SMF 2.0.19 has been released! Please update. Read more.
Started by Norv, February 24, 2012, 07:49:09 AM
QuoteAnd yes, Arantor... but, on the other hand, it certainly beats us having to listen to "any news, any news, any news..." (ad inifinitum) from the moaners out there.
QuoteHey you get to moan more than everyone else.
QuoteWhy are you changing the "main_block.png" to "bars.png" and moving all the graphics around so that it is a time consuming PITA to guess at the format and make a new one?
QuoteWhat's with all the "smalltext" in displaytemplate.php?
Quote from: Arantor on August 05, 2012, 04:10:43 PMMaybe one of the developers is being paid by a spectacles manufacturer to screw everyone's eyesight? Seriously, there is a lot of fluff in the display template and making it smaller would be better than leaving some of it as is.
Quote from: Arantor on August 05, 2012, 09:26:07 AMThe only problem with doing that is that people who shouldn't really be using it will end up using it and then complain that it isn't ready yet >_<
QuoteThats one downside of open source, we can't really hide an open source project.
QuoteMoaners will always moan no matter what, the really cool think about been an open source is that any feature request can be answered with a "commit or STFO"
Quote from: Arantor on August 05, 2012, 07:17:05 PMQuoteThats one downside of open source, we can't really hide an open source project.SMF did for years
QuoteThe problem with that approach is that you can't add in every commit, even if it follows all the coding standards because not all commits will suit the goals of the project as a whole.
QuoteTrue, but then again SMF wasn't truly an open source project, we pretty much controlled the distribution, something that just don't get along with any open source license.
Quoteand I'm pretty sure there will be some pull request that will be denied, heck I have a couple of changes that I will like to have but I just didn't pull a request because I know those changes will never go into the main repo
QuoteSure, a lot of people will get upset about their commits not been included, that is just a thing we will have to deal just like we had to deal with moaners all those years
Quote2.0 is under a truly open source licence, and the 2.0 security releases were carried out under that restricted environment.The licence does not affect the way in which the developers choose to develop the project, they are free to develop it entirely under wraps. I don't believe MyBB (LGPL) has their repo fully open to the world, for example.
QuoteExcept that you get that in addition to the 'I downloaded it but it isn't ready yet' moans. And that still doesn't detract from the 'why isn't it ready yet' moan. To me, it makes more work, not less.
QuoteI'm not a lawyer nor do I play one on TV so don't quote me on this but as far as I understand only 2.0 and forward are under an open source license, that is, any RC and 1.0 and 1.1 releases are still under the SMF license.
QuoteAs for the development process, yes, the license doesn't force you to keep your environment open but, it is better to keep the "official" environment open than to let somebody else to upload the SMF code to bitbucket or whatever and to fool people to think that page is the official one.
QuoteThis doesn't have to do much with what license or develop environment we chose but has to do with the whole free thing, being free means a lot of people, different kind of people has access to this software, this will inevitably will attract people with, lests say, not so much understanding about software and stuff
QuoteIf that were to happen you could quite happily take action in those cases. The protections in the licence basically amount to that if someone wants to do so, it's still copyrighted to SMF and that they need to change the name of it otherwise.
QuoteAnd that's my problem with it all: it means you get people seeing the code who shouldn't be let loose with it.