Not signed in (Sign In)
Categories
Vanilla 1.1.4 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.
Help keep Vanilla free:Welcome Guest!
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
Want to take part in these discussions? If you have an account, sign in now.
If you don't have an account, apply for one now.
-
I've emailed them.
Like I said, I understand that people will want to remove the links back to lussumo. But to take full credit for the application is a direct violation of the GPL. I've now told them as much. -
Good! Should be interesting to see what they do! I mean to have the creator of the software contact you about an issue, could be kinda interesting!
-
Can I get my pitchfork out yet?
I have flaming torches on standby too. -
- CommentAuthorThomas Heath
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2006
http://politicalwire.com/cloakroom/ does not reference Vanilla either. A pity, since I reckon its a popular site. -
I'm not sure but I think that's one Mark did for the site himself.
-
nope
-
I stand corrected.
-
it's good that vanilla is getting used by so many people - but trying to control slimy people from claiming credit, or not providing a linkback, is useless, a headbangingdesk experience that i would not want endure.
what both of those sites are doing IMO is wrong, and they/we should remember that when they come here for any questions.
but, i'm against anyone doing anything that would bring down the good ole name of vanilla. Mark has worked way to hard to have negative shit brought back here.
even talking about it is like looking in the rear view mirror instead of at the road.
plus - this is just version 1 by the time v2 gets here i plan to have my IrisScan Extension operational which will embed the vanilla logo right in your eyes, so everytime you blink you see 2 little eye-like vanilla leaves looking back at you. -
Sorry for going a bit off-topic.
Mark said:
If anyone is interested, I've also got this one...
It would be great with a "Powered by the Lussumo Framework" thing later on when Swell is about to be released! At least for the dreamers with big plans. Marvellous job Mark! -
deel, representing or not isn't really a major problem while it hurts it's not as big of a deal as totally misrepresenting. Case in point gnarls forum, the "powered by" tagline there is about as accurate as Al Gore claiming he created the internet (single handedly upon a midget unicorn)...
Basically the idea is: If you're planting Vanilla for the masses, feel free to hide the version number if you want. But keep something along the lines of "Powered by Vanilla" or "Vanilla Powered" with at least a link back to lussumo. In many cases, most users will know what it is but it helps those who don't and those who may be interested in using, contributing and developing on it.
Maybe in future revisions a little notice should be planted upon upgrades and installs nicely explaining this philosophy. Particularly this is aimed more for commercial uses like we've been seeing, but I think that it's not limited just to those types as any large community could basically wind up doing the same. It's a basic sign of respect :) -
- CommentAuthoryesahasureok
- CommentTimeJul 12th 2006
i plan to display only a line of text like "made by mark" and my username will be mark as well ... i plan to sell vanilla in the eastern world for peanuts (just kidding *g*)
but at least i want to use "powered by vanilla", i think it fullfills the purpose also very well. -
I've always been kind of fuzzy about how the GPL requirements apply to web applications.
For one thing (as far as I'm concerned) the "user" of the software is the server admin, so running a website (even with many users!) is still personal use, and no source code or attribution technically needs to be published. It's still nice to give a shout-out to show respect, but certainly not mandatory.
Now, if I was to release "Bergamot's Awesome Forum Software", which was just Vanilla with a couple of changes, then I would be legally and ethically bound to release full source and point people towards the original Vanilla project.
Of course, most web applications are packaged as uncompiled source anyway (though they could be distributed as compiled JSP or ASP.NET objects instead), so the GPL is pretty much meaningless. -
On a side note, I believe the Red Swoosh installer uses NSIS but isn't crediting it. These guys are deplorable.
-
I suggest ddos attack on sites that remove the Lussumo link :P But seriously... how hard could it be to add a simple small link back to official site.. :(
-
They are linking back to Vanilla now. But I agree that it was bad from them to hide it. I think their service is cool, less bandwith. You must set some rules for these kind of actions. Strict rules for copyright removal must be added.
-
"but trying to control slimy people from claiming credit, or not providing a linkback, is useless, a headbangingdesk experience that i would not want endure."
I agree
so ...just start a 'black list' somewhere in lussumo site ... -
Yeah and refer them to me and I'll bring out me shotgun! Corrr, if these people were to see what we're talking about!
To be honest I think its inevitable and I don't think Mark can stop all of them, but its kinda out of order that they do it. I mean if Mark did it to one of their applications, Im sure they would feel the same way. -
Heres another one, however you have to register first:
http://www.twit.tv/forums -
Alright, lets make this the official "Blacklist thread". I've changed the topic. Hope it is OK for the admin.
-
Witchhunt!
-
Lets get the pitchforks out then and get hunting!!
-
Haha, would be cool if Lussumo hired "spions" to look for these kind of sites.
-
Is it really "illegal" to remove the clause? I mean I know it's probably not good "karma", but I thought that GPL means that you have to keep the copyright in the sourcecode, and when you develop software based on the GPL software you have to release the sourcecode along with it. As far as I know, one could fork vanilla, rewrite and even sell it - as long as it comes with the full sourcecode.
I can see that a brand e.g. coke, would never link back to lussumo. Not because they do not appreciate what Mark or any of the people on this forum do. But just because they have no control about what happens here and could be directly affiliated with what is happening on here. That could be one of the reasons.
My personal experience, and my opinion. :-) -
Yeah I just read the GPL license again, and as far as I can tell, you can do ANYTHING YOU WANT with GPL-licensed software, as long as you don't "distribute" the modified software to other people. If you do, the license policies apply.
-
Blimin heck! Thats awful, so in essense theres absolutly nothing any of us can do!?
-
Well we can ask nicely.
Legally though? Not really. -
I'm a bit sad about this and also http://lussumo.com/swell/110/The-Future/. But then people who are too nice are often abused... maybe GPL is too nice for Vanilla also?
-
- CommentAuthorThomas Heath
- CommentTimeJul 14th 2006
I agree with 3stripe, there's a sad mood in the air. But though I only joined the community a few months back, I've never before experienced such a welcoming lot of developers gathering around a what really is a stellar product. For this and many other reasons, I think Mark's original Vanillaforums plan could work out very well as a revenue earner. -
Not to mention, I've seen more add-on development in the last week or two than I have in the last year. Sure, a lot of that was just Jazzman :D, but I think there is a genuine rush to add new features now that the codebase is relatively stable.
-
Out of interest... can software distributed under GPL be retracted?
-
Yes, but there are a few wrinkles.
First, you need to track down the people who committed code to the project (under the assumption it would stay GPLed) and get them to agree to the change, or you have to remove their code from the newly-licensed version. Pretty easy in this case.
Second, the new license would only apply to new versions of the software; any old versions would still be under the GPL. If the license changes are severe enough, this can cause a fork. In this case, I think it almost certainly would.
At any rate, I think it's an exceptionally bad idea to allow a few outliers to ruin it for everyone else. -
Update: the studio that made the gnarles barkley forum have changed it to give credit to Vanilla.
Re: licensing
I am considering changing from GPL to something else. But Vanilla will remain a free product at least for non-commercial use as long as I'm in control of it. If I do change the license, I will just re-release it as Vanilla 1.1 and have it apply to the new version only.
As far as "The Future" goes, I just had a bad day. It happens to the best of us, I just made the mistake of blogging about it. -
-
CommentAuthorBurke Prefect
- CommentTimeJul 14th 2006
Man. I really need to get back on the css bandwagon and fix up a template. :D -
-
- CommentAuthorMinisweeper
- CommentTimeJul 14th 2006
I'm not so sure that's a mistake at all, mark. One of the things that interests me most about blogging and the philosophy behind it is that it tends to occur at extremes of emotion (or so it seems in my extremely limited experience). You tend to get people posting about stuff that really matters to them at the time and not much about 'hmm my life's extremely average at the moment everythings alright .....'. That's part of what's drawing me to set up my own blog - while i enjoy expressing myself in certain ways at certain times (even if noone else reads it) it's just as interesting (to me, atleast), to look back over x days/months/years and consider what was happening when and where stuff's going.
Straying a little, though... -
Sure does, we all have bad days! I think thats a pretty good idea Mark, go for it!
-
Hey there, David from Red Swoosh. Great to hear you like the style we put together on our forum; we're very happy with it. To address a couple points:
Re: Our use of Vanilla
- It was entirely accidentally to remove the props to Vanilla. Sorry! It was fixed as soon as it was pointed out to us.
- As for the login feature, we've integrated across our back end (custom authenticator), and it took us a bit to get password change sync'd across all systems.
- As for the new discussion button, that was a bug on our side (now fixed).
Re: Us being supercool or criminal masterminds
- We're not spyware, but proving a negative is just really hard. Check out: http://www.redswoosh.net/learn_more_red_swoosh_client_srs.php
- I didn't realize it was bad form to remove the NSIS message; I'll make sure it's updated in the next release.
- We're Windows only for now, but ports are on the way.
Anyway, thanks for the fantastic forum Mark; it looks and works great! -
Re: licensing
according to your blog, you asked whether open source projects are doomed to fail because of the lack of "financial support". but what about donations? i mean, the people who work for/on mozilla or open office surely get paid a little bit, or not? -
Donations as a source of revenue will not work. The volume just isn't there.
-
Agreed, you'd be wanting something like the equivalent of a MacBook a month I guess...
-
I would bet that projects like Mozilla and Open Office get their donations from corporations and big business. Not your average user.
-
props to quinthar.
-
Mozilla actually makes quite a bit from the Google search field alone.
-
here's an idea:
Sell Swell for a fair price, have it include any new upgrades for Vanilla which will only work if you have a registered version of Swell.
Setting up Swell and upgrading Vanilla past v1.0 would require a lookback to a registered user dbase on lussumo unlocking the upgrade.
Or just have a fee to pay for the Vanilla upgrades. -
I think the sixapart model used for things like moveable type might be more usable.
-
dear mark,
it would seriously suck if you started charging for vanilla. a lot of people stopped using movable type when they switched to their current model and it was one of the reasons wordpress became so popular (because it was open source).
what I would do if I were you is offer official, ad-supported free vanilla hosting, and provide a pay-for model to remove the advertisements. people will use it vs. competitors because it will be official, and shiny. -
- CommentAuthorAlisonMooreSmith
- CommentTimeJul 19th 2006
Ah, good. I was hoping for something a little more shiney... -
Yeah I agree, maybe charging for Vanilla is a bad idea. I think a blacklist is a good idea, if they "steal" they get there, which gives bad reputation.
-
So, please list forums that brakes the rules here.
-
Nice find Ben! I have added the URL to the list.
Mark, don't you plan reporting these websites breaking the rules?