@Rudolf, thanks for saying so succinctly about Smarty what I^ve been swearing at me whole life!
@grudge
The original definition of open source (As per the literal meaning) was that the source code for software was available to users ~In the clear~ so to speak. Open source has been more commonly associated with the OSI and specifically the GPL license which defines a specific set of criteria in addition to the literal meaning of the word. I don^t think it^s unreasonable of us to state that SMF is an open source product, we allow users to freely use the software, modify it for themselves, and release patches to enable others to modify it as they wish (i.e. mods) - it^s actually entirely inkeeping with what open source originally meant. I agree however that it would not be correct for us to state that we have a GPL/OSI compatible license as that is not the case as we do not allow redistribution without prior consent - particularly of derived works. I agree that it^s irritating that lots of software is released under varying proprietary licenses. Unfortunately as it currently stands I^m not aware of any license freely available that bridges the gap between fully commercial licenses and those on the other side like GPL. I^m sure that Simple Machines aren^t the only group out there who believe in the open source principle but wish to protect themselves and their users from ~branches~ of their product - something that continues to be the main sticking point for SMF not being GPL (I don^t believe various forks of SMF would benefit either ourselves or our users). *The other thing I^d love to find a way of writing into a license is somehow guaranteeing the availability of the software in the event that the organisation behind it ceases to be. * Whilst SMF continues to be actively developed (And I see no reason why that would ever stop) things are fine - but in the unlikely event that Simple Machines were to wind up there is no mechanism within the license to allow someone else to take up the software. Short of making some extremely complex wording such as ~If there is no release of the software within xxx months the clause disallowing redistribution will cease to have effect~ which I doubt holds any legal weight I have no idea how we could do such a thing. At the end of the day I^ve never seem the big issue with what license something is released under as long as it is free. The fact is that unlike some software types it^s a sinch to migrate to another forum software if you really want. If we were to stop developing SMF tomorrow people could easily convert to phpBB, vB, IPB etc. Similarly if phpBB stopped developing tomorrow I suspect most users would convert to a ~proper~ forum packages out there rather than pick one of the ~forked~ phpBB software which, from my experience - and only in general, tend to tarnish phpBB^s reputation rather than improve it as they are often ~phpBB on acid~ and hence buggy, unsecure and lead to users unfairly associating them with phpBB. * Anyway, clearly this is not very much related to phpBB as per the topic starter.
*Actually Grudge, I disagree with you, I feel your comments are VERY MUCH ON TOPIC! There are many things that go into a purchasing decision (and I say purchase, for although both products are ostensibly free, there is a TCO (total cost of Ownership) that wil exist for both, regardless.) I also dont feel that your license ^expiration^ clause is particularly onerous, complex nor impossible. The SMF license protects SMF rights as an ongoing software development concern. The ~Ongoing development project~ can be defined by ~x # of updates releases per calendar year~ obviously, if people have ^bought^ SMF and the company goes away, then there should be a provision to allow them to take over where SMF left off. The real reason to NOT have a clause like you describe would be the idea of Simple Machine Forums being superseded some time in the future (as SMF superseded YABBSE) with a pay or otherwise commercial version built on the knowledge base (if not the codebase) of previous SMF development.In that case, the org would need to be able to transition ALL of the previous SMF base and wouldnt want it to remain behind with a splinter group.Personally, that wouldnt bother me in the slightest, I^ve compared SMF against VB and IPB in quite a few situations where COST IS NO OBJECT (@programmers: cost was an inherited class
) and chose SMF each time. Some of those choices were not mine alone but part of a team via a decision matrix drawn up by people unfamiliar with forum software in general.the biggest part I have a problem with though is [quo*te]1) A**t the end of the day I^ve never seem the big issue with what license something is released under as long as it is free. 2) The fact is that unlike some software types its a cinch to migrate to another forum software if you really want.
The problem with 1) is... what is ~free~ and ~freedom~?Would you like a 52 inch flat screen tv, but the license stipulated that the ONLY use to which it could be put was watching single 10 second loop of some video?The affero license indicates if you deploy a covered app on a website, EVERYONE who connects to your website app, is entitled to a copy of the code INCLUDING ANY MODS you^ve made. THAT would preclude me from using it, not just the disclosure issues of releasing code, but the *administrative overhead* of dealing with source code requests.It^s also not a CINCH by any means to convert forums of any reasonable size and/or user base. You see, the issues you face then aren^t just code or mapping of field type to field type, but raw physical issues of a huge unwieldy database, different log in and posting behaviors, user interface, DIFFERENT SEMANTICS (you say ~DELETE POST~ I say ~expire text~.. when you ~delete~ it^s gone for good, my similarly named action only hides it, and so on)
Again, I see your perspective as a programmer, not as an end-user or site admin and I understand it.Respectively though, after um...~trolling~ this forum for over two years, I strongly believe that some *^cross disciplinary training* ^is DEFINITELY needed - staffers HAVE to walk in someone else^s shoes/wear other hats/roles for a while to better appreciate the issues the other party faces.
In that, I am convinced that the MOTM was not only useful, but ESSENTIAL no matter the cost as the benefits will be great.In fact, I predict a MAJOR SHIFT for SMF in 2008 as the cross-pollination bears fruit! :
I think that SMF in the future will evolve to have TWO main extension mechanisms. The existing source code delta based modification manager, and a plugin based type of code integration.like wordpress or joomla etc
(note: There\\\'s a big bug in the parser that TOTALLY MANGLES a post, inserting spurious BBC code etc, if the post has that escape/back quote character! (the one under the tilde ~ on most keyboards!)
Poll