Advertisement:

Author Topic: SMF Copyright Rewording  (Read 47664 times)

Offline Seta Soujiro

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 218
  • Gender: Male
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #20 on: July 18, 2005, 11:05:54 PM »
I found this: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=28315.0
Quote from: Unknown
As the license says, you are not allowed to modify the copyright statement.  You are more than welcome to add above or below it, but I'm afraid we simply don't allow any changes to the statement itself except by very special exception./quote]

Offline 1MileCrash

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,188
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #21 on: July 18, 2005, 11:17:55 PM »
owned.
The only thing php can't do is tell you how much milk is left in the fridge.



Offline JackTripper

  • Semi-Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 14
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #22 on: July 19, 2005, 07:17:08 AM »
It really is common courtesy for script developers to allow people to remove the version number. Every script I have used allows this, some don't even ship with Version Number showing.

I'm not here to debate if this helps at all, it doesn't prevent you being hacked, but sure stops lazy Script Kiddies searching for targets through Google.

Invision Board which is paid software, and charges for Copyright Removal, allows you to remove the Version Number.

SMF needs to wake up to the fact that Search Engines are used to find expoitable boards, I doubt unless you run a porn forum many script kiddies would know about your forums - so removing a version number can atleast shield you from the Lazy Script Kiddies.

Offline Trekkie101

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 8,157
  • Gender: Male
  • Ad Astra!
    • https://www.facebook.com/DLRPRoundup on Facebook
    • @dlrproundup on Twitter
    • DLRP Roundup
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #23 on: July 19, 2005, 07:22:03 AM »
Even if you remove the version number, a script would only need about 3 seconds on each site to carry out the exploit, so it would be just as easy searcging for

http://www.google.com/search?hs=y69&hl=en&lr=&c2coff=1&client=firefox&rls=org.mozilla%3Aen-US%3Aunofficial&q=Powered+by+SMF&btnG=Search

"Powered by SMF" and it will still show all the results.


Offline Cerberus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Gender: Male
    • My main site: Pocket PC Russia
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #24 on: July 19, 2005, 10:17:31 AM »
I found this: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=28315.0
Quote from: Unknown
As the license says, you are not allowed to modify the copyright statement.  You are more than welcome to add above or below it, but I'm afraid we simply don't allow any changes to the statement itself except by very special exception.


:o :(
Best Regards, Cerberus
YaBB Gold -> YaBB 1.1 -> YaBB SE (YaPP -> PfaBB) -> SMF
Pocket PC Russia

Offline [Unknown]

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Master
  • *
  • Posts: 36,102
  • Gender: Male
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #25 on: July 19, 2005, 07:51:48 PM »
You can remove the version number if you like, but don't expect to get as good support from us if you do.

You cannot change the "format" of the copyright statement.  If you don't like it, use another software.

-[Unknown]

Offline NewUsername

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #26 on: July 21, 2005, 11:48:55 AM »
You can remove the version number if you like, but don't expect to get as good support from us if you do.

Now what's that supposed to mean? Anyway, the point is moot with regards to removing the version number as Ben_S has kindly pointed out.

You cannot change the "format" of the copyright statement.  If you don't like it, use another software.
-[Unknown]

Well I guess that settles it then. Maybe this should be in a FAQ somewhere, perhaps with a less hostile answer like that.  I believe this can be settled in a another manner than telling off users of your software like this. How about providing two or three alternate and approved by Lewis Media versions of the copyright message? I started this topic because the SMF copyright, when thrown in with other copyright messages on the same page muddles everything.

Try this on the same page:

Some Company Public Forum | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

Contents Copyright © 2003 - 2005 Some Company. All Rights Reserved.
Contents Copyright © 2001 - 2003 Some Other Company Who We Bought This Site From. All Rights Reserved.

All I am saying is that there is a need to disambiguate when it comes to mixing your copyright claims to your software with my copyright claims to my site's content. It does not matter with the placement of the lines since they all appear on the same page, therefore they apply to everything on that page. It is clear what the latter two claims are claiming. But what about the SMF claim?

--

J. Baller Esq.

Offline NewUsername

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #27 on: July 21, 2005, 12:17:33 PM »
I found this: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=28315.0
Quote from: Unknown
As the license says, you are not allowed to modify the copyright statement.  You are more than welcome to add above or below it, but I'm afraid we simply don't allow any changes to the statement itself except by very special exception.

emphasis in red above is mine.

As an addendum to my last posting, since it is forbidden to change or reword the copyright notice for SMF on your own. How about the following, which is based on my interpretation of the statement by [Unknown]

Contents Copyright © 2003 - 2005 Some Company. All Rights Reserved.
Contents Copyright © 2001 - 2003 Some Other Company Who We Bought This Site From. All Rights Reserved.

The following claim applies only to the Simple Machines Forum sofware used in this site:

Some Company Public Forum | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.


This can be implemented in the skin without having to tangle with the SMF code itself to modify the copyright wording. I find this reasonable enough. Though I still think the best course of action is to be able to select between two or three approved copyright messages.

I hope [Unknown] and Lewis Media will also find this reasonable. If not then I will take [Unknown]'s  response to this thread into consideration.

--

J. Baller Esq.

Offline kegobeer

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,994
  • Gender: Male
  • I am ninja!
    • The Kazebeer Family Website
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #28 on: July 21, 2005, 01:28:54 PM »
Quote
Well I guess that settles it then. Maybe this should be in a FAQ somewhere, perhaps with a less hostile answer like that.

From license.txt...

Quote
1. Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute this
Package, provided that:
   a. All copyright notices within source files and as generated by the
Software as output are retained, unchanged.

...

2. You may make Modifications to this Package or a derivative of it, and
distribute your Modifications in a form that is separate from the Package,
such as patches. The following restrictions apply to Modifications:
   a. A Modification must not alter or remove any copyright notices in
the Software or Package, generated or otherwise.

...

5. This Agreement will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with the
limitations described herein. Upon termination, you must destroy all copies
of this Package, the Software, and any derivatives within 48 hours.

That seems pretty clear to me.
"The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it." - Norman Schwarzkopf
Posting and you (Click "WATCH THIS MOVIE")

Offline NewUsername

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #29 on: July 21, 2005, 03:43:22 PM »
Quote
Well I guess that settles it then. Maybe this should be in a FAQ somewhere, perhaps with a less hostile answer like that.

From license.txt...

Quote
1. Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify and/or distribute this
Package, provided that:
   a. All copyright notices within source files and as generated by the
Software as output are retained, unchanged.

...

2. You may make Modifications to this Package or a derivative of it, and
distribute your Modifications in a form that is separate from the Package,
such as patches. The following restrictions apply to Modifications:
   a. A Modification must not alter or remove any copyright notices in
the Software or Package, generated or otherwise.

...

5. This Agreement will terminate automatically if you fail to comply with the
limitations described herein. Upon termination, you must destroy all copies
of this Package, the Software, and any derivatives within 48 hours.

That seems pretty clear to me.

 ::)

You failed to put into context what is at issue here and simply did a knee-jerk posting. Yes I am fully aware of what is on the license. If you have read the entire thread instead of just glossing over it, you would have understood what is at issue here: on a page with multiple copyrights, the SMF copyright is ambiguous and interferes with the other copyright claims on the same page.

Henceforth this thread which asks for either:

a.) permission from the devs and Lewis Media to modify the SMF copyright claim to a less ambiguous notice or b.) give the SMF user / administrator the ability to select from two or more reworded claims as provided by the devs or Lewis Media.

I can also put that in "lawyerese" if you want.   :P

I certainly hope the devs or Lewis Media would give us option B since option A is definitely out of the question. I am waiting for their response to my previous post.

--

J. Baller Esq.

Offline Kindred

  • The Mean One
  • Support Specialist
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 58,431
  • Gender: Male
    • Kindred-999 on GitHub
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #30 on: July 21, 2005, 04:30:39 PM »
and your reaction is just as knee-jerk and quite a bit more condescending...  kegobeer's comment was specifically directed to ONE comment of yours:
Quote
Well I guess that settles it then. Maybe this should be in a FAQ somewhere, perhaps with a less hostile answer like that.


to which he was pointing out that it is fairly clear and unambiguous... so why do you think we need an FAQ?

As for the interference or confusion with other copyrights, I have to disagree with you... I think it's fairly clear what the copyright (as listed) reflects...   adding one line, above or below stating "content copyright XXX" works perfectly well, IMO...
Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

Offline 1MileCrash

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,188
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #31 on: July 21, 2005, 05:10:58 PM »
my god it's an f'ing copyright. Who cares how it's worded? You get  free top notch bulletinboard software, and all the developers ask for in return is to have a few words at the bottom of your page. Leave it like it is, it isnt hurting anyone.
The only thing php can't do is tell you how much milk is left in the fridge.



Offline NewUsername

  • Newbie
  • *
  • Posts: 7
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #32 on: July 21, 2005, 05:39:33 PM »
my god it's an f'ing copyright. Who cares how it's worded?

I do. It's called proper attribution and I care so much about that. I can see where this discussion is going. My point has already been watered down beyond reason. I guess if my avatar said "Charter Member" my comments and suggestions would have gotten better reception. But judging from what reaction I've got, and one from the lead developer no less, I would rather spend my money elsewhere.

Best of luck to all of you.

 :-X

--

J. Baller Esq.

Offline Trekkie101

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 8,157
  • Gender: Male
  • Ad Astra!
    • https://www.facebook.com/DLRPRoundup on Facebook
    • @dlrproundup on Twitter
    • DLRP Roundup
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #33 on: July 21, 2005, 06:37:49 PM »
my god it's an f'ing copyright. Who cares how it's worded?

I do. It's called proper attribution and I care so much about that. I can see where this discussion is going. My point has already been watered down beyond reason. I guess if my avatar said "Charter Member" my comments and suggestions would have gotten better reception. But judging from what reaction I've got, and one from the lead developer no less, I would rather spend my money elsewhere.

Best of luck to all of you.

 :-X

--

J. Baller Esq.

Now thats not very fair. I stand here, a non-charter member, and I haven't once felt that a Charter Member has been given more in the way of being listened to just because of their donation to SMF. Everything ive ever posted has been read and usually responded to by a team member and I have always felt I was valued in my comments.

Theres already a lot of history to the copyright, do a search, youll see it all. Usually in the end the team and a user make ends meet to a state of satisfaction. Simple Machines as one thing of us, and thats to respect their copyright.

And from what ive seen and heard, you can add "Content of posts copyright scooby doo" if you want, just above, or below the SMF copyright.


Offline kegobeer

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,994
  • Gender: Male
  • I am ninja!
    • The Kazebeer Family Website
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #34 on: July 21, 2005, 10:28:13 PM »
I believe SMF does have a lawyer at their disposal - I would even hazard a guess that their lawyer has looked at the copyright statement.  If that is indeed the case I'm sure their lawyer would have pointed out any particular problems with it.  I'm sure one of the devs will correct me if I am incorrect.

Oh, and as Kindred pointed out, my reply was directed at one statement in your post, but you must have glossed over it instead of reading the entire post.   ::)
"The truth of the matter is that you always know the right thing to do. The hard part is doing it." - Norman Schwarzkopf
Posting and you (Click "WATCH THIS MOVIE")

Offline Cerberus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Gender: Male
    • My main site: Pocket PC Russia
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #35 on: August 02, 2005, 01:35:03 PM »
You cannot change the "format" of the copyright statement.  If you don't like it, use another software.

-[Unknown]
Nevertheless, I suppose we may add text before/after?





ATM I'm working on a new site (for a circle of friends, nothing fancy ;)) which will be running SMF & MKP. I would like to have a similar copyright:

© Site name
Site powered by MKPortal | Board powered by SMF © Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

Is it ok? I've just removed the years and modified some commas.

Simple Machines Community Forum | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved.

Of course I left the links intact ;)
« Last Edit: August 02, 2005, 02:09:55 PM by Cerberus »
Best Regards, Cerberus
YaBB Gold -> YaBB 1.1 -> YaBB SE (YaPP -> PfaBB) -> SMF
Pocket PC Russia

Offline Kindred

  • The Mean One
  • Support Specialist
  • SMF Legend
  • *
  • Posts: 58,431
  • Gender: Male
    • Kindred-999 on GitHub
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #36 on: August 02, 2005, 01:52:50 PM »
I'll leave it up to [unknown] for the final word... but I would say that that actually changes the copyright...


As I think we have beaten to death in this and the other copyright post, you are not allowed to change the copyright in any way, shape or form.
Adding text before or after is NOT what you did...

This text must remain unchanged:

Simple Machines Community Forum | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved. 


So, you could do THIS:

Content © 2005 Site name | Powered by MKPortal
Simple Machines Community Forum | Powered by SMF 1.1 Beta 3 Public.
© 2001-2005, Lewis Media. All Rights Reserved. 



The years MUST be included in a copyright statement.
(why would it be OK to remove the years form the SMF copyright when you make a year statement in your site copyright?)
« Last Edit: August 02, 2005, 02:29:56 PM by Kindred »
Please do not PM, IM or Email me with support questions.  You will get better and faster responses in the support boards.  Thank you.

Offline Cerberus

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 278
  • Gender: Male
    • My main site: Pocket PC Russia
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #37 on: August 02, 2005, 02:09:14 PM »
Adding text before or after is NOT what you did...
Sorry for not being clear enough. There're 2 questions on my post above. I've divided them now :)
Quote
The years MUST be included in a copyright statement.
(why would it be OK to remove the years form the SMF copyright when you make a year staement in your site copyright?)
I'd like to remove all the years :)

As I think we have beaten to deat in this and the other copyright post, you are not allowed to change the copyright in any way, shape or form.
I see :)
Just a thought: can we use an image with the copyright text? :)
« Last Edit: August 02, 2005, 02:15:03 PM by Cerberus »
Best Regards, Cerberus
YaBB Gold -> YaBB 1.1 -> YaBB SE (YaPP -> PfaBB) -> SMF
Pocket PC Russia

Offline [Unknown]

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Master
  • *
  • Posts: 36,102
  • Gender: Male
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #38 on: August 02, 2005, 05:18:40 PM »
I'd like to remove all the years :)

Why?

Just a thought: can we use an image with the copyright text? :)

No.

-[Unknown]

Offline 1MileCrash

  • SMF Friend
  • SMF Hero
  • *
  • Posts: 3,188
Re: SMF Copyright Rewording
« Reply #39 on: August 02, 2005, 05:30:10 PM »
after a few months of research, i have put together a formula that will answer all copywrite questions.

Change + Copyright = No.

I know it looks complicated, but do not worry. It will click eventually.
« Last Edit: August 02, 2005, 05:37:13 PM by Tippmaster »
The only thing php can't do is tell you how much milk is left in the fridge.