Forum not showing copyright information

[aldo]

Well, it seems the the United States constitution... Just because the constitution doesn't say you have to pay taxes, doesn't mean you don't have to. Its one of those things that are assumed (There is another word for it... I can't remember what its called ), but should still be followed, and I think what we are talking about here is like one of those.

You use the SMF Software, in anyway, you are still supposed to display the SMF copyright

[metallica48423]

Aldo is 100% correct, however.  You are technically altering the output by hiding the copyright with CSS or other elements hiding it, although that is dependant on the interpretation of "output".

Our interpretation of "output" does include the display output.  However, I, and others, do agree with you that it could use clarification.  We'll certainly look into it.

[JBlaze]

This is how it is now

All copyright notices within source files and as generated by the Software as output are retained, unchanged.

This is how it should be (leaves no room for doubt)

All copyright notices generated by the Software as output must be displayed and remain unchanged.
All copyright notices within source files must be retained and remain unchanged.

[IchBin™]

It is clear to me, and by SMF own examples, that creating a custom template (basically a cllection of PHP files) that read SMF tables, displays posts, allows user logins etc BUT DOES NOT DISPLAY A SMF COPYRIGHT is NOT in violation of anything, otherwise you would have to put a SMF copyright link on every ISS page or any page that includes SMF data.

Judging from your paragraph here, I do not think what you are saying is right. If you create your own code to call the SMF tables, and then display posts and use your own login code to access this, I do NOT think you are violating SMF copyright. You are only abusing copyright if you are using SMF code/functions to do these things. These are just my thoughts and interpretations.

If that is now what you are talking about then I would refer to the word retain in the agreement. Retain covers the issue of keeping the copyright displaying when using SMF code.

[cflforum]

It is clear to me, and by SMF own examples, that creating a custom template (basically a cllection of PHP files) that read SMF tables, displays posts, allows user logins etc BUT DOES NOT DISPLAY A SMF COPYRIGHT is NOT in violation of anything, otherwise you would have to put a SMF copyright link on every ISS page or any page that includes SMF data.

Judging from your paragraph here, I do not think what you are saying is right. If you create your own code to call the SMF tables, and then display posts and use your own login code to access this, I do NOT think you are violating SMF copyright. You are only abusing copyright if you are using SMF code/functions to do these things. These are just my thoughts and interpretations.

If that is now what you are talking about then I would refer to the word retain in the agreement. Retain covers the issue of keeping the copyright displaying when using SMF code.

I'm not sure how you can quote what I said and yet not seem to have read it -even though you restate the same point I made (mostly - I wouldnt even say you have to eschew ALL SMF code, just the template code. Again, I point out that the wireless templates DO NOT display SMF copyright or links - would your site be in violation of the SMF license if you access it via a cell phone? of course not!

I dont think this is as big a problem as is being made out. Are there hordes of webmaster's poring over the SMF source code and license with programmers and attorneys looking for ways to NOT show a link?
It is clear to me however, that a lot of SMF people have expectations which are a  lot more than can be demanded of the license scheme. This is a reason  for unecessary confrontation I think.

For my department, we take license compliance VERY seriously. When you work with open source, it is easy to 'infect' one code base with code from another source. Still, people need to know what is acceptable and what is not. If, for example, we were to feel that using SMF would subject us to unfounded lincense claims, then we would just not use it, as even unfounded claims drain resources and time.

For instance, the affero license demands that you provide a copy of the source code to all who request it.
While that may not seem like much, you can imagine the overhead another obligation will add..


If you got time , try taking the GPL Quiz http://www.gnu.org/cgi-bin/license-quiz.cgi having fun yet?

[青山 素子]

When you work with open source, it is easy to 'infect' one code base with code from another source.

Try not to use the term "infect". It's been used to scare people off too many times and as a result has gained quite negative associations in this area.


As to this discussion, we do understand that the license as it currently stands is often a bit too vague. We're working to clean up and make things a bit more clear, but these things take time, especially when the team side is all volunteer.

For license compliance, I'd say that if you hide the notice where it would typically be displayed then you are in violation. This would also include an alternate theme for SMF itself. Although the theme creator may not necessarily have to include the copyright portions in their theme, as an end-user of SMF, you would have to make sure it was there. If it would not typically be displayed (SSI functions, for example), then there is no notice to hide and you are fine.

However, that is my single opinion. If you want something official, I can consult with the other project managers and the partners to have an official statement made.

[cflforum]

Yes.  "Infect" does sound unfortunate doesnt it? Sadly, it is accurate. The licensing requirements of the GPL (for instance) transmits (virally) to code/systems/projects  that incorporate code released under those restrictions.
The incorporation, inclusion or 'coupling' can be quite subtle - in much the way you catch a cold by associating with person who has it, you have two pieces of code working together...

(re: SMF license compliance,) I'd say that if you hide the notice where it would typically be displayed then you are in violation. This would also include an alternate theme for SMF itself. Although the theme creator may not necessarily have to include the copyright portions in their theme, as an end-user of SMF, you would have to make sure it was there.

I agree 100% ! On the higlighted portion .. the other part? hmmm.....

An interesting aside (or perhaps, a focus on the topic,lol) is that the company in noted DOES have a "hide" command in the CSS to NOT display the copyright! (with an !important tag, no less)

http://forum.conduit.com/Themes/conduit/style.css?fin11
#footer{         
   background:url(images/footer_bg.gif) no-repeat center bottom;
   height:45px;
   width:992px; margin:0 auto;
   }
   #footer SPAN{
      width:380px; display:block !important; margin:0 auto;   
      font-size:11px; color:#000; padding-top:12px; display: none !important
      }
      #footer SPAN A{color:#316173; text-decoration:underline;}
      #footer SPAN A:hover{text-decoration:none}

tsk tsk tsk (shakes head disapprovingly)


Back to what you said, there are two problems that I can see: "The legal definition of 'hiding'" which is met in the site complained of (above). And also what constitutes "a theme"?

I would say that everything and anything that references $_context variables or similar and displays it interactively could be called a theme in some way - am I right? (As technically, they wouldnt differ logically from the SMF template files)

Your statement would also require that I (or any end-user) edit the wireless template to ad a SMF copyright and link ...  *ouch*

I would hate to see us get entagled in legalistic parsing for everything..Maybe an "official statement" may be useful - The Creative Commons Attribution license does have a clause that would cover in this case- Could you guys do something like that?

Lol .. Sounds like a "SMF License Beta/RC1"

I'm thinking that what SMF really wants is for there to be a back link back to the site, visible to the end user and clickable. That is a condition you agree to by using the software (I would say, in any capacity, as long as you have a visible interface -anywhere-) which is different than a committment to 'NOT REMOVE' the copyright - see what I mean?

You're right...it all does seem like a lot of work..sigh
I can see however, the very nature of all this may have people second guessing a choice based on SMF.. I'm just thinking about some projects we already have deployed and the scope of work if we had to go back and change/edit all displays to echo some compliance text or something... 


meh....I'm probably just a compulsive worrier

[spearfish]

Well, it seems the the United States constitution... Just because the constitution doesn't say you have to pay taxes, doesn't mean you don't have to.

Correction: It's actually the 16th Amendment .

[Slaapkopf]

[offtopic]
What theme does Conduit use?

[H]

I think it is a unique theme to them. Most just the default theme with the top and bottom changed

[forummaker]

Just checking back in with this...
So, is this legal?
Link Here
Note: Members are all spammers. This is a testing site.

[Arantor]

No, it isn't.

I'll refer this one to the team, thanks for reporting it.

[forummaker]

It is one of my sites.
What is the problem?

[Arantor]

It's an SMF install without showing the copyright, which is part of the SMF License.

Copyright must be visible and legible.

[forummaker]

I will make the appropriate changes to show the copyright info.
There were a lot of different points made since the start of this topic.
Why is there not a "cut an dry" statement in the SMF License stating the copyright info must be visible? I still don't see where it stats that? Hmmmm.
Thanks Grinch.

[Arantor]

See the Agreement, clause 1a:

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

[LC]

Why do people insist on abusing a software that is given freely and offered by a extremely dedicated group of volunteers who do this for basically no money at all, is really beyond me.

I keep seeing these arguments around the site, "how can I get rid of the copyright, how can I find loopholes in the legal agreement?"

It's pathetic and completely selfish and wrong.

SMF is one of the best forum softwares I have ever seen, the support is phenomenal and when people try to abuse this, it sickens me.

Stop trying to ruin what other people have worked so hard to do. The rest of us are happy to display the copyright as it is the least we can do for such a good FREE program.

[forummaker]

I couldn't agree more LadyChaos.... that's why I became a charter member. I've tried most of all the other forum software programs.... and this is truly the best IMO.
I think it's important to talk about it.... it make others aware of the policy/license.
Thanks for the feedback.