Wedge

Because he's seen what several of us here have: the portals are almost clones of each other. None of them do anything particularly unique, it's just differences of presentation and admin panel - there's virtually feature parity across the main portals now - when Bloc did it originally, it was the only one of its kind for SMF as far as I know. Now you have several clones of each other and none of them bringing anything actually new to the table.

I've long since decided to add support for selecting what the front page does; it's one of the features I need to add before I migrate innovatenotimitate.com off WordPress, to automatically drop into the right board.

@JaZz, Bloc originally wrote TinyPortal. Also, see www.blocweb.net which doesn't currently use a portal. Don't let the door hit you on the way out.

No, it's not just Twitter.

Google suggested it - http://googlewebmastercentral.blogspot.com/2009/10/proposal-for-making-ajax-crawlable.html
Examples of it in live use - http://www.yourseoplan.com/examples-of-sites-using-googles-ajax-indexing-specification/

But it's not really *that* well adopted other than places like Twitter and FB from what I've seen - and Yahoo/Bing don't handle it yet AFAIK.

If you're referring to any of my comments, there's no ego involved, just facts about what happened.

Psst... yes it does. e.g. www.facebook.com/arantor

Well, the full story is:
* Various devs came and went. Solomon and Chris remained the only really constant figures in charge, with everyone else being on the fence and back and forth.
* Early 2010 when I was basically full time on SimpleDesk, Chris came to me and talked me into helping. I said I'd take a look to see what I could do but that my time was limited, Chris seemed to think I agreed to develop it virtually singlehandedly.
* I took one look at the whole project and declared it chronically mismanaged. A lead developer whose idea of documentation was to ask him (which was fine until he had to go away on RL business), no licence, no CLA and no proper revision control. To a developer, that's not even providing the basic requirements.
* I talked through the choices of licences, they agreed with New BSD.
* I left, figuring that it just wasn't going to change, and SD was taking priority.
---- time passed ----
* Chris asked me to drop by occasionally and offer suggestions.
* Solomon makes a single comment about "the way some things should be done", I rebutted with points about why it wasn't necessarily the best way to go, cue 3 pages of ranting, that descended into personal insults (mostly from him)
* Sometime around there, the question came up for a portal for us. I suggested that we could look at it and see if there was anything we were interested in, but knowing that full well we would likely rewrite it anyway.
* This was mentioned to the DP team who took umbridge that we were looking to fork their work.
* They subsequently changed the licence, and we pointed out that we could if we wanted to but around that time, there were silly games being played over badges and we realised that we just didn't want the hassle.

But yeah.That's the thing. We'll likely have such facilities in Wedge to control layout without code changes, but not quite how the portals do it now.

Officially, you should reinstate the theme_copyright function. However, the licence states:
1.a) All copyright notices within source files and as generated by the Software as output are retained, unchanged.

2.a) A Modification must not alter or remove any copyright notices in the Software or Package, generated or otherwise.

Nothing in the letter of the licence requires you to keep that function. All it requires is that the copyright notice is output in the same format it was originally.

So, yes, that's all you have to do, or at the very least update $forum_version to that effect.