - 13 Aug 2006

From Lee Bacall at Binary Star Development Corporation

We at Binary Star, like many proponents of Open-Source and business owners are confused by the implications of the the more than 50 different licenses certified by the Open Source Initiative (OSI) agreements and those of GPL or General Public License.

Major corporations such as IBM and Novell have thrown their considerable weight behind open source, and most analysts would agree there is little chance of significant change in the legal foundations on which the open source world rests.

We used a GPL faceplate temporarily, while we built a library of original ones. Having offered to return changes in the GPL seems to have been met with resistance by individuals who want to split hairs over ambiguous GPL wording, and have completely ignored the fact that NuWiki from Binary Star runs on an entirely different code base and platform.

We apologize if we stepped on anyone's toes or intellectual property rights, in claimed either rightly (or leftly ;-} ) under GPL or Open-source doctrines.

As it is never our intent to misappropriate anyone's content (we strongly believe in intellectual property rights), we have taken a number of steps to distance ourselves from the potential of any future allegations of mis-interpretation or mis-appropriation of GPL and / or Open Source material.

1. We have replaced all icons and images claimed as under Open Source and/or GPL rules, with either our unique artwork, or artwork which has passed to the public domain.
2. We are in the process of writing our own unique and extensible stylesheets, which are, and will remain the intellectual property of Binary Star Development Corporation.
3. NuWiki clients can write their own style sheets which can be easily integrated.

NuWiki is unique, in that it is an "application" created using Nucleus Technology provided under license from Binary Star Development Corporation. NuWiki incorporates logic and rule-sets which are host-based, running within the confines of Nucleus technology, on an extended relational (aka Multi-Value) database.

It would be difficult to surmise (logically) that NuWiki is based on the foundation of anything as simplistic as a style-sheet.

The architecture of NuWiki enables changing style sheets based on a client's corporate style and to being able to fulfill the needs of sight impaired individuals. By changing certain configurable parameters, the entire look and feel of NuWiki can be changed, including the content and layout of heading, sidebar and footings. Font, size, color and graphics can all be changed according to configurable parameters without any modification to NuWiki code, as the intelligence of the underlying Nucleus engine will determine the look and feel.

Style Sheets in the context of NuWiki can be considered in the context of lipstick - and easily changed.

While we strongly believe in the benefits of collaborative open-source software we do not wish to become a target of unprincipled legal teams looking for opportunity or embroiled in long-winded, internecine hair-splitting interpretive contests. Due to the confusion which currently exists within the Open Source and GPL communities, we have temporarily stopped all distribution of our previously open-source business applications.

We are currently contemplating the release of NuWiki code to the public domain, to separate it from the confusion currently raging within the Open Source community, and placing it outside of the definitions,limitations, ambiguity and legal turmoil of GPL.

NuWiki code which may be made available in the public domain, will require licensing of proprietary Nucleus Technology and the StarSite-XML engine on which it is based, to operate. Please contact Binary Star Development Corporation for licensing and availability.

Let's refrain from starting World War IV (three unfortunately seems to be heating up in another part of the world) over a style sheet. I certainly can wait for Arthur to respond after his return from vacation. I am confident that we (Arthur, TWiki, and Binary Star) can arrive at a judicious meeting of the minds which will satisfy everyone.

I would be pleased to receive Arthur's phone call. I can be reached +1 (954) 791-8575, between the hours of 8:00 am and 7:00 pm GMT-5.

-- LeeBacall - 13 Aug 2006

Hello Lee,

We appreciate the steps you are taking to remove all copyright infringements. You have already removed the icons. We further ask you to rewrite the style sheets and design in such a way that any semblance with TWiki design and TWiki code is removed. We also ask you to remove the line Reworked for nuWiki: (c) Arthur Clemens @ visiblearea.com from the file layout.css.

We think that a time period of 2 weeks (1 September 2006) will be sufficient for you to bring this off.

-- ArthurClemens - 19 Aug 2006

I am sad to see that nothing has happened to http://www.nuwiki.com/ except for a splash page.

-- ArthurClemens - 02 Sep 2006