where is the unsubscribe topic button?!
If it is e-mail alerts, try the "notify" link at the bottom of the page right under the last post.
first and foremost, the license. this issue pretty much overshadows everything else. it's not that i am absolutely oppose using something with a strange license, but i am not going to if there is a decent product using GPL. in this case, there are numerous decent forums using GPL. this issue is not just cosmetics: for instance, smf 2.0 beta exists for some 5 months now, and is still unavailable to mere mortals. phpbb had (most of) their code available throughout the development process.
Hope you don't mind the reformatting of your lists to something a bit easier to respond to.
There are actually a few items in here, but I'll try and address them all. SMF's license is actually fairly close to the QPL (an OSI-approved license). The only difference is that we don't allow redistribution of any kind (the QPL allows unmodified redistribution).
As for the betas being unavailable, there is quite a good reason for that. Although our early code is usually very stable, it has good potential for some big bugs. We release to a small group first so that we can get some outside testing in with a much easier to manage group. It would be total insanity if everyone was able to use the beta release. Take a look in our support forums and see all the duplicate issues posted on. Imagine big beta bugs being posted about 20 or more times a day. As it is, we advise our charter members to not run the early betas on production systems and to make backups. Some still don't listen to that and have no way to back out when they hit a big bug.
Pre-release code for SMF 2.0 is planned, once we get the major bugs quashed. This usually happens in the RC stage. That is the way it always has been since SMF started.
I will also note that you can do closed testing with GPL software, but you need a bit more organization and formality to set it up so it doesn't count as distribution (and thus anyone can get a copy from a tester).
the template system. smf "templating" is somewhat of a mess
2 clean, 100% xhtml compliant styles (personally, i also think they look better than smf's default style, but this is entirely subjective). thing is, if default/built-in themes are not 100% compliant, you can't ask it of 3rd party style designers, so amf ends up being non-standard
SMF templating can be a mess, yes. It is very flexible and thus can become very complicated. We have recognized this issue and there are ongoing projects to see what we can do to help.
As for SMF not being compliant to XHTML, it is. Go validate a new install and it will pass as XHTML 1.0 Transitional. What you are thinking of is "semantic markup", a push to move presentation in CSS. There is no standard for this, it is just a style.
We do recognize the time has come for better markup, particularly as browsers that properly support CSS have become popular and workarounds have been developed for the one major one that doesn't. Changing the whole system takes time and pushing something out that is half-done isn't our style. We hope to have a default theme that will be fully-CSS driven where appropriate (tables will still be used where there is tabular data - the proper use for them) when 2.0 is out, but it is a lot of work to do.
i don't want to begin counting small stuff, like moderation queue, custom profile fields, user warning system, custom bbcode, post drafts etc. everything (or almost everything) here can be added as a package in smf, and nothing is critical
Moderation queue, custom profile fields, and user warning will all be part of the 2.0 release. I believe custom bbcode might be as well (I haven't looked to be sure). Most of those features can be added to SMF 1.1 as you stated.
bottom line: though each system has it's cons and pros, and there is no clear winner, for me, personally, the license is a deal-breaker for smf.
Look closer at our license, it really isn't that bad. The only things you can't do that you could under the GPL is distribute SMF yourself, distribute modified versions of SMF, and remove the visible copyright notice (under the GPL you must still leave in the notices in the code).
As I said above, private testing is allowed under the GPL (as long as you can make it not equate to the legal definition of distribution). Having a private development repository is also allowed. The only source you need to provide is that for the versions you distribute. That most projects have an open repository doesn't make it a requirement.
Anyway, I might have missed something, but I believe those are the major differences. If you find those to be unconscionable, then you are entitled to that opinion, but I will respectfully disagree with it.
Why do you care so much that everything must be GPL. Even GPL has its weaknesses. Just no one ever exploited phpBB enough yet in the past so they would care to switch license...
Funny story. The predecessor to SMF, YaBB SE, was under the GPL. A project called Supermod came along and lifted the YaBB SE code. With it, they added tons of modifications created for that system (a copyright mess in itself). This often created buggy, unsecure, code (not that YaBB SE was perfect, it had problems too). The problem came in that people often thought Supermod
was YaBB SE. As a result, it gave the project a lot of undeserved negative attention. This is one of many reasons for the current license being the way it is.
As for switching licenses, unless phpBB requires copyright assignment for code that goes into their product, every person who has a line of code in that product would need to agree to a license switch for it to happen. This is one of the primary reasons many projects (including those managed by the FSF) require assignment.
Poll