Remove link credits from bottom of board?

[Jennifer P Guman]

I have an SMFAds for Free Forums credits/links on the bottom of the forum that I'm not sure how to remove, or when it got there (not sure if it was there before I added ad management).

Can that be removed?

[Masterd]

You are not allowed to remove that. You can buy copyrigt removal over on SMF Hacks.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

In index.template.php find footerarea.  You can remove SMFAds link, but leave the copyright info.

[Arantor]

No, you can't remove the SMF Ads link without buying copyright removal, or uninstalling the mod.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Actually, you can, but I guess you're not supposed to.

Or does removing the code cripple the board?

[Arantor]

Actually, you can, but I guess you're not supposed to.

Or does removing the code cripple the board?

It certainly does for the SMF links, it does on some mods, but it is a legal requirement to keep copyright statements if the copyright holder put them in place.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

Don't have a problem with that, but don't like the idea of shaking down users of "free, open source software" for a "copyright removal" fee.

There's another way to get rid of it, but in consideration of house rules, I won't post it here.  If the OP messages me, I'll explain.

[Arantor]

There isn't a legal way of doing it, sorry, and that's the bottom line. Don't like it, then don't use it.

[Jennifer P Guman]

So then it's from the ad managament mod?

I'd be happy to try another mod instead, if that is the solution. I just wasn't sure if it was from smf or ad management?

[Arantor]

Yes, the 'SMF Ads for Free Forums' is from the Ad Management mod. As it's there twice you can remove one of them anyway, but you can't remove both of them without either paying or using a different mod entirely.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

<sigh>

Just put <span> tags around it and set the font color same as your background color.  You can also get rid of the four add links on either side.

And, no, the Internet Police will not batter down your door and waterboard you.

"I'm from the government, and I'm here to help!" 

[All Colours Sam]

if you don't want to have any copyrights on your forum, just don't use that mod... 


Krashsite  try put yourself in the mod author's shoes for a moment here.

[Kindred]

Krashsite,

Doing that is as much a violation as removing it.

Unless otherwise specified/allowed, copyrights must be maintained, unaltered... Doing otherwise is not legal and can result in the shut down of your site if the author decides to contact your host with a DCMA demand.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I don't disagree with the right of authors to require a copyright notice on their product, but including multiple ad links in the notice is an abuse, as is trying to extort payment from users for a "copyright removal fee".

[Arantor]

I don't disagree with the right of authors to require a copyright notice on their product, but including multiple ad links in the notice is an abuse, as is trying to extort payment from users for a "copyright removal fee".

The mod only adds one link by default, you only get two if it was installed wrong. And you did know that under some circumstances SMF can grant a paid no-copyright exception, right? (It's quite specific, and quite expensive, and I don't know any site that actually uses said exception legitimately)

You should also probably be aware that that particular mod didn't originally have a copyright, but that it was left to gather dust until its current maintainer put down a 4-figure sum to buy it for the community and ensure it was maintained, and that's how he wants to get his money back.

[Kindred]

allowing a copyright removal fee or a "pro/paid" version of a mod is perfectly legal and perfectly ethical, even in Open Source.

If you don't want to follow the rules, you are perfectly free not to use the mod, especially since you must actively download and install the mod (it's not part of the smf distribution), so it is completely your choice.

[vbgamer45]

Mod authors add links for a couple reasons for people to find out about their modification and link building.
All my mods have the option to order copyright removal for a very low price for the free mods http://www.smfhacks.com/copyright_removal.php
Sitewide links I try to limit only to mods that affect all pages in this case ad management, ezportal, save,enotify. Otherwise the links are just on the pages for the mod.
Now in ad management case: income from that is either from donations which hasn't happened yet, custom theme support but that is once every couple months, or people who upgrade from ad management to ad seller pro. I probably won't ever get the investment back that was placed in smfads but still was a decision that I supported.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

I'm not trying to do anything illegal. I didn't know mod authors authomatically put their credits on a site, which I don't really like, so I am happy to remove it altogether.

That was kind of my point.  If you looked at Jennifer's site, you'd have seen an SMF registration page, with 6 text links and 4 image links in the footer - 10 links, none of which were put there by the site owner.  That goes far beyond a reasonable copyright notice.

I can appreciate the work that goes into developing/maintaining apps - I was writing bad code before most people here were born (anyone else remember writing Fortran on punch cards? ), and I certainly agree that authors deserve copyright protection.  But, really, some restraint should be exercised in placing links on user's websites.

[Arantor]

OK, you point out 10 links in the footer. 2 of them are SMF's copyright and must be retained as stated in the SMF licence. The 4 images are not required and are often removed on custom themes.

The other four are added by a mod, albeit it was only supposed to add two not four links. So, yes, while there are 10 links, only 4 of them are actually required to be there and 2 of those can be made to go away through purchasing a licence to do so, or using a different mod.


I should note that the debate of whether mods should add copyrights is a long standing one and back in 2009 when I was part of the Customization Team, we tried to come up with a policy that was fair to huge mods (like portals) where it was justifiable about putting copyrights in the footer, and at the same time prevents issues like this occurring.

I would also note this is why I never put so much as a footer link in any of the mods I wrote, including the helpdesk used on this very site, which is easily in the top bracket of complexity and size of SMF mods. It just saved so much hassle, but at the same time there is a very real mentality in this community that you should be able to have your cake AND eat it, that mod authors are 'required' to do stuff for people and not accept credit for it - the number of people who've asked about removing copyrights on mods through the months and years is surprising.

[mashby]

I look at this situation this way. I'm looking at the footer of the site in the OP's post. Yes, there are 2 duplicate sections (SMFAds for Free Forums) that comprise 4 links. It seems that you applied the mod that did that twice (it's the only reasonable explanation). And now you seem to want to remove those 2 duplicate sections altogether. So, you are using the mod from what I can see in IE (I have ad blockers on other browsers). And you are in theory profiting from the mod author's work. And you want to remove the credit for having the ability for those ads appear? Why not then extend your thinking and remove the SMF copyright? Why are you still displaying the SMF fulcrum logo on the top right? I echo what Arantor said:

So, yes, while there are 10 links, only 4 of them are actually required to be there and 2 of those can be made to go away through purchasing a licence to do so, or using a different mod.