How to remove advertisement from copyright footer

[sharks]

I am using SMF 2.0.2 with default theme and at the bottom of all my forum pages, there is some advertising text added by a modification.
Hide Tag Special By SMF Personal © 2011
It is so annoying. How do i remove it?

[Matthew K.]

Remove the modification, although now it would not comply to the guidelines, it's grandfathered in due to it being on the mod site before the changes to the SMF Customization Guidelines.

Since it's perfectly legal for them to add it, since they did it before the rule-change, it'd be illegal for you to remove it.
Although you might be able to move the link to ?action=credits, I'm not completely sure when it comes down to the legality of moving the link, you'd have to wait for someone who knows legal stuff better than I do to respond.

[oziboy]

It is so annoying. How do i remove it?

I'm guessing if you want it gone legally, the only way is to remove the Mod.

[Arantor]

Although you might be able to move the link to ?action=credits, I'm not completely sure when it comes down to the legality of moving the link, you'd have to wait for someone who knows legal stuff better than I do to respond.

Look for the mod's licence. No licence is specified in this case, so only the provisions of the SMF licence for mods and copyright law are applicable, which means that you can't remove it from the footer without getting written permission from the copyright holders to do so.

And since they were inconsiderate enough to put a footer link in the first place, I doubt they'll be considerate enough to let you move it, without some kind of financial agreement at least.

(I have no patience for every little mod that adds a footer link. It's very unprofessional of the mod authors to do so, generally. Even the very largest mods are, IMNSHO, on shaky ground with doing it. There's a credits page, has been for years - use it.)

[sharks]

I have no patience for every little mod that adds a footer link. It's very unprofessional of the mod authors to do so, generally. Even the very largest mods are, IMNSHO, on shaky ground with doing it. There's a credits page, has been for years - use it.

Exactly my point of view. The version for SMF 1.1.x doesn't feature any advertising in the footer but the SMF 2.x version does. This is getting increasingly common for most modifications, which is unfortunately causing some dirty bundle of advertisement links at the bottom of every single page on my forums. I thought SMF was supposed to be free, but i guess it's turning into adware or ad-supported software. And no, i can't remove those mods with advertisement as i need them for my community to function correctly, since i've been using these same mods for several years. If there existed an alternative mod with the same features but no ads, i would get it in a jiffy.

Since this can't be fixed (i know it should be possible, but i'm no programmer) i'll stick to SMF 1.1.x where the ads are not festering on all my forum pages. I have converted only a test forum to see if i can transfer all the modifications over to SMF 2 but it looks like SMF 1.1.x is going to be my platform of choice for several years ahead on all my 7 forums. I am using paid hosting and zero ads to offer my members the best environment, however the ads-filled footer is ruining my work and efforts and money spent on a paid host. If i wanted ads, i would go for a free host and display ads intentionally for revenue, which is not the case.

[Arantor]

SMF itself is free, and with 2.0 final, you can even remove the copyright notice at the bottom if you wish (subject to not receiving support here).

But the same policy is not required to be extended to those who write extensions. There was a time when very few mods added copyrights, but sadly now it seems that everyone's doing it.

On the flip side, what's your thought on themes that add a single copyright to the footer? Is there a double standard there?

[Matthew K.]

Also...there's a new customization guideline that prevents small mods from adding footer links, and encourages the use of the credits page.

[Arantor]

Awesome. Who gets to decide what a 'small mod' is? Is there some definition? Is it based on number of files or size of code?

The problem with having rules that arbitrarily allow some to do so and others not to is that you're inevitably going to get people screwing the system, and others who legitimately feel their work is big/complex enough to warrant such a footer copyright will be denied. It has to be an all or nothing thing to actually work. (I wouldn't mind, but all this was discussed in depth about 2 years ago, when all this stuff was hashed out and made sense of, long before it got to be the big problem it is right now, and the same conclusion was reached then, which is why that very guideline was *not* introduced.)

[Matthew K.]

There is most definitely a definition of when a modification is allowed to add a copyright, and when it's not.

[Arantor]

You mean the one on http://wiki.simplemachines.org/smf/Customization_approval_guidelines#Copyright_and_Credit ?

Well done for totally missing the point.

Mods that add their copyright to every page must be mods that modify significant parts of SMF. For example a Portal mod adds blocks to every page, or a media mod adds functionality to every page for viewing. Themes alter the appearance of every page viewed.

But a portal mod that's only used to add a front page still gets to have its credit everywhere, even if it's not used. Most of the media mods are nice enough to only add their copyright to the footer *on the pages they're triggered on*.

Do these fall foul of your rules?

Medium sized mods that modify a reasonable part of the page can add their copyright or links to the credits page.

What is a 'medium sized mod'?

I note the page indicates an acceptance of the fact that this is going to be subjective, but here's the problem: what is 'medium sized' to one person is going to be small to another. I personally think that there's only about a dozen mods large enough *total* to actually justify a footer credit, and then only on the pages that they activate on, not every page.

You'd have been better disallowing it entirely, to be honest.

[Matthew K.]

I don't write all of the guidelines, thankfully

[sharks]

This is a very interesting discussion as it gives deeper insight on what's been going wrong with the mods that overstepped into displaying ads on what is still "free" software. As per the guidelines above, this mod: Hide Tag Special http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=118 should NOT have been allowed to display an ad in the footer of every single forum page, since it is clearly only a pair of hide tags!! It is not valid in all sections of the forums. In fact, it is explicitly activated only when viewing a post that used hide tags on some text. This is clearly an abuse of the mod developer, and given the widespread use of this mod, i think someone needs to set things right by us (the SMF community). Things will otherwise spiral out of control. My forums' footer is getting thicker and thicker with multiple lines of ads. It's time like this that i wish i knew how to hack so i could bring back balance to the true meaning of "elegant, effective, powerful, free".

[Illori]

that mod was created YEARS before the guideline was put into place. we dont ask all mod authors to fit the current guidelines for mods created before the guidelines were put into place.

[sharks]

that mod was created YEARS before the guideline was put into place. we dont ask all mod authors to fit the current guidelines for mods created before the guidelines were put into place.

You are sadly missing the point. It's not about the date of creation of this mod, as the ads in the footer was only added for SMF 2.0 in the latest update. There were no ads anywhere with this mod from the previous developers and certainly not in the current SMF 1.1.x version. I think the current developer just threw that ad line into the 2.0 version simply because he could. If other developers catch wind of this malpractice and obvious hole in the "SMF modification guidelines" then the word "free" might as well be erased from the SMF motto. It's obviously a hole and it needs to be addressed ASAP. The guidelines aren't well defined enough. If SMF doesn't fix this soon, i will hold on to my existing mods and SMF version and won't upgrade, as i don't need ads on my forums.

[Matthew K.]

Oh lord, you very clearly didn't read my posts. (this is my seven thousandth post )

[Illori]

still we dont track down mod authors that break the rules after they were put into practice. so the team will not request the author to change the mod even if the change was added after the guidelines were changed.

[IchBin™]

The best thing to do, is to not use people's mods who do such things that you don't agree with. I'd much rather we allow authors to do what they please when it comes to things like this, and then allow the community to decide whether to use their code. If a mod author keeps doing things that people don't like, and the people don't use their mods, they will get the point. It would be much better if the community of users would police such stuff, rather than a handful of team members.

We put that rule in there because there is really know possible way to define all the ways that a mod could justify having a link in the footer. It is subjective and will be at the teams discretion when it's discussed. Hence the reason we put this in that same section in the guidelines.

We realize this will be subjective on our part. And that some mods will fall between these categories. Copyrights will be reviewed on a case by case basis when necessary.

If there is proof that it was added after the guidelines were changed, feel free to send it to me. Yes we will remove such things if I'm made aware of it, and the proof is legitimate.

[sharks]

Oh lord, you very clearly didn't read my posts. (this is my seven thousandth post )

Congrats on the landmark post count.

I don't need to know anything else. I'll just hold back on all my SMF upgrades. Freeze my forums on their current SMF versions for as long as possible and then move on to another forum software (probably IPB as i already bought a license as a new year gift to myself). This seems like the only way out now. I needed free software, so i used SMF for over half a decade, but abusive mods are corrupting my forums with ads, and discussing about it doesn't seem to be making any difference and certainly won't make my forums "free" from ads.

Even if i have licenses to other paid forum softwares, i care about SMF, which is why i'm attempting to bring to light the problem of allowing mods to indirectly turn this great free forum software into ad-supported software, which is very true, as i'm looking right now at my forums' footer and it's an ugly mess. Most admins might know how to fix their footer and remove the junk ad lines, but unfortunately, i don't. Maybe it's time to learn how to "fix" it or quit SMF altogether. I'll think about it... Hacking in progress?

Edit: If you download this version for SMF 1.1.x http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?action=download;mod=118;id=138123
It's this file HideTagSpecial185Fix.zip from the official mod site: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=118
You will see that there are no ads in the footer, so why put ads for the SMF 2.0 version?

[Arantor]

You will see that there are no ads in the footer, so why put ads for the SMF 2.0 version?

Because the original author didn't put any in the 1.1.x version and it was only added by the new maintainer when they did work on it for 2.0 final compatibility.

IchBin points out the very valid argument that SMF does allow mod authors the freedom to act as they please (within reason), but the problem is that however well intentioned the guidelines are for ensuring that there is credit given where it is due, there is always going to be someone who abuses that.

OK, history time. Late 2009, this was blowing up because 2by2host's Twitter mod was drawing a lot of heat for its copyright in the footer. Most people then (and now, I think) didn't/don't mind things like portals having copyrights, but something like the Twitter mod having a copyright on every page was considered over the top. And the *official team response* was that the mod author was free to do so, but that it was discouraged.

So what changed between then and now? The fact a lot more suddenly started doing it - back then, it was a relative handful of mods doing it, but now it seems that of the currently maintained/up to date mods are all doing it.

Let me give you an example. I think it's hilarious that the Referrals mod maintained by vbgamer is allowed to get away with putting a copyright link in every page. The profile and registration pages I don't have a problem with; because those areas actively use that information. The topic views I can kind of see (because it's added to the topic view) but it's not needed everywhere on the site - and I'm not sure that classifies as a 'medium sized mod' either.

So, where does that one stand? Assuming we ignore the bias involved (that vbgamer and I have mutual extreme dislike for each other, and that he's a former team member), that is.

I'm sure at this point it'll be argued that it predates the rules, but there's another double standard in play: I know there were times when the rules were changed - and the rules were then *retroactively enforced* on mods. I know this, because Fustrate drafted them and I helped enact them (the original 'objectionable customisations' rule back in 2009), and any mods with objectionable material were "asked" to remove it, even though up until that point they were legitimate.

[Farmacija]

So it is recommended  not to use vbgamer's mods  because he puts his footer link everywhere?

I know that i won't install any new mods because this problem with links in footer, I already have enough unnecessary links there.

[Arantor]

*shrug* If having a copyright footer link bothers you, then yes, don't use them. Or pay for the privilege of removing the link, if it's an option.

That's really the key here: if you don't like it, don't use it, and if enough people don't like it, the attitude might change.

[Farmacija]

That's really the key here: if you don't like it, don't use it, and if enough people don't like it, the attitude might change.

I hope that this will happen and that some other customizer will find calculation to make good mods for community without insolent and irritating footer links.

But if everything stays as it is i'm afraid that people will have to leave smf and take some other forum software.

And i'm worried because od that.

[IchBin™]

So it is recommended  not to use vbgamer's mods  because he puts his footer link everywhere?

No it's recommended that you use your own free will to choose for yourself. Personally I could care less if someone puts links in the mods. If I don't like them, I won't use them. Just as arrow pointed out.

[Farmacija]

Yes, i agree. But how you can not see that most of people use mods, and i think that really small number of users use "native" smf.

Don't you think that it will cause that smf lose on actuality?

[Arantor]

That's the thing, it doesn't really matter what we think. There are enough people out there who are content to use mods with footer links that the mod authors will continue to do so.

If another mod author comes along and writes new mods without footer links, so be it.

[IchBin™]

Of course it will for some. But don't you think you also miss out on 3rd party developers if you don't allow them to do what they want? We wouldn't even have a lot of mods if people couldn't get some sort of recognition for the hard work they put into coding them. A link at the bottom of the page is hardly something to upset about.

[Arantor]

True enough, but when you have (say) seven or eight mods and five or six of those all put a copyright link in the footer, it looks unpleasant, especially when they're not things that apply every page. It's even more annoying when half those links all go to the same site. (E.g. imagine a site with half a dozen of vbgamer's mods installed, that's half a dozen footer links, most of which point to CreateAForum.com)

[Farmacija]

Probably but it seems to me that there are more and more people protesting about this practice of putting footer links everywhere.

In a long term i'm afraid that it might cost, most of all, smf itself, if u understand what i'm talking about.

Of course it will for some. But don't you think you also miss out on 3rd party developers if you don't allow them to do what they want? We wouldn't even have a lot of mods if people couldn't get some sort of recognition for the hard work they put into coding them. A link at the bottom of the page is hardly something to upset about.

Well, the key question then is why mod authors in the past agree not to put footer links everywhere and now they insist on it.
I suppose because they weren't allowed to do that in order to protect users of smf.

And some of mods puts 2 links in footer!

[Arantor]

*shrug* We'll have to wait and see. Maybe someone will come along and write mods without footer credits. Maybe some mod authors will change their minds. Maybe there will just be more complaints but until such time as mod authors in general do something about it, it isn't going to change.

[IchBin™]

I would wager that if you have the same links in your footer because of a couple of mods that put the same link in it, like vbgamers, you could probably speak to him about that and work something out. If not, don't use them and get someone else to write the same mod without it. I see the point, and that's kind of why we added in the rules about not allowing pointless links. But most of them that add links added them before the rules etc.

If I have my way, the customize site is eventually going to be driven by the community though. Without SMF intervening unless there is security or performance problems. We need to put into place some things on the customize site before we start to even think about this though.

[Ozzie]

i would suggest a simple "this mod contains the authors ad, and also adds a  site link on your forum" on the mod description page would be enough then members could decide for themselves if they wanna use it or not

[Farmacija]

^ Good idea.

[Matthew K.]

i would suggest a simple "this mod contains the authors ad, and also adds a  site link on your forum" on the mod description page would be enough then members could decide for themselves if they wanna use it or not

One more thing to require for mod authors. You do realize copyright links are only allowed in certain scenarios, NOW, right? Old modifications before this requirement was introduced do not apply.

[Arantor]

Maybe they should, would stem the tide of some of this attitude.

[Farmacija]

i would suggest a simple "this mod contains the authors ad, and also adds a  site link on your forum" on the mod description page would be enough then members could decide for themselves if they wanna use it or not

One more thing to require for mod authors. You do realize copyright links are only allowed in certain scenarios, NOW, right? Old modifications before this requirement was introduced do not apply.

Yes, for completely new mods. The old one, and newer version of it, still can have footer links wright?

[Arantor]

Older ones, yes. Ones updated since the new guidelines apparently will be subject to that.

[Suki]

Since the new guidelines there is no new small mod approved that adds a copyright in the footer.

Of course, that just apply when the customize team reviews that mod for approval, since we do not review updates (not enough manpower) there is always the possibility of mod authors modifying the mod as soon as it is approved,  for those cases the community can help us by reporting such a mod or mod author.


We cannot really enforce a new rule on older mods, it wouldn't be fair, a mod should be subject to those rules that were active at the time the mod was submitted.


That said, we don't recheck updates and older mods that provides updates aren't subject to the new rules.

[Arantor]

We cannot really enforce a new rule on older mods, it wouldn't be fair, a mod should be subject to those rules that were active at the time the mod was submitted.

Even though it has been done in the past?

That said, we don't recheck updates and older mods that provides updates aren't subject to the new rules.

So if someone reports an old mod that's been updated since the guidelines were changed, what happens then?

[Suki]

I'm not in the past  nor the past concerns me.  I care about the present and in the present I do the approvals.

[Arantor]

So you're seriously telling me that if a mod is updated and no longer meets the guidelines, it's totally acceptable? I'm not referring to whether people actively check it or not, simply that if it's not compliant that nothing will be done even if it's reported.

Like it or not, you as a team have a responsibility: you're stating mods as having guidelines, and while I appreciate the part about retroactively applying the rules, if something's updated, it comes under the new rules. Unless I somehow misinterpreted what IchBin said.

Just because you're not actively policing it doesn't mean that the rules don't exist.

[Suki]

So you're seriously telling me that if a mod is updated and no longer meets the guidelines, it's totally acceptable? I'm not referring to whether people actively check it or not, simply that if it's not compliant that nothing will be done even if it's reported.

Every mod that it's reported gets revised by the team, sure if a mod it's updated and now it breaks the rules then actions will be made.


it all depends on the action made by the mod author,  if the mod didn't have a copyright and now it does, then it's breaking the new guidelines and actions will be taken.

if a mod had a link prior the new guidelines then it is not breaking the new guidelines since when the mod were submitted such a rule didn't exist.


Indeed rules exist, all I'm saying is that it is unfair to apply the current rules on older mods.



Let me clarify:

We cannot really enforce a new rule on older mods, it wouldn't be fair, a mod should be subject to those rules that were active at the time the mod was submitted.

Even though it has been done in the past?

I'm not in the past  nor the past concerns me.  I care about the present and in the present I do the approvals.

I was referring to that text, my bad for not quoting properly.

[Arantor]

Indeed rules exist, all I'm saying is that it is unfair to apply the current rules on older mods.

I wasn't in disagreement with you, which is why I specifically asked about mods that were updated after the guidelines.

Personally I'd argue that a mod being updated with any significant change of any kind (not just compatibility) would generally require to be compliant with the current rules, regardless of anything else.

It's why you have mods using $smcFunc['db-query'] that don't actually use the methodology designed expressly for preventing SQL injections, because they were written before the rule was in force, and no-one has taken the mod authors to task over it.


But the last time I remember the rules being applied retroactively (and believe me, they were) was before you joined here, when the Objectionable Customizations rule came in, which barred mods from having porn links in them when they may have had before. Even Aeva had to be modified to remove it, proving that no mod was too big or too popular to escape the rules.

[Suki]

Indeed rules exist, all I'm saying is that it is unfair to apply the current rules on older mods.

I wasn't in disagreement with you, which is why I specifically asked about mods that were updated after the guidelines.

Personally I'd argue that a mod being updated with any significant change of any kind (not just compatibility) would generally require to be compliant with the current rules, regardless of anything else.

It's why you have mods using $smcFunc['db-query'] that don't actually use the methodology designed expressly for preventing SQL injections, because they were written before the rule was in force, and no-one has taken the mod authors to task over it.


But the last time I remember the rules being applied retroactively (and believe me, they were) was before you joined here, when the Objectionable Customizations rule came in, which barred mods from having porn links in them when they may have had before. Even Aeva had to be modified to remove it, proving that no mod was too big or too popular to escape the rules.

I also believe that if a mod is updated significantly then it should be subject to the new rules, however, "significantly"  it's relative.


Been a relative matter turns things very difficult,  people usually don't agree on relative matters.

Since there is not feasible way to determinate just how much a mod needs to be changed in order to be subject to the new mod rules, disagreements and complains will arise. That's normal and expected.


What the team did or didn't do before me joining sincerely doesn't concern me, if rules were being applied retroactively at that time I'm sure they got their reasons to do so,  just as now the current team got reasons to not apply the new rules on old mods and probably the future team will got reasons to change the rules again.

Different people, different teams, different circumstances, different results

[Arantor]

I also believe that if a mod is updated significantly then it should be subject to the new rules, however, "significantly"  it's relative.

Sure it is. But I've seen plenty of cases where even totally rewritten mods were not considered as being 'updated enough' to be subject to the new rules.

Since there is not feasible way to determinate just how much a mod needs to be changed in order to be subject to the new mod rules, disagreements and complains will arise. That's normal and expected.

So you're saying then, that it's the team's policy that to avoid the dispute over how much needs to be changed, you're not going to worry about it at all? I'm just clarifying this here.

What the team did or didn't do before me joining sincerely doesn't concern me, if rules were being applied retroactively at that time I'm sure they got their reasons to do so,  just as now the current team got reasons to not apply the new rules on old mods and probably the future team will got reasons to change the rules again.

Generally, I'd agree. But when you have precedent for such things, it does mean that such things can be done again, and given the amount of hassle that's going on (which is far worse than when it came up last time), it might be better to start thinking about retroactively applying some of the rules, no?

[Suki]

So you're saying then, that it's the team's policy that to avoid the dispute over how much needs to be changed, you're not going to worry about it at all? I'm just clarifying this here.

No, please don't take my words as "law"  I'm merely expressing an opinion on relative things and how people don't agree on relative matters, it does not mean this is how the team handles things.   I'm speaking in a personal title here.

[sharks]

At this point in this stagnant conversion (the SMF team is obviously just waiting for the heat on this topic to cool off and be forgotten), it's worth a try on my side: if any helpful soul knows how to remove those footer ads from SMF 2.0, please feel free to PM me with the instructions and your username shall never be mentioned.
I'll wait for some time and if that doesn't work, i'll probably be seen posting for help and offering money for the hacking instructions on all scripting sites.

[Arantor]

No, please don't take my words as "law"  I'm merely expressing an opinion on relative things and how people don't agree on relative matters, it does not mean this is how the team handles things.   I'm speaking in a personal title here.

Then you should probably have said such before stating such opinions. You see, when carrying a team badge and talking about a role you handle, you are - whether you realise it or not - representing the team.

if any helpful soul knows how to remove those footer ads from SMF 2.0, please feel free to PM me with the instructions and your username shall never be mentioned.

Oh, I know how to do it. Just that you're not permitted to do so under the terms of copyright law so even though I sympathise with your problem, the only way I could help would be to write new mods from scratch, and frankly I'd rather do that elsewhere.

You know, you could try talking to the mod authors and offering them some money to remove copyright; I know vbgamer's mods certainly used to offer it as an option, I seem to recall it was $15 a hit.