SMF Development > Next SMF Discussion

What would it take to remove the calendar?

(1/10) > >>

AngelinaBelle:
Wedge has decided it doesn't want a calendar.
So they took practically all trace of it out of the code.
Turns out, the calendar is so entwined with SMF 2.0 that this was more difficult than anticipated.

Interestingly, they've put in enough code hooks to allow the re-introduction of a calendar plugin at a later date.
I was going to give a count of files involved, but I gave up. Interested readers can count for themselves:  http://wedge.org/pub/feats/6108/new-revs/msg270398/?topicseen#new

The team does publish an amazing amount of detail about every rev as they check it in.  I think it is part of the fun for them.  It's documentation, too.

Hmm..  Now I have to wonder what interesting things the other forks are up to...

Labradoodle-360:
I've completely removed the Calendar from SMF 2.0, before, as I believe it should be an official modification, with a completely new system in itself.

AngelinaBelle:
I guess it was a lot of work.

And I think it is worth putting forward what you learned in the process. Because, whether or not it is being considered for 2.1, it will certainly be worth considering for SMF 3.0.

Illori:
i believe once we start using smCore for 3.0 it is norv's plan to have things like the calendar has a mod or plugin and the default forum will be all you get and the rest will be extra that has to be installed later.

青山 素子:

--- Quote ---Rules of this board
* This board is for discussion of open-source forks of SMF 2.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---http://wedge.org/pub/faq/6358/faq-is-it-a-friendly-fork/
the license we chose is set to prevent SMF from re-using our implementations

http://wedge.org/license/
1(d): Any Distribution of this Package, whether as a Modified Package or not, requires express written consent from Wedgeward.
1(e): Your name is not Jonathan Valentin (aka "vbgamer45") or Alex Kühne (aka "Akyhne"), and you don't work with any company associated with them, including but not limited to Samson Software of Bloomingdale, Illinois.

--- End quote ---


--- Quote ---http://opensource.org/docs/osd

1. Free Redistribution
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.

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups
The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

--- End quote ---

License term 1(d) violates OSD #1, term 1(e) violates #5. If we take the OSD as the general guide for what it means to be "open source", then Wedge is not open source and discussion of it is not allowed per the rules of this board, even if you try to sneak it in tangentially.

(Yeah, we can argue that as the source code is available to view, it's "open source" as was the argument for SMF itself for many years, but given that the Simple Machines Board Chairman has refuted that argument at least once since the license change to BSD, it would be silly to jump back to that argument now.)

Navigation

[0] Message Index

[#] Next page