Stop removing copyrights!

[NoRad]

Where is the love??? =D

[Virtutek]

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.

[Thantos]

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

[NoRad]

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...

[Cache-man]

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.

[Amacythe]

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.

[NoRad]

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.

[[Unknown]]

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]

[Amacythe]

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

[NoRad]

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

[chadness]

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.

[Kindred]

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.

[chadness]

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.

[NoRad]

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.

[johnm]

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

[Thunderace]

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>

[† ÐëepÇuT¹ †]

It's also fun to get excited.   
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.

[NoRad]

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

[SusanTN]

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

[[Unknown]]

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.

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.

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]