Topic: Rewriting the Customization Site

[flapjack]

good news, thanks for sharing

I have one question though about the licences - wouldn't GPL-like licences for mods interfere with SMF licence?

[vbgamer45]

I like the licenses maybe have some prefilled options like bsd. Or option for custom license

[SlammedDime]

Both are done... I have about 70 prefilled Open Source licenses, as well as the option for a custom license with a text box the user can enter it into.

[vbgamer45]

Wow. I didn't know there were that many open source licenses. Glad its in there.

[Özgür]

It is really nice to hear this. But when its completed?  And how its worked?

I mean template system. I think "tabs" (like ajax tabs) should be great. Have we any demo yet?

[SlammedDime]

good news, thanks for sharing

I have one question though about the licences - wouldn't GPL-like licences for mods interfere with SMF licence?

Yes and no...

Can I apply the GPL when writing a plug-in for a non-free program?

    If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. So you can use the GPL for a plug-in, and there are no special requirements.

    If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plug-ins. This means that combination of the GPL-covered plug-in with the non-free main program would violate the GPL. However, you can resolve that legal problem by adding an exception to your plug-in's license, giving permission to link it with the non-free main program.

    See also the question I am writing free software that uses a non-free library.

The TOS/AUP that accompanies the new customize site will make provisions for this... essentially stating that by uploading any modification on our site, you give simplemachines.org the right to redistribute and use the modification without royalty and that you grant SimpleMachines an exception in using your plugin/modification by users in the software.  (it will be far more elaborate than that, but that's the gist)

According to the FSF and GPL fanboys, SMF is considered 'non-free' due to it's licensing terms, so the above applies to SMF.

It is really nice to hear this. But when its completed?  And how its worked?

I mean template system. I think "tabs" (like ajax tabs) should be great. Have we any demo yet?

No demo's at this time... there probably won't be for the general community, only for teamies once it is uploaded to our Area51 for QA testing... the general community will likely see it once it's released (no ETA at this time).

[DoctorMalboro]

Would be nice to have an outdated category for mods that are not updated in a long time...

[Yağız...]

Like http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?action=search;type=11 ?

[DoctorMalboro]

Not such... maybe something automatic... maybe in the category of Mods for your version of SMF

Like this:

Mods for your version of SMF

• SMF 1.1.11
• SMF 2.0 RC3
• Outdated Mods

[Cassiel]

I think a warning that a mod hasn't been updated past a certain time when in the page for a mod would be better. Where you have it is to help when searching for mods to use for your site, and who'd want to search for an outdated mod?

[Nibogo]

I think a warning that a mod hasn't been updated past a certain time when in the page for a mod would be better. Where you have it is to help when searching for mods to use for your site, and who'd want to search for an outdated mod?

Some mods aren't updated in a long time but they can be pretty useful and stable and a warn like that would make people think that install a mod with it would be a bad idea when actually isn't.

[Cassiel]

Regardless, putting a section for Outdated Mods in the Version of SMF section in the Mods page is pointless. The useful, old mods that people would still install that you mentioned would just be searched for instead of browsed through by version number, because the only reason they would need a mod that old would be if they needed that specific functionality. So they would go search for that functionality that they need, and find that mod, instead of browsing through and not finding it in the list of 1.1.11 and 2.0 RC3 mods.

I don't see a point for changing it. If they need a mod that old then it's because they need it for a specific reason that they can't use an older mod. Making it easy for people to search through and installing an older mod that is not being supported would just lead to a lot of disgruntled users. The way it is now, people find that mod that they need (even if it's old) and use it. They take the risk of not getting support for using an old mod.

Which is what the warning is for. It tells the user not to expect support from the mod author, or any more updates and bug fixes from this mod. If they want support/updates then them installing that mod is indeed a bad idea, and they should not go through with it (which is what the mod would prevent from happening). If they still need that mod that badly, and there is no other mod that can replace it, then they should install the mod. But still realistically not expect official support on it.

I should really learn to condense what I say. That was way too much to type to explain so little.

[flapjack]

as for outdated mod, maybe go for same way as Wordpress went and ask community to give thumbs up/down whether the mod can be installed with particular version of SMF?

[Özgür]

as for outdated mod, maybe go for same way as Wordpress went and ask community to give thumbs up/down whether the mod can be installed with particular version of SMF?

It's the my love on wordpress plugins pages. And yes! It's must be absolutely!

[live627]

as for outdated mod, maybe go for same way as Wordpress went and ask community to give thumbs up/down whether the mod can be installed with particular version of SMF?

* live627 looks for the Like button...

[SlammedDime]

Cassiel - I agree with what you're saying... there probably will not even be options to 'search by your version' like we currently have (except on the search page itself).

flapjack - I was actually thinking of that myself... the problem is, is that I don't want some newb coming along, having a hard time installing it, and giving it a thumbs down because of their own issues... as far as SMF is concerned, it either works on a version out of the box, or it doesn't... there isn't any middle ground.  For determining what versions of SMF a package works with, the new site will use the package-info.xml files (and theme-info.xml for themes).  So if an author puts 1.1.0-1.1.99, the mod site will show it as working for all 1.1.x versions, so as new versions of SMF become available, the author doesn't need to update the page.  *most* mods would fall into this category for a 'Gold' release of SMF... it's very rare that a minor update to SMF causes a mod not to work (unless the mod isn't coded properly (more on that below).  I think the new way of determining what version of SMF a mod works with will be much better than we currently have with the checkboxes.

As for coding standards, we plan on implementing a 'Editor's Choice' award that any customization is eligible to receive as long as it meets a strict set of coding guidelines that will be published around the time that feature is implemented.  We will have our normal 'Community Customizer' program which will allow the community to help in analyzing mods before approval, with the customize team giving final approval, and once a mod is approved, the author can request an 'Editor's Review', in which the customize team will check the mod against the coding guidelines.  If the customization passes, it will be given the award.  This is aimed at getting more mods on the mod site (or older ones updated) that will make everyone's lives easier when coding and installing.  The customize team typically knows the SMF code inside and out, and we are able to make recommendations (which would be in the coding guidelines) that will allow mod authors to make 'fool proof' modifications and modifications hopefully requiring less support requests due to their robustness (or something like that).

*Note: the actual name of the award and process haven't been hammered out yet... I've merely used the above so that it makes it more obvious as to what we have planned*

[DoctorMalboro]

Cassiel - I agree with what you're saying... there probably will not even be options to 'search by your version' like we currently have (except on the search page itself).

I think that maybe in the advanced search can appear "Compatible with 1.1.11", "Compatible with 2.0 RC3" and "Outdated Version" instead of every SMF version...

flapjack - I was actually thinking of that myself... the problem is, is that I don't want some newb coming along, having a hard time installing it, and giving it a thumbs down because of their own issues... as far as SMF is concerned, it either works on a version out of the box, or it doesn't... there isn't any middle ground.  For determining what versions of SMF a package works with, the new site will use the package-info.xml files (and theme-info.xml for themes).  So if an author puts 1.1.0-1.1.99, the mod site will show it as working for all 1.1.x versions, so as new versions of SMF become available, the author doesn't need to update the page.  *most* mods would fall into this category for a 'Gold' release of SMF... it's very rare that a minor update to SMF causes a mod not to work (unless the mod isn't coded properly (more on that below).  I think the new way of determining what version of SMF a mod works with will be much better than we currently have with the checkboxes.

You have a point there...

As for coding standards, we plan on implementing a 'Editor's Choice' award that any customization is eligible to receive as long as it meets a strict set of coding guidelines that will be published around the time that feature is implemented.  We will have our normal 'Community Customizer' program which will allow the community to help in analyzing mods before approval, with the customize team giving final approval, and once a mod is approved, the author can request an 'Editor's Review', in which the customize team will check the mod against the coding guidelines.  If the customization passes, it will be given the award.  This is aimed at getting more mods on the mod site (or older ones updated) that will make everyone's lives easier when coding and installing.  The customize team typically knows the SMF code inside and out, and we are able to make recommendations (which would be in the coding guidelines) that will allow mod authors to make 'fool proof' modifications and modifications hopefully requiring less support requests due to their robustness (or something like that).

I think the idea of a Community Customizer wouldn't be a bad idea... but it can't be as Community Support Helper because those are people mods and not everyone is capable of doing such a job...

[Nibogo]

@Malboro: We aren't going to accept everybody, only people capable (not like u :p) are going to be CC and their actions are going to be "moderated" by the customizers.

[flapjack]

my thought about rating was about mods/themes, which development stopped at some point and are considered abandoned by their creators, not for all of them

[Bloc]

Glad to hear about "editors Reviews" idea - sounds like a worthwhile feature to be adding.

But will it also apply to themes? Or do you plan on something else there?