Wedge

Hey Pete! You're spoiling the fun by publishing the license with our Hall of Shame clause :P

Didn't you already post that, though? *confused*

TROLOLOLO.

What if my name is that but I'm not that person you're talking about? :(

@Ara Blunder> Nope, we never posted it ;) I wanted to leave them the surprise :P

Although it won't be a surprise to anyone, knowing our history with the guys. But still, it's good fun.

@Norodo> Well, if you happen to share both the same name and nickname, then you're banned from here yeah :niark: As for other people... They could simply contact us and request special treatment.

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.

I for one think the conflict has some good points to it. Namely, fiercer competition. :>

Go team [insert preference]!

You guys actually got that clause? +Score!

@AngelinaBelle, we wish it had been different, but it isn't like we didn't offer the opportunity for amends to be made.

It's really a verbatim copy of SMF's, with only the names changes. We wanted for it to be a continuation of the spirit of the original license -- i.e. it's permissive but we're protecting our rights to help Wedge grow until we're happy with its popularity.

(So, basically, the more you help Wedge grow, the faster it gets to a more permissive license :P)It has historical significance :PMe too.

---

Okay, Pete -- back to the topic... I was looking into the wedge_themes table (the per-theme per-user settings), and noticed that there is a 'skin' variable in theme id = 1. I'm a bit in a hurry and should leave and have been unable to find this for now -- could you look into the code (or anyone with svn access) and tell me where this variable is retrieved and used, exactly...? I'm considering either dropping it, or using it more... :P

LMFAO!
1. Well yes xenophobic/discriminatory.  I couldn't have described GPL in practice better myself, although theoritically speaking I did initially support the movement.  If your not the same licence or compatible with gpl then you deserve to die. (In my opinion GPL which expressed its need for openness, honesty & integrity ends up looking more like the 4th Reich of Nazi Germany.)

2.  He's the Julian Assange of the open source community, all ego, wrong in so many ways.
They forget that the
(FSF || Richard Stallman) != Free Open Source Community

I see it as virus like because it forces everything it touches to be adherent, and 'compatible with GPL' is a sufficiently vague definition that makes it hard to judge what's going on.

From what I gather, Joomla enforces the GPL strictly, which means in their view even LGPL doesn't really fit since LGPL does not 'guarantee the same freedoms' of the software and its uses that the GPL does.

Theoretically, the GPL should be an ideal licence, because it is supposed to ensure that code is produced that everyone can use without restriction on that use. Except that the reality is slightly different: the restriction that is supposed to ensure the freedom of the code is in itself a restriction, meaning that people who have a different idea of freedom, like the BSD people, are in effect kept at arms length simply because they have a different definition of freedom.He doesn't like it if you call him out on his viewpoint.

The debate I read recently was about him lambasting the OpenBSD people for not conforming to his views on 'free' software. I'm not fully conversant with OpenBSD, but I gather there is a ports area in the repository that links to external software where people can go to get things, and he takes the view that having such things in the base distribution (*links* to non-free software) is promoting their use, which it isn't. Then he completely ignores the fact that the same basic argument is levied against Emacs, which has code in it specifically to engender it running on non-free platforms. His argument is that if you don't encourage people to use free platforms, you're somehow wrong - which is sort of blown out of the water with Emacs. (Since if he were holding true to his line of argument, Emacs wouldn't be provided on Windows, when in fact it has a bunch of code in the core to make it run on Windows.)Richard Stallman basically thinks that the FSF is the holy grail of software development openness. Which it isn't.

I had a post above. Sob.

You did, yes, and I thought glancing at your latest commit you'd answered that question.What does that actually mean for users?

Presumably, a user should be able to pick any skin from any currently available theme? (Assuming admins allow them to choose) If that's the case, does it need to remember which skin within a given theme that a user picked?

i.e. if you have two actual themes, and two skins in each (Themes 1 and 2, skins A & B, giving you 1A, 1B, 2A, 2B), when the user picks a skin from 1 (say 1B when 1A is default), then switches to 2 (either), should the fact they picked 1B be remembered if they come back to 1 later?

I'm inclined to think not, which without looking over finer points, seems to me to suggest we don't need it and only need to bother with what the user currently has selected, i.e. in their record in the members table.

Okay, here's how I envision the thing...

Theme 1
    Skin A (root)
        Skin B (add-type)
        Skin C (replace-type)

As you may have seen in the new revs, this is now represented as such in the pick theme page:

Theme 1
    Skin A
        Skin B
    Skin C

Which makes more sense than having Skin C as a child of Skin A (or Skin B as a root skin, like it used to be.)

Now, Wedge allows you to choose the default *theme + skin* combination for the forum, for guests (so that the forum would be using Theme 1B by default for instance). With the variables $modSettings['theme_guests'] (already in SMF) and $modSettings['theme_skin_guests'] (new to Wedge.)
Thing is, if admin adds Theme 2, which itself has 3 color variations... What if they want a secondary variation to be the default when users choose Theme 2 for themselves?

- Wedge doesn't implement the ability to choose a default skin for a non-default theme, because SMF doesn't have 'skins' per se, and as such, there's nothing else to choose from, apart from the theme ID...

- Adding the ability to choose a default skin for a secondary theme might be overkill. In terms of UI, it could be more complicated than necessary, add clutter to the admin area's theme page.

- I think the most logical solution would be to keep the situation where the admin can choose a default theme+skin, but outside of this one, if users choose another theme, they'll get the root skin for it (except, of course, if they directly choose another skin within the theme.)

The goal really is to both maintain simplicity for users, and customizing for admins.

Again, as such, I have no idea what that 'skin' variable is for, in the {db_prefix}themes table. I probably added it at the beginning of my experiments, and forgot to remove it later when I simply had a fallback to the skins (root) folder...