Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!


Discussion regarding WHMCS copyright linkback footer.
New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.

Discussion regarding WHMCS copyright linkback footer.

armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

As the title says,

I was curious regarding the WHMCS branding license. As what i heard it says that in no way you should be removing the linkback of WHMCS with the branding license. Ok.

How about not removing it but making it's opacity so low that is hardly seen. You're still not breaking it's terms, right? I tried to read about this, but found it nowhere. If it's for removal only that you have no permission, we can do anything to it and even 'remove it' in multiple ways without breaking their terms.

Looking for opinions.

Comments

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider

    @armandorg said:
    As the title says,

    I was curious regarding the WHMCS branding license. As what i heard it says that in no way you should be removing the linkback of WHMCS with the branding license. Ok.

    How about not removing it but making it's opacity so low that is hardly seen. You're still not breaking it's terms, right? I tried to read about this, but found it nowhere. If it's for removal only that you have no permission, we can do anything to it and even 'remove it' in multiple ways without breaking their terms.

    Looking for opinions.

    Just pay for the non branded license. Making it invisible amounts to removing it.

    Thanked by 1mfs
  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @Clouvider said:

    @armandorg said:
    As the title says,

    I was curious regarding the WHMCS branding license. As what i heard it says that in no way you should be removing the linkback of WHMCS with the branding license. Ok.

    How about not removing it but making it's opacity so low that is hardly seen. You're still not breaking it's terms, right? I tried to read about this, but found it nowhere. If it's for removal only that you have no permission, we can do anything to it and even 'remove it' in multiple ways without breaking their terms.

    Looking for opinions.

    Just pay for the non branded license. Making it invisible amounts to removing it.

    It’s mainly for discussion, as i did a few tests earlier on my branding whmcs license. Didnt remove it or made it invisible, just lowered its opacity ti nearly 0, though, its still there.

  • ClouviderClouvider Member, Patron Provider
    edited September 2018

    @armandorg said:

    @Clouvider said:

    @armandorg said:
    As the title says,

    I was curious regarding the WHMCS branding license. As what i heard it says that in no way you should be removing the linkback of WHMCS with the branding license. Ok.

    How about not removing it but making it's opacity so low that is hardly seen. You're still not breaking it's terms, right? I tried to read about this, but found it nowhere. If it's for removal only that you have no permission, we can do anything to it and even 'remove it' in multiple ways without breaking their terms.

    Looking for opinions.

    Just pay for the non branded license. Making it invisible amounts to removing it.

    It’s mainly for discussion, as i did a few tests earlier on my branding whmcs license. Didnt remove it or made it invisible, just lowered its opacity ti nearly 0, though, its still there.

    Well, it’s not from the point of view of the visitor looking at it, is it ? So the actual end effect amounts to removal, and thus a breach of the license.

  • I guess it's a technicality but if they were to review it they would see right thru your intend and probably consider it a TOS violation.
    On the other hand, intend may not be enought... so... any arm chair lawyer around? :neutral:

  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @404error said:
    I guess it's a technicality but if they were to review it they would see right thru your intend and probably consider it a TOS violation.
    On the other hand, intend may not be enought... so... any arm chair lawyer around? :neutral:

    I couldn’t find any TOS regarding the linkback of branding license, could anyone take me to it? If i read it surely anybody can tell if its allowed such a thing or not.

  • @armandorg said:

    @404error said:
    I guess it's a technicality but if they were to review it they would see right thru your intend and probably consider it a TOS violation.
    On the other hand, intend may not be enought... so... any arm chair lawyer around? :neutral:


    I couldn’t find any TOS regarding the linkback of branding license, could anyone take me to it? If i read it surely anybody can tell if its allowed such a thing or not.

    Haha I just got back to the topic to ask you for the exact same thing. I assumed you had already read it..

  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @404error said:

    @armandorg said:

    @404error said:
    I guess it's a technicality but if they were to review it they would see right thru your intend and probably consider it a TOS violation.
    On the other hand, intend may not be enought... so... any arm chair lawyer around? :neutral:


    I couldn’t find any TOS regarding the linkback of branding license, could anyone take me to it? If i read it surely anybody can tell if its allowed such a thing or not.

    Haha I just got back to the topic to ask you for the exact same thing. I assumed you had already read it..

    Read their tos mate, couldnt find anything regarding this. If you do find it, you know what to do haha

  • I mean, everyone knows WHMCS is WHMCS anyway. No one will look down on you for using an industry standard billing tool. Do the devs a favour and keep it there. If it really bothers you pay for the upgrade.

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    In their EULA:https://www.whmcs.com/eula/

    2.3.4 No Derivative Works; Reverse Engineering. You may not alter, merge, modify, prepare derivative works based upon, adapt or translate the Software in any manner whatsoever. Additionally, You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to any human-readable form, or use the Software to develop any application having the same primary functions as the Software.

    Thanked by 1404error
  • @mikho said:
    In their EULA:https://www.whmcs.com/eula/

    2.3.4 No Derivative Works; Reverse Engineering. You may not alter, merge, modify, prepare derivative works based upon, adapt or translate the Software in any manner whatsoever. Additionally, You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to any human-readable form, or use the Software to develop any application having the same primary functions as the Software.

    Hmm... I though we could customize the templates. Just going by the above you can only choose between the templates they provide.

  • vovlervovler Member
    edited September 2018

    @mikho said:
    In their EULA:https://www.whmcs.com/eula/

    2.3.4 No Derivative Works; Reverse Engineering. You may not alter, merge, modify, prepare derivative works based upon, adapt or translate the Software in any manner whatsoever. Additionally, You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to any human-readable form, or use the Software to develop any application having the same primary functions as the Software.

    You are not editing the software, you are just adding some css to reduce the opacity. I think it's a grey zone.

    Technically it's ok, but it's not ethical.
    Just go full blackhat, get a nulled version and pray that it's not backdoored :wink:

    (I feel that I must say that it's a joke because of a few special snowflakes)

    Thanked by 1inthecloudblog
  • Just add a class to powred by text as display: none;

  • MasonRMasonR Member, Community Contributor

    @mailinabox said:
    Just add a class to powred by text as display: none;

    Still haven't figured out if you're here just to shitpost or if there's a screw loose somewhere.

  • mailinaboxmailinabox Member
    edited September 2018

    @MasonR said:

    @mailinabox said:
    Just add a class to powred by text as display: none;

    Still haven't figured out if you're here just to shitpost or if there's a screw loose somewhere.

    Bestpost! Thanks for let me know. By the way in WHMCS they allow write CSS then if you host your own serveer you also got access to write a display: none; :) LICENZING

  • MasonRMasonR Member, Community Contributor

    @mailinabox said:

    @MasonR said:

    @mailinabox said:
    Just add a class to powred by text as display: none;

    Still haven't figured out if you're here just to shitpost or if there's a screw loose somewhere.

    Bestpost! Thanks for let me know. By the way in WHMCS they allow write CSS then if you host your own serveer you also got access to write a display: none; :)

    That clears that up, thanks!

  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @mikho said:
    In their EULA:https://www.whmcs.com/eula/

    2.3.4 No Derivative Works; Reverse Engineering. You may not alter, merge, modify, prepare derivative works based upon, adapt or translate the Software in any manner whatsoever. Additionally, You may not decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, or otherwise reduce the Software to any human-readable form, or use the Software to develop any application having the same primary functions as the Software.

    You’re not touching the software in anyway, you are just modifying the template, by doing so i acidentally added a class for the copyright whmcs which makes it nearly invisible. Not my fault as thats how i want the template design to look like : )

    And i need a tod that clearly states ‘ in no way should the copyright sign be edited, modified or removed. If it is edited, it should be very visible to the visitors’

    If it’s written like this, than yes its a problem. If not, goodbye copyright sign.

  • AnthonySmithAnthonySmith Member, Patron Provider
    edited September 2018

    I would say you are absolutely correct, you are not breaching their terms when taken literally, but there is not a person alive that could take time to look at the facts in this scenario and not agree that is actually is breaching their terms however on a technicality.

    I would go a step further and say it is reasonable for the interpretation of the 'removal' clause to mean, it should remain visible and is there for reasonable for them to consider you in breach of the terms even if not explicit and on a technicality.

    They also have every right to cancel your license because of said technicality :)

    I would also go 1 step further and say, anyone doing this for the sake of a few bucks is a bit of a nob and likely destined to fail and whatever endeavor they are using the software for to begin with.

    Interesting discussion all the same.

    Thanked by 1Clouvider
  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @AnthonySmith said:
    I would say you are absolutely correct, you are not breaching their terms when taken literally, but there is not a person alive that could take time to look at the facts in this scenario and not agree that is actually is breaching their terms however on a technicality.

    I would go a step further and say it is reasonable for the interpretation of the 'removal' clause to mean, it should remain visible and is there for reasonable for them to consider you in breach of the terms even if not explicit and on a technicality.

    They also have every right to cancel your license because of said technicality :)

    I would also go 1 step further and say, anyone doing this for the sake of a few bucks is a bit of a nob and likely destined to fail and whatever endeavor they are using the software for to begin with.

    Interesting discussion all the same.

    3 bucks ain’t gonna make me poor or anyone who has a running online business, otherwise quit it as you are not meant for this.

    However, i always liked law. I like getting in the details of terms of service or anything that is legal releated. As far as i read it, get into details and see that something i do is allowed and does not break the terms or the law and is mentioned no where, even if that would cost me 3 or 300bucks if done completely right. I ‘profit’ from that.

    Hopefully you get my point, more like hobby other than saving few bucks. : |

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    @armandorg said:

    @AnthonySmith said:
    I would say you are absolutely correct, you are not breaching their terms when taken literally, but there is not a person alive that could take time to look at the facts in this scenario and not agree that is actually is breaching their terms however on a technicality.

    I would go a step further and say it is reasonable for the interpretation of the 'removal' clause to mean, it should remain visible and is there for reasonable for them to consider you in breach of the terms even if not explicit and on a technicality.

    They also have every right to cancel your license because of said technicality :)

    I would also go 1 step further and say, anyone doing this for the sake of a few bucks is a bit of a nob and likely destined to fail and whatever endeavor they are using the software for to begin with.

    Interesting discussion all the same.


    3 bucks ain’t gonna make me poor or anyone who has a running online business, otherwise quit it as you are not meant for this.

    However, i always liked law. I like getting in the details of terms of service or anything that is legal releated. As far as i read it, get into details and see that something i do is allowed and does not break the terms or the law and is mentioned no where, even if that would cost me 3 or 300bucks if done completely right. I ‘profit’ from that.

    Hopefully you get my point, more like hobby other than saving few bucks. : |

    Depends on the amount of time spent to find that loophole.
    In this case, it is worth $3/month.
    I would rather spend the time to bring in a sale or actually work where I get paid by the hour.
    So instead of spending hours on finding that loophole that would save $3/month, I spend the same amount of time on something that bringa in more than that.

    Thanked by 1armandorg
  • cociucociu Member
    edited September 2018

    and ... whmcs still remain s cheap solution

  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @mikho said:

    @armandorg said:

    @AnthonySmith said:
    I would say you are absolutely correct, you are not breaching their terms when taken literally, but there is not a person alive that could take time to look at the facts in this scenario and not agree that is actually is breaching their terms however on a technicality.

    I would go a step further and say it is reasonable for the interpretation of the 'removal' clause to mean, it should remain visible and is there for reasonable for them to consider you in breach of the terms even if not explicit and on a technicality.

    They also have every right to cancel your license because of said technicality :)

    I would also go 1 step further and say, anyone doing this for the sake of a few bucks is a bit of a nob and likely destined to fail and whatever endeavor they are using the software for to begin with.

    Interesting discussion all the same.


    3 bucks ain’t gonna make me poor or anyone who has a running online business, otherwise quit it as you are not meant for this.

    However, i always liked law. I like getting in the details of terms of service or anything that is legal releated. As far as i read it, get into details and see that something i do is allowed and does not break the terms or the law and is mentioned no where, even if that would cost me 3 or 300bucks if done completely right. I ‘profit’ from that.

    Hopefully you get my point, more like hobby other than saving few bucks. : |


    Depends on the amount of time spent to find that loophole.
    In this case, it is worth $3/month.
    I would rather spend the time to bring in a sale or actually work where I get paid by the hour.
    So instead of spending hours on finding that loophole that would save $3/month, I spend the same amount of time on something that bringa in more than that.

    Like i mentioned before, it's not about money. At least not in this case. Plus it took me less than a minute to make nearly invisible the copyright sign and another minute to read it's terms of service that has this nowhere written. 2minutes = 3 bucks. I could say, it's alright! 'jokes' : )

  • mikhomikho Member, Host Rep

    @armandorg said:
    and another minute to read it's terms of service that has this nowhere written.

    Now I know you are lying ;)

    No one reads the tos/eula in less then a minute and have time over to consider if it is legal or not.

    Thanked by 1MasonR
  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @mikho said:

    @armandorg said:
    and another minute to read it's terms of service that has this nowhere written.

    Now I know you are lying ;)

    No one reads the tos/eula in less then a minute and have time over to consider if it is legal or not.

    As you say detective : )

  • Why?

  • Hiding is the same as removing

    Thanked by 1mfs
  • You could argue that changing the color of the actual powered by is a styling preference, hence not breaking the renoving clause.

    By totally making it melt with the background, you’re removing the visibility of the text, removing the appeared text, hence breaking the terms.

    An online stock broker can’t say that the fee $1 is actually $100 because of the two zeros as the end being the same color as the background for styling preferences.

  • So what if you have a black footer. If you don’t change the powers by color then nobody can see it and breaking the Eula. But if you change it to white then you are also breaking the Eula

  • Do it just for fun.

    But if you are running professional services or biz, don't do that you won't like other people taking your credits for free or not getting paid. Please be in their shoes despite TOS.

    Thanked by 1armandorg
  • armandorgarmandorg Member, Host Rep

    @Spencer said:
    So what if you have a black footer. If you don’t change the powers by color then nobody can see it and breaking the Eula. But if you change it to white then you are also breaking the Eula

    Templates use custom styles, each one of those overrides copyright's style and it seems it is not breaking their TOS. So making it's opacity less visible, means that it should be allowed too.

    @mrclown said:
    But if you are running professional services or biz, don't do that you won't like other people taking your credits for free or not getting paid. Please be in their shoes despite TOS.

    This is by far the best reply at the moment in this topic, totally agreed.

  • lonealonea Member, Host Rep

    the power by link isn't for people to see, its for search engines.

    your client could careless what software you use for billing

    all in all, this discussion is stupid

Sign In or Register to comment.