How to remove advertisement from copyright footer

[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.