SMF 2.0.19 has been released! Please update. Read more.
Started by StathisG, October 09, 2010, 11:29:44 AM
padding-bottom: 0.2em;border-bottom: 1px solid #1F1E1C;
Quote from: StathisG on February 16, 2013, 05:37:59 AMHello tealhill,Thanks for the feedback, but that's one of the beauties of open source software; if you know how, you can change whatever you want.Therefore, since you know what works best for you, and you clearly know how, feel free to change it.
QuotePS: The thread you mentioned is probably visible only to registered users.
QuoteHow something whose source is open... does not qualify as open source? Can you read and modify the code? Then, it's open source!
QuoteAnyone can pick up and use it, modify it, extend it, maintain it, etc.
Quote from: Arantor on March 04, 2013, 10:34:10 AMvBulletin. XenForo, most of IPB. Their source is directly viewable if you own it. But they're not open source.Technically not even SMF 2.0 RC4 was open source if you're going down that road (but that depends on exactly what you consider open source; but no derivative works, no onward distribution as all SMF versions prior to 2.0 final were... they weren't open source not even when the team said 'well, we think otherwise')
Quote from: Arantor on March 04, 2013, 10:34:10 AMAlso, just because something is open source doesn't mean it should be the onus of downstream users to fix what is perceived as a valid complaint.
Quote from: Arantor on March 04, 2013, 10:34:10 AMGrey on black is hard to read, even for users with good vision.
Quote from: StathisG on March 04, 2013, 02:47:43 AMI agree that the colour of some of the links would be nice to change (I disagree with adopting the blue colour site-wide, but that's another discussion)
Quote from: Arantor on March 04, 2013, 10:34:10 AMActually, no they can't. You haven't given - as far as I can tell - a licence for the theme, meaning that technically no-one has any rights to do anything with it.
QuoteYou already gave the answer: "that depends on exactly what you consider open source". I believe it's completely subjective.
QuoteI didn't say that they must fix it, or that it's their responsibility.
Quote from: Arantor on March 04, 2013, 04:25:24 PMQuoteYou already gave the answer: "that depends on exactly what you consider open source". I believe it's completely subjective.Except for a small matter like the licence agreement. XenForo and vBulletin and IPB aren't open source. People can't just randomly take over and write extensions and things reusing their code. And that was also true of SMF prior to 2.0 final.
Quote from: Arantor on March 04, 2013, 04:25:24 PMQuoteI didn't say that they must fix it, or that it's their responsibility.No, you didn't, but you suggested that it wasn't your responsibility to fix it either, thus making it their problem.
QuoteI want to change something to their code for my own purpose (in my own project; I'm not talking about redistribution, extensions, etc.), I cannot. If that's true, then ok; they are not open source.
QuoteGenerally, open source refers to a program in which the source code is available to the general public for use and/or modification from its original design.