Simple Machines Community Forum

I've looked at a few forums that removed copyrights lately, and of them and ones from the past, more have been using the Mambo integration than not - and this is while, in my experience, most people who use SMF don't use the integration (as much as a lot do, the proportion is different.)

Thus, it is my conclusion that for some reason people who use Mambo think that the terms and agreements that apply to Mambo and/or its copyright statement apply to SMF.  This is not the case!

Anyone know why people think it's okay?  Clearly, it is no different than thievery - we ask you to pay a simple price for using the software for free.

-[Unknown]

I am going to take a stab at this and say that they are more concerned about the "look" of their website than respecting the copyright. Perhaps an understanding can be reached with these abusers to compress the copyrights to one line EACH. Would something like this be acceptable?

ie.


Just an idea. I bet they are seeing the stacked copyrights at the bottom as "duplicates" which is not correct, but they also just look redundant to the ignorant eye.

In addition I have observed that also lots of installs are around with theme copyrights removed. Also this is not ok and should be taken care of.

Quote from: andrea on May 16, 2005, 08:45:24 AM
In addition I have observed that also lots of installs are around with theme copyrights removed. Also this is not ok and should be taken care of.

This is why i dont make themes for publick. People wont respect copyrights, and its annoying.  ::)

I've seen where some developers include their copyright in the themes they release... It's bigger than the name of the website! lol  :P
Face it guys, we live in a world full of thieves. I run a record label. Sympathize with me.

I think it's time for Simplemachines to get harder .. this is simply not acceptable.

I think an encoded script to check an instance of the copyright before the software can be used is not going too far.

I use whoiscart and it not only checks this but checks that i'm licensed to use the software on that particular server.

perhaps the copyright itself could be encoded so that SMF will not work without it.

There is no way to prevent people from copying or stealing, especially when you're giving them the source code. I'd rather see SMF spend more time on developing a great product as opposed to worrying about people using it illegally. If you see somebody using it incorrectly just mention it to them. If there are too many checks and balances built in to SMF it might make modifications, upgrades, or custom themes harder to implement. Just my 2 cents.

Quote from: Radianation on May 16, 2005, 10:40:48 AM
I've seen where some developers include their copyright in the themes they release... It's bigger than the name of the website! lol  :P

I havent, can you give me an example?

Quote from: [Unknown] on May 16, 2005, 06:45:11 AM
Thus, it is my conclusion that for some reason people who use Mambo think that the terms and agreements that apply to Mambo and/or its copyright statement apply to SMF.  This is not the case!

I noticed that mambo-users who find the bridge think of SMF as just another component. I guess that's the reason. The biggest problem is people not reading though.

Just on this topic. In my site which I am rebulilding from scratch to be powered by SMF, I am definately not going to be removing the copyright from the forum but wish to know if you require the copyright on pages driven by SSI.php?

I am more than happy to put it there if necessary.

No, just the forum.  We're not trying to be unfair, but I don't really think it's that high a price to pay.

-[Unknown]

Hmm, I am not very keen on PHP but can there be any kind of harder protection against copyright removal, Perhaps database-driven? You can't stop thivery by telling people not to steal, the only way is to prevent them...

Even if it was a database check, they could comment out the code where it's displayed.

Maybe something md5 encrypted might be able to prevent it, sorry if I'm mistaken...

First of all ignorance is no defence! And to me removing the copyright is just plain insulting to the people like unknown who have spent so much time and continue to do so creating and improving SMF.

Shoot 'em I say!  ;D I hope you find a solution which protects your interests.

Let me just add you can always find a BS excuse from someone who copies your stuff! They are poor? They didn't know! There grandmothers gold fish just died! Please stealing is stealing which ever way you look at it.

Quote from: Radianation on May 16, 2005, 11:03:36 AM
There is no way to prevent people from copying or stealing, especially when you're giving them the source code. I'd rather see SMF spend more time on developing a great product as opposed to worrying about people using it illegally. If you see somebody using it incorrectly just mention it to them. If there are too many checks and balances built in to SMF it might make modifications, upgrades, or custom themes harder to implement. Just my 2 cents.

Oh yes it is not only possible but easy.

binary code in template.php that is unreadable to the masses that locks the script if the paramaters aren't met and also ceases to function if the code is not present.

It shouldn't be a problem to users (they won't notice unless breaking the rules.)

(if any devs want an email for a guy who's good at this then send me a line)

Correct. It's stealing. They know what they are doing. Even the guys that come on here and say they are sorry are full of ******. If they know enough to edit the files then they know how to comment out the copyright. Regardless, there's not much that can be done to prevent it.

If you want, maybe have the first page of the installation say something very clear about not removing it.

redone,

It's not my intention to suggest that ignorance is an excuse. I totally agree with you here. But, I also know that screaming that it's illegal and people shouldn't do it is not a solution. You want to solve this problem here or, even better, you want to prevent it from happening.
What I was saying in my post is that a lot of new users, escpecially the one that found smf using the bridge, should be better informed about the licences applied to SMF.
The suggestion of forsakenlad is IMO a very good one, I don't know if it is possible to achieve but I hope so.

No need for all to get excited..

It's simple .. using this software without due copyright is theft and unacceptable.

Any method to eradicate it is welcome.

Let's leave it there.

I agree that both the Simple Machines copyright and theme copyright need to remain intact (I also beieve the Mambo copyright should also remain visible, but I may be a minority there).  If one is going to use a software to render their site, shouldn't they do so with some amount of pride in their choice of software?

Is there anything, besides a warning in the installation and/or readme's that anyone would like to see done within the bridge itself that may help prevent this?   There are some things that can be done, from displaying it regardless of whether or not it has been removed from the theme, to displaying the huge red block-letter warning if the copyright is not found.  I guess the major problem with that would be those who "white out" the copyright by making the text the same colour as the background.

Here's the deal people...

As a record label I release albums. The copyright has to be present for legal reasons. Guess where we put it? In real small print on the back cover in the least noticeable spot so as to not take away from the packaging art. It's there. It's on a thing ring around the disc itself as well.

Sometimes I see coyright notices that take up 2-3 lines, are in a high contrast font at the bottom of every page. I comply with it because that's what everybody wants, but it's kind of overkill and I can see why these people that lack respect want to remove this from their website.

I always favor a credits page linked from a condensed copyright. The credits page has all the details about the copyright and all that jazz. The condensed copyright might look like Powered by SMF 1.0.3 and then you link to the actual  ©2001-2005 Simple Machines etc...

The copyright is two short lines on a usually large webpage.  I don't think that's much to ask, and it's more than likely (percentage wise) smaller than the copyrights you put on any album.

Some of the people who removed the copyright did the "link to another page" thing, where the other page had semi-correct copyrights on it.  This does not fly.  Not only is it, of course, against the license - but it's removing the copyright from the sight of most everyone.

If you're too good for the copyright statement, arrange to pay us a sum of money to remove it.

-[Unknown]

You're preaching to the choir. I'm playing devils advocate.

encrypted script to check copyrights would work, or you can have it do so multipule times and hide the function in other non-related source code, but eventually someone would find the, but i agree about people being more concerned over thier sites look!  What is even worse is if soemone was to replace the SMF copyright with another one, and give it a custom theme, and no one would guess its SMF.  I bet their are some of those around, i also say you add a call home function, ato also verify it, lol, just dn't go charging $80 for a license....LOL I know SMF won't, afterall they don't want to loose [Unknown] as a developer!. ;)

I think trying to put in some code to prevent removal of it would stop most of it - many people don't have the knowledge or inclination to dig that deep.  Anyone else obviously knows they are doing something wrong.

Personally, I think quite a few people are doing this out of ignorance.  Having a more visible warning would improve the problem, I bet.

a system to report violations would be good also, and if you get after the oard owners i think they would add it back, especially if you threaten to take legal action. :-\

Quote from: chadness on May 17, 2005, 04:27:53 PM
I think trying to put in some code to prevent removal of it would stop most of it - many people don't have the knowledge or inclination to dig that deep.  Anyone else obviously knows they are doing something wrong.

Personally, I think quite a few people are doing this out of ignorance.  Having a more visible warning would improve the problem, I bet.

A certain level of code is already present.  However most reasonible measures will fail by putting it a div that won't be rendered

I've been here for over a year and it's sad to see that this is still an issue. It's time for [Unknown] and co. to stop being "reasonable", now it's time to start layin' the smack down on these violators.

Quote from: Elijah Bliss on May 17, 2005, 09:12:11 PM
I've been here for over a year and it's sad to see that this is still an issue. It's time for [Unknown] and co. to stop being "reasonable", now it's time to start layin' the smack down on these violators.

i think its true.  if they dont want the copyright to pay for it and i still dont think thats reasonable.  like some people said its only 2-3 lines of text and its very small y delete it.  just cause its open-source doesnt mean you are allowed to remove sumthing like the copyright.  its a legal notice.  i dont know if im going over my head but imthinking that do get smf you should register and create some time of tracker that will track all the smf board to see if they got the copyright notice.  like the link tracker does it checks if you are linking bak to them.  this needs action.  people should stop being ignorant.  i beelieve if you are able to edit a file to remove the copyright notice you are aware of what you are doing.  i think action has to be taken.

What about contacting the ISP or host provider of copyright offenders?

Things can be done, our lawyer is more than happy to charge us to get involved, but I would personally prefer it didn't happen.

I'm mainly just wondering why people think it's okay.  Just because they think SMF is a little module for Mambo?  This means they can remove the copyright and violate the license?

-[Unknown]

Quote from: [Unknown] on May 17, 2005, 11:26:23 PM
Things can be done, our lawyer is more than happy to charge us to get involved, but I would personally prefer it didn't happen.

I'm mainly just wondering why people think it's okay.  Just because they think SMF is a little module for Mambo?  This means they can remove the copyright and violate the license?

-[Unknown]

Yeah, aren't lawyers just so helpfull? :D

Anyway, seeing as that it seems to be popping up a lot with the Mambo bridge. Wouldn't it be worthwhile to try and get the guys from Mambo involved in this? Maybe they can flex a bit of muscle or bash a few heads on your behalf.

Just a thought... :)

treatening to take lagal action if they don't put the copyright back, or pay you, would probably get 99% of people to add it back, you need to impliemnt a system of reporting offenders. ;)

I really think that it's an issue of displaying two copyright messages stacked that makes them want to remove it with the bridge.

Quote from: [Unknown] on May 17, 2005, 11:26:23 PM
I'm mainly just wondering why people think it's okay.  Just because they think SMF is a little module for Mambo?  This means they can remove the copyright and violate the license?

-[Unknown]

Yes, I guess. Like for example Zoomgallery, a stand-alone gallery which can be integrated with Mambo, it doesn't have a copyright, or at least I have never seen an integration with a copyright. People don't read anymore, they see just another component and they haven't got a clue of what they are actually installing. Yesterday I saw at least two people posting here who didn't even know SMF was a stand-alone project. Sadly, you see this kind of behaviour anywhere. It's just a signal of how society is developing. No one cares anymore unless you take really hard measures. I am sorry, but I think you can't win this battle without your laywer.
You can block it but there will be always people who outsmart this, like Orstio said, simply by giving the copyright the same color as the background. That's the way the world works nowadays.   :(

Quote from: Radianation on May 18, 2005, 08:04:14 AM
I really think that it's an issue of displaying two copyright messages stacked that makes them want to remove it with the bridge.

Their bad. The developers and no one else should define where the copyright is. This is a free product, what else do you want?

I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want... Stop thinking that I'm the guy wanting to remove or change copyrights.  :-\
I'm not. Mine are there. I comply. I donate. I contribute. Wahhh Stop.  :-*

Quote from: Radianation on May 18, 2005, 09:48:03 AM
I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want... Stop thinking that I'm the guy wanting to remove or change copyrights.  :-\
I'm not. Mine are there. I comply. I donate. I contribute. Wahhh Stop.  :-*

Well, like you I was more talking in general. I think you're sweet  :D

If you wanna be my lover, you gotta get with my friends,
Make it last forever friendship never ends

(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fus.ent2.yimg.com%2Fmusicfinder.yahoo.com%2Fimages%2Fyahoo%2Fvirgin%2Fspice_girls%2Fspice_girls_4.jpg&hash=b2b3a390982559db38ab7890e20f73c62876979f)

^^ ::)

I meant you're sweet because you're contributing and donating...  :-[

/me is going to suscribe for a course 'English for Dummies' and 'How to make myself clear in the English language'....

Okay, back on topic, this thread is far to serious to wander off. My apologies.

[Unknown], I think you are right in thinking it's because people are treating it like a component for Mambo.  Because Mambo doesn't require people to keep a copyright notice, they think everyone is like that.

And Rad, I'm not sure I can respect your music anymore after that ;)

Where is the love??? =D

Quote from: Radianation on May 16, 2005, 11:03:36 AM
There is no way to prevent people from copying or stealing, especially when you're giving them the source code. I'd rather see SMF spend more time on developing a great product as opposed to worrying about people using it illegally. If you see somebody using it incorrectly just mention it to them. If there are too many checks and balances built in to SMF it might make modifications, upgrades, or custom themes harder to implement. Just my 2 cents.

I can't tell you how wrong you are.  You could code a php script with a core SMF function in it and put it on the SMF server.  You could encrypt the php file using sourceguardian to change it to pxp.  I'm sure the dev team of fntastico won't mind encrypting the file for you.  This way if someone commented out the line of the include, all of a sudden their board doesn't work ;).  This would take some bandwidth but isn't it worth it for this great piece of software?

--Kyle C.

Kyle 5 bucks says I could still defeat that without even touching the the copyright function.  copyright won't show up if the browswer doesn't render the block it's in

I laugh at you. You honestly think you can create something that can prevent copyright infringement? You'd be a billionaire if you could. There is always a way around... Your solution sounds like it would constantly be talking to the SMF servers to retrieve the block of code you want, and thus it becomes a burden on SMF to provide that extra bandwidth.. and would probably slow down every single page display for the simple purpose of trying to keep a copyright in place.

Sigh...

At my site www.cache-community.co.uk I use Mambo integrated with SMF.

For whatever reason I am using the SMF copyright as it came with the template, but for mambo I replaced the copyright with a powered by mambo image. I was under the impression that this was OK, but after seeing this thread I'm not too sure.
It can be seen in the footer section of EVERY page.
Could some one please clarfy for me if this is correct or not, and if i need to replace the original copyright instead of the image, then I have no problems doing so.

I think it is a shame that so many people intentionally remove the copyright.  Yeah, there are a few that do it by accidently using the same font color as the background (or similar enough to make it hard to see) but for the most part people are doing it on purpose.

There are many out there that think they won't get caught and take the risk.  Finding those boards is only the first step.  Then someone has to contact them, and remind them of the agreement.

The problem with reminding them of the agreement is that it sounds too much like, "Oh, pretty please show everyone the nice software copyright in the bottom of your forum... Pretty please with sugar on it..."

Enough is enough... it is time to create some havoc.  Code it such that removing it will change their database name, prefix, rename the index.template.php file or delete the database entirely.  Yeah, there are always work arounds, but it is time to set a few examples.

Bleh ... Then you go and accidently delete my database because I screw up a template and I'd be uber pissed. Stay focused on the project and reward those who support the project.

Quote from: Cache-man on May 22, 2005, 08:03:57 PM
At my site www.cache-community.co.uk I use Mambo integrated with SMF.

For whatever reason I am using the SMF copyright as it came with the template, but for mambo I replaced the copyright with a powered by mambo image. I was under the impression that this was OK, but after seeing this thread I'm not too sure.
It can be seen in the footer section of EVERY page.
Could some one please clarfy for me if this is correct or not, and if i need to replace the original copyright instead of the image, then I have no problems doing so.

As far as I know, that's perfectly fine.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: Radianation on May 22, 2005, 10:41:16 PM
Bleh ... Then you go and accidently delete my database because I screw up a template and I'd be uber pissed. Stay focused on the project and reward those who support the project.

Relax... I know the devs wouldn't write it to totally crash if the copyright was altered.  But you gotta admit it is fun to think about ;)

It's also fun to get excited.  :o  8)
If you want to be malicious about it then let me get on the other side of the fence and plot their demise!! Muhahahha!!

Quote from: Cache-man on May 22, 2005, 08:03:57 PM
At my site www.cache-community.co.uk I use Mambo integrated with SMF.

For whatever reason I am using the SMF copyright as it came with the template, but for mambo I replaced the copyright with a powered by mambo image. I was under the impression that this was OK, but after seeing this thread I'm not too sure.
It can be seen in the footer section of EVERY page.
Could some one please clarfy for me if this is correct or not, and if i need to replace the original copyright instead of the image, then I have no problems doing so.

Mambo doesn't require you to have any mention of it.  They do, however, encourage it.

I am always a little distrubed when I see an obvious mambo site with no credit to mambo itself.

My only desire with the SMF copyright is actually to move it down within the site footer rather then only appearing when SMF (as a component) is openned.   I want to advertise that I am running SMF right form the get-go. :)

Quote from: Kindred on May 24, 2005, 09:52:31 AM
I am always a little distrubed when I see an obvious mambo site with no credit to mambo itself.

I probably should have mentioned that - quite a bit of the Mambo community feels the same way.

I maintained my mambo copyright, but I did make it less noticeable by making it a darker shade of grey on black and condensed it to one line, however it's still easy enough to read if you look for it.

im glad to see that smf has some kind of system in pace to prevent people from ripping off the copyright

wouldnt one way be to pass all of the output to an encrypted file that only handles the output that way theres nothing in it that needs to change and then the copyright is added in there

Quote from: Kindred on May 24, 2005, 09:52:31 AM
My only desire with the SMF copyright is actually to move it down within the site footer rather then only appearing when SMF (as a component) is openned.   I want to advertise that I am running SMF right form the get-go. :)

Thanks Kindred

This for me is the crux of the issue.

I have been a part of the SMF community since yabbse days, an awesome community which has has a constant "continous improvement".

We should WANT to have the SMF credits on our sites.

In fact .. the only negative to having the credits on your site is to give away some PR ranking to SMF ..

Well . PR ranking counts for 0 in google rankings, and 1 link to SMF costs nothing anyway.

So don't think of it as you HAVE to have the SMF credits, be PROUD of it.

<climbs back into his wineglass>

Quote from: Radianation on May 23, 2005, 09:16:59 AM
It's also fun to get excited.  :o  8)
If you want to be malicious about it then let me get on the other side of the fence and plot their demise!! Muhahahha!!

Man... when did everyone become such a nerd??? lmao JK.

I absolutely concur among the mainstream of the subject of matter.

I think I became a nerd shortly after 1980 thanks to Mattel's Intellivision.

I have no problems with showing the copyright on any of my websites just as I had no problems paying for a charter membership. You might consider for those who want to remove copyrights adding that as a option for charter members maybe a special module. Even if you released this most sites including mine would not use it.  However if someone is going to turn them off in clear violation of the license the least they can do is contribute back to the software which they are using.

While we are talking about the forum's footer I would like to point out that in my opinion showing software version numbers to the public is asking for trouble. Google hacking is becoming more and more common. It's one reason I am now using SMF. Yes the quality and security of SMF programming is very good however no one is perfect 100% of the time even though we try to be.

My 2¢'s

Quote from: bl968 on June 08, 2005, 10:45:56 PM
I have no problems with showing the copyright on any of my websites just as I had no problems paying for a charter membership. You might consider for those who want to remove copyrights adding that as a option for charter members maybe a special module.

Actually, I'm pretty sure we have asked for more from interested parties than a Charter Membership is.  I know we made an agreement with one party where we get a certain amount on a schedule (not a one time thing like with YaBB SE) but that's a larger-scale thing.

QuoteWhile we are talking about the forum's footer I would like to point out that in my opinion showing software version numbers to the public is asking for trouble.

This has to be measured against support.  You may not have known it, but YaBB SE showed the version number too.  It was just a little harder to see... this was to make it easier for us to tell what versions people are running.

I've actually made a listing, using the same technique as "Google Hacking", of outdated forums.  There are some still running very old versions of SMF!  Most of them should be fine - and even the parsing problem in 1.0.4 only affects users of IE, and is still hard to actually use against an administrator (although possible.)  That said, I can now use this list to go after everyone using an old version - something I could not do if I could not Google for people using old versions.

-[Unknown]

  I will put the copyrigths on the very top of my forum, and the bottom too. No, really!
  This way everyone stumbling across my forum would be lucky enough to see it.

Rudolf

PS: It seems I'm out of constructive ideas ... for this week, at least.  :P

What sort of actions does SMF take in going after these copyright violators?

-Dan The Man

I would never take mine off, the price is free and the support here is great. It's the least you can do!

Quote from: Radianation on May 16, 2005, 07:56:50 AM

I am going to take a stab at this and say that they are more concerned about the "look" of their website than respecting the copyright.

Exactly (at least in my case). I'm writing on a website right now as well, and try to keep it as simple and little text as possible. The SMF Forum for example had many redundancies (not to mention the long copyright lines at the bottom which I left as is for now) to my surprise, which I deleted/turned off to make it "light" and accessible. There's one good solution for it though, and I'm pretty certain I'm going to implement it: Create a special static page which is linked from all pages (either the main menu or the bottom where the copyright notice was), called "Impressum", "imprint" or "editorial details" with all the info neccessary in full text. Much more elegant, asthetic and professional.
just my 2 €cents.

regards,

Grendel

Please reread the license if you are confused about it.  The copyright statement MUST BE DISPLAYED UPON EVERY PAGE VIEW, IN THE HTML, EASILY VIEWABLE BY ANY USER, WITHIN REASON, AS BY DEFAULT.  It may not be on one page alone.

-[Unknown]

Hello Unknown,
I'm sorry if my post confused you. Didn't I mention I did _not_ remove the SMF copyright notice? No reason to yell around like that, we're all gentleman here. :-)

Btw, I forgot to post the link to the website to show what I mean:
http://forum.mamboserver.com/showthread.php?p=227773#post227773

If you don't see the point: Any page within the SMF forum that's longer than the 300 or so pixels is not going to show the copyright notice in the visible part of the content area since the wrapper creates only that much space. The result is, i.e. if you take a look at the website I linked in the mamboserver post, the copyright notice, although "displayed opon every page view, in the html, easily viewable by any user within reason as by default" is automatically below the "horizon" and hardly any user is going to scroll further down than the relevant content part of the forum. You created the script, it's your work, and you deserve credit, no one denies that.
Note that the main menu is displayed on every page, and thus the "editorial details" or "imprint" mentioned ("Impressum" in German) - which includes the copyright details about SMF (and other used scripts). You might still not like it, well, then be it with all the consequences mentioned before. :-)

Something else: When I tried to modify the copyright notice so the redundant part of it (my website's title) is left out and the notice fits into one line, your script didn't like it at all although the actual copyright notice content has not been changed. Do you care to elaborate what to do in this case? Thx in forward -
regards,

Grendel

Well, basically, you cannot modify the copyright statement.  What part of this is confusing?

Sorry, but, if you have to scroll to see it - that's acceptable.  If you have to click a link to see it, that's not acceptable.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 09, 2005, 06:08:23 AM
Well, basically, you cannot modify the copyright statement.  What part of this is confusing?

None.
I'm actually surprised that I'm not even allowed to leave out the name of my website out of the copyright notice. Am I the only one who sees the irony in that? :-)

QuoteSorry, but, if you have to scroll to see it - that's acceptable.  If you have to click a link to see it, that's not acceptable.

There's no need to be sorry, really. You have your rules, that's o.k., I just wonder whether you see it as being overly rigid and lacking flexibility. Beside having the same information on every page is redundant (I guess you could agree to this statement, discussion aside), there's one thing any user who doesn't like it can do... choose another forum script (YaBB, phpBB, ubb, etc.). For my part, I'm glad I didn't have to fiddle around for hours to have a simple forum working, and I'm not disappointed at all that I have to keep the copyright as it is right now since it's mostly out of sight anyway (the entry forum page is the exception). You might want to add the copyright notice as an additional option for charter members, since the argument about redundancy (not talking about removing one's own website name ;-) ) is not invalid, as well as the notion that it looks unprofessional. It does, but it's your choice what to do about it. :-)
regards,

Grendel

Well, see, here's what you just said:

"I know SMF is $100, but... really, couldn't you make it $80?  People would buy it so much more often that way!  They might buy other software that is priced cheaper otherwise!"

So I'm saying:

"I'm perfectly content with people who are unwilling to pay for the software using other, less expensive, software.  This is how the free market economy is meant to work.  No need to change anything."

If you get my analogy.  I don't see anyone complaining about Microsoft not allowing you to negotiate the price for Windows XP Pro down.... why are you arguing about me not letting you negotiate the price of SMF?  It's set.  Don't like it... don't pay it, and don't use the software.

I didn't say you couldn't remove your forum's name, either.  If the software barked at you, that means you DID try to remove something you definately shouldn't have - there are many cases where it won't bark at you even when you *are* doing something wrong.  Thus, I can tell you tried to change one of just a few things (as I wrote that which barks at you, and know EXACTLY what can trigger it and what cannot.)

Please, by all means use some other software, which does not force you to do something as *UNPROFESSIONAL* as paying for software fairly.

-[Unknown]

BTW: I do not find it at all redundant to display the copyright at the bottom of every page.   That is what most professional websites do!

The copyright is shown at the bottom of every page with content...  since the forum is all content.. well, you get the point (I hope)

Most of the other forum softwares do the same thing...  I know phpBB and vB do...

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 09, 2005, 06:43:26 AM
Well, see, here's what you just said:

"I know SMF is $100, but... really, couldn't you make it $80?  People would buy it so much more often that way!  They might buy other software that is priced cheaper otherwise!"

It's either because I'm not a native speaker _or_ you're not actually properly reading my posts. Who said you should lower the price for SMF??

QuoteSo I'm saying:
[...]
why are you arguing about me not letting you negotiate the price of SMF?  It's set.  Don't like it... don't pay it, and don't use the software.

May I ask how old are you?

1. I didn't negotiate any price.
2. As I said, if users don't like it they can use another software.
3. You're just repeating my statements, but adding stuff I never said.

QuoteI didn't say you couldn't remove your forum's name, either.  If the software barked at you, that means you DID try to remove something you definately shouldn't have

I can try it again, if I can't remove my website's name be assured I'd be glad to post again. :) Nevertheless, I'd prefer if it just worked.


This thread seems to be a touchy subject, perhaps a day or two cooling off would be good? Just a thought.
best regards,

Grendel

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=analogy
http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?analogy

-[Unknown]

Quote from: Grendel on June 09, 2005, 08:07:11 AM1. I didn't negotiate any price.

The price for using this software is to display the copyright-text, just like it is is defined by the SMF team.


I think we can conclude with this:
The SMF team will not allow any modifications of any sort of the copyright notice in any way.

Guys, chill.  ;)

I've decided to write SMF with a sharpie on my forehead to help promote SMF. Unfortunately, everybody keeps thinking it means "Stupid Mother F_cker".  :o

Anybody else notice that at the end of some shows on Adult Swim they show a logo for "SMF"? It's the name of one of the production companies. I believe it might be Robot Chicken or ATHF. Just thought I'd throw that potential trademark issue out there since we're discussing copyrights.

Hi Grendel.
I just have one question.

Does the copyright notice on THIS page disturbing you?
Ok here's a bonus question:
    Does the copyrirght text on ANY page of THIS forum disturbing you?
Hey, you're lucky there's a last bonus question for you:
    Does the copyright text on the bottom of the pages on THIS forum diminish in any way your forum browsing experience?

If the answer is yes to any of the questions then you don't deserve to use this software.

Yes, maybe I'm being overly sarcastic here, but this is it. What you say doesn't makes sense.

Rudolf

Quote from: rudoka on June 09, 2005, 11:16:14 AM
I just have one question.

QuoteDoes the copyright notice on THIS page disturbing you?

"Do this stranger grammar in your posts does disturbing thou?"
"What you say does makes so many sense." ;)

Btw, Mr. Unknown, your analogy limps a great deal. Doesn't matter though, because reasoning is kinda hard when I'm trying to argue rationally and get such nonsensical answers, so, for me, this is the famous EOD.
take care & don't drink and post,

Grendel

Quote from: Grendel on June 09, 2005, 12:38:48 PM

Quote from: rudoka on June 09, 2005, 11:16:14 AM
I just have one question.

QuoteDoes the copyright notice on THIS page disturbing you?

"Do this stranger grammar in your posts does disturbing thou?"
"What you say does makes so many sense." ;)

Btw, Mr. Unknown, your analogy limps a great deal. Doesn't matter though, because reasoning is kinda hard when I'm trying to argue rationally and get such nonsensical answers, so, for me, this is the famous EOD.
take care & don't drink and post,

Grendel

What exactly are you "rationally" arguing about...
From my understanding, the copyright on your forum was quite simply changed to the point where it is unseen even by scrolling...
No need to bastardize the situation, as it was changed, and in terms; exploitation was at hand.

Good day you exacerbating hooligan.

Grendel...

I'm not sure what your complaint really is.  The copyright doesn't detract from the viewing experience, at all...
(And [unknown]'s analogy was actually fairly coherant and on point.)

Part of the "cost" of  running SMF is to include the copyright.

You say "Well, I don't really want to pay that cost... how about if I paid you something less?" (in other words, you suggestion of a single copyright page, accessable through a link)

The answer (as it should be) is Nope... either pay or use another prooduct.


(and you never answered my previous statement...   most professional sites have a copyright at the bottom of every page.

Grendel  you seriously need help.  You should be glad that you are able to use this great piece of software for free.  i don't think that the copyright notice is hurting anyone.  two lines of small text is nothing.  you barely see it anyways.  i would go on your side if the text was a size 14 font that anywhere you went it would stand out over anything.  still that would be rational for the software you get it.  you offered the credits page there is not use of that the reason is that most people never look at that.  they don't care to bother wt u using.  if u leave it were it belongs then they notice it since theres more content to view and they see they have to scroll down a Lil bit more and they do it. look at these professional sites.  they all have the notices on the bottom.

• http://www.msn.com/
• http://www.google.com/
• http://www.microsoft.com/
• http://www.yahoo.com/ the font size it type big but they have it
• http://fedex.com/
• http://www.vbulletin.com/ another forum that has copyright notices on it.
• http://www.mtv.com/

my questionis do you consider those sites professional? to my knowledge each and every single one of those sites are professional and they show their copyright in every page.  stop using excuses to remove the copyright theres not excuse to do this..

Should I refrase my questions?
Should I say in an other language? Witch one youd lyek? Yes, inglish is not my mother lenguage.
Though, I thought I was clear enough?  :'(

  lol, who cares anyway, those who wanted understood it, those who do not want ... well, are like you, Grendel. a.....e (fill the dots)

:-X
Rudolf

Personally, I find it quite disrespectful when someone removes the copyright from their forum. I (and the other developers and staff here moreso) have spend literally thousands of hours of my time, for free, coding this software. If in return for our thousands of hours of work you can't give us back the one credit we ask for then that's quite insulting.

As someone rightly pointed out *no-one* checks a credit page. The copyright message by default is non-intrusive, and is only required on SMF page loads (i.e not using SSI and/or the API) - so I can't see any justification to remove it!

C'mon, everyone, Grendel agreed a while ago he wasn't going to remove the copyright notice.  He just wanted to shorten his web site name so it wouldn't wrap as much.  It just sounds like when he attempted it, he messed something up which broke the display of the copyright, which caused it to give whatever errors it gives.

Whatever, he's probably not coming back to this discussion now.  Personally, I think his web site would look a lot better if he didn't have SMF as a wrapper (causing the "scrolling" he was talking about) and instead used it as a component, as it really should be.

seriously its not affecting his page, take a look.  if it is he should make the height of the iframe bigger take a look at the screenshot.
(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fkevmundial.com%2FScreenShot001.jpg&hash=065cc3e6f16d4b0f48bde7407084094cf8a37045)

Grendel, I have a hard time believing you would walk into a business, start explaining in front of other customers that you think the price should be lower and have tried to steal from the company and failed, AND NOT THINK YOU WILL BE IN A HOT SEAT AFTERWARD.  I mean, really.  If you would do this, you must have quite a large amount of dirt on your suit, from being thrown out of everywhere - assuming you would bother to where a suit.

Of course, this analogy will probably be lost upon you too - unfortunately, since analogy is basic human cognition, saying that you're not a native speaker but showing that you can obviously read and understand the words I use, only makes me think you're a troll.  I make a habit of banning trolls, just so you're aware.

And, I didn't attack you - say you were drunk, ask for your age, etc.  These are all personal attacks, which is highly unprofessional.  I am quite frankly just this far from (an expression meaning that I am a very small distance from) banning you for a period of time from this forum.

Don't rationalize removing the copyright.  Don't say and argue that it should be smaller.  It's simply not up for discussion; it is the size, place, and requirement it is.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: Owdy on May 16, 2005, 11:26:50 AM

Quote from: Radianation on May 16, 2005, 10:40:48 AM
I've seen where some developers include their copyright in the themes they release... It's bigger than the name of the website! lol  :P

I haven't, can you give me an example?

Yeah, I like one example too... :P

But really..to keep the credit in a theme i have made has never been required, its just been great to see people keeping it, nothing else.... ;)

The SMF copyright is whole other matter of course.Again it seem that once you are using the SMF as part of something , in this case Mambo - rather than on its own, its "get rid of that ugly copyright" straight away.

Grendel, beside being sarcastic and bringing in your (assumed) older age as something to use in a discussion  - your whole argument fails. If you can't design a good looking website using a few required elements, then its the design skills that are lacking. Not some part of the forum software you are designing for/with.

Not to mention being a bit thankful for a actual free and professional piece of software. God knows there are enough paid ones than aren't even that.

Out of curiosity, would it be acceptable to move the copyright notice from the bottom of the forum into the Mambo footer? Like from this:

(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hglan.com%2FNorphy%2FImage4.jpg&hash=7095626156bdab260f671be7377a7381846a2958)

to this

(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.hglan.com%2FNorphy%2FImage3.jpg&hash=afb8f00396d86da4e215deeb6270447309366b18)

excuse the crudity of the chop, I really couldn't be bothered to clean it up

That way, the copyright notice is still displayed at the bottom of every page when the forum is visible and also when it isn't. However it would mean that all the copyright notices are together and the look of the forum is marginally cleaner.

Please note, I'm not planning on doing this no matter what the answer is. I'm just asking because I'm curious :)

I actually already asked this. :)   I had the same idea...   the answer, basically is nope...  no modification to the copyright or its display, at all...

You could do it, except for conflicts between Mambo and SMF's template systems.

-[Unknown]

I would think that if you did something like the above (combining the two) that you would need to add another word or two to specify what the copyrights are for.

In an "odd" sort of way, this was a healthy discussion.

I for one am glad that the team are implementing, and enforcing adherence to the basic right of recognition.

As a user of many years, I appreciate not only the quality of the product but also the quality of the support.

Why exactly would the devs give thousands of hours to this project to supply both the product and the support if the basic right of recognition was removed?

The grendels of this world need to exist (sadly) so that those of us with a semblence of a brain .. <pauses to smile> .. can reassess our appreciation.

I think attempting to do anything like what Norphy suggests would be a big pain in the hind quarters to implement :) 

I think it's a lot easier for you, [Unknown], and all the other fine folks working for Lewis Media to say, please just leave it as it is, and I wouldn't switch away from that answer if I were you.  ;D  That's a bag of worms I wouldn't want to open.  (Please note, this "bag of worms" is not meant to be taken literally, it's what we call an analogy.  No worms were harmed in the posting of this thread.  Well, except involving Kindred and that tapeworm, but I digress.)

Hmm

Is it possible to make a trade off deal with SMF? Instead of having a copyright on the bottom of the forum, one would put up an SMF banner on their page or make a sticky forum thread or post a Link in the Links section of the site if the site does have one? Just curios.

Just so [Unknown]'s head doesn't have to explode, the short answer is, "no". 

The long answer is that if you want to pay them money, something could be worked out, I'm sure (check [Unknown]'s previous posts concerning this).

if you dont want to display a little link that only takes up like less than 0.25% of your page i dont think your going to display a banner.

thats all they want, and a sticky post? thats a bit cheeky in it?

what if no one goes in to that board?

Quote from: d3v on June 10, 2005, 04:28:27 PM
Hmm

Is it possible to make a trade off deal with SMF? Instead of having a copyright on the bottom of the forum, one would put up an SMF banner on their page or make a sticky forum thread or post a Link in the Links section of the site if the site does have one? Just curios.

it was stated before that people don tlook at credits pages.  sticky topics will probly be in one board only not site wide.  y you make this suck a big issue 2 lines of text wont mess up the look of ur site period.

haha. just the amount of the flame that I expected. glad I posted this. Thanks.

Quote from: Thunderace on June 10, 2005, 03:44:08 PM
In an "odd" sort of way, this was a healthy discussion.

I for one am glad that the team are implementing, and enforcing adherence to the basic right of recognition.

As a user of many years, I appreciate not only the quality of the product but also the quality of the support.

Why exactly would the devs give thousands of hours to this project to supply both the product and the support if the basic right of recognition was removed?

The grendels of this world need to exist (sadly) so that those of us with a semblence of a brain brain .. <pauses to smile> .. can reassess our appreciation.

Nicely Put.

I have remained an observer of this discussion for some time and this post makes me feel recognition of a valid point is deserved.

Thanks

*dons protective armor*

I have no problem with the copyright, in fact, I'm glad to have it there.  However, I would like to add something stating 2 things:

1) The forum theme and basic content is under the copyright of my company.
2) The posts are considered intellectual property of their respective posters.

Am I going to be drug out into the street and shot for this?  I don't change the copyright text itself.  Well, okay, I add the word "software" to it to specify that what powers the forum isn't my creation but someone elses.   I  add the above to it...it makes the text even longer, actually, four lines instead of the present 2...

The issue of intellectual property rights of a person's posts are becoming a bigger deal in the circles I travel in these days.  I don't want to even give the impression that these people's posts are copyrighted by SMF, nor the theme since I spent hours making it. 

That being said, I'm more than happy to give them the credit that is due for making this software.  If you want me to make that copyright text 48px to atone for making sure the rights of the posters are also protected, just send word...

Quote from: The Ar'tak Productions on June 16, 2005, 01:57:40 AM
Am I going to be drug out into the street and shot for this?  I don't change the copyright text itself.  Well, okay, I add the word "software" to it to specify that what powers the forum isn't my creation but someone elses.   I  add the above to it...it makes the text even longer, actually, four lines instead of the present 2...

You're more than welcome to add your own copyright line, for example:

The Ar'tak Productions Forum | Powered by SMF 1.0.4.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Site and layout © 2005, The Ar'tak Productions. All Rights Reserved.

QuoteThe issue of intellectual property rights of a person's posts are becoming a bigger deal in the circles I travel in these days.  I don't want to even give the impression that these people's posts are copyrighted by SMF, nor the theme since I spent hours making it.

These people are clearly ignoring the registration agreement, unless you changed it; it explicitly mentions these issues.  Nevertheless, you could try adding yet another line for that, too.

QuoteThat being said, I'm more than happy to give them the credit that is due for making this software.  If you want me to make that copyright text 48px to atone for making sure the rights of the posters are also protected, just send word...

No, 48px (~32pt or so, right?) would be annoying :P.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 16, 2005, 02:07:43 AM

These people are clearly ignoring the registration agreement, unless you changed it; it explicitly mentions these issues.  Nevertheless, you could try adding yet another line for that, too.

Let's just say I'm putting more faith in people reading at the bottom of the forum than the registration agreement...

Also, guests never see that registration agreement unless they register.  That's too much of a chance I'd rather not take.

Thanks for the clarification.

Forum Powered by SMF 1.0.4.© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Site and layout © 2005, The Ar'tak Productions. All Rights Reserved.

That looks better to me.

Quote from: Radianation on June 16, 2005, 06:31:24 PM
Forum Powered by SMF 1.0.4.© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Site and layout © 2005, The Ar'tak Productions. All Rights Reserved.

That looks better to me.

Sorry, no cigar.

-[Unknown]

Btw, may I translate the copyright text? I mean this: Powered by & All Rights Reserved.

Yes, that should be translated to the appropriate text in whatever language you use.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 16, 2005, 06:43:05 PM

Quote from: Radianation on June 16, 2005, 06:31:24 PM
Forum Powered by SMF 1.0.4.© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Site and layout © 2005, The Ar'tak Productions. All Rights Reserved.

That looks better to me.

Sorry, no cigar.

-[Unknown]

Why? I'm pretty sure you agreed to this in a prior post where I phrased it nearly the same way.

This is just my 2 cents. My personal feelings on copyrights.

I don't care about the copyright bieng displayed. If I can use it free and it makes the author/s happy then who cares. Just display it. Also it shouldn't matter how its displayed as long as its displayed in its true context. If you want to make it smaller because its too big then just make it smaller (within reason). If you want to change where its displayed on the page then do it. If you want to show along with the origional copyright that you are the designer of the customizations, that should be ok also, especialy if its open source.

I have different views on paid software. The following by no means states that I take part in or endorse the illegal use of software. I feel that alot of software is way overpriced. Windows for instance. If it was $20, $30 or even $40 then I would have no problem purchasing it. But it really ticks me off that I have to pay in upwards of $150 and more just for something to run my computer which I already invested $1500 in. Another example, Adobe Photoshop. Last time I checked, it was over $400. That is absolutely crazy! Alot of developers deserve to have their projects pirated.

Anyways.... thats just my 2 cents..... Sorry to ramble

Quote from: Radianation on June 21, 2005, 01:01:29 AM
Why? I'm pretty sure you agreed to this in a prior post where I phrased it nearly the same way.

I don't like the spacing... :P.

But, anyway, just leave it alone.  An extra line is not going to freak anyone out or make them never come to your site again.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: Radianation on June 21, 2005, 01:01:29 AM

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 16, 2005, 06:43:05 PM

Quote from: Radianation on June 16, 2005, 06:31:24 PM
Forum Powered by SMF 1.0.4.© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Site and layout © 2005, The Ar'tak Productions. All Rights Reserved.

That looks better to me.

Sorry, no cigar.

-[Unknown]

Why? I'm pretty sure you agreed to this in a prior post where I phrased it nearly the same way.

Legal mumbo jumbo  ;D
That should be ok, I don't see why not. Proper credit is given and it does not violate the GLA "general license agreement" Open source GLA was created to protect the origonal author. However under the GLA, altered distributions to the kernal are accepted with credit given to the person who made the alterations as long as the origional credit remains attached to the kernal. I could be reading the GLA wrong.

This is released under Lewis Media's own license agreement, which specifically stated the copyright notice should be unchanged.

Quote from: forsakenlad on May 16, 2005, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe something md5 encrypted might be able to prevent it, sorry if I'm mistaken...

There's certainly ways like encryption to do it, but at some point you have to look at this and say that protecting the copyright gets to be more of a hassle than its worth.  Enterprising users will ALWAYS find a way around the copyrights, no matter how much encryption you do - but in the mean time, users who are trying to legitly use the software become more annoyed as you add protections.  The harder it is for admins to use, the less they're going to use it.

leave the copyright exactly like it is. It's the only thing smf asks for in return for a great product.

my 3.3 cents. Im gifted.

Quote from: drhamad on June 21, 2005, 02:55:45 PM

Quote from: forsakenlad on May 16, 2005, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe something md5 encrypted might be able to prevent it, sorry if I'm mistaken...

There's certainly ways like encryption to do it, but at some point you have to look at this and say that protecting the copyright gets to be more of a hassle than its worth.  Enterprising users will ALWAYS find a way around the copyrights, no matter how much encryption you do - but in the mean time, users who are trying to legitly use the software become more annoyed as you add protections.  The harder it is for admins to use, the less they're going to use it.

More than that, it's an issue of cost.  Trying to automatically protect it is a feature.  If people make me mad and violate copyrights, it basically just means more time spent by me on:
  - dealing with our lawyer.
  - possibly changing the copyright protection.
  - hassling the person to follow our rules and stop their thievery.
  - coordinating efforts to watch the person in the future (so they don't just go back to not showing it.)
  - being annoyed.

Obviously, time spent on the above means, simply, less time on other things.  Less time on any bugs that might come up.  Less time on new features.  Less time on UI.  Less time on support.

In other words, everything is worse for everyone.  Stupid punks.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 21, 2005, 05:50:36 PM

Quote from: drhamad on June 21, 2005, 02:55:45 PM

Quote from: forsakenlad on May 16, 2005, 02:08:36 PM
Maybe something md5 encrypted might be able to prevent it, sorry if I'm mistaken...

There's certainly ways like encryption to do it, but at some point you have to look at this and say that protecting the copyright gets to be more of a hassle than its worth.  Enterprising users will ALWAYS find a way around the copyrights, no matter how much encryption you do - but in the mean time, users who are trying to legitly use the software become more annoyed as you add protections.  The harder it is for admins to use, the less they're going to use it.

More than that, it's an issue of cost.  Trying to automatically protect it is a feature.  If people make me mad and violate copyrights, it basically just means more time spent by me on:
  - dealing with our lawyer.
  - possibly changing the copyright protection.
  - hassling the person to follow our rules and stop their thievery.
  - coordinating efforts to watch the person in the future (so they don't just go back to not showing it.)
  - being annoyed.

Obviously, time spent on the above means, simply, less time on other things.  Less time on any bugs that might come up.  Less time on new features.  Less time on UI.  Less time on support.

In other words, everything is worse for everyone.  Stupid punks.

-[Unknown]

Besides, there are legal, "loopholes" if you will, that can allow those who want to push the issue to "hide" the copyright. I can think of one now, but I won't go into detail since it may or may not work and I don't want to give anyone a way to bypass the copyright. It's not a big enough issue to to push it. I'm happy as long as it remains just a tiny line at the bottom of the page.

Loopholes won't save you in the end.  If you're knowingly avoiding showing the copyright, notified by us, you get a cease and desist... etc. you've got to know what you're doing isn't okay, even if it might "sound" right.  Interprettation goes so far, but I think the courts will typically side against thieves, loopholes or not.

-[Unknown]

It really is quite amazing how much hard work was put into SMF.

It's hard to believe that people would remove the copyright.

What's the harm of a copyright? Not only is removing it not giving credit where credit is greatly deserved but it is also quite possibly done so people will think that the theives that removed the copyright made the message board themselves.

Quote from: akabugeyes on June 21, 2005, 07:21:49 PM

What's the harm of a copyright? Not only is removing it not giving credit where credit is greatly deserved but it is also quite possibly done so people will think that the theives that removed the copyright made the message board themselves.

I personally think a lot of it stems from that cause. "layout issues" ..nonsense.

And why are people still debating this? There is nothing new here..just comes back to the main issue: "I don't want to show the copyright/I don't like how its shown". ONE THING only that can't be modified in a great FREE script, and thats exactly whats being tried to circumvent....

Personally I think it's fun to debate. It's an interesting topic, and the more active it is the better chance people will have to learn why it's important to respect the copyright.

Quote from: Radianation on June 21, 2005, 09:12:52 PM
Personally I think it's fun to debate. It's an interesting topic, and the more active it is the better chance people will have to learn why it's important to respect the copyright.

In my strange and demented mind, its not a matter of respecting copyrights in general. Its a matter of copyrights that deserve respect. As I mentioned before, Some developers deserve to have their projects pirated. I mean come on, some software goes as much as $2000. Thats just plain ridiculous.

I would like to add my thoughts...  If it was not for the smf copy write signature I probably would not ever have found out about smf forum so I like that it is there.

If you want to control the way it looks perhaps you can add a feature that allows people to move it to the left or right corner. This will allow you guys to decide how it should look in those locations.

I have no legal knowledge so I wonder if it is not possible to shorten it a bit? Is the 2001-2005 necessary or can it be shortened to just 2005. And is "All Rights Reserved" necessary when you have the © symbol? I thought that's what the © meant.  I noticed when people add there own separate copy writes they follow the exact same format and then you get an even bigger blurb at the bottom of your forum.

Again is "All Rights Reserved" necessary?

Forum Powered by SMF 1.0.4.© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Site and layout © 2005, The Ar'tak Productions. All Rights Reserved.

Quote from: FuzyTedy on June 21, 2005, 09:23:36 PM
I would like to add my thoughts...  If it was not for the smf copy write signature I probably would not ever have found out about smf forum so I like that it is there.

If you want to control the way it looks perhaps you can add a feature that allows people to move it to the left or right corner. This will allow you guys to decide how it should look in those locations.

I have no legal knowledge so I wonder if it is not possible to shorten it a bit? Is the 2001-2005 necessary or can it be shortened to just 2005. And is "All Rights Reserved" necessary when you have the © symbol? I thought that's what the © meant.  I noticed when people add there own separate copy writes they follow the exact same format and then you get an even bigger blurb at the bottom of your forum.

Again is "All Rights Reserved" necessary?

Forum Powered by SMF 1.0.4.© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.
Site and layout © 2005, The Ar'tak Productions. All Rights Reserved.

Thats just it! Acording to the license, not a single aspect of the copyright notice can be changed.  So by changing its color is a violation in itself. But of course thats not enforced.

This is a great little discussion. Any lawyers reading this?  :D

Wikipedia:

All rights reserved was a formal notice that all rights granted under existing copyright law (ie. the right to publish a work within a specific area) are retained by the copyright holder and that legal action may be taken against infringement. It was required as a result of the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910 which mandated that a statement of reservation of rights be made in order to secure protection in signatory countries of the convention.
This notice is essentially obsolete as every country that was a member of the Buenos Aires Convention is also a member of the Berne Convention which requires protection be granted without the formality of notice of copyright.

Quote from: FuzyTedy on June 21, 2005, 09:23:36 PM
bigger blurb

again, you find that thing below the page big???!!! I mean come on, half of the people on this planet probably would need eyeglasses to read it. So let's don't get ridiculous. if you don't change the copyright text (as it is required by the owners), there's NO WAY you can get a "big blurb" under the page. Of course if you add your own copyright text in 36pt font and red uppercase letters, you will get a HUGE blurb. But that's already your problem.
 

Quote from: drhamad on June 21, 2005, 09:43:06 PM
Wikipedia:

All rights reserved was a formal notice that all rights granted under existing copyright law (ie. the right to publish a work within a specific area) are retained by the copyright holder and that legal action may be taken against infringement. It was required as a result of the Buenos Aires Convention of 1910 which mandated that a statement of reservation of rights be made in order to secure protection in signatory countries of the convention.
This notice is essentially obsolete as every country that was a member of the Buenos Aires Convention is also a member of the Berne Convention which requires protection be granted without the formality of notice of copyright.

Again, legal mumbo jumbo.
Is that to say that a copyright notice is not legally required in any publication regardless of the license agreement?

This is correct. You do not need a copyright notice to maintain your copyright exists. However, if somebody infringes upon your right and you have not publicly displayed it then your suit may be limited to neglegence or a misunderstanding as opposed to one with intentional malice. So the punishment is less because you didn't make sure they knew. At the same time, the above paragraph explains that "All Rights Reserved" is implied with the (c) and that it is obsolete.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know the basics of copyright law and own quite a few copyrights and trademarks myself.

Quote from: Radianation on June 21, 2005, 09:58:10 PM
This is correct. You do not need a copyright notice to maintain your copyright exists. However, if somebody infringes upon your right and you have not publicly displayed it then your suit may be limited to neglegence or a misunderstanding as opposed to one with intentional malice. So the punishment is less because you didn't make sure they knew. At the same time, the above paragraph explains that "All Rights Reserved" is implied with the (c) and that it is obsolete.

I'm not a lawyer, but I do know the basics of copyright law and own quite a few copyrights and trademarks myself.

What i am getting out of this is that the notice can be removed but the copyright remains. Therefor no one HAS to display the copyright notice. I hate legal statements!!

Quote from: FuzyTedy on June 21, 2005, 09:23:36 PM
I have no legal knowledge so I wonder if it is not possible to shorten it a bit? Is the 2001-2005 necessary or can it be shortened to just 2005. And is "All Rights Reserved" necessary when you have the © symbol? I thought that's what the © meant.  I noticed when people add there own separate copy writes they follow the exact same format and then you get an even bigger blurb at the bottom of your forum.

The year range is more technically correct.  Parts of the software are still copyright from 2001, and parts are copyright later dates.  IIRC, that's what that means.  Using just "2005" or a future year, as is popular, is not technically correct.

All Rights Reserved is no longer necessary in many/most countries, but it still is in some afaik - as that blurb says.

Quote from: Jesse Shaw on June 21, 2005, 10:02:03 PM
What i am getting out of this is that the notice can be removed but the copyright remains. Therefor no one HAS to display the copyright notice. I hate legal statements!!

You don't understand.  We don't require that it remain copyrighted: this is implict.  We require that you show the notice and link EXPLAINING about the copyright.  It has nothing to do with being legally required to say it is copyright.

-[Unknown]

Yeah, as [Unknown] says, this is not really a strict legal thing, but rather a requirement of the SMF license.

And from a strict legal sense, those of you that have said technically you don't need it are correct.  Technically.

Personally I see it more as advertising for the forum than as a copyright notice... but perhaps that isn't the intention.  I don't know.

Quote from: FuzyTedy on June 21, 2005, 09:23:36 PM
I would like to add my thoughts...  If it was not for the smf copy write signature I probably would not ever have found out about smf forum so I like that it is there.

I think it is a valid request to ask for some "legal" identification about the people who made this software. Having that small link to smf is a great way for people to learn about smf and open source software too.  

If people are moving it and changing it then they are not wanting to remove it completely. So why not have some options to condense it and change it in a way that the developers decide looks good?

Well, you can already move it to the left, to the right, etc.  Condensing it just means, as I said, wishing to pay less.  Why not have options to reduce the price of Windows by $50 or $60?

The more lax we are with it, the more wackos will think they don't actually have to have it, or they can mess with it more, or they can "condense" it to just "Software Copyright by SMF" or some such nonsense, and then soon enough it's "Software Copyright by Me".

It happens more than you'd think - there are already development firms out there who are trying to get away with installing SMF for people, and putting their name on the copyright.  Obviously, they want people to think THEY wrote the ENTIRE thing for the client, not that they downloaded some free, easy to use, easy to install software and just shoved it in - and charged $200 for that process.

I at least consider that to be not only wrong, but morally wrong.  We don't want to futz around with it - just leave the copyright alone.

-[Unknown]

QuoteWell, you can already move it to the left, to the right, etc.  Condensing it just means, as I said, wishing to pay less.  Why not have options to reduce the price of Windows by $50 or $60?

Hey, Im all for that. Bill Gates is ripping us off already!!!!! As I stated earlier.

Quote from: Jesse Shaw on June 21, 2005, 11:01:41 PM

QuoteWell, you can already move it to the left, to the right, etc.  Condensing it just means, as I said, wishing to pay less.  Why not have options to reduce the price of Windows by $50 or $60?

Hey, Im all for that. Bill Gates is ripping us off already!!!!! As I stated earlier.

I really hope you're joking, as his point was that while you may like that, YOU do not get to choose.

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 21, 2005, 10:20:46 PM

It happens more than you'd think - there are already development firms out there who are trying to get away with installing SMF for people, and putting their name on the copyright.  Obviously, they want people to think THEY wrote the ENTIRE thing for the client, not that they downloaded some free, easy to use, easy to install software and just shoved it in - and charged $200 for that process.

-[Unknown]

Wow that deserves one big nasty law suit for sure! 

Umm may not be the best place for this question but at least everyone know what I'm talking about already... Is that option to move the copy write to the side in the forum admin area or is it something I need to do by adjusting the code in some file?

I wanted to add a choochoo train at the bottom lol

(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Ffuzytedy.com%2Fimages%2Fchoochoo.gif&hash=bba2c2e2e9eb9d71fe6c384bcad45fd6e5ae2170)

Hmmm not sure if I got the copy write to this train  ::)

Ah-hum.. sorry back to this serious topic...

As it has already been stated, for most quality software, you pay an arm and a leg.  For this quality bulletin board software, the only price you have to pay is to Leave the Copyright Alone.  I think that's more than fair.

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 21, 2005, 10:20:46 PM
Well, you can already move it to the left, to the right, etc. ...

-[Unknown]

ummm Mr. Unknown said I could move it too the side I thought... can I?

Quote from: drhamad on June 22, 2005, 12:15:00 AM

Quote from: Jesse Shaw on June 21, 2005, 11:01:41 PM

QuoteWell, you can already move it to the left, to the right, etc.  Condensing it just means, as I said, wishing to pay less.  Why not have options to reduce the price of Windows by $50 or $60?

Hey, Im all for that. Bill Gates is ripping us off already!!!!! As I stated earlier.

I really hope you're joking, as his point was that while you may like that, YOU do not get to choose.

BLAH!! whos kiddin? I refer you to one of my previous posts http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=36056.msg288000#msg288000

I think it's funny how some people feel that $200 is an arm and a leg. I spend more than that on Friday and Saturday on my bar tab.  :P

Quote from: Radianation on June 22, 2005, 01:23:35 AM
I think it's funny how some people feel that $200 is an arm and a leg. I spend more than that on Friday and Saturday on my bar tab.  :P

Thats nice money bags.

I suppose it's better to be called money bags as opposed to lush!  ;)

Quote from: FuzyTedy on June 22, 2005, 01:05:22 AM

Quote from: [Unknown] on June 21, 2005, 10:20:46 PM
Well, you can already move it to the left, to the right, etc. ...

-[Unknown]

ummm Mr. Unknown said I could move it too the side I thought... can I?

It's just a template change.  As long as the copyright itself remains visible and basically the same, you oculd put it anywhere you want.  You can even put it in several places, if you so choose :P.

-[Unknown]

hehe, subsititue it for everyone's sigs :P

oh, and congrats on the 30k [Unknown]

Quote from: Jesse Shaw on June 22, 2005, 01:37:46 AM

Quote from: Radianation on June 22, 2005, 01:23:35 AM
I think it's funny how some people feel that $200 is an arm and a leg. I spend more than that on Friday and Saturday on my bar tab.  :P

Thats nice money bags.

If you don't have money don't get into the game.  Life isn't free.  One way or another, you pay for everything.

Quote from: drhamad on June 22, 2005, 10:46:01 AM

Quote from: Jesse Shaw on June 22, 2005, 01:37:46 AM

Quote from: Radianation on June 22, 2005, 01:23:35 AM
I think it's funny how some people feel that $200 is an arm and a leg. I spend more than that on Friday and Saturday on my bar tab.  :P

Thats nice money bags.

If you don't have money don't get into the game.  Life isn't free.  One way or another, you pay for everything.

You two are taking a turn away from the topic. Nothing worse than someone talking about having more money than someone else. The topic is about copyrights. Not "I have more money than you!"

This has nothing to do with having or not having money.  It has to do with paying for what you use, and that is NOT off topic.  But anyway, I've said my piece.

Gosh so much name calling, are they really thieves?

Under GNU/GPL License your not required to leave many of the copyright stuff that open source applications impose. In fact a FREE product is not actionable if value isn't conveyed meaning someone could just pack up an open-source application and distribute it without risk or fear of being in trouble.

People should give credit where credit is due, that much is true. But honestly, the removing of copyright in Mambo for example has EVERYTHING to do with design in my opinion.  I leave copyright information in all my projects thus far using SMF, I do change the color to match close to the background to obscure it and I put a link to an area called FAQ or to ABOUT SITE where full details would be disclosed about SMF or Mambo for instance.  SMF should get credit and the copyright is less imposing when compared to others who want to use it for free advertising space.  I instantly remove such things and if the project owner has an issue I ask them to pay me for advertising or offer me an option to remove it.

Think about this from the standpoint of a developer / designer.  The copyright in any site isn't even a real copyright.  I own several ISSN's and Form 10X copyrights for my content, but when I develop a site and put designed by: ME then its largely for vanity.  No-one ever clicks on those things.

I track every visit to my site and MOST or 70% arrive from the signature in my forum posts for the many forums I'm a member in.  The balance is from advertising and search engines.

NOW price is a subject many want lofty amounts for.  Facts are that if someone pitched me a price of $200 for copyright removal I'd simply go to vBulliten which permits copyright edits to an extent thats workable. 

As far as Mambo is concerned they are pretty reasonable with developers and copyright removal.  Powered by Mambo is all they really wish to enforce and thats good because you can add that in your sites bottom navigation are for clean integration. 

My opinion is SMF should read as it does with the exception of (c) and use powered by in its place.

Jared

php4ever: perhaps you should read the license again. SMF is not GNU/GPL.

in addition: SMF isn't Vbulletin, and sure isn't Mambo.

Whatever reason the copyright is there for, its THERE. Even when the developers/owners have explained so many times why, it just amaze me that it still don't sink in.

Its like arguing that my car doesn't need a engine or something... :P

All that is asked in exchange for this free product is that you keep the copyright unchanged and visible. Is that so much to ask? If someone offered you a free car and all they asked you to do is keep the hood ornament on it, would you take the car? I would think so. How about a free shirt with a logo on it? How about a free book with the cover on it? How about a free ebook with the cover on it?

So if you will take ALL of those things without changing it for FREE, what is so hard about not changing 2 lines?

Leave the damn copyrights on!  >:(

QuoteUnder GNU/GPL License your not required to leave many of the copyright stuff that open source applications impose. In fact a FREE product is not actionable if value isn't conveyed meaning someone could just pack up an open-source application and distribute it without risk or fear of being in trouble.

SMF is not GPL/GNU.  Read the license again, carefully.

Im proud to display the copyrights.  damn, all this for FREE! whats better than that?

Quote from: trenchteam on June 22, 2005, 09:28:18 PMdamn, all this for FREE! whats better than that?

if they paid us to use smf.

/me offers Tippmaster 50% of her SMF wages

/me does the math...

Yep... EXACTLY the same amount you've paid for SMF ;)

Quote from: Amacythe on June 23, 2005, 01:08:14 AM
/me offers Tippmaster 50% of her SMF wages

/me does the math...

Yep... EXACTLY the same amount you've paid for SMF ;)

Nice ;).  Tippmaster, the SMF team is a 100% volunteer effort, just to let you know.

-Dan The Man

I will do better than that.... I offer 75%....  :D Wait a minute, I dont work for smf.... oh well, its the same figure anyways.... lol

Tippmaster made a joke, people.  Geez....

And, honestly, that would be better.  That doesn't mean things aren't wonderful now.

:D

We still have less money then all of your basses combined.  :P

Quote from: Tippmaster on June 22, 2005, 09:37:01 PM

Quote from: trenchteam on June 22, 2005, 09:28:18 PMdamn, all this for FREE! whats better than that?

if they paid us to use smf.

hehe.  ::)

Maybe developers should go on strike coz of copyright removals :P

Sys_ZERO

Or better yet, find the people who are removing the copyrights and say they have won a "special" edition of SMF. When they upgrade to it they will see the "Powered by SMF" with a font size of 300px.  :P

I sent in a email to the SMF developers, to request that I move it from the forums to the bottom of the site, looks better IMHO.  It's not that difficult to ask and then move them to the bottom.

(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Funix16.vizaweb.com%2F%7Edelusio%2Fcopyright.jpg&hash=01d68dff7aeb793e10d959b8968ce25a0689e4c1)

Site is still underconstruction, and I'm still getting used to SMF and Mambo, since I used to use phpBB and phpNuke.

While I agree it looks a little better, I asked to do the exact same move and was told not to....

Quote from: Kindred on July 05, 2005, 02:29:22 PM
While I agree it looks a little better, I asked to do the exact same move and was told not to....

Maybe you weren't clear as to what you were going to do ?

I'm surprised they agreed tbh, I think the SMF copyright should clearly be a part of every page of the forum. Therefore clearly stating the software for which the copyright and credits are attached.

QuoteI use Mambo for my CMS and I have used the SMF bridge mod to intergrate the 2 together, and I wish to request permission to move the copyright from the bottom of the forums to the same area as the Mambo copyright, ie instead of it being displayed at just the forums, it would be displayed on every page of the website, at the bottom.  It would look something like this.

Powered by Mambo 4.5.2 and SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
SMF is © 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved
Mambo is © 2000-2005, Miro International Pty Ltd. released under the GNU/GPL License

Thank you for your time and effort in the production of SMF as well as your support towards Mambo.

***** ***
Admin of delusion.ca

This is a copy of the orginal email I sent.  I recieved a nice reply back as well as approval to move it.  I don't want to start a long list of spams and requests to the Develops for permission to move etc ... They have enough things to worry about, then emails on this subject.  I just wanted to show everyone that with a resonable request, you might get the permission to move it, and doing so legally without incurring any wrath from fellow peers.  Removeing the copyright degrades the work put into the project, and only puts a damper on the thoughts of developers.  "Why am I doing this ??"  IT's common respect to keep it and shows your support of the project for future development.

-PK

would you guys mind posting on how I can center the copyright. Mine ended up being alligned on the right side after major changes to the template. And when I add <center> tags it gives me the illegal message. Just looking to allign the copyright message into central position.

Quote from: Jesse Shaw on June 21, 2005, 01:48:01 AM
...If I can use it free and it makes the author/s happy then who cares...

I read the entire thread and normally don't enter these kinds of debates, but several things strike me about this particular thread so I felt compelled to voice my opinion. The first is that, as a former software developer, both commercial apps and web-based ecommerce sites, I have no problems displaying copyright notices since I made my living during those years from the sale of such products by the companies who employed me. In the case of free software, I emphatically have no qualms about displaying copyright notices--I use the products, the companies, designers, and developers who author and distribute such products should be recognized--end of that discussion as far as I'm concerned.

Not to be argumentative, Jesse, but I feel your approach to copyright laws (and that of many others who have voiced an opinion here) is much too cavalier. Such opinion(s) is/are also in direct violation of the license explicitly agreed to by installing and using SMF, or any Lewis Media product under the same license, for that matter. It is not germane whether or not the developers of a given software property are happy that you keep their copyright intact. It is the law, as stated in no uncertain terms within the license agreement. The license does not state, as in the words boldly shouted by Unknown earlier, that the copyright must be displayed on each and every page. What it does state, quite plainly and unambiguously, however, is that (cut and pasted directly from the license.txt file of SMF):

Quote1. Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute this
Package, provided that:
   a. All copyright notices within source files and as generated by the Software as output are retained, unchanged.

Now, for the sake of this discussion, Unknown's adherance to the spirit of the license is spot-on if we follow the logic that as generated by the Software as output means that the notice is displayed via code on every page. And although I feel Unknown gets a little over-the-top in his defense of the copyright laws now and again (I'm surely glad he's not in marketing... :P), his points have all been valid beyond a reasonable shadow of a doubt if we remain standing under the legalese umbrella for the moment, so to speak.

At the end of the day, removing, hiding, ghosting (by making the copyright text the same color as a background, for instance), putting copyright notices on a separate page, et al, are not only morally and ethically wrong, they are in direct violation of the law if such product has a license agreement in any form that the user must agree to, either tacitly or explicitly, the latter of which applies in SMF's case. Accordingly, a software company is well within its rights to take steps to insure their copyright and licensing restrictions are adhered to.

And as Forrest Gump would say, "That's about all I got to say about that."

Cheers!
Ci

Hi,
   What a thread.  :D I have actually read it all! It caught my eye as I'm currently using a version of MD-Pro/pnphpBB, but am thinking of moving to Mambo, so started looking around for other forum software that could be 'linked' to Mambo and SMF looks great, but this thread irritated me a bit. I have no experience of SMF, so nothing that I say is directly applicable to them. I agree with much that has been said on both sides, but I think there is another point as well. Many 'opensource' projects eventually become commercial or semi commercial products. That's great. Commercial software I expect to be 'bug free'. (not realistic I know, but if I'm paying for it I expect it to work first time everytime.). My experience of  'free' 'opensource' software has been very mixed. I run Apache - brilliant, but equally I have spent many,many long hours having to debug, hack, tweak, research and/or  re-write software that is supposedly 'stable/production' for various CMS/forum combinations - and they want ME to display a advertising link copyright notice on my site! I should get them to credit ME with the hours that I have spent on making their software work properly (including the time taken feeding it back to their 'developers', testing documenting etc), and then again for advertising their software on my site. Copyright notices are fine - in the code. Not on display. That (I think) should be left to the desire/conscience/design of the site owner. The links are still there for the search engines. ;). Surely copyright is to stop code theft ?? If a user wants to know who wrote, modified or designed a piece of software, they will find out very quickly - without the visible links, and good software will always get known.
Generally speaking, my members aren't interested in who did what, or even what 'what' is. (It's a pagan website)
Some CMSs now give the admin the option to remove their copyright notice completely, whilst asking him not to. Now that I can get on with.
It seems to me that 'copyright notice' is being confused with 'advertising link'.
Isn't opensource development a 2 way process ? Without the many people like me there would be no opensource!! I help them to develop it, document it - then they insist/demand that I advertise their product.
I do support giving credit to developers (and I do on my site). I have a credits page for that.
I am a professional developer with 20 years experience in everything from systems level development, to large scale EDI rollouts, so I am well aware of the ins and outs.
One link at the bottom may be OK, but (as I know) that can quickly build to several lines eg:
CMS Name
Forum Name
Theme Generator
Theme Designer
Site Copyrights
Joe blogs and his brother. etc

Some sites are proud to say their site is 'xxxxnuke','phpBB2' or whatever and become quite evangelical about it - all good for the product. For me they are tools to manage a website and I will always give credit where credit is due. I will always respect copyright. I also display legal notices re copyright on my site, but they are displayed where I want, as I want.

Last rant: Any one who thinks it is stealing not to display a so called 'copyright notice'  has either taken far too many drugs, or needs to increase the dosage of his/her current medication. :D

http://dragonswood.org.uk/

I would say the drugs is on the other end here. Did you read the post before you? ::)

while it might not be "stealing"...  it certainly is ILLEGAL... because the license requirements for SMF state that you MUST display the copyright, unaltered.

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 10:59:33 AM
Last rant: Any one who thinks it is stealing not to display a so called 'copyright notice'  has either taken far too many drugs, or needs to increase the dosage of his/her current medication. :D

Thievery is thievery.  You don't pay, you're stealing.  Read the dictionary - you're taking a product from us without following the law.

If you went to the doctor, promised to pay your bill, and then walked out - it would be just as wrong.  That would still be stealing.  Not stealing property, but stealing.  If you download SMF, and fail to show the copyright as legally required - you are doing just that.  And we can also sue you just like the doctor could.

Contact a lawyer for more information on how the law and world actually work.

-[Unknown]

Bloc - like I said in my post - I read the whole thread. Maybe you should read a bit more and be a bit less cocky.  :-X. In what way was your post in anyway relevant to anything anyway ?

To All. I said right at the begining of my post - what I said doesn't apply directly to SMF. Until today I had never heard of SMF. As you rightly say, SMF is operating under it's own license, and If the license says blah then blah it is. My comments were more generic. They were only designed to offer another point of view and provoke thought, not to attack anyone. I thought I'd made that clear. People around here seem very defensive. Not quite what I'd expected. Hey Ho. I'm far too old to be shocked by anything anymore.

QuoteThievery is thievery.  You don't pay, you're stealing.  Read the dictionary - you're taking a product from us without following the law

By not displaying something ? Get real. But you seem confused. In several places you say the software is free,

QuoteElegant, powerful, easy, and free.

(cut and pasted from your front page) . yet above you talk of payment ???. How can there be a charge to pay for it - of any kind ? Either it is free or it isn't. Trade descriptions and all that.

I don't need to read the dictionary. <I'll leave u 2 imagine the words here>

[Unkown] - You quote me and mis-quote me at the same time. I didn't say that stealing is OK, I said (and i emphasized it) not to display a Copyright notice blah blah. In SMF's case it would be breach of license. That's cool. You choose to use the software , you agree to the license. End of.

Theft : 'the intent to deprive permanently.'  (thats the UK legal definition for you - dictionaries don't hold up too well in court. What exactly would anyone be depriving you of ? Your advetising link on their site ?

And I'm sure if someone were to do that, you could and maybe would sue. But not for breach of copyright - only for breech of the license. But to what end ? Is that the ethos behind SMF ?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to evaluating the software.

I guess all this suing/copyright stuff must come from being so close to the states ? We don't have too much of that over here.

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PM
Bloc - like I said in my post - I read the whole thread. Maybe you should read a bit more and be a bit less cocky.  :-X. In what way was your post in anyway relevant to anything anyway ?

Your last statement of course, and I did saw the humour there - i just dont' like that kind of humour - and cocky? ;D ("describes a young person who is confident in a way that is unpleasant and sometimes rude")

Hey, I wish I really was younger ;D.. and the unpleasantness you provided yourself.

/me points up

It's a shame to see someone who can intelligently debate an issue (regardless of who is right) tuck his tail between his legs and run away.  Why delete your own account?

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PM
I don't need to read the dictionary. <I'll leave u 2 imagine the words here>

Apparently you do.  Agreeing to trade a rock for a seashell... a piece of nickel for a piece of fruit... these are all barter, payment.  You would agree that if you took a loaf of bread from a store without paying, it'd be stealing, right?  What about if you agreed to give someone a computer monitor for a television set, but kept both items?  That's still stealing.

What if you agreed to put a bumper sticker on your car to get a free cellphone, but never put the bumper sticker on your car?  That's still stealing, theft.

What if you agreed to leave the "Compaq" logo on your Compaq computer in an agreement, but sanded it off?  That's stealing.

You're just trying to rationalize theft.

-[Unknown]

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PM
Bloc - like I said in my post - I read the whole thread. Maybe you should read a bit more and be a bit less cocky.  :-X. In what way was your post in anyway relevant to anything anyway ?

To All. I said right at the begining of my post - what I said doesn't apply directly to SMF. Until today I had never heard of SMF. As you rightly say, SMF is operating under it's own license, and If the license says blah then blah it is. My comments were more generic. They were only designed to offer another point of view and provoke thought, not to attack anyone. I thought I'd made that clear. People around here seem very defensive. Not quite what I'd expected. Hey Ho. I'm far too old to be shocked by anything anymore.

QuoteThievery is thievery.  You don't pay, you're stealing.  Read the dictionary - you're taking a product from us without following the law

By not displaying something ? Get real. But you seem confused. In several places you say the software is free,

QuoteElegant, powerful, easy, and free.

(cut and pasted from your front page) . yet above you talk of payment ???. How can there be a charge to pay for it - of any kind ? Either it is free or it isn't. Trade descriptions and all that.

I don't need to read the dictionary. <I'll leave u 2 imagine the words here>

[Unkown] - You quote me and mis-quote me at the same time. I didn't say that stealing is OK, I said (and i emphasized it) not to display a Copyright notice blah blah. In SMF's case it would be breach of license. That's cool. You choose to use the software , you agree to the license. End of.

Theft : 'the intent to deprive permanently.'  (thats the UK legal definition for you - dictionaries don't hold up too well in court. What exactly would anyone be depriving you of ? Your advetising link on their site ?

And I'm sure if someone were to do that, you could and maybe would sue. But not for breach of copyright - only for breech of the license. But to what end ? Is that the ethos behind SMF ?

Anyway, I'm looking forward to evaluating the software.

I guess all this suing/copyright stuff must come from being so close to the states ? We don't have too much of that over here.

Well I'm from the UK and the point you seem to be missing is that it makes no difference whether an item is free or not. This product is not charged in "pounds sterling" it's priced at the cost of including the copyright.

Leave out the copyright and it's theft.

No arguement

From your idea's you seem to think you have a grasp on the subject, but your words point to another conclusion.

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PMTo All. I said right at the begining of my post - what I said doesn't apply directly to SMF.

I can understand your arguement on that point, but you did reply to a topic stateing, "Stop removing copyrights!" in a forum that deals with SMF/Mambo.  And if you had truely read the entire thread, you would know that anything you would say, would be for or agaisnt the removeing of the copyright of such programs.

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PMIn several places you say the software is free,

QuoteElegant, powerful, easy, and free.

(cut and pasted from your front page) . yet above you talk of payment ???. How can there be a charge to pay for it - of any kind ? Either it is free or it isn't. Trade descriptions and all that.

I agree with you on that point however, the license clearly states the copyright is to be displayed and unalltered, unless you have permission to do so.  Maybe he just had a poor choice of words to use thier.

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PMTheft : 'the intent to deprive permanently.'  (thats the UK legal definition for you - dictionaries don't hold up too well in court. What exactly would anyone be depriving you of ? Your advetising link on their site ?

Different countries, different laws.  HOWEVER, the copyright and license are from the US.  And you would be tried in the US not the UK for the breach of copyright/license.  Your dictionary theory would not hold up in thier courts.

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PMI guess all this suing/copyright stuff must come from being so close to the states ? We don't have too much of that over here.

What is that supposed to mean ?  That's just downright insulting to me ....

Yuck. This thread has taken a turn for the worse.

Quote from: Radianation on July 10, 2005, 12:21:17 PM
Yuck. This thread has taken a turn for the worse.

Indeed ....

Hi all,
       OK.  One by one ....
[Mr Bloc] -  I know what cocky means - thats why I used it. ;) ;). It wasn't intended in anyway to be humorous. If I say I did something, or read something, then you can be sure I did. I do not lie. If someone suggests or implies that I do lie , I take offense.  In my original post I said that I had read the whole thread, and I had - including the post before. I felt I had something to contribute. It's an open forum, and the points I hoped to make seemed relevant, and had not been made in that way before in the thread. OK, so my opinions don't agree with other people's - fine. Open discussion is a good thing. I'm encouraged by the fact that the thread has been left in place. You may well have new opinions, new thoughts etc, provoked by my post, but if so, sadly, I still have no idea what they would be. I will be 60 next year. Most people are younger than me ;)

[Kindered] 100%. I did state that very clearly in both of my posts - particularly the second.

[Amacythe] - I closed my account for one reason. I was quite angry at one or two of the responses, and disturbed by the way the thread was moving so I thought 'best to stop this now - not positive.I had added my 2 penny's worth, read the replies, downloaded the software for evaluation.So leave it. I don't need an account except to reply. After reading a few more constructive and well thought out replies (not u Mr Bloc :)) I felt the urge to respond again - maybe this is a forum and not a chatroom after all. :)

[Unknown]

QuoteApparently you do.  Agreeing to trade a rock for a seashell... a piece of nickel for a piece of fruit... these are all barter, payment.  You would agree that if you took a loaf of bread from a store without paying, it'd be stealing, right?  What about if you agreed to give someone a computer monitor for a television set, but kept both items?  That's still stealing.

What if you agreed to put a bumper sticker on your car to get a free cellphone, but never put the bumper sticker on your car?  That's still stealing, theft.

What if you agreed to leave the "Compaq" logo on your Compaq computer in an agreement, but sanded it off?  That's stealing.

You're just trying to rationalize theft.

What ?? This must be a language thing. In a nutshell (not a seashell :o) and to use your own analogy - You ask if

QuoteYou would agree that if you took a loaf of bread from a store without paying, it'd be stealing, right?

. Yes I would agree - IF the store required payment!!. If the store had a big sign in the window saying free bread  ( as you do) then no, it wouldn't be stealing would it ? It's free! And before some other genius pops in with 'but it's in the license' I KNOW THAT! I said that in both posts. Your license - your rules. np . And if someone agrees with that by downloading and using your software and then they do nasty things then of course they are in breach of that license.

QuoteWhat if you agreed to put a bumper sticker on your car to get a free cellphone, but never put the bumper sticker on your car?  That's still stealing, theft.

What if you agreed to leave the "Compaq" logo on your Compaq computer in an agreement, but sanded it off?  That's stealing.

Sorry, for the life of me I can't see that either of those are stealing. Breach of agreement yes, stealing  - no. I don't know about where you are, but here, theft is a criminal offense. Breech of agreement is a civil offense and they are dealt with by totally different courts and in different ways.

Too much typing :(

QuoteYou're just trying to rationalize theft

. Sorry, I think thats you, by trying to say that 'instances' are theft, when they aren't. That's rationalising your argument.


[Thunderace]

QuoteWell I'm from the UK and the point you seem to be missing is that it makes no difference whether an item is free or not. This product is not charged in "pounds sterling" it's priced at the cost of including the copyright.

Leave out the copyright and it's theft.

No argument

(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.dragonswood.org.uk%2Fa.gif&hash=5e82ab94ea4df57a68361691fbe5c02aeed355fd)
It just gets worse. What??? I haven't missed any point, but I think you have. Of course it makes a difference if it's advertised as free (see unknown's analogy above) If there's a cost (of any kind) then it's not free is it????

QuoteLeave out the copyright and it's theft.

.No - it's breech of contract/agreement/license, a civil offense. It wouldn't  even be breach of copyright.

QuoteNo argument

well, blatantly there is!!


[phantomk]

QuoteFrom your idea's you seem to think you have a grasp on the subject, but your words point to another conclusion.

From your conclusion, it would seem you have neither a grasp of the words, nor any idea on the subject. ;)

QuoteI can understand your argument on that point, but you did reply to a topic stateing, "Stop removing copyrights!" in a forum that deals with SMF/Mambo.  And if you had truely read the entire thread, you would know that anything you would say, would be for or agaisnt the removeing of the copyright of such programs.

- only by people who didn't read my post properly. Next time I will use big coloured crayons. I qualified what I said quite clearly.

QuoteMaybe he just had a poor choice of words to use their.

That would need to come from him, wouldn't it. But his 'choice of words' seems very adamant.

QuoteWhat is that supposed to mean ?  That's just downright insulting to me ....

hey ho.
Sorry. It was meant to be funny, not insulting to anyone. I simply meant that in the states everyone seems to be suing everyone else for something or other. And there have been some pearlers. I assumed the whole world find's that funny. My apologies.

QuoteLook beyond the Unknown.
What you see, is nothing compared to what is out their.

and what you see out  there  is nothing compared to what you find if you look inwards - find the source.:)


I hope that answered everyone ?

My intention was never to upset, offend, irritate, steal or condone stealing. I don't tell lies. I do have integrity and I don't eat small children. (often). I did want to put forward an alternative view point, not to critisise your license, your copyright, your software,  you, your mothers or anything else. I hope everyone one will re-read my posts.

and a few platitudes of my own ... (I'm not the author, just the messenger)

"Problems can never be solved at the same level of awareness that created them"

"selfish: adj. Devoid of consideration for the selfishness of others."

"By three methods we may learn wisdom: First, by reflection, which is noblest; second, by imitation, which is easiest; and third, by experience, which is the bitterest"

"Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."

"Quando omni flunkus moritati"
(when all else fails play dead) which is what I shall do now :)

All the best with SMF. It is a very good piece of software.

smart, smarter. Black, blacker. Somewhere between the sacred silence and sleep.

And P.S . Nice to meet you all. :)

ll purchases are a contract, storm.  To breach the purchase contract is the definition of theft (roughly speaking... I'm not going to write an essay here).  A purchase is x in exchange for y compensation.  X can be a product, an idea, some code, whatever.  Y can be money, an agreement to do something, an agreement to keep a copyright notice, whatever.

"Free" in marketspeak means without monetary payment.  It does NOT mean you are not required to do anything.  EVERYTHING costs something.  Even phpBB, the definition of open source forum software, will not provide support if you don't have their copyright notice.  That's a more liberal definition than SMF uses, but then SMF is a piece of commercial software, not a pure open source piece of software like phpBB.

Hi drhamad,
                  Thanks for that but I do understand. It's the 'marketspeak' bit that bothers me. With the greatest respect, I don't think it is either me or you who defines what 'free' means, in 'marketspeak' or otherwise. Free means Free. Gratis, por nada etc. You can't go around re-defining words and then calling that re-definition 'marketspeak'. I mean, what is marketspeak ? A magical world where words can mean whatever you want ? (Actually, it is isn't it. The bulls**t of business might be a better name.) I have spent many years working in business, so I know marketing and business etc. I'm not being sarcastic. By your own analogy -

QuoteTo breach the purchase contract

. Purchase (at least in england) means to buy, to enter into a contract where x is exchanged for y (as you rightly say), but you cannot purchase something that is free. By definition.( I use the word in the english, non-marketspeak way.) . It seems to me that all the way through this thread there has been confusion with phrases like 'copyright notice' instead of 'advertising link', 'theft' instead of 'breach of contract'', 'free' instead of 'not free','opensource', etc. Again, as you rightly say, SMF is a commercial piece of software with it's own licence, and as I have aknowledged in every post - that is different. My original post wasn't anything to do with SMF, but it seems that I have been pushed into a corner where I am talking about SMF. I re-iterate though, SMF's license is SMF's business, not mine unless I agree to it. I am more and more convinced that this is a language thing somehow. We seem to be using the same words but .....? Lost In Translation maybe ? :)

thanks for at least thinking about what I have posted.

You are taking a good, service, or product, without the permission of the owner.

Let me make it clear.  We say, you have permission to use the software if and only if you display the copyright.  If you use/take the software to any benefit of your own without displaying said copyright, you are taking our goods/services without our permission.  Theft.

It's an idea.  I'm not arguing legalities or trvialities.  I don't care how it's defined in your court system, or how it's defined in Russia's court system.  It's stealing.  If you don't agree - you're rationalizing it (trying to convince yourself it's not as bad), and you're as bad or worse than being a thief.

You think free is Free.  I'm not talking free speech.  Free as in free speech it totally different.

Free car washes are not "Free".  They are free.  Often, in such things, you still have to provide a service - maybe it's just washing it yourself... maybe it's this, or that.

The point is, SMF is free - you can use it without paying a dime.  You have to show the copyright, though, and you can't distribute it.  If this is a problem, don't use it.  If to you, it can't be free with any restrictions... then use another software.  The world's definition of free is against you.

If you don't believe me, you need to now look up "free" in the dictionary.

I can assume from your rhetoric that you are the type of person who would see a sign "free candy" and take every piece of candy available.  That's not what they meant, and although that's not legally stealing it's just as morally wrong.

-[Unknown]

storm2005:

dictionary.com defines free as " Without charge." There is no charge on SMF.
dictionary.com defines stealing as " To take (the property of another) without right or permission."

You do not have permission to take SMF as a product without charge without adherance to the license.

That explains it as best as possible. Yes, it is free. Free as in without charge. No, you may not take it without adhering to the copyright.

With that said, if you want to argue that you aren't abiding to the contract, that is fine. You can still be sued in a civil court for breach of contract. Pick your poison.

Hi, I thought I pick this thread as opportunity to make my first post - I think this needs a bit gene pool extension :-)

Without taking sides, I can understand where unknown is coming from as well as Storm's side.

Person X agrees to use a product from person Y. The terms of the agreement is governed by the applicable license agreement set out by y.
Whether the agreement is in writing or verbal, with or without a fee is irrelevant (in most countries anyay) - it still constitues a legally binding contract.

If I violate the terms of this agreement - I am in material breach of the contract T&C - in our case the display of the copyright.
Which is as Storm says primarily a civil law problem.

The question is can person y construct a criminal law case on the back of that. That all depends to what extend the contract was breached, as well as what benefits one side and what damages the other side had.

Lets assume someone takes SMF - reverse engieers it and builds and sells a forum softeware under his name and copyright. This is theft of intellectual property and with no doubt this would be a typical case of theft. - X has benefits and Y incurrs damage.

Just keep in mind the severity of sentences theft can carry vs. a civil case for breaching a contract - we talk about possible prison terms here.

I don't think storm is arguing his way into legalising the removal of the copyright, he is just strongly opposed to the extend a person what removes the copyright is criminalised.

Btw, some contries - and I know the US is not one of them - have special paragraphs for stealing an item of low value... and a free product is of low value.

One of my law professors used the following (constructed) example to show possible differences between the US and our legal system.

Mister Universe (real name of Austrian bodybuilder removed) sits in garden and sees 6 year old neighbourhood boy climbing up the cherry tree trying to steal some cherrys. He picks up the rifle to shoot the boy - protecting his property.

While under our CRIMINAL law he would be violating 4 or 5 core principles and in turn would be held repsonsible himself on various accounts - in the US he might just get away with it...

Don't take this as an analogy to the copyright removal, but certain coutries value differnt things very differntly - so its hard to be generic here.

On a differnt level - I haven't heard of MS suing ppl for theft of Windows for used the OS without obtaining proper license keys , but only for breach of license... 

Can we settle that removing the copyright is NOT a CRIMINAL offence (with a possible prison term) , but non the less illegal under CIVIL law....

Cheers,
Daz

Actually, in the US he'd be jailed for murder.  You aren't allowed to use deadly force to protect an item, even if its a million dollar item.  Your person must be under clear and present danger.

Also, the US DOES have different levels of larceny.  Depends on the state, but here in CT there's 6 degrees, ranging from an item under $200 through infinity.  You couldn't be jailed (or at least, I don't think so... and if its at all possible, I've never heard of it) for an item under $200, for example.

Its unlikely that you would ever be criminally prosecuted, in other words - but it is TECHNICALLY possible.  It IS a criminal offense.  Just not one thats likely to be prosecuted by the state (unless its a huge example, like some company taking it and selling it as their own).

The civil suit on the other hand, could bankrupt the person who "steals" it.

If we look aside this roundtrip of what copyright/theft/free means, how about the moral side of this? ...dont you think the copyright is DESERVED to be there?

@drhamad: oops, i mean shooting at the boy - I didn't mean shooting as killing... I didn't intend to bring murder into our discussion of ordinary decent criminals :-)

A civil suit might bankrupt you under US law that may well be, although its unlikely in this case.

The problem with these things is not the moral aspect - you know someone has "stolen" something/ breached the contract. But to be able to prove it and to get it procecuted. If someone stole your free product, but those cases never get procecuted, what do you gain? A moral victory, but no enforcable claim. And at least in Europe I would need to substaciate the damage claims - If I have not incurrurred any damage - I have no case - under criminal law.   

We could lock horns forever... so I'll shut up now.

Removing the copyright is illegal - because you say so! What legal mechanism could/should/would be used to enforce the owners rights is really secondary. As is the reason why (because its free, its theft or whatever). 

There are many ways to skin a cat. I'm sure your legal adviser knows them all and is prepared use the ones that will be most effective.

Btw, is there a level of donation that would buy you the right to remove the copyright? Just curious.

Daz

Quote from: DazUlrich on July 12, 2005, 01:07:06 PM
Btw, is there a level of donation that would buy you the right to remove the copyright? Just curious.

One hundred billion gazillion fofillian dollars

Actually, less than that.... but it depends on the situation.

I was never speaking in terms of law - I would never do so without reminding people that I am not, of course, a lawyer.  I wouldn't want anyone construing anything I said as legal advice.

I was talking in terms of English.  Again, I don't care what country you're from... no one walks around saying, "I think that guy breached my contract."  They say, "I think that guy is stealing from me."  Whether it is embezzling, "rounding", petty theft, even priec fixing, or any other technical crime... it is stealing in the end, in the English most people speak - and in the morals they observe.

When people start trying to talk about the sort of crime, and say that some form of stealing really isn't as bad as grand theft auto, what is the purpose, I ask?  Is it to measure the damage it might cause them or others?  To what end might that be?

I don't measure how bad forms of illegal activity are, aside from extremes.  I don't know many who do either, except those I know who are lawyers.  Stealing is stealing, and eating is eating - even if you eat mold.

-[Unknown]

You need to adapt the video on stealing that they include on DVD rentals to the installation package of SMF.  :P

So, after wading my way through this massive thread, I noticed something horrific...

MY SITE'S COPYRIGHT WAS OFF!!!!

Yes, an unnamed modification (you can probably guess which one) has altered the copyright code in Subs.php...

So, with my mad coding skills (well, not really, but I can read a .mod file - damn phpBB) I'm changing it back to its original form...  So instead of reading Powered by SMF 1.0.3 & xxxxxxxx  it will only read Powered by SMF 1.0.3 again...

Sorry for the (inadvertant) theft/breach of license...  Won't happen again...   :D

If you didn't intend it, I don't see how anyone could hold it against you.  It's one thing to ask that the copyright is reinstated before offering additional services, but it's another to blame you for something you didn't do intentionally.

Thank you for restoring it :).

-[Unknown]

Didn't figure you'd hold it against me...  ;D  But frankly, I love this software!  I'm a bit upset that a programmer would intentionally cause the users of his software to intentionally break their license agreement; and as a result break the law...  Is there something you can do to them directly to get them to knock it off?

so wsup with MamboHacks.com bridge altering the copyright?

Wow... Where did the sun go? It just got really shady in here...

Let me ask it like this then:

[Unknown], do you have a problem with the way that MamboHacks.com Mambo-SMF Bridge alters the copyright. One of the Charter Members told me that it's an issue and I don't wan to find about this when I start promoting my site and I receive a flow of users on the forums:

Here's how it is right now:

www.mysitename.com :: powered by SMF 1.0.5 & Mambo-SMF.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

Quote from: d3v on July 25, 2005, 07:00:20 AM
[Unknown], do you have a problem with the way that MamboHacks.com Mambo-SMF Bridge alters the copyright. One of the Charter Members told me that it's an issue and I don't wan to find about this when I start promoting my site and I receive a flow of users on the forums:

I'm afraid that, after this was brought to my attention, I wasn't that happy, but did have mixed emotions.  In the interest of maximum fairness, I described the issue for the entire team, and tried to take a rough vote. 

Unfortunately, it was more or less unanimous that we did not like the change.  I mean to contact the author of that fork of the bridge soon.  However, if you have installed the mod I do not believe (this is just opinion) you are responsible for the breach in contract.  That said, you will not get support here for the bridge unless the copyright is shown as it should be.

-[Unknown]

thanks for quick and clear response.

will be figuring out how to fix it ( it doesnt alter the copyright in a standard way, there's some other function that calls to it)

Here's my fix / explanation:

http://www.mambohacks.com/component/option,com_smf/Itemid,28/expv,0/topic,498.0

Quote from: Radianation on May 18, 2005, 09:48:03 AM
I'll tell you what I want, what I really really want... Stop thinking that I'm the guy wanting to remove or change copyrights.  :-\
I'm not. Mine are there. I comply. I donate. I contribute. Wahhh Stop.  :-*

heh, I can feel your pain Radianation...  I would actually agree with most of the arguments I have seen you make.  This is NOT saying I agree with removing the copyrights.  I have 3 on my site.  Mambo bridge, theme, and SMF.

I of course used SMF before mambo.  So for me, it was a no brainer to have it in there.  I am MORE than proud to have SMF be my software choice for forum and I love telling people about it.  I have told everyone I know that has forums to check it out.  I know of a few that even changed over to use it based on me hammering on them over and over.  8) 

BUT, that being said, I have also seen some sites that have 4 or 5 inches of copyright notices.  THAT's aweful.  And going back a bit on this conversation, there ARE many theme creators that have monsterous copyrights.  And I have considered removing them.  But, I simply trashed that theme as crap and found a different one with a one line or two line Copyright.  I kid you not, one had a copyright that was by itself 6 lines.  And it was built into the layout of the theme in that when you installed it, it put a large frame around your site.  At the bottom, was a sub-section of several inches that had there copyright inside it.  Now, you take that, and then have your standard SMF copyright, add a Mambo copyright, and heck, maybe even your own or your creators/hosts.....then you have a 6 or 7 inch copyright.    If I could remember what one it was, I would gladly tell you all so you could never use them, but it was one of 100's I looked at for our site, and I don't remember, nor wish to remember.  LOL  I am looking for new ones currently (for the Mambo side) and will post here if I find which creator it was.  I found it using simple google search and it was on front page.

People that create copyrights like that are just losers, in my opinion.  When I design a site for people, I put in a 1 line, size -2 (usually) copyright:  Site by:  SpectroGrafx Productions, Inc. - Copyright 2005 All Rights Reserved

or something in that vain.  I have the SpectroGrafx Productions, Inc. link to my design company site.    Why some people think they need 3-5 lines is beyond me.  I also always include a Copyright and Trademark page on my sites.  Here I list logo's, names, links, etc...  for all companies, products, and people that I use anything of.  I also make sure to notify the respective holders of the location of this page.  And that includes even the people at php, mysql, etc....  They may not care, but I do.

My thought, if you don't like the copyright notice and it invades on what you want on your site, then don't use the product.  Plain and simple.  I don't like them....I don't use that product.  So if you are a creator of something, and you have an ugly big copyright, you are shooting yourself in the foot.  Cause I won't use your crap.  Isn't the point of creating the stuff to get other people to use and enjoy it....  Especially if you do it for free..  you WANT it used by many.

As an old software designer, we learned an interesting lesson.  You will not stop pirates.  Simply won't happen.  You can spend (and I did) 100's of hours coming up with the most ingenious method to keep it from happening.  Someone will get around it.  Heck, no one could crack our protection, so a few got smart.  They used stolen credit cards, bought the software, then dumped it all over the net.  LOL.  Pretty smart actually...  Of course, they didn't know that we also built in a nice little back door.  This was legal as in the docs, we mentioned that it was there and we could and had the right to check the registration at any time.  But who reads docs...lol    (this was a net bot software package btw, much like IRC bots...but for other servers..) We could log into a site, see the bot running, send it a pvt message (this was the purpose of the bot, btw....to get messages and answer them) with a specific code and it would send us the registration information.  If we found it to be one of the stolen registrations, we would simply reply with a die command.  This would just shut down the bot, post a nasty message to the server chat as it died, like:  This software was illegally used and stolen.  The user is a thief and scum bag.
It would also put a hidden locked file on the computer of the person that would never allow the software to be used again, unless they paid for it and it would then be deleted.  Again, totally legal as it was all in the docs that the person bought the rights to use the software.  The software was still owned by us.  We could there-fore terminate its use at any time for any reason.  Oh, and as it died, it would fill the users screen with like 1000 text boxes full of nasty little remarks about them being a thief, etc...  Was quite funny to see actually.  But I spent litterally 100's of hours coming up with the registration encryption scheme...  Time that could have gone into more features.  Time wasted actually.   A software engineer for Atari (I beta test for them) told me that building in security schemes is part of the process, but they never allow it to get out of hand, and never allow it to take more than 1-2 code hours.  It's simply not worth it as they know it will be cracked.  They know it's a game for some people.

Quote from: storm2005 on July 09, 2005, 05:25:26 PM


I guess all this suing/copyright stuff must come from being so close to the states ? We don't have too much of that over here.

HAHAHA  Where do you live???  I lived in the UK for several years.  I have friends there, and in Germany, as well as Sweden and Holland.  Just covering THAT area....  we talk live online every night using TeamSpeak.  We constantly discuss the various lawsuites locally.  We do this because most are of the frivolous type.  IE:  Man sticks his hand in a running lawn mower and then sues the company because there were NO lables on the mower saying 'DO NOT STICK YOU HAND IN HERE, IT WILL BE CUT OFF'.    AND they usually WIN!!!!!   But law suites are common in every country that has a somewhat modern legal system.  So either you simply lie, you don't know what you're talking about, or you are an idiot.  Gathering my knowledge of you from things you post....probably a bit of all 3.

Is this a topic for flaming other members or about the copyrights of SMF?

Please direct your comments to the issue and not at other members.

I have not read previous comments so I do not know if this was in fact noted. I believe the copyright should stand however, I do not fully agree with the copyright. The copyright on my forum (untouched, don't worry) reads spokenwords.net | powered by SMF .......     then a longer copyright at the bottom.

First, this could perhaps be shortened but that is not the issue I wish to raise. The issue I wish to raise is that it is not in fact powered by SMF. Spokenwords is powered by mambo, my forum however is powered by smf. If the copyright read Spoken Words Forum powered by SMF..... I would agree with it more.

So change your forum's name to "spokenwords.net forum".

-[Unknown]

That's what I did on mine - my forum runs on a subdomain of my main site, and my main site runs on mambo.  They're linked using the bridge from SMF.

I've got lines of copyright, because I'm using one of Bloc's great themes - and I don't mind the little bit extra there - he keeps it minimal...

I guess I could understand why people would just be greedy and violate copyrights. It makes them look like they made everything themselves.

I however am of a different cloth. I believe that you all rule for putting this together and have made it extremely easy for me to have a bad ass interactive forum, and I have no qualms whatsoever with keeping them in, as well as promoting you because of it.

Keep your head up, and keep up the good work.

Chris

Quote from: oldmanwolf on August 06, 2005, 06:21:52 PM
I've got lines of copyright, because I'm using one of Bloc's great themes - and I don't mind the little bit extra there - he keeps it minimal...

..and it isnt required to keep it either. :) But very nice if people do though.

First of all: Sorry if this was posted already, I read all the first 8 pages, but have to get back to work now :-\

Just a suggestion:
How about giving users (the luxury) of choosing one of several different precoded copyrights notices?
Simply choose one from admin control panel...
The  default, one with some nifty images, one thats on one line, one without sitename, one thats on both top/bottom, and so on...

It certainly sets a new standard for this problem with open source software. It will not get rid of all the cheaters, but it will probably ease a lot of worries.... (riiight?)

It sounds like a good idea..but should it be necessary to do it like that?

I mean, a very large part of the users will not need it, they are perfectly fine with the current. To make perhaps major changes in the copyright code just to cater for a small portion of people - well , that goes against the "simple" philosophy imho.

Why is it so bloody hard to for people to just leave the copyright alone?!?!

We all need to act as a community and report people who remove the copyright also dont offer support unless the copyright is in place.

people who think the copyright notice is usless
Guess how I learned about SMF?

Quote from: The Almighty Chimp on August 20, 2005, 11:11:50 AM
Why is it so bloody hard to for people to just leave the copyright alone?!?!

We all need to act as a community and report people who remove the copyright also dont offer support unless the copyright is in place.

people who think the copyright notice is usless
Guess how I learned about SMF?

i think so too.  thats how i learned about SMF.  i remembered when i used to go to the coppermine forums and when hey changed i liked what i saw and decided to move.  i found the link through the copyright.  so just leave it how it is.  its not bothering anyone is it?

I leave the copyrights alone. I like SMF, I respect the wishes of the copyright owners, and I'm happy to have a link here from my site. But I would much prefer it if it said:


Rather than


I don't like the implication that the contents of the forum are copyrighted Lewis Media. Only SMF is, and the copyright notice shouldn't mix the two concepts.

If an option were provided to change it to the first, I'd be extremely grateful.

This is not a trivial thing in some applications, although it happens not to matter for my little hobby board.

But I've had at least one client in the past who would not have been able to use this because of the lack of clarity. Allowing an option would make it more usable to a small but identifiable group of potential users.

Quote from: rjprince on August 21, 2005, 02:07:46 PM
I leave the copyrights alone. I like SMF, I respect the wishes of the copyright owners, and I'm happy to have a link here from my site. But I would much prefer it if it said:

Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

Rather than

PrinceClan Forums | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

I don't like the implication that the contents of the forum are copyrighted Lewis Media. Only SMF is, and the copyright notice shouldn't mix the two concepts.

It's easy enough to take that bit out of the templates...  I can understand the confusion...  Alternately, the forum name and forum copyright could be put underneath the SMF copyright....

Hi, I haven't read all the replys on the thread so I dont know if it is answered, but couldn't those who want it removed buy it for e.g 20$? And then get a copy where you have commented it out?

Quote from: Philz on August 22, 2005, 11:47:16 AM
Hi, I haven't read all the replys on the thread so I dont know if it is answered, but couldn't those who want it removed buy it for e.g 20$? And then get a copy where you have commented it out?

According to [Unknown] Lews Media has done this sort of thing in the past, though I gather it would be more expensive and complicated than that.

MY god, are people just ******ing stupid?
I know, i know. I'll watch my language but i need to get this out of the system.

SMF is a FREE messasge board. Comprende? It Is FREE, except for one very small
copyright notice. IT doesn't matter how much you annoy yourself, are ripping your hair off your head
or whatever. Nobody can under any circumstance remove/edit the copyright. (Unless, as already stated, in size as long as it is acceptable).

I think all discussions of minute details serve no other purpose but to screw around with the
hard working people here at SM.org.

Please just leave the blasted copyright alone. If you write something, you decide what is put there. This is NOT our house you guys. Nor is the messageboard OUR messageboard. IT belongs to the hard working people here so leave the damn thing alone.

Eric

Quote from: rjprince on August 21, 2005, 02:07:46 PM
I leave the copyrights alone. I like SMF, I respect the wishes of the copyright owners, and I'm happy to have a link here from my site. But I would much prefer it if it said:

Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

Rather than

PrinceClan Forums | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

I don't like the implication that the contents of the forum are copyrighted Lewis Media. Only SMF is, and the copyright notice shouldn't mix the two concepts.

If an option were provided to change it to the first, I'd be extremely grateful.

This is not a trivial thing in some applications, although it happens not to matter for my little hobby board.

But I've had at least one client in the past who would not have been able to use this because of the lack of clarity. Allowing an option would make it more usable to a small but identifiable group of potential users.

your forum name is not part of the copyright, and can be removed. (or...i think i heard that somewhere...)

@Erik J - w0rd.

The forum name can be taken off but the rest needs to be left alone.

@Erik J - That's how I feel.

15 pages in this thread and most post ask the god damn same question.  Its been said enough times.  Leave it alone.  That small text will not make your page look any different.  This should be put in the news bar. "Leave the copyright alone' with a link to this post.

Credit where it is due

I would be quite pleased to see any copyright breakers' forums self destruct on command :)

Quote from: Fizzy on September 01, 2005, 05:01:42 AM
Credit where it is due

I would be quite pleased to see any copyright breakers' forums self destruct on command :)

You know, i second that idea! At least, it should be possible to activate a popup window or Banner that gernously displays to all the communities members that the owner is a prick that cannot follow simple guidlines for using a free script. Or selfdestruct with the message:

"We are the borg - Script restoration is futile!"

EJ

I would really like to see this topic locked .. and used as a referrer.

There is no more to be said here I think.

Quote from: Erik J on September 03, 2005, 03:48:58 PM

Quote from: Fizzy on September 01, 2005, 05:01:42 AM
Credit where it is due

I would be quite pleased to see any copyright breakers' forums self destruct on command :)

You know, i second that idea! At least, it should be possible to activate a popup window or Banner that gernously displays to all the communities members that the owner is a prick that cannot follow simple guidlines for using a free script. Or selfdestruct with the message:

"We are the borg - Script restoration is futile!"

EJ

I like this idea.  If users delete the copyright a popup will be activated with the copyright.  if the popyp feature was removed from script it will not start the forum at all.

If it's going to be locked I want to be the last poster. Neener neener!!  :P

Quote from: Thunderace on September 03, 2005, 06:30:52 PM
I would really like to see this topic locked .. and used as a referrer.

There is no more to be said here I think.

I second that.

Just want to mention that we've since streamlined the copyright and no longer link to Lewis Media.  The new copyright line can be seen on the bottom of this site.

Powered by SMF 1.1 RC2 | SMF © 2001-2005, Lewis Media

I'd just like to add, though, David, that the change that has been made to the SMF copyright statement still in no way makes it alright for users to alter that statement, nor remove it.

I was reading some of those posts in the Copyright section, some of them were down right funny no offense :P

Removing the copyright is such a small thing and not worth making such a fuss about, it doesn't take away the appreciation for ones hard work in creating things like SMF.  If SMF is free why is there a worry about copyright unless it's all about the "Shamless Promotion / Ego" gota get your recognition to feel validated.

I can assure you that no template, webdesign, coding, etc is ever original, many people have thought up the same stuff so who copies who and who steals from who it's all a waste of energy.  Even if you spend so much energy in making tricky coding so people can't find the copyright you won't win.  It's very easy to find every bit of code in every bit of file so removing the copyright is quite easy still.

I'm not saying its right or wrong, it's not the copyright that makes the package it's the package itself and it will always sell itself with or without a copyright.  Sure, it improves your search engine listing big deal your on top now what want more ?

The whole concept of copyright is control it's really a stupid idea because you can't control anything that wasn't yours to control in the first place.  By the way i'm copyrighting those last words "control in the" so if any of you try to steal it i'll have your ass in a sling baby  :P  don't mess with da words or i cry cry

Anyway perhaps you should consider making only 1 tiny line of copyright and leave it at that, if its just a matter of increasing search listings why not just make it a non-intrusive image that links back to your site, something the public can enjoy on their site design and not someting that says THIS IS AN SMF BOARD DO NOT STEAL OUR ****** OR WE'LL ****** ON YOU someting more cooler that people will love and they will love you for doing so and all will be happy

I'm not sure why you started a new post...
(and I am going to merge this with the other one...)

But the basic situation is: The SMF license requires the copyright to be unaltered and visible. Nothing more, nothing less...
If you don't like it, don't use SMF.

And I really wish people would stop complaining about it.


-Edit- Whoops...  forgot this topic was locked.
never the less, the topic has been done to death.

Quote from: bugsmi0 on March 03, 2006, 08:56:47 AM
Removing the copyright is such a small thing and not worth making such a fuss about, it doesn't take away the appreciation for ones hard work in creating things like SMF. 

I guess that's easy for us to say when we haven't spent hundreds upon hundreds of hours working on a project only for some one else to sit there and take all the credit and claiming it as theirs.

Quote
Anyway perhaps you should consider making only 1 tiny line of copyright and leave it at that, if its just a matter of increasing search listings why not just make it a non-intrusive image that links back to your site, something the public can enjoy on their site design and not someting that says THIS IS AN SMF BOARD DO NOT STEAL OUR ****** OR WE'LL ****** ON YOU someting more cooler that people will love and they will love you for doing so and all will be happy

An answer like that? well, I wouldn't even give it the time of day.

I tell you what, go ahead and write your own php driven forum script from scratch and support it and then after a few years come back and tell the Project Team what your opinion is of people who use your script and claim it as their own.  :P