My opinion on SMF

[Stargater59]

how does it look "more professional"? to have the admin in a different layoout/look from the forum?
Personally, I feel it is more professional to keep the look/theme throughout. (you don't have a different layout for windows control panel, or for Mac controls, for that matter)

However, as I stated above... if you really want it, it could be done using the theme engine...   so go ahead and request someone to make you a theme that does it... (or do so yourself).

It  doesn't really make any difference either way.

I just think it makes the forum software itself look more professional. Just call me weird 

[Kindred]

"you're wierd..."

[Dannii]

However, as I stated above... if you really want it, it could be done using the theme engine...   so go ahead and request someone to make you a theme that does it... (or do so yourself).

I started... haven't had the time to finish it though.

[metallica48423]

i kinda like it.  Looks neat.

[humbleworld]

The People behind Simple Machines Forum software should be given gifts this Christmas.

[ArticleRus]

I choose SMF for my first forum because of the good feedbacks that I searched in the Internet.

[kizer]

Well let me tell you. I've been running a forum since 2003 and I was happy to use phpBB2 because it was easy to use and really easy to setup. I ran it faithfully for 4years and did nearly every mod that was well cool enough to run. Then a security fix would come out and lord it really sucked trying to update things. I got hacked twice, but luckily I was able to fix the holes and update my database.

I'm tooling around and land on a buddies forum and I looked at the powered by and thought SMF what the heck is that? Landed here and looked through the mods and well wasn't sold right away. 6months later goes by and man I was getting hammered by SPAM like you wouldn't believe. Patch, patch, patch and lots of swearing my buddy said try SMF. I installed it and ran it beside phpBB2. My members had mixed thoughts on SMF. I got dozens and dozens of approvals and 2 dislikes. I made a decision that I was going to swap out the forum software in 3weeks and fade out phpBB2. Sure enough a week later my database crashed on phpBB2 and the new forum came on line with some forwarding code I threw up.

Getting used to all the permissions in SMF was tough because its uber security happy, but man talk about a level of confidence in knowing that my forum is tighter than fort Knox. Needless to say I haven't had one piece of spam, not one complaint other than can you tweak this and its been running smooth. The load times are insanely fast.

I haven't donated to the site as of yet, but I'm planning on it. Tech support here has been almost instant and you can tell by the level of detail off the posts that there are people that want to be here not a bunch of script kiddies looking well to look cool.

Oh the Spell Check is insanely cool too.

Ive read through a lot of the posts and I keep seeing Yeah its free and Vbulletine is not. I've tried it and I wouldn't use it if it was free.

[metallica48423]

Thanks for the kind words

To be fair, i've used several forum systems, each has their good points and bad points... but SMF fits my needs best

[Anguz]

kizer, I loved your review.

I follow this thread usually and don't comment much, but yours is very informative and to the point, and touches the point of SPAM, which is a problem a phpBB using friend is having right now and won't listen to me about SMF . I'll point him to your post soon.

[humbleworld]

I dream of having 1 Million posts in one of our SMF-powered sites next year. I like dreaming big things.

[wookey]

That has been an interesting thread. I came here because I read a forum (navitron.org) that uses this software so I thought I'd have a look at where it came from. It is a very nice piece of software, and as a user only I'd say was somewhat nicer than phpBB2, the only other I have used much, although not critically so. However amongst all the comment here there seems to be a terrific lack of understanding of what Free/Libre software actually is. SMF may cost nothing to download and use, but it is not Free Software by the normal definition of that. It is almost-free, but the critical 'no distribution without permission' is fatal. Firstly this means that it cannot be included in Linux distributions, which no doubt severely reduces its uptake - If I install Debian or fedora or Ubuntu and look for forum software I will find phpBB2, but not SMF, entirely because of the licence. It will not have the corresponding integrated install of packaged software. No doubt the developers have done their best with their own independent packaging, but that's usually a very poor substitute for distro-based packaging.

Undistributable software is not Free Software. I was quite keen to install it for some of my sites until I read the licence. Now, whether it is better or not is simply irrelevant. Having been burned before I now never use any non-free software unless there really is no alternative, and in this case there are alternatives. Obviously, not everyone takes that view, which is fine so long as they know and understand what they are getting.

Now it may be the case that the simplemachines will always give permission if you ask, but in that case what purpose does the licence serve - they might as well use a normal one that just allows distribution anyway and save themselves and distributors the hassle. Thus I presume that distribution is not always allowed, perhaps not ever allowed without some payment, in which case this is simply normal copyrighted software which you are allowed to check out the source code for. That's fine of course, but people shouldn't go round calling it 'Free Software'. There is an accepted defintion for that and SMF does not meet it. Consider what happens if Simple Machines LLC go bust tomorrow and their website disappears. No-one else can distribute the software, and the original is no longer available. That's it - no more SMF (beyiond those who already got a copy). That is an example of why the redistribution requirement for Free Software is important. At least in SMF's case existing users will have the source and will be able to maintian themselves, so they are in a better position than binary-only proprietary software, but the software itself cannot last beyond the life of Simple Machines LLC without a licence change, and I have no idea how practical that is.

I would be interested to hear from the developers or simplemachines what the criteria for allowing distribtuion are. Payment, purpose, simply asking, or something else?

The licence is even more restrictive than DJB software such as qmail, which let you distribute the original unchanged, so all changes had to be shpped as patches, which ultimately led to the death of qmail as apopular MTA, despite its suberb quality. I hope that the developers of SMF will consider these things, and in time decide to release SMF under a genuine Free Software licence. In the meantime it would be good if all you people who are obviously huge fans of the software and not very bothered about the licence, could distingush between 'cost free, source available' (which SMF is) and 'Free Software' (which it isn't).

Clearly SMF has a place in the world, but sadly it's not on any of my machines, or those at work.

Very nice bit of work though - congratulations.

[Dannii]

I think there's actually a precedent for considering the distribution clause of the SMF licence irrelevant because themes can be distributed, though I wouldn't know if that's legally valid.

[Kindred]

Undistributable software is not Free Software. I was quite keen to install it for some of my sites until I read the licence.
...
... but people shouldn't go round calling it 'Free Software'. There is an accepted defintion for that and SMF does not meet it.

However, you are incorrect.  Your definition is only ONE definition of "free software" and, despite pressure form the FSF, it is not the only, nor the most accepted, definition of the word.

\If you've read this thread and done a brief search of this community, you will see that every so often, we get someone making the same claims...   I will summarize once again.

SMF is not GPL, that is quite correct.
SMF *IS* free, however. It costs no money. THAT is the meaning of the term "free", despite any desire by GPL or FSF supporters to have it mean something else.

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=16971.msg140624#msg140624
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=81575.msg544890#msg544890

[wookey]

SMF *IS* free, however. It costs no money. THAT is the meaning of the term "free", despite any desire by GPL or FSF supporters to have it mean something else.

OK 'free' is a word with more than one meaning in English, meaning both cost-free and restriction-free ( as in 'free market', 'free man'). And both these uses can be applied to software. That is one reason why other terms have been coined to describe Free Software: Libre Software, Open Source, because the term 'free' can be confusing in english. (I tend to use capitals to make the distinction clearer 'Free Software'.)

However it is idiotic to claim that the definition of Free Software that I was talking about in the above post, and that the whole world refers to when talking about FLOSS (Free, Libre, Open Source Software), is the 'no cost' one. Yes, SMF is 'no cost' software (as I said in my original post 'cost free, source available'), but it is not FLOSS.

There are 52 accepted FLOSS licences last time I looked (OSI's list), of which the GPL is only one. The FSF is not the only outfit that defines the term. OSI and Debian both have widely-accepted defintions too (The OSI one is derived from Debian's, in fact). SMF's license does not meet any of those, and thus will not be considered FLOSS by nearly everybody.

I don't know if you really are not familiar with the above, or are actively trying to ignore it. And I don't know if you just represent yourself, or Simple Machines? You seem to be conflating Free Software/FLOSS in general with the GPL, which is only one of many such licences (the most popular, it is true). Things can be FLOSS without being GPL. They cannot be floss unless they allow redistribution.

Is there actually an attempt in the SMF community to redefine what Free Software is? If so Simple Machines are not alone in trying to bring forward new definitions of 'Free Software' and 'Open Source'. Some of the CMS people have been doing it recently, e.g. with software generally referred-to as 'Badgeware'. It's a valid business model, but sowing confusion about terms is not helpful.

Personally I think you are on a hiding to nothing. You will confuse a lot of people, but are very unlikely to change the world to accept that non-redistribution should be removed from the definitions (Item 1 in the Debian Free Software Guidelines, and the Open Source Definition, 'Freedom 2' in the FSF's terms). Redistribution matters.

Like I said, I have nothing aginst SMF, or Simple Machines. They have a business model and some good software. I wish them every success. But I do feel that muddying the waters on what 'Free Software' means is very unhelpful. By all means coin a new term for the sort of 'free-ish' licence SMF uses - there already is one in fact: 'Source-available', (pick another if you don't like it) but please don't go round claiming that your definition of 'Free Software' is right, and the whole of the rest of the world is wrong - it makes you look silly.

Now unless there are further matters of genuine confusion or misunderstanding I can help clear up, I think it would be best if I said nothing further. The above may well be a message people don't really want to hear on this forum, and I don't want to be accused of trolling. I only posted here to clear up apparent confusion.

[青山 素子]

Is there actually an attempt in the SMF community to redefine what Free Software is? If so Simple Machines are not alone in trying to bring forward new definitions of 'Free Software' and 'Open Source'. Some of the CMS people have been doing it recently, e.g. with software generally referred-to as 'Badgeware'. It's a valid business model, but sowing confusion about terms is not helpful.

(This are my personal thoughts. They are not, in any way, a representation of any official position of the team or Simple Machines.)

Might I note that the word "free" has generally meant no-cost for perhaps the last several decades? It is only recently that a small, but vocal, group has been pushing for that word to mean something else entirely. It can lead to situations like this where you are stuck in your meaning but we are using the older, more widely held, meaning. I suggest you use FOSS or FLOSS instead of "free software" for your meaning. I don't think anyone here is arguing that SMF can count in the FLOSS category.

Likewise, "Open Source" has a history going back before the OSI tried to restrict the meaning and yet those who are indoctrinated think that the term is being abused when it is used in the way it has been historically.

While I respect your views, please realize that both terms have a history and don't start accusing people of redefining them when they are using the older (and possibly more understood) meanings instead of what the OSI and FSF have deigned them to mean.

* Motoko-chan climbs off the soapbox

[rsw686]

There is an accepted defintion for that and SMF does not meet it. Consider what happens if Simple Machines LLC go bust tomorrow and their website disappears. No-one else can distribute the software, and the original is no longer available. That's it - no more SMF (beyiond those who already got a copy). That is an example of why the redistribution requirement for Free Software is important. At least in SMF's case existing users will have the source and will be able to maintian themselves, so they are in a better position than binary-only proprietary software, but the software itself cannot last beyond the life of Simple Machines LLC without a licence change, and I have no idea how practical that is.

This is the only downfall I see to the license. However I don't think SMF will just disappear. Somebody on the team will continue the development or I'm sure the development would be handed off to somebody else.

[wookey]

Motoko-chan, thank you for that response.

Are you sure that 'free gift' is an older usage than 'free man' or 'free house'? According to hxxp:www.etymonline.com/index.php?search=free&searchmode=none [nonactive] 'free country' is 1375, 'free of cost' is 1585. I have no idea how definitive that is, but I think it is safe to say both meanings are 'very old' in relation to software :-)

I am not aware of usage of the term 'Open Source' before Bruce Perens coined it and formed OSI. Can you point to any instances? I am genuinely interested in the etymology of this. As you say I have been 'indoctrinated' for nearly a decade now, which would no doubt explain my lack of knowledge in this area.

I don't think anyone here is arguing that SMF can count in the FLOSS category.

OK, that's all I ask. It is not the impression that a casual visitor from the FLOSS world gets, and your page http://www.simplemachines.org/about/whyfree.php 'Why Free is better' definately does claim that SMF is Open Source. At best this is misleading - it looks disingenuous to me.

The confusion over 'free software' can be dismissed as nothing more than the genuinely problematic twin-meaning of 'free' in english, combined with the fact that you wish to continue using the term 'free software' rather than choosing something which is not open to misinterpretation. Fair enough. The use of 'Open Source' as well seems harder to explain away. I await your pointers to these 'older' meanings which I presume you feel justifies the usage there?

I guess this problem will get worse with time as more and more FLOSS people come across SMF. I see a fellow called wobo was badly caught out in 2006. Oh well, I certainly understand your position much better than I did yesterday.

[青山 素子]

I am not aware of usage of the term 'Open Source' before Bruce Perens coined it and formed OSI. Can you point to any instances? I am genuinely interested in the etymology of this. As you say I have been 'indoctrinated' for nearly a decade now, which would no doubt explain my lack of knowledge in this area.

It may take a bit, I need to dig out some of my older stuff, and it's rather inaccessible right now (I'm doing some cleaning at home, and that stuff is behind quite a few piles). I do remember seeing it being used in material published in the late 70s (I'm a packrat and collector - even have a few OpenVMS manuals around). At latest, I can think of around 1984/1988 with the formation of X/Open and the Open Software Foundation (take a look at their meaning of open, it wasn't the OSI meaning for sure).

[forumnoob]

WOW

very interesting turn (if somewhat offtopic)

I am wary to join, lest it turn into one of those pseudo religious diatribes from the "GPL Religious Fundamentalists" which seem to hover like termites in the woodwork the better  to nip out at every opportunity

still, that 'anti-distribution' clause seems shortsighted and fatal to me.
More than anything, as wooky says, that limits penetration, which we all want ( can I get an 'Amen', ladies! )


I am saddened (and I am sure that Lewis feels the same way) over the handling of the SMF/Joomla/GPL debacle, which, ultimately (in my mind) led to an inferior product now getting the recognition that SMF should be having.

"Free" is NOT the same as zero cost to download. Shifting costs (real or imagined -or deferred) does not make a product "free" - it may seem like splitting hairs (and to the majority of users it is) but its still a significant concern to others.

Now there are valid concerns about allowing others to distribute your code without a contractual obligation to do so. - A distributor may continue to release older code that was otherwise removed  in response to a security flaw.

The answer I feel, is not to deny distribution as SMF has done, but change the license to allow distribution WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR RELEASE ONLY THE MOST CURRENT VERSION  (or) have the software check the most current version directly from SMF

The excuses/reasons that have been given for SMF not being 'fully free' seem to point back to some time when SMF was Yabsee under the GPL and some other outfit took the code (which they were free to do under the GPL) and offered a version of it- WITH THE OPTION OF PAID SUPPORT (which no doubt eats into the model of "Give away free donkeys, charge for the hay" )

consequently, there is a new restrictive licensing model in place, which 'protects' SMF. We now own 100% of a tiny tiny marketplace, instead of 30% of the universe!

way to go!



(lol?)

[青山 素子]

The answer I feel, is not to deny distribution as SMF has done, but change the license to allow distribution WITH THE CAVEAT THAT THE DISTRIBUTOR RELEASE ONLY THE MOST CURRENT VERSION  (or) have the software check the most current version directly from SMF

This is actually done. We have several places that we have given permission to redistribute our software with the term that they must offer the latest version within two weeks of it being offered by us (I believe it is two weeks, I'd have to double-check the terms). Most of those under these terms are hosting providers who want to offer SMF to their customers. It is often quite difficult to get even those simple terms to be followed. This permission is given for free upon consideration and approval of their reasons for wanting to do so.

I, personally, would like to see the redistribution restriction lifted (maybe redistribution, but not modified), but processes to change things take time, especially when there are many people invested in the process. I do know for sure that we won't be going GPL any time soon because of certain events. I'm not going to elaborate, please don't ask for more info.

The excuses/reasons that have been given for SMF not being 'fully free' seem to point back to some time when SMF was Yabsee under the GPL and some other outfit took the code (which they were free to do under the GPL) and offered a version of it- WITH THE OPTION OF PAID SUPPORT (which no doubt eats into the model of "Give away free donkeys, charge for the hay" )

SMF was never YaBB SE. They are separate codebases. I believe there was more involved in the whole issue, not just a paid support option. Specifically, forks giving the main line a bad reputation and other behind-the-scenes issues I'm not qualified to go into (I wasn't around back then and so cannot offer insight).