How to remove advertisement from copyright footer

[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.