DonationCoder.com Software > SMF Forum Mods
DC SMF Search Mod - an improvement search for smf forum (codename Zillarank)
mouser:
I don't think it has to do with anyone being upset at criticism of their search code.. however i do think that it suggests that for every 1 person they have working on improving the code, they have 10 people doing legal and corporate compliance and marketing.. Not really a promising sign.
mouser:
A reply i posted which addresses some of the "why" issues that cranioscopical suggested i tackle:
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.
--- End quote ---
nudone:
as you say, not a promising sign. perhaps they are flexing their muscles ready for when they feel a change of philosophy is due and move into more profitable areas.
mouser:
perhaps they are flexing their muscles ready for when they feel a change of philosophy is due and move into more profitable areas.
--- End quote ---
yes, i have somewhat of a fear that this might be the case and we could see a change of licensing model in the future.
Wordzilla:
i didn't say that because i realise it's impractical - but if i could wave a magic wand i would make it so.
--- End quote ---
I didnt study smf licensing terms seriously before, coz mouser's such a fan of SMF forum and I don't run any forum myself, now it seems to me that SMF is actually copyrighted, pretty closed-source forum software.
Read their licensing terms here: http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php
Among the terms read:
Any Distribution of this Package, whether as a Modified Package or not, requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC.
--- End quote ---
I'm not the mind reader of SMF but the terms mainly impress "copyright + development control" on me, for some reason.
1. SMF controls distribution
2. Therefore controls development (see #1), which makes it hard for independent mod writers to write customizations that affect lots of components because SMF sets the framework. Now they are basically writing addons for existing SMF base.
3. "change the terms of this Agreement at any time" allows the company to do whatever they want - at any time. With proper tech, it could turn into a for-profit entity anytime. (as far as I know PHP encryption is already there, and it's not uncommon for developers to charge users monthly subscription fees)
Note that we don't have copyleft source code, but copyright source code. Just because SMF allows us to use their forum software for free doesn't mean we own the code and do whatever we want.
I haven't discussed this with mouser yet but it is somehow not that assuring to put so much community contribution on copyrighted software (forum software) with somewhat restrictive licensing terms.
Perhaps the more our site functions are integrated with SMF, the less options we'll have. So far it should be not v hard to convert our forum to phpbb (open source) and there are already converters for this.
As we are getting bigger (which of course we are), the merely difficult may evolving into something impractical to do, just as you said nudone.
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 thou SMF is v unlikely to make any drastic move in the short term, its (possible) gradual change of policy in the long term may make us suffer. Let's hope we won't get too big and complicated to migrate our system then.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version