Editing copyright section at footer of forum

[Prosperous]

Am I able to edit the copyright that is located at the bottom of all SMF installations? Exact text is:

Powered by SMF 2.0 RC2 | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC
XHTML   RSS   WAP2

Now before you all start having a go at me, I don't want to remove or edit the SMF copyright, I just want to edit the file in order to include my own copyright section. If I am allowed to do this, what file must I edit?

Thanks for the help once again. SMF continues to prove it's awesome community support base.

[Marcus Forsberg]

Yes, that's perfectly fine. As long as our copyright stays visible, isn't altered or removed in anyway (You can move it to other parts of the main theme, as long as it's there, AFAIK), you are free to do whatever you want with the footer.
To add your own copyright, look at index.template.php. Look for theme_copyright().
That is the piece of code that displays the SMF copyright. Add your own line(s) around that line (Above/below/same line).
Basic HTML knowledge should be all that's required. If you are unsure, please do attach the file, or the relative code, here.

[Prosperous]

No problem at all Nas, thanks for the support. I will edit the file now and will let you know whether I run into any problems or if all goes well.

[Prosperous]

I have just edited the copyright. Do you think it looks good the way it is, or should I make it similar to the text of SMF's copyright (in regards to sizing and colour)? Link is found at www.studio-blueprint.com/forum.

[Marcus Forsberg]

It works as it is, but I'd personally make it look like the SMF copyright. Just add it do the list and give the <li> tag class="copyright" IIRC.

[Prosperous]

Edited. How's that now? Do you think I should include the 'and powered by Simple Machines Forum.' or should I leave it blank plainly due to the fact that it says it underneath?

[Marcus Forsberg]

Looks a lot better
To me, you could leave "and powered by Simple Machines Forum", but that's up to you.

Marked the topic as solved anyway

[Prosperous]

Yeah I think I will leave it. Thanks for the help Nas and for the opinions. Case closed.

[Marcus Forsberg]

Happy to help.
Good luck with your forum

[Prosperous]

Thank you very much. It is a work in progress and development has been perfect lately so I hope to be officially online within the next week or two (regarding the website of course).

If you're ever in need of hosting, free or paid, then please let me know.

[tlg]

As long as our copyright stays visible, isn't altered or removed in anyway (You can move it to other parts of the main theme, as long as it's there, AFAIK), you are free to do whatever you want with the footer.
To add your own copyright, look at index.template.php. Look for theme_copyright().
That is the piece of code that displays the SMF copyright. Add your own line(s) around that line (Above/below/same line).

You mean that;

Powered by SMF 2.0 RC2 Charter Preview | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC 

in this copyright, i can only remove "2.0 RC2" part ? But i can put it anywhere that i want in the main theme?

Is it possible to remove the copyright by making a payment? Or is it possible to keep the copyright, but disable the link to "simplemachines.org"?

Thanks.

[Arantor]

You can put the call to theme_copyright anywhere in the theme, provided that it is still present, visible and legible.

The link must not be altered.

What reason do you have for wanting to remove the copyright?

[Prosperous]

Powered by SMF 2.0 RC2 Charter Preview | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC 

in this copyright, i can only remove "2.0 RC2" part ? But i can put it anywhere that i want in the main theme?

Is it possible to remove the copyright by making a payment? Or is it possible to keep the copyright, but disable the link to "simplemachines.org"?

Thanks.

I don't think you'd be able to remove the '2.0 RC2' at all to be honest... Nothing of the copyright text that comes default with an SMF installation is allowed to be altered or removed, but as the text states, you are free to move it anywhere on the forum so long as it's easily visible and displayed correctly (colour, correct characters, etc).

[Arantor]

You can remove the 2.0 RC2. There's a mod for it, called Hide SMF Version. We allow that one.

[Prosperous]

Ah, my mistake then. And I should've thought more about it, sometimes people don't like displaying their forum's version for security purposes. Fair enough I guess. But so long as you are always updating your forum it shouldn't be too much of a problem.

[tlg]

You can put the call to theme_copyright anywhere in the theme, provided that it is still present, visible and legible.

The link must not be altered.

What reason do you have for wanting to remove the copyright?

Actually I don't have a problem with the copyright. But i don't want to give a link.,

Is there a specific reason why there should be a link?

[Arantor]

Actually, there's two links. One back to the main website, one back to the copyright page.

Reason being that it ensures people know the software comes from us and makes it clear what license it is available under.

If you have a valid reason for wanting to remove the copyright other than 'because I want to' or 'because it's ugly', send an email to [email protected] stating the reason and it can be discussed by those in the team empowered to authorise such things - we recognise there are some situations, such as governmental and educational bodies that require no copyright to be displayed, however for most other uses, removal doesn't get granted.

[Prosperous]

Wow, I didn't know that The Grinch. Good fact to know. If I were that worried about it and I had a valid reason like you seem to have tlg, then I'd go for it. Send an email in and you can only get a yes or no answer pretty much.

Good luck.

[tlg]

Actually, there's two links. One back to the main website, one back to the copyright page.

Reason being that it ensures people know the software comes from us and makes it clear what license it is available under.

If you have a valid reason for wanting to remove the copyright other than 'because I want to' or 'because it's ugly', send an email to [email protected] stating the reason and it can be discussed by those in the team empowered to authorise such things - we recognise there are some situations, such as governmental and educational bodies that require no copyright to be displayed, however for most other uses, removal doesn't get granted.

We don't have any problem with the copyright. We can keep the copyright. What we do not want is to provide a link. Is it ok to remove the link but keep the copyright?

[Arantor]

No, it's not. Under the terms of the license, it must not be altered at all, which includes the link.

What reason is there for removing it other than aesthetics? If you have a good reason other than the look of it, send an email to [email protected] who will consider it.

[tlg]

I am amazed to see that you constantly downgrade my request to aesthetics. It should be clear that it has nothing to do with the aesthetics since I have very clearly mentioned the fact that we wish to keep the copyright text without any change and keep it in the same aesthetic view it already has (so i would appreciate if you could start expressing your point of view without the aestehtic thing). I do wish to keep the copyright text with the SAME EXISTING AESTHETIC. I do NOT request anything about the wording and the AESTHETIC. 

The question is:
Why do I have to provide a LINK?

Thank you.

[Arantor]

That is kind of why I asked what it was you wanted to remove it for.

Actually, there's two links. One back to the main website, one back to the copyright page.

Reason being that it ensures people know the software comes from us and makes it clear what license it is available under.

[tlg]

I can put your license on my server. I am okay with any unlinked copyright solution.

I don't wish to have any external links.

If link cannot be removed, I would kindly ask you to replace the word "free" on your main page with "link supported".

[Arantor]

I'm sorry, I still don't understand why you cannot accept a pair of links back here.

I cannot grant you permission for this. You will have to ask via email to [email protected] as I have said several times, citing this topic, as then the administrators and Simple Machines LLC who owns the copyright to SMF can make that decision.

[tlg]

So please do not claim that this software is FREE because it is NOT FREE.

Regards.

[Arantor]

It is free in the sense that you do not have to pay for it. We have never maintained otherwise.

i.e. free as in beer, not free as in speech.

[Orstio]

So please do not claim that this software is FREE because it is NOT FREE.

Regards.

You downloaded it and are able to use it without exchanging any money, are you not?  Sounds free to me.

[tlg]

Just like free speech does NOT mean unpaid speech, free software does NOT mean unpaid software.

Please respect the society and the values developed by other people.

Please go ahead and substitute the word free with the word unpaid and this would be totally fair.

[Arantor]

We never claimed this was free-as-in-speech software. The fact we don't use an OSI license is evidence of that, really.

Free, unfortunately, has both meanings. I'm sorry you seem so angry that we have used the common word that has both meanings.

[Orstio]

Just like free speech does NOT mean unpaid speech, free software does NOT mean unpaid software.

Free speech had better mean unpaid speech, as those who yammer about free speech typically aren't worth listening to anyway.

Please respect the society and the values developed by other people.

Just which society and which people are being disrespected by the use of the dictionary definition of the word "free" on this website?  As far as I can see, you're the one disrespecting the values of the people who created this software and licensed it as they saw fit.

complimentary: costing nothing; "complimentary tickets"; "free admission"

Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.

[Prosperous]

To be honest tlg, I have no idea why you'd want the links removed... And name another forum software that allows you to remove the link back to their company site/forum?

phpBB have it, SMF have it, MyBB have it, Vanilla have it, InvisionFree have it, etc. Looks like your only option is to create/develop your own forum software.

[Arantor]

vBulletin does, but you have to pay for it.

phpBB's use of the GPL doesn't allow it to be done, but they don't take action against users who do - they just refuse to provide support.

[searchgr]

vBulletin does, but you have to pay for it.

That's good. I would be ready to pay in order to remove it./

[Arantor]

You know that's paying on top of the already expensive license, don't you?

[searchgr]

How to know? Let me know how much is the 'expensive license'.

[Arantor]

Pricing for vB 4 seems to be $195 for the base license, plus a further $170 for the "Branding-free Option".

[Orstio]

phpBB's use of the GPL doesn't allow it to be done, but they don't take action against users who do - they just refuse to provide support.

Not true.  The GPL requires the copyright in the source code, not in the output.  They do, however, refuse to provide support should you remove the copyright from the output, which also suits the GPL fine as the software must be distributed without warranty of any kind.

[Arantor]

I thought it was, in passing, handled under 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Whether a web page is 'interactive' or not is debatable but I kind of figured that since the app normally prints such a copyright notice, it was supposed to be kept.

* The Grinch isn't a lawyer, and thinks the GPL is far too weasel-worded.

[Orstio]

I thought it was, in passing, handled under 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Whether a web page is 'interactive' or not is debatable but I kind of figured that since the app normally prints such a copyright notice, it was supposed to be kept.

* The Grinch isn't a lawyer, and thinks the GPL is far too weasel-worded.

Bolding mine.  Those are conditions of modifying and redistributing work that is copyright someone else and licensed under GPL.  Basically, if a GPL program always shows a copyright, license, and disclaimer when it is installed, your modified version must do the same.

The GPL is very poorly worded for use with scripted (compile at runtime) applications, as those kinds of specifics tend to apply solely to post-binary compilation.

[Arantor]

Surely, though, if you take a GPL work, modify it, it's modified - redistribution or not?

[Orstio]

Surely, though, if you take a GPL work, modify it, it's modified - redistribution or not?

The GPL is a distribution license.  If you never distribute your work, it never comes under the influence of the GPL.

[Prosperous]

vBulletin does, but you have to pay for it.

phpBB's use of the GPL doesn't allow it to be done, but they don't take action against users who do - they just refuse to provide support.

My bad, I was meant to state free forum software.

[Arantor]

Well, judging by the previous comments, you can use phpBB and remove the copyright without issues against you - but you won't get support for it.

[Prosperous]

I should add; free forum software does not give you that ability unless you wish to lose something as special as support.

[searchgr]

Is there anybody here that checks first the copyright and after gives support? I doubt....

[hadesflames]

Well, to check on the copyright we need to know the forum URL first =P Usually when I get the URL I look around, and if I happen to notice the copyright is gone I inform the user about it in the support thread. I would assume that's what everyone else does in general.

[Arantor]

We don't always ask for URL, very often the question is generic and doesn't need that - but the minute it does require supplication of URL, I know I check - unless it is an error where the 'copyright has been removed' warning is displayed incorrectly, and that's what needs attention, we do flag it up within the team for the appropriate parties to go deal with.

[Stigmartyr]

At the very least it would be nice to reduce the Copyrights to new web 2.0 icons or something rather than forcing text.  It ghey's up my footer.

[Arantor]

There cannot be any change of the footer due to the current licence. Theory says it should be removable (legally) with 2.0 final but support here is unlikely in that case.

[Stigmartyr]

There cannot be any change of the footer due to the current licence. Theory says it should be removable (legally) with 2.0 final but support here is unlikely in that case.

No worries.  I don't mind it, just that I'd like it to blend with a given theme better.


p.s. the Meebo tool bar covers the copyright at the footer, so does wibiya.  It's still indexed I'm sure.

[Arantor]

p.s. the Meebo tool bar covers the copyright at the footer, so does wibiya.  It's still indexed I'm sure.

Technically that violates the licence if you check its wording...