imkingdavid wrote:Placing the copyright/brand in the footer of distributed software is not uncommon. In fact, many software companies require their clients to pay an extra fee to legally be allowed to remove it.
Many software companies do a lot of stupid things--that doesn't make it a good business practice or that others should follow them. All original code is copyrighted, but that doesn't mean a copyright warning belongs on the products that the code powers. Putting a copyright notice at the bottom of another person's page is misleading and wrong.
Anyway, people are starting to get confused by this proposal because there are several ideas mixed in here. I proposed three things here:
1) Getting rid of the copyright portion of the notice, because it's misguided and incorrect; and
2) Simplifying the remaining portion for marketing reasons, the reason being that simple branding is more attractive and
3) The reason for 2) also applies to the registered trademark symbol. phpBB is a short word and looks better without it. Yes, phpBB is a registered trademark, but for some reason that hasn't stopped scammers from running sketchy sites like phpbb.org, etc. So a much better way to take advantage of your expensive trademark registration would be to file UDRPs against the owners of those domains. Having a trademark symbol because it looks pretty doesn't do anyone any good.
I can understand Marshalrusty's objection to part 2 if having the words "forum software" did in fact reduce the number of complaints from 3rd party site visitors. But I'm not sure the cause and effect are established here, because the copyright notice may very well be the culprit of people emailing phpBB with complaints. How many people do you think email WordPress with complaints about blog contents (unless it's hosted on a wordpress domain)?