Editing copyright section at footer of forum

[tlg]

I am amazed to see that you constantly downgrade my request to aesthetics. It should be clear that it has nothing to do with the aesthetics since I have very clearly mentioned the fact that we wish to keep the copyright text without any change and keep it in the same aesthetic view it already has (so i would appreciate if you could start expressing your point of view without the aestehtic thing). I do wish to keep the copyright text with the SAME EXISTING AESTHETIC. I do NOT request anything about the wording and the AESTHETIC. 

The question is:
Why do I have to provide a LINK?

Thank you.

[Arantor]

That is kind of why I asked what it was you wanted to remove it for.

Actually, there's two links. One back to the main website, one back to the copyright page.

Reason being that it ensures people know the software comes from us and makes it clear what license it is available under.

[tlg]

I can put your license on my server. I am okay with any unlinked copyright solution.

I don't wish to have any external links.

If link cannot be removed, I would kindly ask you to replace the word "free" on your main page with "link supported".

[Arantor]

I'm sorry, I still don't understand why you cannot accept a pair of links back here.

I cannot grant you permission for this. You will have to ask via email to [email protected] as I have said several times, citing this topic, as then the administrators and Simple Machines LLC who owns the copyright to SMF can make that decision.

[tlg]

So please do not claim that this software is FREE because it is NOT FREE.

Regards.

[Arantor]

It is free in the sense that you do not have to pay for it. We have never maintained otherwise.

i.e. free as in beer, not free as in speech.

[Orstio]

So please do not claim that this software is FREE because it is NOT FREE.

Regards.

You downloaded it and are able to use it without exchanging any money, are you not?  Sounds free to me.

[tlg]

Just like free speech does NOT mean unpaid speech, free software does NOT mean unpaid software.

Please respect the society and the values developed by other people.

Please go ahead and substitute the word free with the word unpaid and this would be totally fair.

[Arantor]

We never claimed this was free-as-in-speech software. The fact we don't use an OSI license is evidence of that, really.

Free, unfortunately, has both meanings. I'm sorry you seem so angry that we have used the common word that has both meanings.

[Orstio]

Just like free speech does NOT mean unpaid speech, free software does NOT mean unpaid software.

Free speech had better mean unpaid speech, as those who yammer about free speech typically aren't worth listening to anyway.

Please respect the society and the values developed by other people.

Just which society and which people are being disrespected by the use of the dictionary definition of the word "free" on this website?  As far as I can see, you're the one disrespecting the values of the people who created this software and licensed it as they saw fit.

complimentary: costing nothing; "complimentary tickets"; "free admission"

Costing nothing; gratuitous: a free meal.

[Prosperous]

To be honest tlg, I have no idea why you'd want the links removed... And name another forum software that allows you to remove the link back to their company site/forum?

phpBB have it, SMF have it, MyBB have it, Vanilla have it, InvisionFree have it, etc. Looks like your only option is to create/develop your own forum software.

[Arantor]

vBulletin does, but you have to pay for it.

phpBB's use of the GPL doesn't allow it to be done, but they don't take action against users who do - they just refuse to provide support.

[searchgr]

vBulletin does, but you have to pay for it.

That's good. I would be ready to pay in order to remove it./

[Arantor]

You know that's paying on top of the already expensive license, don't you?

[searchgr]

How to know? Let me know how much is the 'expensive license'.

[Arantor]

Pricing for vB 4 seems to be $195 for the base license, plus a further $170 for the "Branding-free Option".

[Orstio]

phpBB's use of the GPL doesn't allow it to be done, but they don't take action against users who do - they just refuse to provide support.

Not true.  The GPL requires the copyright in the source code, not in the output.  They do, however, refuse to provide support should you remove the copyright from the output, which also suits the GPL fine as the software must be distributed without warranty of any kind.

[Arantor]

I thought it was, in passing, handled under 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Whether a web page is 'interactive' or not is debatable but I kind of figured that since the app normally prints such a copyright notice, it was supposed to be kept.

* The Grinch isn't a lawyer, and thinks the GPL is far too weasel-worded.

[Orstio]

I thought it was, in passing, handled under 2c:

c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively when run, you must cause it, when started running for such interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this License. (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

Whether a web page is 'interactive' or not is debatable but I kind of figured that since the app normally prints such a copyright notice, it was supposed to be kept.

* The Grinch isn't a lawyer, and thinks the GPL is far too weasel-worded.

Bolding mine.  Those are conditions of modifying and redistributing work that is copyright someone else and licensed under GPL.  Basically, if a GPL program always shows a copyright, license, and disclaimer when it is installed, your modified version must do the same.

The GPL is very poorly worded for use with scripted (compile at runtime) applications, as those kinds of specifics tend to apply solely to post-binary compilation.

[Arantor]

Surely, though, if you take a GPL work, modify it, it's modified - redistribution or not?