Blog Documentation Book a Demo
Vanilla 1 is no longer supported or maintained. If you need a copy, you can get it here.
HackerOne users: Testing against this community violates our program's Terms of Service and will result in your bounty being denied.

Blacklist - Forums hiding the Vanilla text.

1246

Comments

  • BergamotBergamot
    edited July 2006
    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.
  • bdudebdude
    On a side note, I believe the Red Swoosh installer uses NSIS but isn't crediting it. These guys are deplorable.
  • JazzmanJazzman
    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.. :(
  • PoloPolo
    edited July 2006
    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.
  • ToivoToivo New
    "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 ...
  • JakeJake
    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.
  • JakeJake
    Heres another one, however you have to register first:
    http://www.twit.tv/forums
  • PoloPolo
    edited July 2006
    Alright, lets make this the official "Blacklist thread". I've changed the topic. Hope it is OK for the admin.
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭

    Witchhunt!

  • JakeJake
    Lets get the pitchforks out then and get hunting!!
  • PoloPolo
    Haha, would be cool if Lussumo hired "spions" to look for these kind of sites.
  • tilltill
    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. :-)
  • BergamotBergamot
    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.
  • JakeJake
    Blimin heck! Thats awful, so in essense theres absolutly nothing any of us can do!?
  • BergamotBergamot
    Well we can ask nicely.

    Legally though? Not really.
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    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?
  • Thomas HeathThomas Heath
    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.
  • BergamotBergamot
    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.
  • 3stripe3stripe ✭✭
    edited July 2006
    Out of interest... can software distributed under GPL be retracted?
  • BergamotBergamot
    edited July 2006
    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.
This discussion has been closed.