NOTE TO MODS: PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS THREAD SOLVED. IT WILL CONTAIN MANY POSTS WITH MANY QUESTIONS, AND BECAUSE ONE POST IS SOLVED DOES NOT MEAN THE THREAD IS.
Hello everyone,
I just began a project inspired by the developer of http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/. He recoded most of SMF's markup for that website, but used version 1. This has inspired me to create what I'm calling SMF Remix - a revision of the SMF front-end development for version 2.0.
My first step is to strip SMF 2.0 down to basic markup, and build up from there.
I have only a small amount of experience with SMF, but plenty of development experience.
I recently posted this thread (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=353620.0) concerning one issue I ran into during the beginning steps of this project, but soon realized I would need many of these threads if I were to complete this. So, I've created this thread as a way of me to communicate my issues during the development of SMF Remix - rather than creating a new thread each time.
If you are interested in getting involved with the development of SMF Remix, please post and leave me contact information to get back with you. (preferably instant messengers or email)
Click here for a preview of SMF Remix... (http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php)
Thanks in advance everyone,
Alex
Some of my current issues:
1. As seen here (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=353620.0), I'm trying figure out how to remove border="0" from the avatar image on the forum main page, and preferably all images. I plan to replace this with CSS in the future. If anyone can lead me in the right direction on this, it would be highly appreciated.
2. It would appear that the following code:
<p>', comma_format($board['posts']), ' ', $board['is_redirect'] ? $txt['redirects'] : $txt['posts'], '
', $board['is_redirect'] ? '' : comma_format($board['topics']) . ' ' . $txt['board_topics'], '
</p>
generates:
<p>1 Posts
1 Topics
</p>
Problem is, as you can see this seems to poroduce some serious spacing around the topic count in the markup. Where can I control how this markup is generated?
3. The following code:
$category['link']
seems to generate:
<a id="c1" href="http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php?action=collapse;c=1;sa=collapse;#c1">General Category</a>
I'd like to remove id="c1" from the markup, unless some very good reason not to do so exists. If not, can someone tell me where to edit that code?
4. Each board links seems to have a name attribute in the markup, for example:
<a href="http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php?board=1.0" name="b1">General Discussion</a>
name="b1" --- What is this for?
5. The following code:
echo template_button_strip($mark_read_button, 'right');
seems to generate:
<div class="buttonlist align_right">
<ul>
<li><a href="http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php?action=markasread;sa=all;f529d12=db8e4689cb9b47ff9d06e3a42d262f8f" ><span class="last">Mark ALL messages as read</span></a></li>
</ul>
</div>
I'd also like to clean up this markup. Where can I edit the generated markup?
6. The following code:
echo '
<p><strong>', $txt['last_post'], '</strong> ', $txt['by'], ' ', $board['last_post']['member']['link'] , '<br />
', $txt['in'], ' ', $board['last_post']['link'], '<br />
', $txt['on'], ' ', $board['last_post']['time'],'
</p>';
seems to generate:
<p><strong>Last post</strong> by Simple Machines<br />
in <a href="http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php?topic=1.msg2#new" title="Welcome to SMF!">Welcome to SMF!</a><br />
on <strong>Today</strong> at 02:14:11 PM
</p>
Some of the markup generated is not to my satisfaction, where can I edit the generated markup within this code block?
Thanks,
Alex
So which theme in 2.0 are you starting from, Curve or Core?
1. index.template.php
if (!empty($context['user']['avatar']))
echo '
<p class="avatar">', $context['user']['avatar']['image'], '</p>';
$context['user']['avatar']['image'] is defined in Load.php, in loadMemberContext:
'avatar' => array(
'name' => $profile['avatar'],
'image' => $profile['avatar'] == '' ? ($profile['id_attach'] > 0 ? '<img src="' . (empty($profile['attachment_type']) ? $scripturl . '?action=dlattach;attach=' . $profile['id_attach'] . ';type=avatar' : $modSettings['custom_avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['filename']) . '" alt="" class="avatar" border="0" />' : '') : (stristr($profile['avatar'], 'http://') ? '<img src="' . $profile['avatar'] . '"' . $avatar_width . $avatar_height . ' alt="" class="avatar" border="0" />' : '<img src="' . $modSettings['avatar_url'] . '/' . htmlspecialchars($profile['avatar']) . '" alt="" class="avatar" border="0" />'),
'href' => $profile['avatar'] == '' ? ($profile['id_attach'] > 0 ? (empty($profile['attachment_type']) ? $scripturl . '?action=dlattach;attach=' . $profile['id_attach'] . ';type=avatar' : $modSettings['custom_avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['filename']) : '') : (stristr($profile['avatar'], 'http://') ? $profile['avatar'] : $modSettings['avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['avatar']),
'url' => $profile['avatar'] == '' ? '' : (stristr($profile['avatar'], 'http://') ? $profile['avatar'] : $modSettings['avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['avatar'])
),
2. Edit the code you posted. It's a raw PHP echo.
<p>', comma_format($board['posts']), ' ', $board['is_redirect'] ? $txt['redirects'] : $txt['posts'], '
', $board['is_redirect'] ? '' : comma_format($board['topics']) . ' ' . $txt['board_topics'], '
</p>
See that big space on the second line? That's what gives you the space you refer to.
3. The reason the #c1 is there is so that if you have a long board index, and you collapse/uncollapse it, when the page reloads it will return you to the correct place in the page.
4. The b1 is much the same deal as the #c1. The item in some places is clickable without taking you expressly to the board, which will be referring to boardindex#bn where n is the board's number. Means when you click back from those places, it'll take you to the right place on the board index.
5. index.template.php, template_button_strip function.
6. Same answer as 2: the very snippet you posted.
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 04:52:17 AM[/code]
So which theme in 2.0 are you starting from, Curve or Core?
If you take a look here, you will see that I am using Curve as a base for my customizations.
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 04:52:17 AM
1. index.template.php
if (!empty($context['user']['avatar']))
echo '
<p class="avatar">', $context['user']['avatar']['image'], '</p>';
$context['user']['avatar']['image'] is defined in Load.php, in loadMemberContext:
'avatar' => array(
'name' => $profile['avatar'],
'image' => $profile['avatar'] == '' ? ($profile['id_attach'] > 0 ? '<img src="' . (empty($profile['attachment_type']) ? $scripturl . '?action=dlattach;attach=' . $profile['id_attach'] . ';type=avatar' : $modSettings['custom_avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['filename']) . '" alt="" class="avatar" border="0" />' : '') : (stristr($profile['avatar'], 'http://') ? '<img src="' . $profile['avatar'] . '"' . $avatar_width . $avatar_height . ' alt="" class="avatar" border="0" />' : '<img src="' . $modSettings['avatar_url'] . '/' . htmlspecialchars($profile['avatar']) . '" alt="" class="avatar" border="0" />'),
'href' => $profile['avatar'] == '' ? ($profile['id_attach'] > 0 ? (empty($profile['attachment_type']) ? $scripturl . '?action=dlattach;attach=' . $profile['id_attach'] . ';type=avatar' : $modSettings['custom_avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['filename']) : '') : (stristr($profile['avatar'], 'http://') ? $profile['avatar'] : $modSettings['avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['avatar']),
'url' => $profile['avatar'] == '' ? '' : (stristr($profile['avatar'], 'http://') ? $profile['avatar'] : $modSettings['avatar_url'] . '/' . $profile['avatar'])
),
My goal is to remove border="0" from the markup and implement it via CSS.
I found the code generatingit that you referred to and removed all three references to border="0" but, yet still remains. How can I get rid of border="0" on this avatar image? If I can lose it globally across all images, that would even be better.
Do you understand?
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 04:52:17 AM2. Edit the code you posted. It's a raw PHP echo.
<p>', comma_format($board['posts']), ' ', $board['is_redirect'] ? $txt['redirects'] : $txt['posts'], '
', $board['is_redirect'] ? '' : comma_format($board['topics']) . ' ' . $txt['board_topics'], '
</p>
See that big space on the second line? That's what gives you the space you refer to.
Thanks!
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 04:52:17 AM3. The reason the #c1 is there is so that if you have a long board index, and you collapse/uncollapse it, when the page reloads it will return you to the correct place in the page.
I've actually removed the collapse/uncollapse option from my layout, so I guess I can remove this.
Problem is the following code is what generates the forum link:
$category['link']How can I adjust the code this generates?
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 04:52:17 AM4. The b1 is much the same deal as the #c1. The item in some places is clickable without taking you expressly to the board, which will be referring to boardindex#bn where n is the board's number. Means when you click back from those places, it'll take you to the right place on the board index.
So, how imperative is this? I really don't quite understand the situation you tried explaining...
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 04:52:17 AM5. index.template.php, template_button_strip function.
Thanks!
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 04:52:17 AM6. Same answer as 2: the very snippet you posted.
Thanks!
Alright, I'm having trouble locating where the footer is generated. It would seem that the following code:
echo '
<p id="footer">', theme_copyright(), '</p>';
generates:
<p id="footer">
<span class="smalltext" style="display: inline; visibility: visible; font-family: Verdana, Arial, sans-serif;"><a href="http://www.simplemachines.org/" title="Simple Machines Forum" target="_blank" class="new_win">Powered by SMF 2.0 RC2</a> |
<a href="http://www.simplemachines.org/about/copyright.php" title="Free Forum Software" target="_blank" class="new_win">SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC</a>
</span></p>
Where can I control this markup? (Don't worry, I'm not removing the copyright...)
You are not allowed to modify the copyright footer at all.
Quote from: vbgamer45 on December 13, 2009, 12:42:07 PM
You are not allowed to modify the copyright footer at all.
Well, I really don't care. I'm only going to edit markup, it will remain visible. In fact, it will likely display much the same, just with cleaned markup.
If you visit here: http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php
You will see that nearly the only markup on the forum index that I've not cleaned/stripped is the footer.
Not that it's any of my business, but if I understand you correctly I don't see how it's legal. You can't modify and redistribute SMF without their permission, especially their current release. It doesn't sound like you are just making mods or a new theme. I don't get it, but then I rarely do.
Thanks for making me feel like I don't know a lot, btw.
1. It *is* global. I told you where it's defined. I was able to remove it myself through that.
3. Depends on where you are in SMF as to what code generates that. Often Subs-BoardIndex.php.
4. Not imperative but you also need to consider the fact it does hurt usability by not having it. Seriously, you're quibbling over 3-6 characters?
7. You are not allowed in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, to modify the markup used in the footer as the code in Subs.php tells you.
8. As DavidCT points out, you will not be able to redistribute SMF as a whole without our express written permission. Distributing as a mod, or theme, perhaps, but nothing else. Note that legal action has been pursued in the past.
Holy crap, you guys sure are touchy around these parts, aren't you?
Let me clear things up a little...
Quote from: DavidCT on December 13, 2009, 01:38:08 PM
Not that it's any of my business, but if I understand you correctly I don't see how it's legal. You can't modify and redistribute SMF without their permission, especially their current release. It doesn't sound like you are just making mods or a new theme. I don't get it, but then I rarely do.
I have no intention to redistribute SMF, and I don't believe that I said I do. As far as the modification goes - I was pretty sure it is legal to modify the source of an open source entity... Maybe some legal issues might come of modifying the copyright source, but if it's not legal to modify the source of the damn open source software - well, then, I no longer have any interest in using it. No offense, but itsn't that defeating the point?
So, that you may understand, let me explain. This is a modification primarily for my own use. I may release a how-to in the future as to how I managed to complete it - for the sake of giving back to an open source community - but no redistribution. I also intend to implement some specific modifications after I complete this project and have the markup where I'm satisfied. Those modifications would be released individually.
Now, I'll admit that I'm new to this, and if I'm doing something wrong, I am glad to hear it out. But, please don't jump on my case and make assumptions. I'm only trying to contribute to this project, and make improvements.
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 02:13:16 PM
Thanks for making me feel like I don't know a lot, btw.
I did not intend to make you feel any such way. Can you please explain to me how I did that so that I can avoid a reoccurence? Again, my apologies.
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 02:13:16 PM1. It *is* global. I told you where it's defined. I was able to remove it myself through that.
I don't doubt that you did give me the right information, but I was obviously unable to identify the source that generates the border="0". If you could explain to me how you were able to remove it yourself, that would be indredibly helpful.
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 02:13:16 PM3. Depends on where you are in SMF as to what code generates that. Often Subs-BoardIndex.php.
I was on BoardIndex.template.php. The generated code was displayed on the forum index. I assume your guess was correct in this case?
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 02:13:16 PM4. Not imperative but you also need to consider the fact it does hurt usability by not having it. Seriously, you're quibbling over 3-6 characters?
Can you use an example to help me understand how this improves usability? I don't doubt that it does, or is a legitimate cause, but I'm just trying to understand. I'm sorry if this seems petty to you, but the point of my project is to quibble over every character of markup. It's not my intent to come off as petty, or unappreciative of the software.
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 02:13:16 PM7. You are not allowed in ANY WAY, SHAPE OR FORM, to modify the markup used in the footer as the code in Subs.php tells you.
Seriously? I mean, does it really make a legal difference if the end-user sees the copyright in just as visible a manner? In fact, I would gladly let it remain visually identical - no problem - my only concern is the damn markup - not the message. Would it be possible to get advanced approval of a proposed example? If so, who would I contact? I mean, I'm not trying to do harm here. I do understand where you are coming with on this, though. I just would like to avoid having the footer be the only piece of markup in the application that I haven't optimized to my liking.
Quote from: Arantor on December 13, 2009, 02:13:16 PM8. As DavidCT points out, you will not be able to redistribute SMF as a whole without our express written permission. Distributing as a mod, or theme, perhaps, but nothing else. Note that legal action has been pursued in the past.
I responded to him in this post above, I really wish you guys would not jump to assumptions on this. My intent is wholesome. I do not intend to redistribute, it's primarily for personal use and would only be released as a guide/mod to give back to the SMF community - if interest exists.
Now, can we move on with helping me sort it out - or do we have to continue 'quibbling' about the logistics? :P
Quote from: SM LicenseA Modification must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software or Package, generated or otherwise.
In other words, you cannot alter the way it is output by the software. No modifying anything regarding the copyright.
Quote from: JBlaze on December 13, 2009, 09:52:49 PM
Quote from: SM LicenseA Modification must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software or Package, generated or otherwise.
In other words, you cannot alter the way it is output by the software. No modifying anything regarding the copyright.
Even that is debatable, because I could ask you this...
Am I really "altering" or "removing" the "copyright notice" or am I modifying the method used to present the copyright notice?
Either way, which it could certainly go either way, my question is - does any possiblity of getting permission for such a change exist?
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:04:12 PM
Either way, which it could certainly go either way, my question is - does any possiblity of getting permission for such a change exist?
No.
Quote from: JBlaze on December 13, 2009, 10:06:23 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:04:12 PM
Either way, which it could certainly go either way, my question is - does any possiblity of getting permission for such a change exist?
No.
Well, I suppose that leaves me with three options..
1. Deal with it in court.
2. Deal with the markup being the only unoptimized piece in the applications after my modifications.
3. Find a new forum software.
I'm going to choose between the latter two options, for the sake of peace. If I am to stick with choice #2, I'm going to need assistance from the members of this forum in order to complete my modification, which none of you seem to interested in providing, at least at the moment.
Though, I would like to say that if anything in this thread is petty - it's the lack of willingness to assist a contributer with good intention because of an overly-egotistical view of open source copyrights. I mean, jeez, why don't you just run every potential contributer off? Even if your reasoning is legitimate, I think most of you could have presented the issue in a much more civil manner.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 12, 2009, 08:38:35 PM
NOTE TO MODS: PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS THREAD SOLVED. IT WILL CONTAIN MANY POSTS WITH MANY QUESTIONS, AND BECAUSE ONE POST IS SOLVED DOES NOT MEAN THE THREAD IS.
Hello everyone,
I just began a project inspired by the developer of http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/. He recoded most of SMF's markup for that website, but used version 1. This has inspired me to create what I'm calling SMF Remix - a revision of the SMF front-end development for version 2.0.
My first step is to strip SMF 2.0 down to basic markup, and build up from there.
I have only a small amount of experience with SMF, but plenty of development experience.
I recently posted this thread (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=353620.0) concerning one issue I ran into during the beginning steps of this project, but soon realized I would need many of these threads if I were to complete this. So, I've created this thread as a way of me to communicate my issues during the development of SMF Remix - rather than creating a new thread each time.
If you are interested in getting involved with the development of SMF Remix, please post and leave me contact information to get back with you. (preferably instant messengers or email)
Click here for a preview of SMF Remix... (http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php)
Thanks in advance everyone,
Alex
OK, so the first thing to do to avoid team members jumping down your throat with this is to make it clear that you're working on modifying the theme, not the SMF core. Your topic-starter here reads as if you are working on a project to rewrite SMF, not just the theme, and it is a project where you are inviting others to join in the development. So, it reads as if you are attempting a fork of SMF, which inevitably gets panties into bunches.
Anyway, perhaps you should just change the name to SMF Theme Remix, and that would clear up a whole lot of confusion and hard feelings straight away?
Quote from: Orstio on December 13, 2009, 10:34:48 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 12, 2009, 08:38:35 PM
NOTE TO MODS: PLEASE DO NOT MARK THIS THREAD SOLVED. IT WILL CONTAIN MANY POSTS WITH MANY QUESTIONS, AND BECAUSE ONE POST IS SOLVED DOES NOT MEAN THE THREAD IS.
Hello everyone,
I just began a project inspired by the developer of http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/ (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/). He recoded most of SMF's markup for that website, but used version 1. This has inspired me to create what I'm calling SMF Remix - a revision of the SMF front-end development for version 2.0.
My first step is to strip SMF 2.0 down to basic markup, and build up from there.
I have only a small amount of experience with SMF, but plenty of development experience.
I recently posted this thread (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=353620.0) concerning one issue I ran into during the beginning steps of this project, but soon realized I would need many of these threads if I were to complete this. So, I've created this thread as a way of me to communicate my issues during the development of SMF Remix - rather than creating a new thread each time.
If you are interested in getting involved with the development of SMF Remix, please post and leave me contact information to get back with you. (preferably instant messengers or email)
Click here for a preview of SMF Remix... (http://ryanreese.net/alextestfolder/smfrewrite/index.php)
Thanks in advance everyone,
Alex
OK, so the first thing to do to avoid team members jumping down your throat with this is to make it clear that you're working on modifying the theme, not the SMF core. Your topic-starter here reads as if you are working on a project to rewrite SMF, not just the theme, and it is a project where you are inviting others to join in the development. So, it reads as if you are attempting a fork of SMF, which inevitably gets panties into bunches.
Anyway, perhaps you should just change the name to SMF Theme Remix, and that would clear up a whole lot of confusion and hard feelings straight away?
Orstio,
First of all, I appreciate your open-minded and fair reply, seems as if it's hard to find around here sometimes!
Though, I must say that you have it wrong...
I am completely willing, and likely will make modifications to the core of SMF in order to achieve the results I'm looking for. Granted that 90%+ will likely be within a template, some of my edits require modification of the core - at least I think they do - in order to achieve the goal here. You see, in many cases I'm actually removing generated markup, and replacing markup with different, more semantic/proper/appropriate/satisfactory markup. In some cases, I believe this requires the modification of the core, which brings me to an enitrely different issue (that I never got to due to copyright issues).
Is the editing of anything outside the theme "not allowed?" If so, how do people make modifications to the core function of the system?
In all honesty, I would never want to try and create a "fork of SMF." I'm nowhere near competent enough to handle such a task - and furthermore, you guys seem to be doing a great job. I see no reason not just contribute to the current project here.
If anything I'm doing is wrong, then http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/ is doing the same. All I'm doing is trying to create a minimalist version of SMF, at leat markup-wise, for my own future use. If it so happens that the community could benefit, I'd gladly release it as a modification or guide.
I don't want to sound trivial or threatening, but I'm actually considering taking this task on with esoTalk instead of SMF just because I'm having such a headache getting assistance and help here - and just the opposite at esoTalk. esoTalk is too young for my needs, it's core doesn't support many features I like and the tempating system is confusing to me - making SMF the better choice - but at the moment it feels the other way around.
I'm a former vBulletin fanboy - and I've never had as much trouble getting Jelsoft staff cooperation with modification of NON-open source software as I'm having here.
If you are making a modification, then you may modify the core files. Just be aware that you cannot redistribute the core SMF code as per the license.
You can however redistribute instructions on how to modify it (aka modifications), but you cannot redistribute SMF as a whole.
You can release patches to the core code, but not the modified files themselves.
Quote from: JBlaze on December 13, 2009, 11:02:16 PM
If you are making a modification, then you may modify the core files. Just be aware that you cannot redistribute the core SMF code as per the license.
You can however redistribute instructions on how to modify it (aka modifications), but you cannot redistribute SMF as a whole.
Great. That's fine with me, but this ectually brings me around to the last issue I came across, but was cut off from explaining by the entire copyright discussion...
If I am going to release this as a modification, I would have to keep a log of every single core modification made in order to build a guide for those thereafter, right?
How would I handle upgrades? If I have many core file modifications all over the place, do I have to replace each modification after an upgrade? How can this process be simplified without breaking copyrights? How do current mods do it on a large scale like this? Any help/suggestions would be appreciated. If I don't figure this out - I'll never be able to publically release it, or easily upgrade SMF even on my own stuff.
Quote from: Dannii on December 13, 2009, 11:03:33 PM
You can release patches to the core code, but not the modified files themselves.
How exactly does this work? This might be the solution to the problem described above. Can you please expand on these "patches" and how they work?
EDIT: Thanks to both of you for your helpful and civil replies.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:33:31 PM
Quote from: JBlaze on December 13, 2009, 10:06:23 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:04:12 PM
Either way, which it could certainly go either way, my question is - does any possiblity of getting permission for such a change exist?
No.
Well, I suppose that leaves me with three options..
1. Deal with it in court.
2. Deal with the markup being the only unoptimized piece in the applications after my modifications.
3. Find a new forum software.
I'm going to choose between the latter two options, for the sake of peace. If I am to stick with choice #2, I'm going to need assistance from the members of this forum in order to complete my modification, which none of you seem to interested in providing, at least at the moment.
Though, I would like to say that if anything in this thread is petty - it's the lack of willingness to assist a contributer with good intention because of an overly-egotistical view of open source copyrights. I mean, jeez, why don't you just run every potential contributer off? Even if your reasoning is legitimate, I think most of you could have presented the issue in a much more civil manner.
Being the out-of-the-box thinker that I am - I've come up with an alternative solution to all three of these options.
I could just post a suggestion to SMF with an example of cleaned markup in the footer, and maybe, just maybe, I can convince you guys to alter it in a future update of SMF?
How do you guys feel about them apples? :P
That's what we call the 'civil approach' to an issue! :D
What you'll want to do is write your modifications into a "mod package".
More info here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=20319.0
Quote from: Orstio on December 13, 2009, 11:50:34 PM
What you'll want to do is write your modifications into a "mod package".
More info here: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=20319.0 (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=20319.0)
If I can get JBlaze to stop harrassing me long enough, I'll have a look at that. It was one thing to debate the copyright issue, but now he's nitpicking my account in search of alternative reasons to rid me.
Please have a look here for me if you don't mind: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=353835.msg2404123#new (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=353835.msg2404123#new)
Thanks.
Feel free to make posts about the bugs that you find. That would probably wind up helping more people than another theme. Do realize I understand there are loads of locations that inline styles and script are used when they shouldn't be. Making a post about them would help us out. Making a diff would probably help even more.
Quote from: groundup on December 14, 2009, 12:16:30 AM
Feel free to make posts about the bugs that you find. That would probably wind up helping more people than another theme. Do realize I understand there are loads of locations that inline styles and script are used when they shouldn't be. Making a post about them would help us out. Making a diff would probably help even more.
groundup,
Well, I could certaintly write a more semantic, JavaScript-free, lightweight version of SMF's front-end which would be just-as if not more effective - but I don't know that in doing so I would keep all of the features in which I feel are unnecessary - or keep the same design/structure on everything. Most things would match quite closely.
But, I do like the idea of contributing code that actually gets included into the core of the software. So, I might do some rewrite of the actual code that creates close to visually identical results to suggest to SMF as alternatives.
Thanks for the wonderful reply!
On question - when you say:
QuoteMaking a diff would probably help even more.
What exactly do you mean by "making a diff?" What is "a diff," exactly?
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Diff
QuoteIn computing, diff is a file comparison utility that outputs the differences between two files. It is typically used to show the changes between a ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff
Use a diff program like Winmerge (I think that would work) to compare two files and create a diff file.
Quote from: groundup on December 14, 2009, 12:32:54 AM
http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Diff (http://www.google.com/search?q=define:Diff)
QuoteIn computing, diff is a file comparison utility that outputs the differences between two files. It is typically used to show the changes between a ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Diff
Use a diff program like Winmerge (I think that would work) to compare two files and create a diff file.
Okay,
So, you're saying that it would be more helpful if I contributed "diff files" that showed how I would improve the markup of SMF?
While I think I will - can I really expect this to produce the all-out, completely redone markup results I'm looking for? Likely not. Furthermore, I'm still going to need assistance learning my way around the app if I am to rewrite the markup in it.
By the way, I'm highly offended by the supportive reference to alcohol in your avatar. If you could remove it, I'd really appreciate it. ;D 8)
Haha. In fact, I truly don't drink unlike my other habits...
Quote from: groundup on December 14, 2009, 12:16:30 AM
Feel free to make posts about the bugs that you find. That would probably wind up helping more people than another theme. Do realize I understand there are loads of locations that inline styles and script are used when they shouldn't be. Making a post about them would help us out. Making a diff would probably help even more.
Are you suggesting I use this format: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=193486.0 to post all the places I feel the markup could be "bettered?"
Just make a list. I'm not even saying that the changes will be made, but the developers will find it easier to implement if it is in diff format.
PS: beer is legal in the US ;)
Well, you could post individual bugs, but a lot depends on the exact parts you are editing. For general optimizing, you could break it up by task (removing all border attributes, etc) or template.
A unified diff is a special text format that shows the before and after of your changes. It's really helpful to coders in showing the changes in an explicit manner. There are tools like WinMerge (Windows), Meld (GTK+/Linux), or even diff (*NIX, OS X, Win32) that can create these files.
This is an example of a unified diff:
Index: configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf
===================================================================
--- configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (revision 2362)
+++ configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (working copy)
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
TimeoutIdle 1200
DisplayLogin welcome.msg
-DisplayFirstChdir message
ListOptions "-l"
#LsDefaultOptions "-l"
In the above, the diff indicates that a line should be removed.
For distribution, an SMF modification XML package is the best way to handle things. It allows application through our package manager, which makes the changes really easy to install.
As for the copyright line, changing the generated code is against the license the software is offered under, so I highly discourage you from doing such. It's actually a bit unoptimized on purpose. The inline styles are there specifically to prevent easy hiding of the line (inline has a higher priority). Likewise, there is a bit of extra stuff to allow a fully XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype to validate if you set the right variable in the template (it switches off the deprecated target attribute and uses JS to open a new window/tab).
Quote from: groundup on December 14, 2009, 01:09:32 AM
PS: beer is legal in the US ;)
So is marijuana in many parts, and so is marijuana apparel in all parts. :)
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 01:39:10 AM
Well, you could post individual bugs, but a lot depends on the exact parts you are editing. For general optimizing, you could break it up by task (removing all border attributes, etc) or template.
A unified diff is a special text format that shows the before and after of your changes. It's really helpful to coders in showing the changes in an explicit manner. There are tools like WinMerge (Windows), Meld (GTK+/Linux), or even diff (*NIX, OS X, Win32) that can create these files.
This is an example of a unified diff:
Index: configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf
===================================================================
--- configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (revision 2362)
+++ configs/centos/proftpd/proftpd.conf (working copy)
@@ -51,7 +51,6 @@
TimeoutIdle 1200
DisplayLogin welcome.msg
-DisplayFirstChdir message
ListOptions "-l"
#LsDefaultOptions "-l"
In the above, the diff indicates that a line should be removed.
For distribution, an SMF modification XML package is the best way to handle things. It allows application through our package manager, which makes the changes really easy to install.
What exactly is a "SMF modification XML package?" Can you provide me with some more detailed information on this?
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 01:39:10 AMAs for the copyright line, changing the generated code is against the license the software is offered under, so I highly discourage you from doing such. It's actually a bit unoptimized on purpose. The inline styles are there specifically to prevent easy hiding of the line (inline has a higher priority). Likewise, there is a bit of extra stuff to allow a fully XHTML 1.0 Strict doctype to validate if you set the right variable in the template (it switches off the deprecated target attribute and uses JS to open a new window/tab).
This makes no sense to me. For one, why does it matter if the styles are inline? Granted they hold a higher priority, but really, if someone wants to edit that copyright - inline styles will not stop them. They can easily track down the source of the generated code, or manipulate it how they please using something like str_replace - no? Furthermore, in the day of wheel-clicking, modern-browser-riding internet cowboys like today, what good do you actually think you are doing by creating useless markup, and fixes for the useless markup, and alternative scripting solutions to the useless markup - all wasting bandwidth - all for what? In an attempt to make a page open in a new window, which has become a pipe dream in the first place? Geez. I really, really would reconsider this methodology. But, maybe I'm wrong, if so, please explain it to me.
If I didn't think I'd ruin any chance at being helped on this forum - I'd be inclined to tear that copyright apart despite your inline CSS security scheme, and recode it to my optimization standards. I'm refraining from doing so, and instead suggesting such a change to SMF's staff - but let's face it, inline CSS isn't the answer to copyright issues, and trying to open a page in a new window is a pipe dream.
I mean, this is the problem I have with the markup in the first place. This is why this modification even came about. Now, you guys have a great forum engine here, but we need some serious help in the front-end department.
First, I must ask you to please try to not be so hostile in your posts. I'm simply trying to explain a few things to you, but the way your post reads, especially near the end, is very hostile.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
What is exactly is a "SMF modification XML package?" Can you provide me with some more detailed information on this?
There is information linked over at Important Customization Information (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=214513.msg2111213#new) in this very board.
In short, it's an archive (in zip or tar.gz format) containing a series of XML files that provide SMF with self-editing instructions.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
This makes no sense to me. For one, why does it matter if the styles are inline? Granted they hold a higher priority, but really, if someone wants to edit that copyright - inline styles will not stop them. They can easily track down the source of the generated code, or manipulate it how they please using something like str_replace - no?
Sure, but think of it like a Club (the car kind). Those determined to hide the copyright can do so no matter what we do (short of encoding our entire app with IonCube or ZendGuard, but that would be silly). This simply takes a very easy way away, cutting down the pool of those who might otherwise remove it. (Kinda sad since our only restriction on use is that it has to be displayed.)
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
Furthermore, in the day of wheel-clicking, modern-browser-riding internet cowboys like today, what good do you actually think you are doing by creating useless markup, and fixes for the useless markup, and alternative scripting solutions to the useless markup - all wasting bandwidth - all for what? In an attempt to make a window open in a browser, which has become a pipe dream in the first place? Geez. I really, really would reconsider this methodology. But, maybe I'm wrong, if so, please explain to me.
Yeah, it's a bit silly of an issue. This thing came up because several people in the community complained that they wanted the possibility of strict-validating themes where the target attribute is not allowed. During team discussions, a few people advocated for just dropping the attribute entirely, others wanted to preserve behavior. A compromise was reached where both sides could be satisfied for this release. We may revisit this in one of our future releases, although with HTML5 replacing XHTML in standards in the near future, this might become a moot issue.
Keep in mind this behavior doesn't just affect links in the footer, it also affects the behavior of the url bbcode which opens in a new window/tab (there is the iurl bbcode where there is no target information).
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 12:32:57 PM
First, I must ask you to please try to not be so hostile in your posts. I'm simply trying to explain a few things to you, but the way your post reads, especially near the end, is very hostile.
I don't know how I'm coming off as "hostile." I've posted in the same manner and tone on other forums for years on end and never had an issue.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 12:32:57 PMQuote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
What is exactly is a "SMF modification XML package?" Can you provide me with some more detailed information on this?
There is information linked over at Important Customization Information (http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=214513.msg2111213#new) in this very board.
In short, it's an archive (in zip or tar.gz format) containing a series of XML files that provide SMF with self-editing instructions.
Thanks.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 12:32:57 PMQuote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
This makes no sense to me. For one, why does it matter if the styles are inline? Granted they hold a higher priority, but really, if someone wants to edit that copyright - inline styles will not stop them. They can easily track down the source of the generated code, or manipulate it how they please using something like str_replace - no?
Sure, but think of it like a Club (the car kind). Those determined to hide the copyright can do so no matter what we do (short of encoding our entire app with IonCube or ZendGuard, but that would be silly). This simply takes a very easy way away, cutting down the pool of those who might otherwise remove it. (Kinda sad since our only restriction on use is that it has to be displayed.)
I understand the intent, I just think it's overly-proactive and unneccessary, but I do understand that it could cut the potential pool of idiots who are capable of removing the copyright.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 12:32:57 PMQuote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:09:07 PM
Furthermore, in the day of wheel-clicking, modern-browser-riding internet cowboys like today, what good do you actually think you are doing by creating useless markup, and fixes for the useless markup, and alternative scripting solutions to the useless markup - all wasting bandwidth - all for what? In an attempt to make a window open in a browser, which has become a pipe dream in the first place? Geez. I really, really would reconsider this methodology. But, maybe I'm wrong, if so, please explain to me.
Yeah, it's a bit silly of an issue. This thing came up because several people in the community complained that they wanted the possibility of strict-validating themes where the target attribute is not allowed. During team discussions, a few people advocated for just dropping the attribute entirely, others wanted to preserve behavior. A compromise was reached where both sides could be satisfied for this release. We may revisit this in one of our future releases, although with HTML5 replacing XHTML in standards in the near future, this might become a moot issue.
Keep in mind this behavior doesn't just affect links in the footer, it also affects the behavior of the url bbcode which opens in a new window/tab (there is the iurl bbcode where there is no target information).
I think this was the wrong decision, and I'm with those who were for removing this altogether. How a user wants to open a window has become an option of the user, not the developer.
I think it is you who is touchy. It does sound like you intended to revamp SMF and redistribute it simular to how Linux is done. If that isn't your intent - fine, but that isn't how your post sounded to me, and apparently, others as well. Like I said, I don't care, it's none of my business, I just was curious as to why you were making such a fuss if all you were doing is writing mods.
Quote from: DavidCT on December 14, 2009, 02:00:09 PM
I think it is you who is touchy. It does sound like you intended to revamp SMF and redistribute it simular to how Linux is done. If that isn't your intent - fine, but that isn't how your post sounded to me, and apparently, others as well. Like I said, I don't care, it's none of my business, I just was curious as to why you were making such a fuss if all you were doing is writing mods.
You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension. Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.
I'm making a fuss because I spend more time debating the legitimacy of my efforts than I do contributing to them with this community. For this reason, I'm going to ignore posts like yours from the point forward - I've already corrected them far too many times. This entire idea is becoming a waste of my time. You guys are total copyright nazi's, and if you continue to accuse the innocent of copyright infringement, you are going to run everyone off.
OK, let me spit this out in English to see if I got it right.
1. You want to modify SMF to fit your needs.
2. You want to distribute the means to modify SMF the way you want
3. You want to do this the best way possible and legally.
1. This is fine. Mod authors do this everyday.
2. This is fine as well. Mod authors do this using the mod package style explained above.
3. Just follow the SMF Coding Guidelines as well as other posts as needed. Basically, don't touch the copyright and don't distribute SMF Files.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
I don't know how I'm coming off as "hostile." I've posted in the same manner and tone on other forums for years on end and never had an issue.
Well, to be direct, it's the "this is completely wrong and you're stupid for doing it this way" I'm reading into your posts. Maybe it's being colored by the arguing you are doing in other posts as well, but I'm just seeing it as hostile.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
I think this was the wrong decision, and I'm with those who were for removing this altogether. How a user wants to open a window has become an option of the user, not the developer.
Now, see, this is an example. You don't even acknowledge that you understand the reasoning, bunt just go right into how it's the wrong decision. That's just, perhaps, a bit angry to us.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension. Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.
Now, see, this is hostile. I don't see any way that could not be. Please do try and be nicer to our community members.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
I'm making a fuss because I spend more time debating the legitimacy of my efforts than I do contributing to them with this community.
The way this topic started out certainly was a bit misleading on what your intentions were, and unfortunately, your responses served to elevate the problem rather than bring it back to a discussion on technical issues.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
You guys are total copyright nazi's, and if you continue to accuse the innocent of copyright infringement, you are going to run everyone off.
Aside from raising the flag of Godwin's law, I would like to note that DavidCT is just a community member, like you.
As for the copyright thing, we are proud of our work and like to make sure that those using the software know it's our code powering their favorite discussion forum. We take effort to prevent simple removal methods of our copyright (detecting HTML comments, making it difficult to hide via CSS, etc.). While it does make the code a bit bulkier and perhaps less svelte, it also keeps a lot of people who might otherwise remove it from doing so. This saves us time as we don't have to actively enforce our license terms as much and can focus on building this software.
Copyright Nazis, eh? I kinda like the sound of that. Might make a nice band name :P
(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2F4%2Fd%2Fd%2F0%2F12422395641095943233Copyright_paranoia_is_awesome.svg.med.png&hash=658a49c3ddd6f3dcc17a8deaf197cb585d358f10)
Quote from: JBlaze on December 14, 2009, 02:20:23 PM
OK, let me spit this out in English to see if I got it right.
1. You want to modify SMF to fit your needs.
2. You want to distribute the means to modify SMF the way you want
3. You want to do this the best way possible and legally.
1. This is fine. Mod authors do this everyday.
2. This is fine as well. Mod authors do this using the mod package style explained above.
3. Just follow the SMF Coding Guidelines as well as other posts as needed. Basically, don't touch the copyright and don't distribute SMF Files.
1. Correct.
2. Correct. (Don't really care, but if it helps someone and teaches me something - sure!)
3. Correct.
Considering you were the butt of my "hostility" - it's quite impressive that you were the first to grasp my intentions! I appreciate you actually taking the time to understand what I'm trying to do here, JBlaze.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 02:56:17 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
I don't know how I'm coming off as "hostile." I've posted in the same manner and tone on other forums for years on end and never had an issue.
Well, to be direct, it's the "this is completely wrong and you're stupid for doing it this way" I'm reading into your posts. Maybe it's being colored by the arguing you are doing in other posts as well, but I'm just seeing it as hostile.
Well, I may have acted in a hostile in response to some the people reading bad intentions into my thread - but I was not at all trying to come off as hostile the post you were responding to when you first mentioned my "hositility."
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 02:56:17 PMQuote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
I think this was the wrong decision, and I'm with those who were for removing this altogether. How a user wants to open a window has become an option of the user, not the developer.
Now, see, this is an example. You don't even acknowledge that you understand the reasoning, bunt just go right into how it's the wrong decision. That's just, perhaps, a bit angry to us.
I may have neglected to acknowledge my understanding of the intent here, but it was not due to anger or hostility. I simply was just trying to state that my opinion on the issue most cloesly aligns with that of those who were for removing the attribute. Now, I'm not going to sit here and say I'm for something I'm not, but I suppose I could have included some acknowledgement of my understanding.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 02:56:17 PMQuote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension. Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.
Now, see, this is hostile. I don't see any way that could not be. Please do try and be nicer to our community members.
That was a much more hostile post, yes. But, you see, it was posted in response to yet another annoying post that does me, you, or anyone else no good at all. I'm tired of answering these useless misrepresentations of my intent. So, excuse me if I mix a little sarcasm or hostility with regards to such wastes of time.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 02:56:17 PMQuote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
I'm making a fuss because I spend more time debating the legitimacy of my efforts than I do contributing to them with this community.
The way this topic started out certainly was a bit misleading on what your intentions were, and unfortunately, your responses served to elevate the problem rather than bring it back to a discussion on technical issues.
It may not have explicitly defined my intent from the get-go - but the community decided to assume the worst - this is what annoys me. Furthermore, I'm still dealing with posts regarding it long after I've cleared it up.
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 02:56:17 PMQuote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 12:52:13 PM
You guys are total copyright nazi's, and if you continue to accuse the innocent of copyright infringement, you are going to run everyone off.
Aside from raising the flag of Godwin's law, I would like to note that DavidCT is just a community member, like you.
Regardless of his forum position, my response remains the same. I might be in the same permission group, but I'm certainly not a copyright nazi! :P
Quote from: Motoko-chan on December 14, 2009, 02:56:17 PMAs for the copyright thing, we are proud of our work and like to make sure that those using the software know it's our code powering their favorite discussion forum. We take effort to prevent simple removal methods of our copyright (detecting HTML comments, making it difficult to hide via CSS, etc.). While it does make the code a bit bulkier and perhaps less svelte, it also keeps a lot of people who might otherwise remove it from doing so. This saves us time as we don't have to actively enforce our license terms as much and can focus on building this software.
I completely understand this, and have for many posts now. I'd really like to move past this issue and continue progress, or quit. It seems everytime I try to move on, I get interrupted with this again.
Quote from: JBlaze on December 14, 2009, 03:04:36 PM
Copyright Nazis, eh? I kinda like the sound of that. Might make a nice band name :P
(https://www.simplemachines.org/community/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.clker.com%2Fcliparts%2F4%2Fd%2Fd%2F0%2F12422395641095943233Copyright_paranoia_is_awesome.svg.med.png&hash=658a49c3ddd6f3dcc17a8deaf197cb585d358f10)
LMAO
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension. Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.
Seriously? What is the TOPIC NAME?
SMF RewriteSo don't give me this crap it wasn't your intent. It's not named SMF SuperMod, SMF Curve Deluxe, and if it was for personal use only - why post anything about it here? And, it is you with the attitude. All I said in my first post was that I was curious of your intent - I didn't acuse you of anything. I really don't want to continue a flame war, it's not my software. Sorry to imply anything. Good luck with your "SuperMod" or whatever.
To SMF Team: Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten involved.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 11:35:59 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:33:31 PM
Quote from: JBlaze on December 13, 2009, 10:06:23 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:04:12 PM
Either way, which it could certainly go either way, my question is - does any possiblity of getting permission for such a change exist?
No.
Well, I suppose that leaves me with three options..
1. Deal with it in court.
2. Deal with the markup being the only unoptimized piece in the applications after my modifications.
3. Find a new forum software.
I'm going to choose between the latter two options, for the sake of peace. If I am to stick with choice #2, I'm going to need assistance from the members of this forum in order to complete my modification, which none of you seem to interested in providing, at least at the moment.
Though, I would like to say that if anything in this thread is petty - it's the lack of willingness to assist a contributer with good intention because of an overly-egotistical view of open source copyrights. I mean, jeez, why don't you just run every potential contributer off? Even if your reasoning is legitimate, I think most of you could have presented the issue in a much more civil manner.
Being the out-of-the-box thinker that I am - I've come up with an alternative solution to all three of these options.
I could just post a suggestion to SMF with an example of cleaned markup in the footer, and maybe, just maybe, I can convince you guys to alter it in a future update of SMF?
How do you guys feel about them apples? :P
That's what we call the 'civil approach' to an issue! :D
Well, since 2.0 is still in development any suggestions about better markup are welcome, although we can't promise they will be adopted. We are not making any changes to 1.1.x though as 1.1.x development is finished and only security patches are being made for that line.
Quote from: DavidCT on December 14, 2009, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension. Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.
Seriously? What is the TOPIC NAME?
SMF Rewrite
So don't give me this crap it wasn't your intent. It's not named SMF SuperMod, SMF Curve Deluxe, and if it was for personal use only - why post anything about it here? And, it is you with the attitude. All I said in my first post was that I was curious of your intent - I didn't acuse you of anything. I really don't want to continue a flame war, it's not my software. Sorry to imply anything. Good luck with your "SuperMod" or whatever.
To SMF Team: Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten involved.
What part of the word rewrite inplies redistribution, exactly? I am
rewriting the entire front-end, or all of the markup - either way - how does that correspond with redistribution?
I posted for assistance learning to modify SMF - as the thread
clearly implies.
Off topic idiots are the only people doing anything wrong in this thread.
OK, hows about I actually use my God-given powers for some good use now...
Next person who attacks/harrasses/pokes/bites/punches/stabs/shoots/or otherwise provokes another member, this topic will be locked and member will be given a warning. How about that?
Let's keep this discussion flowing people.
Quote from: Antechinus on December 14, 2009, 04:28:46 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 11:35:59 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:33:31 PM
Quote from: JBlaze on December 13, 2009, 10:06:23 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:04:12 PM
Either way, which it could certainly go either way, my question is - does any possiblity of getting permission for such a change exist?
No.
Well, I suppose that leaves me with three options..
1. Deal with it in court.
2. Deal with the markup being the only unoptimized piece in the applications after my modifications.
3. Find a new forum software.
I'm going to choose between the latter two options, for the sake of peace. If I am to stick with choice #2, I'm going to need assistance from the members of this forum in order to complete my modification, which none of you seem to interested in providing, at least at the moment.
Though, I would like to say that if anything in this thread is petty - it's the lack of willingness to assist a contributer with good intention because of an overly-egotistical view of open source copyrights. I mean, jeez, why don't you just run every potential contributer off? Even if your reasoning is legitimate, I think most of you could have presented the issue in a much more civil manner.
Being the out-of-the-box thinker that I am - I've come up with an alternative solution to all three of these options.
I could just post a suggestion to SMF with an example of cleaned markup in the footer, and maybe, just maybe, I can convince you guys to alter it in a future update of SMF?
How do you guys feel about them apples? :P
That's what we call the 'civil approach' to an issue! :D
Well, since 2.0 is still in development any suggestions about better markup are welcome, although we can't promise they will be adopted. We are not making any changes to 1.1.x though as 1.1.x development is finished and only security patches are being made for that line.
Thanks for the info. Because of the annoyance over this mod, I'm going to stop development and submit all suggestions via bug report going forward. I would be focused on 2.0 anyway, so that works for me.
EDIT: Thanks to the above post by JBlaze, I am going to make a final attempt to continue progress with this modification. Scratch my above statement.
Quote from: DavidCT on December 14, 2009, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension. Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.
Seriously? What is the TOPIC NAME?
SMF Rewrite
So don't give me this crap it wasn't your intent. It's not named SMF SuperMod, SMF Curve Deluxe, and if it was for personal use only - why post anything about it here? And, it is you with the attitude. All I said in my first post was that I was curious of your intent - I didn't acuse you of anything. I really don't want to continue a flame war, it's not my software. Sorry to imply anything. Good luck with your "SuperMod" or whatever.
To SMF Team: Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten involved.
Mods rewrite SMF.
Themes rewrite SMF.
For that matter, as part of the development process for 2.0 I and others are rewriting SMF.
I assume this topic was posted here because, despite the rewrite being for personal use, this is the Coding Discussion board and as such is a venue for discussing SMF coding.
Quote from: JBlaze on December 14, 2009, 04:39:21 PM
OK, hows about I actually use my God-given powers for some good use now...
Next person who attacks/harrasses/pokes/bites/punches/stabs/shoots/or otherwise provokes another member, this topic will be locked and member will be given a warning. How about that?
Let's keep this discussion flowing people.
THANK YOU. I'm actually learning to appreciate your blunt approach now! :D
I appreciate the help getting this back on track..
Quote from: Antechinus on December 14, 2009, 04:40:38 PM
Quote from: DavidCT on December 14, 2009, 04:13:44 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 02:03:40 PM
You people sure don't neglect to suprise me, time after time, with a lack of reading comprehension. Please tell me what I said that implies that I intend to redistribute a revamp of SMF.
Seriously? What is the TOPIC NAME?
SMF Rewrite
So don't give me this crap it wasn't your intent. It's not named SMF SuperMod, SMF Curve Deluxe, and if it was for personal use only - why post anything about it here? And, it is you with the attitude. All I said in my first post was that I was curious of your intent - I didn't acuse you of anything. I really don't want to continue a flame war, it's not my software. Sorry to imply anything. Good luck with your "SuperMod" or whatever.
To SMF Team: Sorry, I shouldn't have gotten involved.
Mods rewrite SMF.
Themes rewrite SMF.
For that matter, as part of the development process for 2.0 I and others are rewriting SMF.
I assume this topic was posted here because, despite the rewrite being for personal use, this is the Coding Discussion board and as such is a venue for discussing SMF coding.
That would be a wonderfully accurate assumption. Thanks.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 04:41:07 PM
I'm actually learning to appreciate your blunt approach now! :D
That's because it always works ;)
Quote from: JBlaze on December 14, 2009, 04:44:24 PM
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 14, 2009, 04:41:07 PM
I'm actually learning to appreciate your blunt approach now! :D
That's because it always works ;)
Apparently... :D
Quote from: JBlaze PostbitSMF Copyright Nazi
...lol. Actually, that nickname was specifically prescribed for DavidCT - but I suppose you can share it with him. :P
Ok, haven't read all posts within this topic, however, about SMF Copyright, if there is this MOD over at the Mod Site: Hide SMF Version (http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=1046) which clearly alters the SMF Version (by hiding it), than isn't this indicating that MODs of this nature are welcome? Yes, I know it was created by an SMF Project Manager and says it's Copyright SMF, LLC., etc.. But it was made into a MOD, not an actual SMF Feature. Wouldn't it make more sense to place it into SMF by default, instead of create a MOD that does this?? Seems to me, that making a mod of it, has given this the wrong impression, whether it was made by SMF or not, since SMF's copyright is not to be altered in any way according to the License, right?
Well, anyways, just my 2 cents...
Hide SMF Version is one written by Motoko-chan and is allowed to do so because it isn't altering the actual copyright code. (Btw, if it's the one on our mod site, did Motoko-chan say you could republish it?)
Quote from: Antechinus on December 14, 2009, 04:40:38 PM
Mods rewrite SMF.
Themes rewrite SMF.
For that matter, as part of the development process for 2.0 I and others are rewriting SMF.
I assume this topic was posted here because, despite the rewrite being for personal use, this is the Coding Discussion board and as such is a venue for discussing SMF coding.
Ok, listen - I overstepped my bounds, I shouldn't have gotten involved, but I need to clear up something. His first post:
Quote
SMF Rewrite
I just began a project inspired by the developer of http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/. He recoded most of SMF's markup for that website, but used version 1. This has inspired me to create what I'm calling SMF Remix - a revision of the SMF front-end development for version 2.0.
My first step is to strip SMF 2.0 down to basic markup, and build up from there.
My original question was, written differently than this, why even publically post this if it's for private use? Yes, it's coding discussion - I get it, wasn't thinking about that before. It just seemed odd to go about it the way he did.
No, he didn't say he was going to redistribute it. No, it's none of my business if he did. Sorry to everyone for exercising my freedom of speech or showing any concern about this product. Only my last post was a little bit hostile in my opinion, but all of his were, in my opinion.
So, I consider this closed. Sorry to all. Moderators, when you are done with this maybe you should delete it so it can be back on topic. And if you feel I am a problem here, feel free to ban me - no biggy. I've done nothing but help people here but it's fine either way.
Update:
Quote
Actually, that nickname was specifically prescribed for DavidCT - but I suppose you can share it with him.
and I'm the bad one here? Wow. I'm wondering where I personally attacked him like that... (shrug)
Well, it's hiding the Version of SMF from the copyright. So if this isn't an alter to the copyright, I don't know what is. Unless you are only referring to the text after the c. But IMO the version of SMF is part of the copyright also.
Quote from: Arantor on December 14, 2009, 05:23:23 PM
(Btw, if it's the one on our mod site, did Motoko-chan say you could republish it?)
huh?? Don't know what you are talking about here. I wouldn't dream of republishing it. It's not my mod.
Good point. Technically that mod may be a breach of the SMF license, depending on how it gets argued. I know that one of the bugbears we keep discussing is the fact that technically all custom themes breach the SMF license, because they all have to contain modified SMF files.
@ SoLoGHoST: Hide SMF Version is a mod on our mod site already, as written by Motoko-chan. Just wanted to make sure it wasn't the same mod.
The version number is not explicitly part of the copyright, and is permitted to be hidden because it's pulled from outside the copyright function (so that upgrades can modify the version number without touching that code)
I would note the mod is originally written by a team member.
As per the license, modifications contain instructions on modifying the code, and are explicitly permitted under the license.
Well, I provided a link to it, so all you really had to do was click on the link and see for yourself, no offense.
And this is border-line IMO, should've been added as a feature of SMF, not a mod. But, perhaps, that's just my opinion.
/me thought you were talking about it being on GM rather than here.
Yes that mod is explicitly allowed to do what it does.
Quote from: DavidCT on December 14, 2009, 05:25:16 PM
Quote from: Antechinus on December 14, 2009, 04:40:38 PM
Mods rewrite SMF.
Themes rewrite SMF.
For that matter, as part of the development process for 2.0 I and others are rewriting SMF.
I assume this topic was posted here because, despite the rewrite being for personal use, this is the Coding Discussion board and as such is a venue for discussing SMF coding.
Ok, listen - I overstepped my bounds, I shouldn't have gotten involved, but I need to clear up something. His first post:
Quote
SMF Rewrite
I just began a project inspired by the developer of http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/ (http://www.classicbattletech.com/forums/). He recoded most of SMF's markup for that website, but used version 1. This has inspired me to create what I'm calling SMF Remix - a revision of the SMF front-end development for version 2.0.
My first step is to strip SMF 2.0 down to basic markup, and build up from there.
My original question was, written differently than this, why even publically post this if it's for private use? Yes, it's coding discussion - I get it, wasn't thinking about that before. It just seemed odd to go about it the way he did.
No, he didn't say he was going to redistribute it. No, it's none of my business if he did. Sorry to everyone for exercising my freedom of speech or showing any concern about this product. Only my last post was a little bit hostile in my opinion, but all of his were, in my opinion.
So, I consider this closed. Sorry to all. Moderators, when you are done with this maybe you should delete it so it can be back on topic. And if you feel I am a problem here, feel free to ban me - no biggy. I've done nothing but help people here but it's fine either way.
Update:
Quote
Actually, that nickname was specifically prescribed for DavidCT - but I suppose you can share it with him.
and I'm the bad one here? Wow. I'm wondering where I personally attacked him like that... (shrug)
This feels quite provoking to me, but I'm going to leave it alone.
I'll just note that you stripped the laughing, smiley faces and context from my post in your quote - making it much less obvious that I was joking with another member of the forum.
@SoLoGHoST: As far as that mod goes - I think it's pretty hilarious that you found a mod that is doing exactly what I'm trying to do - but to an even FURTHER extent. I only wanted to edit markup, not remove any visual elements.
Look at the mod's code. It doesn't change any markup at all.
Quote from: Arantor PostbitSMF Copyright Nazi
I'm becoming a real trend-maker around here, eh?
Quote from: Arantor on December 14, 2009, 05:35:45 PM
Look at the mod's code. It doesn't change any markup at all.
No, it justs removes half of the copyright from visual display! I'd say that is more radical a change from an end-user standpoint than the simple markup optimization that I proposed...
QuotePowered by SMF 2.0 RC2 Charter Preview | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC
Becomes
QuotePowered by SMF | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC
Less than half, because the important detail is still there. However, I would reiterate my statement. No markup is changed. No code is changed in the function in question, thus the license is not violated.
Quote from: Arantor on December 14, 2009, 05:44:14 PM
QuotePowered by SMF 2.0 RC2 Charter Preview | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC
Becomes
QuotePowered by SMF | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC
Less than half, because the important detail is still there. However, I would reiterate my statement. No markup is changed. No code is changed in the function in question, thus the license is not violated.
Repeating yourself does not exactly prove a point.
If I understand correctly, that part of the license - and the very markup in question - is all a result of trying to limit the pool of users capable of removing or hiding the copyright altogether.
Since I'm not trying to remove the copyright, and only trying to optimize markup, I'm not really violating the core reason that these rules are in place. In my eyes, there is no reason to not try your best to assist me, and maybe even consider granting an exception. I don't understand the logic behind redundantly shutting me down. I've understood the reasoning since the first page of this thread, no reason to keep beating me in the head with it.
I still think my point stands, the change you described is more drastic for the end-user than anything I intended.
Maybe so. However the core difference remains.
That mod does not alter the markup, no matter what *content* it does output. And it does not alter the function that generates it, which as pointed out meets the license.
I would point out that others have requested to change the markup of the function before and such requests were not granted, and that was a smaller request. A search in Feature Requests would find it, no doubt.
Quote from: Arantor on December 14, 2009, 05:33:52 PM
/me thought you were talking about it being on GM rather than here.
What ever gave you that idea I don't know. Anyways, I'm through with this topic.
Good Luck
Quote from: Arantor on December 14, 2009, 05:52:34 PM
Maybe so. However the core difference remains.
That mod does not alter the markup, no matter what *content* it does output. And it does not alter the function that generates it, which as pointed out meets the license.
I would point out that others have requested to change the markup of the function before and such requests were not granted, and that was a smaller request. A search in Feature Requests would find it, no doubt.
As long as we can agree on that point, we can agree to disagree on the rest. :)
On a quick note, the Hide Version mod (which was made so those insistent on removing the version number could do so safely and not disable the package manager in the process) only changes the version number of SMF to an empty string in index.php if the user is not in the Administrators group. I'm of the belief that hiding the version number is futile and a snake-oil solution to "hacking" of scripts.
It has been the team's position that the version number itself is not a substantive part of the copyright line.
I'm sure you mean well, so why not provide some alternate, cleaner, code for the copyright function to output via a bug report? For 2.0 it will need to have the exact same functionality, but if you don't mind it being considered for a later release, you are welcome to trim it to your liking.
This whole nonsense about the Hide Version mod is just that, nonsense.
READ THE LICENSE!
QuoteAll copyright notices within source files and as generated by the Software as output are retained, unchanged.
The Hide Version mod doesn't change the copyright.
It does change the $forum_version variable in the index.php, but not the copyright notice
as generated by the Software as output.
As such, it is compliant with the license as it does not tamper with any of the code that generates the copyright notice.
wow this sure got heated....
Orstio, hmm, but what is a 'notice'?
As the licence doesn't define what a notice is, I think it could be argued that 'notice' refers only to the text, and not to the accompanying markup.
Quote from: Dannii on December 15, 2009, 06:35:39 AM
Orstio, hmm, but what is a 'notice'?
As the licence doesn't define what a notice is, I think it could be argued that 'notice' refers only to the text, and not to the accompanying markup.
If you were me, you would have just turned all of your mods into an attempt at stealing/redistributing SMF... lol.
That's the very argument I attempted early in this thread. But, I guess my opinion was quickly discounted because I don't have a monstrous post count and "SMF Friend" tag.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 13, 2009, 10:04:12 PM
Quote from: JBlaze on December 13, 2009, 09:52:49 PM
Quote from: SM LicenseA Modification must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software or Package, generated or otherwise.
In other words, you cannot alter the way it is output by the software. No modifying anything regarding the copyright.
Even that is debatable, because I could ask you this...
Am I really "altering" or "removing" the "copyright notice" or am I modifying the method used to present the copyright notice?
If we assume the copyright "notice" is simply the displayed end-user text, then I've only proposed to modify it's method of presentation (aka the markup) - all within the copyright agreement.
So, the question comes back to Arantor: does the core difference still remain, or is it dwindling into non-existance?
Quote from: ArantorMaybe so. However the core difference remains.
That mod does not alter the markup, no matter what *content* it does output. And it does not alter the function that generates it, which as pointed out meets the license.
You do realize that as long as you do this only on your own site, and the links and text are still intact and visible, chances are that nobody is ever going to notice the change anyway. ;)
Quote from: Orstio on December 15, 2009, 09:36:39 AM
You do realize that as long as you do this only on your own site, and the links and text are still intact and visible, chances are that nobody is ever going to notice the change anyway. ;)
Yes, I do. But, I posted for assistance on how to get it done. Never got any assistance.
All this talk of copyright issues...
Isn't SMF a branch of YabbSE in some form - putting SMF in potential violation of the GPL? Granted the GPL has all the legal standing of a dirty piece of toilet paper - but still....
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 15, 2009, 09:39:29 AM
Quote from: Orstio on December 15, 2009, 09:36:39 AM
You do realize that as long as you do this only on your own site, and the links and text are still intact and visible, chances are that nobody is ever going to notice the change anyway. ;)
Yes, I do. But, I posted for assistance on how to get it done. Never got any assistance.
Yeah. You won't get assistance with it, because it is technically violating the license. You will hopefully eventually get help with the rest.
Quote from: Alex Stanford on December 15, 2009, 09:43:18 AM
Also, on second thought...
You guys have your panties in a bunch over a markup change - but excuse me if I'm incorrect but since SMF is fork of yabbSE, that puts it in violation of the GPL, right?
I'm no expert on this stuff, but yeah...
No. AFAIK, the copyright holders of YaBBSE changed to the SMF license for the SMF "fork". Regardless, even if it is in violation of the GPL, only a copyright holder can instigate legal action, and even then, only the protections of the GPL are no longer effective, and SMF isn't protected under the GPL anyway. So, it becomes a moot point because no copyright holder is going to sue SMF for GPL violation to ensure that SMF is not protected under the GPL.
Copyright Means a Copyright.
If, SMF Team aims to have a full control of its code and output then we should just Put our view in front of them and then convince them with strong arguments that
If we have output/function as rather then as it is looking then it is better to put oneself in the war of copyright.
I just want to say
Just Put your View and Ask the others to just once think about them faithfully
With hope, they will think and Implement it if They found it sound and according to the Mission Statement.
Regards
Perochak
If you are wondering why this thread has gone inactive: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=354173.0
Talk to you soon!