"Powered by" link is invalid HTML

[muzick]

I realize that this topic will probably get locked and I will be told that in order to tell me how to fix this link, other people will find out how to remove it, but I am going to ask anyway.  How can I correct the HTML in the "Powered by Coppermine" link?  The align attribute has been deprecated for quite some time, and even though the rest of my site contains/will contain valid code, a certain browser will still run in quirks mode with this tag left as is.

I should state (though I doubt it will matter) that I have no desire to remove the powered by link, but the fact that I can't fix or style it is rather disappointing.

Something like this would make a better link:
<p id="cpgPoweredBy">Powered by <a href="http://coppermine-gallery.net">Coppermine Photo Gallery</a></p>

Let's face it, the people who really want to remove the link are going to do so regardless, so why should honest users be punished?  Loss of revenue is a good reason, but not very applicable in the case of an open source product.

Thanks.

[Joachim Müller]

Will change in cpg1.5.x. Won't change in cpg1.4.x, nor will we tell how edit that section, as it would explain how to get rid of it as well (you're right in that aspect).

[muzick]

When can we expect 1.5.x?  It is such a small thing that it wouldn't take more than five minutes to update in a minor release.  Why wait for 1.5.x?  I would say that I understand why you (the universal "you") won't budge from your position on the link, but at the same time, I feel it is an unreasonable policy.  This is supposed to be open source software, and yet you prevent people from being able to fully customize it.  Sure, some people will remove the "powered by" link, but compared to the whole, those people will be in the minority.  Besides, it's not hard to simply deny them support if they come asking.

I am sure that I'm not saying anything that hasn't already been said a hundred times before, so it will probably fall on deaf ears, but the restrictiveness of the "open" license is something that I do not consider to be user friendly.  "Credit where credit is due" and all that, but it boils down to (IMO) selfishness on the part of the developers, who deliberately prevent the users from being able to customize parts of the application.

I apologize if this comes off strong, but I believe that open source software should be open, and closed source should be closed.  Don't call something open if there are silly restrictions on it that are impossible to change and hard to follow for people who want customizability.

[phill104]

Which is the "Certain" browser? If you are talking about IE8 then a huge percentage of sites don't work on it. Most developers are not going to optimize their code to run on incomplete, buggy beta software anyway.

As for your other comments all software is whether open source or not is allowed to have a licence and quite rightly so. Just look at any big piece of open source software and similar rules apply. Just take a look at Linux as a prime example.

http://www.linux.org/info/gnu.html

I don't want this to turn into an ongoing argument. The rules were decided by the original creator of coppermine and those who have continued development since he left have agreed to continue with the rules set down by him.

**Locking.**