xoops forums

Forum Index


Board index » All Posts (Dona_Brasil)




Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/14 11:34
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#51

Re: Xigg - removing "powered by Xigg" ?

For the record: I do not wish to be involved in any quarrels between groups of developers/ directors / volunteers etc. This is really where my participation in this discussion stops.

Licences of XOOPS software (modules) concerns us all. I hope to deal with it in a constructive fashion.

I should not have debated Marcan's product SmartSection while Marcan is not here. I was not aware of this.


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/14 8:24
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#52

Re: Xigg - removing "powered by Xigg" ?

@ tcnet

You are right, it violates Google's guidelines. It also gives search engines like Google a wrong idea of the content of your site, leading to less relevant traffic. And it lowers your pagerank. This is why I removed this from the start.


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/14 8:14
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#53

Re: Xigg - removing "powered by Xigg" ?

I think it is a wonderful thing that SmartFactory makes free, high quality modules. If I may summarize the the reactions above: people agree that authors get sufficient credit on the right place, but the adds (especially on the user side) are simply too much.

As people are hacking anyway: would it be possible to share an ad-free version? I believe the GNU Library General Public License allows this (correct me if I'm wrong). But please keep the credit to the authors in about.php

Coming back to the original question on the Xigg module. I think SmartSection is a lot more open as it has a licence that allows you to adapt it. In case of Xigg, you don't have this freedom (at least not at this moment). I would contact the maker before using it, Probably he has been busy with other things then "legal yada yada".
________
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: the information presented above is my personal opinion, not an advice. To the extent permissible by law, I disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The information presented above is provided 'as it is' and I accept no liability for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person as a result of the information provided in this posting. Always verify critical information with the relevant authorities before you use it.


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/13 15:07
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#54

Re: Xigg - removing "powered by Xigg" ?

Quote:

Peekay wrote:
SmartFactory are the worst offenders for credits IMHO.

Their modules used to have a discrete logo-link in admin, but later versions carry adverts that encourage administrators to contact InBox Solutions (their commercial web design division) if they have a problem using the module.

SmartFactory modules are excellent, but I want my clients to contact *me* if they have a problem using the module, not go to another website design company.


Hasn't SmartSection been released under the GNU Library General Public License?


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/13 10:09
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#55

Re: NEED team to implement the Yogurt Reloaded

Did you contact the maker? I've the impression he is a nice guy.

You may also consider posting your feature requests on http://sourceforge.net/projects/galeriayogurt


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/13 9:58
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#56

Re: Xigg - removing "powered by Xigg" ?

I agree to much of what Tom says here:

Quote:
Ignore them, there are tons of reasons to remove the front copyrights, here's a few:

Assists in preventing hackers from finding you via google or other search engines, as they search for such terms, XOOPS get's hackers too, don't they Damaster.

Doesn't look professional having credits pasted all over a professional website.

Doesn't look good to your client or your clients customers.

Allows your competition to compete with you easier (IE they know what your doing and how your doing it, without having to do any work themselves).

You can be ranked down in some search engines (see the whole WordPress sponsored footers thing recently).

Links could lead to offensive material when the domain name is not renewed by the developer.

Sites and software like McAfee, have a rating system, and if it leads to a red site, it could also put a mark against yours, leading to a loss of users and possibly customers.


There are a number of other modules that have such a link and some modules contain remarks that these links should not be removed. It is interesting to know that some of these modules are collective works containing files that are released under the GNU licence, that your website is probably a collective work (at least the underlaying technique), that you can add a new template to your site without changing the original work (module), and that some Creative Commons licences state "at in the case of a Collective Work, at a minimum such credit will appear where any other comparable authorship credit appears and in a manner at least as prominent as such other comparable authorship credit" which IMHO means that you can credit the author in an other place as long as it is prominent enough.

My ethical opinion: if you use a module, the maker deserves some credit but within reasonable terms. Do not sell it commercially if you are not the copyright owner (although you may sell support).

In the case of Xigg, I did not find any licence information except for "free for personal use". This worries me. Perhaps the maker has focussed on the programming and the usability (as it is a great module by a well-respected developer), perhaps I did not find the licence, but without a proper licence it is not wise to use a module as it will be subject to full copyright by default! There are to many open questions, for example:

- if it does not run on a next XOOPS version, and the maker focusses on XOOPS Cube (another CMS; he released the module on xoopscube.org), will you be allowed to adapt it? (if you or other people are not allowed to adapt it, how will you tell your users that their bookmarks will be lost?)
- what is personal use? Is it on a local host? And when does a site become commercial?

________
IMPORTANT DISCLAIMER: the information presented above is my personal opinion, not an advice. To the extent permissible by law, I disclaim all warranties, express or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for a particular purpose. The information presented above is provided 'as it is' and I accept no liability for any loss, injury or inconvenience sustained by any person as a result of the information provided in this posting. Always verify critical information with the relevant authorities before you use it.


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/13 9:18
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#57

Re: Xoops Code

Thanks for all the support! It has been submitted as a bug on http://sourceforge.net/tracker/index. ... roup_id=41586&atid=430840


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/12 19:23
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#58

Re: Xoops Code

Quote:

You mean the XOOPS 'code' tag, not XOOPS codes (a.k.a. BB Codes).


More or less, but thanks for making me see why it is not understood: there is two times the term "code"

Oops....

What I mean is XOOPS codes (a.k.a. BB Codes) within the XOOPS 'code' tag. Or more accurately, codes within the XOOPS code tags that are rendered by XOOPS as being XOOPS codes (a.k.a. BB Codes).

The reason that this results in a bug is that some codes are interpreted as XOOPS codes (a.k.a. BB Codes). This should not happen within the XOOPS 'code' tag.


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/12 18:58
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#59

Re: Xoops Code

@ Peekay

In that case, it is very deep in the XOOPS architecture (???).

Do you think I should file a bug report? Like "If the code tags are used, bb codes or XOOPS codes should be disabled even if they are enabled in the rest of a message. Or a webmaster shoud be able to disable XOOPS Code by default to avoid confusion."


Dona_Brasil

Not too shy to talk
Posted on: 2008/4/12 18:48
Dona_Brasil
Dona_Brasil (Show more)
Not too shy to talk
Posts: 153
Since: 2005/10/28
#60

Re: Xoops Code

@ Tom:

The problem occurs on this site as well.

Suppose I want to publish a line of code like this:

sudo dpkg --get-selections grep '[[:space:]]install$'awk '{print $1}' list_of_installed_packages


What you see above is the wrong code, the correct code is found in this article on cloning Ubuntu.

Do you see the difference? A media wiki link was created by XOOPS

That is because the checkbox "Enable XOOPS Code" (on XOOPS.org, you'll see it below the form where your type your message in this forum) was enabled. It is enabled by default.

Is this clear?? Let me know if I need to explain more.



TopTop
« 1 ... 3 4 5 (6) 7 8 9 ... 12 »