SMF copyrights

[rocknroller]

Why don't you introduced copyright like this,

"Powered by SMF" - looks better, more professional, more powerful, less is more. Don't you think?

[Illori]

we were requested to add some to the copyright so we did so. and really it does not matter if people are so bothered by the 2.0 copyright they can remove it and loose their support.

[Kindred]

What is wrong, or unprofessional, about the way we have the 2.0 copyright displayed now?

[rocknroller]

What is wrong, or unprofessional, about the way we have the 2.0 copyright displayed now?

nothing wrong, or unprofessional, not the point of my suggestion, which tension. 

[Kindred]

Huh?

[Norv]

Why don't you introduced copyright like this,

"Powered by SMF" - looks better, more professional, more powerful, less is more. Don't you think?

Thank you for the suggestion. TBH, I see your point. However there are strong suspicions that displaying "Powered by" might increase the probability of misunderstandings, that people might take it as if SMF is hosting a site, not the software running. Whether that's the case or not, what I did for 2.0 was actually to simplify as much as possible the string (keeping the links we would like to have). I think, personally, that it's okay how it is now: it says what it is, simple and without fluff. IMHO.

[floridaflatlander]

I think it looks good like it is. I cheer the people that designed smf.