Help - My Site is Destroy

[lianpatogh]

Hi, I just finished installing Adk Shadow Box mod and My site is not coming up , How can I fix That ? Please Help me Thank you

[mashby]

Not coming up? Mind providing a link to your site? Did you happen to have a backup before you installed the mod?

[Kindred]

1- if you have an issue with a specific mods, you should be asking in the support thread dedicated to supporting that specific mod.

2- "destroy" is a useless description...

3- SMF version and url for your forum?

4-did you take a backup of your files before attempting to install any mods?  If not... why not? ALWAYS take a backup. If so, restore the backup.

5- did you get errors flagged when you installed? If so, why did you continue with the installation without knowing what you were doing?

[lianpatogh]

Not coming up? Mind providing a link to your site? Did you happen to have a backup before you installed the mod?

www.Lianbuzz.ir

My Backup For Last night

1- if you have an issue with a specific mods, you should be asking in the support thread dedicated to supporting that specific mod.

2- "destroy" is a useless description...

3- SMF version and url for your forum?

4-did you take a backup of your files before attempting to install any mods?  If not... why not? ALWAYS take a backup. If so, restore the backup.

5- did you get errors flagged when you installed? If so, why did you continue with the installation without knowing what you were doing?

1 ok
2. I mean not comming up

3 SMF V2.0.4

4 Yes i Back Up Every Thing in 12PM at Every Night
5 No

[Storman™]

I've tried pinging your server and there's no response whatsoever, consequently unless you done something since then I suggest you contact your host as that probably the real problem and nothing to do with adding that mod.

[alexnder]

http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=479640.0

[kat]

Works fine, for me.

It says "Ma Na avaLiniM Va Na BehtariN Ma MoftaKhariM k Ba ShoMa Va Braye ShoMaeiM" at the bottom.

[Chalky]

Works fine, for me.

It says "Ma Na avaLiniM Va Na BehtariN Ma MoftaKhariM k Ba ShoMa Va Braye ShoMaeiM" at the bottom.

Oh yeah, just above where the SMF copyright isn't.... 

[kat]

Well spotted, that weirdo!

No more support, then.

[alexnder]

lol did he deleted the copyrights?

[kat]

Yep.

Norty.

[mashby]

Norty is of course subjective. Completely OK to remove the SMF copyrights from displaying in the footer. I also consider that as suggesting that the admin/site owner who knowingly does this is taking credit into his own hands and as such all responsibility for said site. Therefore topics like this would be unnecessary. Works in theory, but not so much in reality as evidenced by this topic.

[kat]

It's the old "No support without the copyright" thing, I guess.

However, unless we get a link to the site, how're we gonna know, anyway?

In many ways, I'm beginning to wonder if we ought, perhaps, to ditch that rule.

[mashby]

I am not in favor of ditching said rule for the reasons I described. Yes, we won't know without seeing the site in question, but I still believe in "no copyright, no support".

[ARG01]

I am not in favor of ditching said rule for the reasons I described. Yes, we won't know without seeing the site in question, but I still believe in "no copyright, no support".

I agree.

[Arantor]

Do what MyBB does - once it's clear they've misbehaved, add a bit by their name which says 'This user is denied support'.

[Sir Osis of Liver]

"Powered By : LianBuzz.IR"

Methinks that's a bit blatant.

[Storman™]

Do what MyBB does - once it's clear they've misbehaved, add a bit by their name which says 'This user is denied support'.

Point taken but it's not really "misbehaving" as it's perfectly legitimate to remove the SMF 2.0 copyright.

Such site owners should not expect any support if they do so.

"Powered By : LianBuzz.IR"

Methinks that's a bit blatant.

lol  - now thats cheeky 

[kat]

It just seems a bit bizarre, to me, that you don't have to have the copyright, unless you need support.

What's to stop people from removing the copyright and just putting it back, if something goes squiffy?

[Arantor]

Point taken but it's not really "misbehaving" as it's perfectly legitimate to remove the SMF 2.0 copyright.

Legally, yes. Morally? That's questionable. I don't see why I'd want to offer support to someone who isn't being very respectful.

[Kindred]

Exactly...

LEGALLY, they can remove the copyright, as of 2.0 final.
MORALLY, it is "wrong"

K@, the "rule" is, first of all, not hard and fast.  It's something that the team decided on.
second or all, it is a matter of respect and attribution...   if an admin removes the copyright then that admin is clearly indicating that the site does not need any support from the SMF Community.


Yup, they could put it back for the time it takes us to help them and then remove it again...  if they want to go through all that, then that's fine... it's not our job to keep track of them... but the next time, or the next time after that... etc...   they might just realize that they actually need help and its better all around to leave it in place.

Arantor...   We could do that, but again, it's more trouble than we're really willing to go to ATM. If it became a regular issue with a specific user, that might be the result.

[kat]

I'll be honest and say that I wouldn't remove the copyright, myself, even though I can. Simply because of the fact that I believe in the old "Credit where it's due" thing.

Others may have different morals, though. When our users install SMF, is there a message, explaining about the copyright and the implications of removing it?

If there isn't, maybe we ought to change that...?

[Kindred]

SMF is fully open source, under the BSD license. With this new license, distribution from any source outside of simplemachines.org is allowed, but is outside of our control. If you are having problems with such a distribution, please download the official release from our site before asking for support. Additionally, support will be provided to sites with a valid copyright displayed. Although you, under the BSD license, have permission to remove or alter the copyright, the staff here reserves the right to not provide support to sites which have removed or altered the copyright.

from the copyright statement page....

[kat]

Luvverly!

Maybe "Reserves the right to not" ought to be changed to "Will not"?

Still, at least something's there, ay?

Ta!

[lianpatogh]

Works fine, for me.

It says "Ma Na avaLiniM Va Na BehtariN Ma MoftaKhariM k Ba ShoMa Va Braye ShoMaeiM" at the bottom.

I'll Back Up it Bro/sis

and im really sorry for remove copyright , and i was back up SMF :



and i said again, im really sorry

[Kindred]

that is not the smf copyright.

SMF 2.0.4 | SMF © 2011, Simple Machines

[Storman™]

....... and a credit to ADK portal might be in order as well...

Adk Portal 2.1.1 © SMF personal

[alexnder]

just if u want me to get his website ip 

sure

[Kindred]

good point, storman.

alexnder,

Although SMF does allow for the removal or alteration of the SMF copyright, doing so means that you won't get support here. However...   most mods REQUIRE their copyright to be maintained, visible and unaltered.
If you remove or change those, you are actually violating their license - you must restore it or remove the mod immediately.

[lianpatogh]

good point, storman.

alexnder,

Although SMF does allow for the removal or alteration of the SMF copyright, doing so means that you won't get support here. However...   most mods REQUIRE their copyright to be maintained, visible and unaltered.
If you remove or change those, you are actually violating their license - you must restore it or remove the mod immediately.

Brothers , Now iS Better?

[Road Rash Jr.]

Picky, picky, you give people the right to no-brand on their own, and if they do you deny them support because YOU individually decide they are somehow immoral for exercising the right you have given them? That is two faced and immoral.

[Arantor]

Picky, picky, you give people the right to no-brand on their own, and if they do you deny them support because YOU individually decide they are somehow immoral for exercising the right you have given them? That is two faced and immoral.

Actually, that's not how it works. Go read the BSD licence and come back and tell me what level of support users are *entitled* to. Answer: none. Users of the software are not legally entitled to any kind of support of any kind. The fact people offer support at all is that their discretion, and they have said they reserve the right to refuse it if they wish. It's not two faced, it's called having a backbone and standing up for your morals - since I would do exactly the same.

[ARG01]

Picky, picky, you give people the right to no-brand on their own, and if they do you deny them support because YOU individually decide they are somehow immoral for exercising the right you have given them? That is two faced and immoral.

IMO, if one is willing to use the software but remove any credit to the designer/s then support should be an option, not an obligation. Adding ones own credits is understandable, removing the designers credit while still expecting support is pathetic.

When you start designing and people take credit for your hard work, feel free to come back and let us know how you feel about that. 

[Kindred]

exactly.

They are free to remove the copyright.
By doing so, they indicate that they have no need for SMF to support them.

We don't charge for the product
We don't charge for the support
We have clearly stated that, by removing or altering the visible copyright, THEY have chosen to potentially give up SMF's support.

How is that immoral or two-faced?

Also, I decided nothing "individually" for the team. We discussed it and settled on that decision as a team.
Of course, anyone is welcome to provide support, if they want to...   We (the team) just "reserve the right" to refuse to do so under certain conditions.


Actually...  as Arantor points out... we don't HAVE to provide support to anyone. The fact that we do so is a measure of our dedication to the project and the software.

[Suki]

The product and support for that product are two separate entities, the license only covers the product, the license never states anything about services for that product.

The fact that SMF team has decided to apply certain rules within this site has no interference with the product. If the team suddenly decides to only offer support for those who live in Mars, it wouldn't change a thing in the software, the software would still be free under the current license.

The actual support for the product isn't licensed (nor restricted), that means everyone can offer support for the product and everyone can apply as many rules as they see fit.

[Road Rash Jr.]

What ever spin you wish to put on justifying your twisted conduct is of course your right. It has nothing to do with legality or implied responsibility for support or lack there of. Everyone's response to support or help someone using the software is done on a volunteer basis. To deny that support on any level for exercising an option that is given them is two-faced and immoral. 

[Arantor]

What ever spin you wish to put on justifying your twisted conduct is of course your right. It has nothing to do with legality or implied responsibility for support or lack there of. Everyone's response to support or help someone using the software is done on a volunteer basis. To deny that support on any level for exercising an option that is given them is two-faced and immoral. 

I'm glad to see that your opinion of me hasn't changed much.

[Suki]

The option given to people doesn't include support, period.

The team restrictions only applies here, within this site and perhaps its extended to team members own sites but thats it.

I don't understand how people gets drowned on a glass of water, again, support isn't restricted to this site or to team members only.

[Kindred]

RR... cool your jets.
There is no "spin" at all.
We clearly make a statement regarding the copyright. So, how is it two-faced, in any way shape or form?
as for "immoral", oh please.... there are no morals or immorals involved. No one is "promised" support.

Whether you feel it is"right" or "wrong" is irelevent anyways, because you don't provide support in the first place... you just whine about us.  Seriously, if you have so many issues with the way SMF runs things, then why even bother using our software?

   
Suki, actually, there are no restrictions even here...

the team agreed... however, no one is going to get in trouble if they offer support to someone who removed the copyright.  The fact that everyone on the team (and many of the community helprs) all seem to agree with the call only makes it that much more clear that it is a valid caveat.

As for RR, Suki... don't worry about it. He likes to find anything he can try to latch on to to complain about the team's behavior (especially anything which he thinks makes me look bad)

[Suki]

I just wanted to declare how easily people gets stuck on tiny holes when there is a huge open door next to it, it is really hilarious.

That and the fact that the license that governs the product has no power within any service that might derivate from said product. It seems people don't really understand that.

As for the "morals", their site, their rules, yours, mine and anyone external morals means nothing and holds no value no matter how harder you complain. Don't like it? theres the door (a big and wide open door). Plain and simple.

[Kindred]

hey, we actually agree on something.

[kat]

Three of us.

******.. What IS the world coming to?

[Road Rash Jr.]

The product and support for that product are two separate entities, the license only covers the product, the license never states anything about services for that product.

The fact that SMF team has decided to apply certain rules within this site has no interference with the product. If the team suddenly decides to only offer support for those who live in Mars, it wouldn't change a thing in the software, the software would still be free under the current license.

The actual support for the product isn't licensed (nor restricted), that means everyone can offer support for the product and everyone can apply as many rules as they see fit.

You're absolutly right, there is no mention of  service or support for the product so why is there any mention at all about denial of service? Seems to me the policy should be re-written to be clear, removal of copyright is not allowed. Period.

@Arantor - my comment was generally to Suki but if you think it applies specifically to you I have no control over that. To take a specific point of view and generalize it as my opinion of you (what ever you might think it is) is a stretch.

[Arantor]

@Arantor - my comment was generally to Suki but if you think it applies specifically to you I have no control over that.

Of course it does, since I explicitly stand up and agree with - and defend, and enforce - the policy. Therefore I must fall under your definition, or is it like other of your arguments, twisted to suit the occasion?

[mashby]

Removal is completely allowed. If you're smart enough to do that, you're smart enough to support your own site. It's really that simple.

[Road Rash Jr.]

@Arantor - my comment was generally to Suki but if you think it applies specifically to you I have no control over that.

Of course it does, since I explicitly stand up and agree with - and defend, and enforce - the policy. Therefore I must fall under your definition, or is it like other of your arguments, twisted to suit the occasion?

Well in that case my opinion in this case would apply to you. IMO if anything is twisted here it is the reasoning behind denying service or support. 

[Arantor]

That's because you're not a content creator, you're a content consumer. If you made something and gave it away for free, you'd hope that they'd at least give you a bit of credit, wouldn't you?

Or would you really be happy with people taking credit for your work?

[Road Rash Jr.]

That's because you're not a content creator, you're a content consumer. If you made something and gave it away for free, you'd hope that they'd at least give you a bit of credit, wouldn't you?

Yes I would

Or would you really be happy with people taking credit for your work?

Now that's twisting it, I have not implied nor infered this anywhere in my statements, comments or opinion.

[Arantor]

Yes I would

And that's what we're asking for. If you want something from us (support), it's only fair to give credit for the software, yes?

Now that's twisting it, I have not implied nor infered this anywhere in my statements, comments or opinion.

Oh, but you have. If it's two-faced to demand credit for work and to deny support when no such credit is forthcoming, how is it twisting it? It is merely the boiled down version of what is going on here.

In almost every case, the credit is replaced with something else.

[lianpatogh]

Well, now that I've returned Copyright,Can I use part of the support or not?

[kat]

You have. (Thankyou)

You can.

[Kindred]

Although, considering how far this topic has been derailed, I would suggest opening a new support topic with a CLEAR explanation of what the problem is (especially since your site is obviously not destroyed)

[Suki]

The product and support for that product are two separate entities, the license only covers the product, the license never states anything about services for that product.

The fact that SMF team has decided to apply certain rules within this site has no interference with the product. If the team suddenly decides to only offer support for those who live in Mars, it wouldn't change a thing in the software, the software would still be free under the current license.

The actual support for the product isn't licensed (nor restricted), that means everyone can offer support for the product and everyone can apply as many rules as they see fit.

You're absolutly right, there is no mention of  service or support for the product so why is there any mention at all about denial of service? Seems to me the policy should be re-written to be clear, removal of copyright is not allowed. Period.

Again, you just love to be drowned in a glass of water (or you just enjoy posting and rock the boat). Legally speaking, there is no benefit/option/restriction/denial of service or whatever you want to call it. The license doesn't explicitly says you can remove the copyright, it says you can alter/remove/modify any line of code within the product, the only lines you cannot modify are clearly stated on the license. As long as you comply with the license, you can do whatever the hell you want with the product, this is what open source means.

The denial of service as you called, is a set of rules enforced on a private forum by individuals that don't hold any legal power to completely denial support at any level (at least not yet). Again, support for the product is no where licensed or otherwise legally restricted. The SMF team inference ends up the moment you go away from this site, whatever rules they apply, only applies on this site and/or individuals offering support on this site.

The denial of service is hilarious, the product's license doesn't cover it. Please stop mixing the product's license with some rules on a private forum. Two completely separated and different things altogether.

I'm sorry but I find it utterly hilarious when I see someone trying to fight rules on a private forum, this is a private forum, whatever you think or whatever your morals are means absolutely nothing, you don't have voice here, you don't have any opinion here, you don't exists here. And by been here and posting here you comply with all of that. Period.

Now, this is only a small drop of water in an immense, huge sea, thats why I find it ridiculous when I see someone complaining about restrictions. Looks utterly funny to see someone trying so desperately to fit in a tiny hole when there is a huge door next to it, perhaps its not even a door but a huge open terrain with no doors at all. Are people that blind?

If you want to keep fighting the system for the sake of fighting the system then be my guest, we all drama queens have been there, some of us even had solid ground for fighting, but I will strongly suggest you to pick some other battlefront, this one really is a joke. But we all know you are aware of that already and you just want to post to see who gets carried away so, as much laughs I'm having with your quixotic fights, I'm gonna take off, I already explained the license.

[lianpatogh]

Anybody did not answer me
I've returned to SMF Copyright
Can I use part of SMF Support? Or not?

[Gaz-uk]

They said yes if you look up !!  but make a new topic so its clear

[Storman™]

Although, considering how far this topic has been derailed, I would suggest opening a new support topic with a CLEAR explanation of what the problem is (especially since your site is obviously not destroyed)

Your site seems to be working at the moment so it certainly isn't "destroyed".

Start a new topic and make it clear what the issue is.

[kat]

Anybody did not answer me
I've returned to SMF Copyright
Can I use part of SMF Support? Or not?

You have. (Thankyou)

You can.