[WIP] SMF Rewrite

[Alex Stanford]

SMF Copyright Nazi

I'm becoming a real trend-maker around here, eh?

[Alex Stanford]

Look at the mod's code. It doesn't change any markup at all.

No, it justs removes half of the copyright from visual display!  I'd say that is more radical a change from an end-user standpoint than the simple markup optimization that I proposed...

[Arantor]

Powered by SMF 2.0 RC2 Charter Preview | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC

Becomes

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC

Less than half, because the important detail is still there. However, I would reiterate my statement. No markup is changed. No code is changed in the function in question, thus the license is not violated.

[Alex Stanford]

Powered by SMF 2.0 RC2 Charter Preview | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC

Becomes

Powered by SMF | SMF © 2006–2009, Simple Machines LLC

Less than half, because the important detail is still there. However, I would reiterate my statement. No markup is changed. No code is changed in the function in question, thus the license is not violated.

Repeating yourself does not exactly prove a point.

If I understand correctly, that part of the license - and the very markup in question - is all a result of trying to limit the pool of users capable of removing or hiding the copyright altogether.

Since I'm not trying to remove the copyright, and only trying to optimize markup, I'm not really violating the core reason that these rules are in place.  In my eyes, there is no reason to not try your best to assist me, and maybe even consider granting an exception.  I don't understand the logic behind redundantly shutting me down.  I've understood the reasoning since the first page of this thread, no reason to keep beating me in the head with it.

I still think my point stands, the change you described is more drastic for the end-user than anything I intended.

[Arantor]

Maybe so. However the core difference remains.

That mod does not alter the markup, no matter what *content* it does output. And it does not alter the function that generates it, which as pointed out meets the license.

I would point out that others have requested to change the markup of the function before and such requests were not granted, and that was a smaller request. A search in Feature Requests would find it, no doubt.

[SoLoGHoST]

* Arantor thought you were talking about it being on GM rather than here.

What ever gave you that idea I don't know.  Anyways, I'm through with this topic.

Good Luck

[Alex Stanford]

Maybe so. However the core difference remains.

That mod does not alter the markup, no matter what *content* it does output. And it does not alter the function that generates it, which as pointed out meets the license.

I would point out that others have requested to change the markup of the function before and such requests were not granted, and that was a smaller request. A search in Feature Requests would find it, no doubt.

As long as we can agree on that point, we can agree to disagree on the rest.  

[青山 素子]

On a quick note, the Hide Version mod (which was made so those insistent on removing the version number could do so safely and not disable the package manager in the process) only changes the version number of SMF to an empty string in index.php if the user is not in the Administrators group. I'm of the belief that hiding the version number is futile and a snake-oil solution to "hacking" of scripts.

It has been the team's position that the version number itself is not a substantive part of the copyright line.


I'm sure you mean well, so why not provide some alternate, cleaner, code for the copyright function to output via a bug report? For 2.0 it will need to have the exact same functionality, but if you don't mind it being considered for a later release, you are welcome to trim it to your liking.

[Orstio]

This whole nonsense about the Hide Version mod is just that, nonsense.

READ THE LICENSE!

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

The Hide Version mod doesn't change the copyright.

It does change the $forum_version variable in the index.php, but not the copyright notice as generated by the Software as output.

As such, it is compliant with the license as it does not tamper with any of the code that generates the copyright notice.

[nadrojcote]

wow this sure got heated....

[JBlaze]

wow this sure got heated....

Noticed that, did ya?

[Dannii]

Orstio, hmm, but what is a 'notice'?

As the licence doesn't define what a notice is, I think it could be argued that 'notice' refers only to the text, and not to the accompanying markup.

[Alex Stanford]

Orstio, hmm, but what is a 'notice'?

As the licence doesn't define what a notice is, I think it could be argued that 'notice' refers only to the text, and not to the accompanying markup.

If you were me, you would have just turned all of your mods into an attempt at stealing/redistributing SMF... lol.

That's the very argument I attempted early in this thread. But, I guess my opinion was quickly discounted because I don't have a monstrous post count and "SMF Friend" tag.

A Modification must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software or Package, generated or otherwise.

In other words, you cannot alter the way it is output by the software. No modifying anything regarding the copyright.

Even that is debatable, because I could ask you this...

Am I really "altering" or "removing" the "copyright notice" or am I modifying the method used to present the copyright notice?

If we assume the copyright "notice" is simply the displayed end-user text, then I've only proposed to modify it's method of presentation (aka the markup) - all within the copyright agreement.

So, the question comes back to Arantor: does the core difference still remain, or is it dwindling into non-existance?

Maybe so. However the core difference remains.

That mod does not alter the markup, no matter what *content* it does output. And it does not alter the function that generates it, which as pointed out meets the license.

[Orstio]

You do realize that as long as you do this only on your own site, and the links and text are still intact and visible, chances are that nobody is ever going to notice the change anyway.

[Alex Stanford]

You do realize that as long as you do this only on your own site, and the links and text are still intact and visible, chances are that nobody is ever going to notice the change anyway.

Yes, I do.  But, I posted for assistance on how to get it done.  Never got any assistance.

[Alex Stanford]

All this talk of copyright issues...

Isn't SMF a branch of YabbSE in some form - putting SMF in potential violation of the GPL?  Granted the GPL has all the legal standing of a dirty piece of toilet paper - but still....

[Orstio]

You do realize that as long as you do this only on your own site, and the links and text are still intact and visible, chances are that nobody is ever going to notice the change anyway.

Yes, I do.  But, I posted for assistance on how to get it done.  Never got any assistance.

Yeah.  You won't get assistance with it, because it is technically violating the license.  You will hopefully eventually get help with the rest.

Also, on second thought...


You guys have your panties in a bunch over a markup change - but excuse me if I'm incorrect but since SMF is fork of yabbSE, that puts it in violation of the GPL, right?


I'm no expert on this stuff, but yeah...

No.  AFAIK, the copyright holders of YaBBSE changed to the SMF license for the SMF "fork".  Regardless, even if it is in violation of the GPL, only a copyright holder can instigate legal action, and even then, only the protections of the GPL are no longer effective, and SMF isn't protected under the GPL anyway.  So, it becomes a moot point because no copyright holder is going to sue SMF for GPL violation to ensure that SMF is not protected under the GPL.

[Perochak]

Copyright Means a Copyright.

If, SMF Team aims to have a full control of its code and output then we should just Put our view in front of them and then convince them with strong arguments that

If we have output/function as rather then as it is looking then it is better to put oneself in the war of copyright.

I just want to say
Just Put your View and Ask the others to just once think about them faithfully

With hope, they will think and Implement it if They found it sound and according to the Mission Statement.

Regards
Perochak

[Alex Stanford]

If you are wondering why this thread has gone inactive: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=354173.0


Talk to you soon!