which is illegal according to their licensing, and we need to remove it and only include the "diff" file or the issue would be "elevated".That does sound like something coming from someone asking not to be helped.-mouser (July 10, 2007, 02:00 AM)
i confess i don't really understand what this problem implies - does it mean DC is allowed to use wordy's brilliant search mod or not?
instead of a thank you we got someone an official smf person complaining that due to a tiny technicality we were violating their license and we should correct it within a few days or face legal action... left me with a really bad taste in my mouth.
UPDATE: It has been agreed that including the full Search.php file is redistribution, which you have not been given the permission to do. As the package already includes the modifications in the xml file, just remove the Search.php file and you'll be compliant. If we don't see this fixed by Friday, we will be forced to escalate the issue (and we really don't want to have to do it, it is a waste of time for everyone).
I understand that when big corporations get involved in things that things get more confusing, but this response to us trying to share an improvement that we finally gave up waiting for smf to fix and wrote ourselves, after i've been asking smf to pay some attention to for almost a year, is mind boggling to me.
My inclination at this point is to just take down this mod, and the other inline image mod we did that people seem to like, and just never mind.
I understand you are just doing your job but I'd really like the smf coders to take a reconsider if this is the approach they want to take with these things, it's just the wrong attitude in my opinion. We included a mod, and then the patched version of one file. It's just silly to object to that. For people like me who do not use package mods and modify the files themselves, stopping people from including a modified file is insane.
If i sound bit peeved it's because after all of this time asking people to fix the bugs in smf search, what i really expected was a "cool, thanks for working on this and sharing it!".
We'll remove our mods and maybe this can spark a discussion on simplemachines about changing your approach to mod writers, if not, que sera sera. Please understand I'm not mad at you Motoko-chan, I'm sure you are just doing your job. That's why my protest is against your job instructions and why i want someone who makes the rules to read this post and think about this approach.
I understand you are just doing your job but I'd really like the smf coders to take a reconsider if this is the approach they want to take with these things, it's just the wrong attitude in my opinion. We included a mod, and then the patched version of one file. It's just silly to object to that. For people like me who do not use package mods and modify the files themselves, stopping people from including a modified file is insane.
"If we don't see this fixed by Friday, we will be forced to escalate the issue (and we really don't want to have to do it, it is a waste of time for everyone)."
it would be a pity to deny the larger community of SMF users the chance to benefit from the good work that's just been completed here.
Did you ever see the movie "5 easy pieces" -- there is a famous "no substitutions" scene where jack nicholson is in a restaurant, trying to deal with a waitress who is "just following the restaurant rules".. that's how i feel about smf now:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6wtfNE4z6a8
I appreciate you guys taking the time to explain your positions.
I would however direct you to look at this post by Rudolf: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=118997.msg1156617#msg1156617
which discusses some of the inherent conflict between saying mod writers can't include modified source file but can include a package mod file which is nearly identical.
Much of the argument above seems to deal with it being unwise to copy modified files over your installed files unless you really know what you are doing. I couldn't agree more. I never suggest anyone do this. So you don't have to convince me of the wisdom of that.
The reason i have always included the original+modified versions of the smf files i change in my mods is to make it 1000x easier for people who dont use the package installer to compare files and make the changes manually.
You guys probably already know from many posts on the forum that the package installer, while something to be proud of, can be difficult to get working properly when you have multiple mods that affect the same files.
I do not use the package installer -- i know others don't as well. We like to modify the files manually so we know what's being changed and where, and we can correct for unanticipated interactions. In my mods i include the original and modified file so people can use a normal dif/compare tool and see easily the changes that need to be made, and so people can use a proper merge tool to merge in the changes.
The package mod file format is poorly suited to manual merging. I've done it before and it's a huge pain compared to having a set of modified files and being able to do a visual side by side compare+merge.
I belive it is an unreasonable rule. No one is talking about allowing forking or redistribution of your entire forum software.
It's easy enough for you to change the rule to say that mod writers can include modified versions of the files. If you want me to rename them so as to avoid the possibility of someone mistakenly overwriting one of their files, fine.
I know this will sound harsh and probably uncalled for, but in my view this is one of those cases where we can see whether a company (smf) is more focused on users+coding, or following corporate rules and unable to adapt these rules when they are harmful. I know you disagree but for me, this is one of the ways i decide which communities i want to be part of. It's not like we're getting paid to contribute mods. I have supported smf financially with donations and i continue to believe it's a great piece of work, but i'm just having real second thoughts about the smf corporate model.
perhaps they are flexing their muscles ready for when they feel a change of philosophy is due and move into more profitable areas.
i didn't say that because i realise it's impractical - but if i could wave a magic wand i would make it so.
Any Distribution of this Package, whether as a Modified Package or not, requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC.
So I'm saying it pays to study smf alternatives like phpbb3 (I'll try) and design our site components to be less reliant on SMF forum software.Even though i do agree with what you're saying, i'm very sorry to hear it.-Wordzilla (July 10, 2007, 02:38 PM)
I am not an expert. There is a great deal more material out there on the Net and elsewhere, so if anybody is interested they should read further.
I just didn't want some of the people new to the issues at hand here to start out with a skewed concept that all copyright is evil.
A reply i posted which addresses some of the "why" issues that cranioscopical suggested i tackle...and
My concerns in this case are not about paying for stuff - i'm just objecting to what i perceive as an inappropriate attitude and approach from smf management, which i fear may be a sign of them moving in wrong direction in terms of management and maintenance.
You can modify the source code, distribute instructions to modify it, you can view the code and suggest improvements to it.
Cleaned up code. Minor bug fixes. Added no single character search. Thanks to Aaron: http://custom.simplemachines.org/mods/index.php?mod=884
Folks at SMF carefully reviewed the mod and offered me some constructive ideas yesterday, now the new mod is in better compliance with SMF coding guidelines. Hopefully it will be officially approved by SMF very soon.
Yay, finally it's approved by SMF!
Does this modification work with 1.1.4?-MatthewSchenker (December 17, 2007, 05:27 PM)