Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - AngelinaBelle
46
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on September 8th, 2011, 10:15 PM »
I guess I've never appreciated the difference between your skeleton and template layers.

Now, I see your comment that your skeleton can be multi-branched.
I've recently been arguing that this is a necessity for doing a Portal/CMS type of thing -- you need to go down, come up, close out a "box" start a new "box", and go down layers again....
47
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 30th, 2011, 03:14 AM »
Interestingly, I thought the comment could just as easily be read as a dig at the team.
One of those inkblot problems, I guess.
48
Features: Miscellaneous / Re: Media area (Aeva Media integration)
« on August 23rd, 2011, 02:40 PM »
Yes, but will there be cake?  :)
I knew this was coming.
49
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 19th, 2011, 01:09 AM »
Quote from Ara Potter on August 18th, 2011, 10:46 PM
I'd love to see all the different branches of SMF sit down in a year's time and look at the different directions taken.
It will be fascinating.
50
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 18th, 2011, 09:33 PM »
I agree that it is beneficial.
And there is no war. Competition. As friendly as is humanly possible, I hope.
51
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 18th, 2011, 09:17 PM »
Quote from Albus Dumbledore on August 18th, 2011, 07:27 PM
I do not know much about open source license but I find it very weird for a BSD licensed software to impose restriction such as not allowing linking to a non-BSD licensed fork....
Well, I'm sure you can imagine that there was much debate on this point -- is discussion of a fork that does not permit free redistribution of the original and derived works beneficial to the community of the original software? Some would say "absolutely", some would say "somewhat less than if it were a BSD or SA-licensed fork", some would say "not at all".

The team debated this issue. And came to a consensus on the purpose and rules for the board.

I guess you are correct -- the team does need to take pride in the fact that we have seen 4 forks announced. It's new territory, though. It will take a while to get used to it.
52
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 18th, 2011, 06:48 PM »
Thanks for publishing the license.

I see that it is similar in some respects to the old SMF license, and different too.

Condition 1.e. is of a very unusual type. I have read your reasons for these restrictions. I only wish things could have gone differently.
53
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 18th, 2011, 03:55 PM »
BSD to the "something like the old SMF license" to GPL.  That's something like the SMF/YaBB SE licensing history, in reverse.
54
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 18th, 2011, 03:49 PM »
I am a member of the SimpleMachines NPO BOD. http://www.simplemachines.org/about/members.php
My feelings toward Wedge are, at worst, neutral. :)
55
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 17th, 2011, 08:19 PM »
I can *wish* you would use CC-BY-SA-NC, but clearly the choice is yours. I am content to disagree.

56
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 17th, 2011, 06:41 PM »
Quote from Arantor on August 17th, 2011, 02:42 PM
I could very easily repeat most of what ttForum did, rebranding the software throughout, even released it as a paid package and still be well within the terms of the licence
Yep.  It might not be considered friendly, but it is certainly permitted, and someone might try it one of these days.
That's the funny thing about the BSD license. It is not CC-by-SA.
57
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 17th, 2011, 06:36 PM »
+1, Pete.
58
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 17th, 2011, 03:07 PM »
Sorry if the invitation felt loaded. It would have been rude, since you were musing about an open license, to have left you out. Perhaps it is rude to make an invitation with conditions, and incorrect to term it "cordial". Were I Miss Manners, I surely would have done better.
59
Features / Re: These two bytes may not matter to you...
« on August 17th, 2011, 02:37 PM »
Quote from Nao/Gilles on August 17th, 2011, 10:30 AM
dishonest of us to take code from SMF when we're preventing them to use ours...
SMF is BSD licensed. Throuought your development process, you have honestly described the process of deriving Wedge from SMF. As long as you follow the licensing agreement, you are honest.

I am guessing you will be more proud of your work if you change the constant name, the variable names, and the session name, regardless of the additional work it might cost you in the future. That pride might be a good enough reason to make those changes.
60
Other software / Re: Fork discussion at SMF
« on August 17th, 2011, 01:42 AM »
No guilt.