-
Seems like the f-word has started to be a little more welcome at the main SMF forums as they have a board dedicated to it now.
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?board=227.0
The rules have already been "tweaked" a bit...
-
What were the original terms?
All I'm seeing now, is that they're willing to discuss any "open source" forks... But once again they're not linking to Wedge (spelt as "wedge" there) in the topic with the list of forks.
(It's always funny, considering that if I hadn't announced Nightwish's fork on Wedge, it wouldn't be listed over there in the first place :lol:)
Now, when it comes to their 'open source' clause. Do they include Wedge in it or not? That's the interesting question.
If they do, then good, you can skip the rest.
If they don't, they're being hypocritical on several levels.
1/ Wedge is the most advanced of all known existing forks. It's bound to eventually become the most discussed piece of software on that board...
2/ Just have a look at the Internet Archive.
http://web.archive.org/web/20090618104338/http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php
The very last sentence says, "But see our software as Open Source."
That's about the SMF 1.x license. Which is the same one we've based the Wedge license on.
When you consider your own software to be open source, and you refuse to discuss another software that has the exact same license because "it's not open source", then it's hypocritical. And if they eventually change their terms to say 'not BSD', that means they've read this, proving they didn't write their terms out of some 'reasonable' discussion based on facts, but simply on the fact that we're the ones doing the fork. It's up to them to show they're actually cool about us. Otherwise when do they expect the hostility to cease?
Just my 2 cents!
-
Technically Wedge has the *old* licence, not BSD. But the choice of wording is hilarious. It isn't that we've not expressed an interest in BSD, we have actively said not BSD to start with, not until the code is far enough along that they can't just duplicate it, at least in my mind. Yes, it's petty but given the history it shouldn't be surprising that we're not just going to compromise for their benefit one last time.
The whole rules of that board should have just said not to discuss Wedge, it probably would have been more honest.
Posted: August 16th, 2011, 07:23 PM
Just one more thing: they knew full well neither of us could post over there anyway, which does make it a farce; Nao is post banned, I don't have an account, and if I did, the odds are it would be a shared account which would then be seen as circumventing a ban and subsequently banned in itself.
-
Baby steps everyone...baby steps. I, personally, would like to see Wedge as a focal point of discussion over there. I can see there are a lot of emotions running high but I'd like to see everyone come together at some point.
Does anyone seriously believe that if we go BSD, or Creative Commons as I've mused about recently, that they will welcome discussion of Wedge with open arms?
What I think they want to avoid is the back and forth an accusations etc from both sides. You guys know full well that years of poor guidance will take some time reverse.
-
So, are they going to unban Nao so he can participate then?
-
So, are they going to unban Nao so he can participate then?
-
What were the original terms?
-
if we go BSD, or Creative Commons as I've mused about recently
On behalf of the SMF team, I cordially invite Nao and Arantor and Wedge team to give notice that the Wedge project will go with a BSD or similar license. And then make a showcase post on the fork discussion board.
Of course, some tempers will flare. They always do. That's why I've been trying to recruit a good neutral moderator for that board, to keep things as friendly as possible.
As an aside -- my apologies for my typo in the first post to the Fork Discussion board at simplemachines.org. I have fixed it. You can tell me these things, of course. I am not a "they".
-
I cordially invite any and all members of the SMF team to actually read what we have said time and time and time and time again. We are using the SMF licence that the team declared was in their view an open source licence, and for us to be decried as not open because of that seems to me to be a double standard.
The reason for the switch to BSD was not because 'it's a good idea'. The team didn't exactly have a lot of choice in that discussion and had the choice not been forced on them by the original copyright holders, I doubt the team would have moved to BSD until the next version of SMF.
Anyway, that's beside the point. The fact is you've made it pretty clear that non open source works are not welcome even when they would completely and in all meaningful ways comply with the licence as stated. The fact that we have chosen not to go to a true open source licence is to protect our investment of time from being abused by a group of people that were more than happy to make use of our contributions all the time we were contributing them but were stonewalling us as soon as the contributions stopped flowing.
Never mind that Nao worked on the single most popular mod for SMF in its history. Never mind that I wrote the helpdesk in use on their site. Never mind that I made tens of thousands of posts supporting the project. These things don't matter, of course, but god forbid that we should be recognised for all that effort, and instead are just demonised because we don't want to have our work used by the same group of self serving bureaucrats that don't employ the same standards they expect others to adhere to.
-
Those devs thought the BSD license was a better idea than the "old SMF" license, for a number of reasons. They were the "they" who made that change happen. They were SMF team members and former SMF team members.
The BSD license is the single standard license at simplemachines.org. The old license is only attached to deprecated versions of SMF.
Change is difficult, but it happens.
-
As Arantor might now, posts like that are usually written on the team boards, and then moved to a public board - such was the case here, and AFAIK Kindred did the moving. Most probably the title needed to be edited, out of WIP, and thus the edit by Kindred to the rules...
-
Like I said, it's beside the point who made it happen. The main reason I even mentioned it is to clear up the inaccuracy you mentioned and to ensure that if you are going to argue your case that you do so on solid ground, and not from some rose tinted view of things.
Yes, I figured it had been round the team boards first. We do that sometimes, too.
I love how certain supporters of this policy (like someone who doesn't adhere to the licence of a mod he was using) are active in discussing it.
The bottom line, folks, is this: open source encourages sharing of ideas, which is a wonderful thing. What is not so wonderful is when the sharing of things goes into code without respect for the time and effort that went into it.
For example, I am aware that the SMF project wanted, and for all I know still does want, to take control of SimpleDesk so it can be developed. Initially they weren't even going to ask me, but when I found out, I made it very clear that the only way that could happen is if they forked it. Guess what did not happen, despite it being BSD and always was. These are the people that I do not want to give any further access to what I produce, having been shown that they're only interested in it for what they can get, which does not include ideas but finished code that they can use.
Still, in all honesty I doubt there is much about Wedge that the SMF team would find that useful, after all they have repeatedly demonstrated that they aren't that interested in looking forwards. For example, one of the dev team won't even use 2.0 for their own sites because they prefer how 1.1 does permissions and would rather stick with that than understand how they really work and what the benefits of doing it in 2.0 actually are.
We will go BSD or CC, but as and when we are ready, not because we're bowing to your request and certainly not because we want to be showcased in your little recognition booth. We will just go BSD as and when SMF can't directly use our code and would have to do some of the work themselves in making use of the ideas presented, though most of them are far too controversial for SMF's conservative view of itself.
-
Oh, my last post was mostly directed at Snape actually, to answer the question of what was "tweaked"...
-
Was busy tonight (IRL, and the little time I had, I spent on doing and committing revision 932), so I'll have to skip this topic (and all others) for today and deal with them tomorrow. Sorry about that. (Pete seems to be doing fine by himself though :P)
-
Oh, my last post was mostly directed at Snape actually, to answer the question of what was "tweaked"...
so I'll have to skip this topic (and all others) for today and deal with them tomorrow. Sorry about that. (Pete seems to be doing fine by himself though )
-
A quick one though... (I'm late IRL so I'll be gone after this.)
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=446856.msg3137769#msg3137769
Thanks for the thumb up. :D However, Angelina, the code you see on Wedge.org is *not* running Wedge. It's specified in the FAQ. But lucky for you, it is true that the resizing code that is in Wedge, is taken from the code I wrote for Noisen.com (the website that served as the starting point for the Wedge.org website, NOT for the Wedge project.) So, yes, Wedge.org pretty much already demoes that for you.
I improved it, nevertheless, like I always like to do -- made it even shorter, slightly faster, and a bit more dependable.
Still, the font size is too small in Wedge.org when viewing it on a smartphone. And avatars are still on the side. Font size changing is done in Wedge (it only takes one line of code), but I'm also planning to move avatars and userboxes to the vertical flow, i.e. above the posts themselves. The point here is that topics should be very readable on smartphones, out of the box. I can't take bets for the other forum pages, though -- my focus was on topic pages really.
PS: permission to reproduce this post on sm.org if need be.
-
Just read the reply from Motoko as well, nothing short of what I would expect from him, pointing out that as we're not open source, we shouldn't be being discussed there...
In some ways I wish the board hadn't even been created because then the defence of 'we don't discuss competition' would at least have been honest, as opposed to what we have currently which is 'we allow discussion of specific competition but not Wedge because they're hardasses who won't let us use their work.' Think about that for a moment. No-one stopped to ask why we're not open source, as ever, never let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 12:20 AM
Mind you, they have made a list of forks and Wedge is present on it, but unlinked. This, I guess, is at least the most credible and honest demonstration I've seen yet to their apparent commitment to friendly competition.
Still doesn't change much though. It feels like there is an attempted guilt trip going on.
-
No guilt.
-
I didn't say there was. I just said that from where I'm standing, it does feel like it - even if there actually isn't and it is totally unbiased and sticking totally to the facts, though that statement about a cordial invitation felt rather loaded...
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 01:44 AM
OK, here's a thought.
Do you, AngelinaBelle, personally and without any representation on behalf of the SMF team, understand why it is that we're so upset generally as to work on Wedge, and why we are so against using BSD at this time?
(And no, the Wedge licence is not "unclear". It is the original SMF licence, with the names changed. Oh, and a clause to prevent two specific jackasses from using the software, because they have demonstrated admirably that they are unpleasant to ever deal with.)
-
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.
-
I was musing about going CC instead of BSD. But as I have said more than once here, we will go BSD (or possibly CC) once we are ready.
There's never been any question that we're going to go to a true open source licence at some point, as has been said REPEATEDLY.
In other words, we'll go BSD when we're ready and when it means that the team can't just ransack all our ideas and effort like they have done so many times before.
After all, this is the same team that wanted to take the SimpleDesk project over without even actually asking me first, how do you think I feel about that, exactly? Given that SD now equates to something 1/5 the size of SMF, that's an awful lot of code ownership I'd be giving up for their benefit.
-
One thing I want to add. I have been advised that the stated intent of the forks board and the wording of the rules posts was not to wind us up, but that it was an honest attempt to encourage open source work.
I have been advised this by someone who is currently on the team, who is not involved in the public discussions on either side and who has shown me more willing to listen to my concerns and actually see where I'm coming from, even if they do not agree, they at least take the time to see it from my point of view.
Now, this person assures me that it was done in good faith to encourage open source, and I believe them. Said person has expressed a distinct interest for the mudslinging to end - on both sides, not just from us - and made sure as best they can that this is the purpose in which this was carried out, and I respect that.
So, I'm calling for a line to be drawn in the sand on this point. I recognise that the team have made an honest attempt for them to actually accept forks as not being competition in the original sense of the word, but as stablemates from which they can learn things, and that the forks can learn something from it. We've learned a great deal about SMF in this process, some of it rather good when you think about it.
I recognise that the way it came about wasn't intended as a dig at us, but that it came across that way because we're biased. I also recognise the fact that they have been civil towards us, if not entirely respectful in appearance, and I would urge any members thinking of posting to consider very carefully what your motives are in doing so.
As has been noticed, this is a step forwards for SMF. It's not a huge step, it's not as big as I would have liked, but it IS a step forward, even if it was a bit of a stumble. Please don't try and undo their work on this, because it does have the potential to go somewhere.
The team do not understand why we are so reticent at giving back. I doubt they ever will understand, but that's not our problem. I also doubt we fully understand their view, I am advised that the general view is that they did nothing wrong to deserve being forked - but that view IS changing, and for the better. It must be, since they're not treating forks like dissidents. We are being singled out but not because it's us - it's because we have taken the bold step of stepping back on the licence, and like it or not, the old SMF licence isn't open source - and they're honestly trying to encourage actually open licensed creations.
I am given to understand that when we become BSD or similar, we will be treated equally, and I want to believe, but for all the crap going on about it, I would ask the people concerned to take a moment to understand why we don't want to give back. We feel we already paid any 'debt' in advance, and now you're asking us to pay again. We will give back to anyone who wants what we've done, but only when we're ready to do so.
-
Excellent post, Pete.
-
Very pleased to read this, Pete. :) I really do hope it all works out.
-
+1, Pete.
-
Okay... So I'll read and answers these posts in order, and merge all of my double-posts. Hopefully I'm not too redundant.
Technically Wedge has the *old* licence, not BSD.
So, yes, Wedge has a license that is 95% the old SMF license. It also adds a special clause (informally called our 'hall of shame').Just one more thing: they knew full well neither of us could post over there anyway, which does make it a farce;
Nao is post banned, I don't have an account, and if I did, the odds are it would be a shared account which would then be seen as circumventing a ban and subsequently banned in itself.
I never used it after I was banned, though... I tend to respect bans, you see. I didn't post at sm.org for fun. It will like an unpaid job for me. If they don't want me to work for them, then why I force them? I'm just using my work for my own self now...
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 08:28 PM
So, are they going to unban Nao so he can participate then?
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 08:30 PM
We are using the SMF licence that the team declared was in their view an open source licence, and for us to be decried as not open because of that seems to me to be a double standard.
The reason for the switch to BSD was not because 'it's a good idea'. The team didn't exactly have a lot of choice in that discussion and had the choice not been forced on them by the original copyright holders, I doubt the team would have moved to BSD until the next version of SMF.
Anyway, that's beside the point. The fact is you've made it pretty clear that non open source works are not welcome even when they would completely and in all meaningful ways comply with the licence as stated. The fact that we have chosen not to go to a true open source licence is to protect our investment of time from being abused by a group of people that were more than happy to make use of our contributions all the time we were contributing them but were stonewalling us as soon as the contributions stopped flowing.
Technically we haven't released anything, and we're still the ones who have to 'prove themselves'.
Reminds me a bit of xantSpell announcing a release, and vBullshit waiting to file a suit, just because they were upset about their ex-star developer trying to give them their change back...Never mind that Nao worked on the single most popular mod for SMF in its history.
Posted: August 17th, 2011, 08:38 PM
Just read the reply from Motoko as well, nothing short of what I would expect from him, pointing out that as we're not open source, we shouldn't be being discussed there...
Mind you, they have made a list of forks and Wedge is present on it, but unlinked. This, I guess, is at least the most credible and honest demonstration I've seen yet to their apparent commitment to friendly competition.
If they're gonna have a fork board, Wedge is bound to be discussed there -- because it has the longest history, because many ex-SMF teamies are in our team (and those who are still friends with them will push for Wedge to be allowed to be discussed openly), and simply because it is what it is. The SMF team did us a lot of wrongs-- if they don't sympathize with us eventually, they'll only make things worse in the future.
-
Do you, AngelinaBelle, personally and without any representation on behalf of the SMF team, understand why it is that we're so upset generally as to work on Wedge, and why we are so against using BSD at this time?
We did team up together because we understood each other after we'd both been screwed by both the SMF team and vblamer. You wanted to create your own forum system from scratch, and I wanted to take a shot at forking Wedge, which you eventually agreed to do. So the original goal wasn't even to fork SMF. It was simply to do something together that would be free from the stupid rules at SMF. The fact that it became apparent around the same time that SMF was going to go BSD, was the main thing that convinced us to do a fork instead of our own thing.
A year later, I can confirm it was the right choice, because what we have right now is a state of the art forum system that really stands against the commercial competition. It will probably need an extra year of work to outdo them, but we've left SMF behind, and you can really see the effort we put into Wedge -- it transpires from everywhere, from the first contact to every little detail here and there. We made it our own and it's got its own philosophy. One which happens to be incompatible with SMF because we wanted to explore directions SMF was unlikely to ever take.
Now, if SMF wants to get a piece of Wedge's code, legally and everything, they can just take it from Nightwish's fork. Not that his fork uses any of our code -- but it seems pretty obvious to me that he shares many aspects of our visions, trying to improve the UI and make the forum run faster. He implemented things differently, but if SMF was to follow his lead, I suspect there would be no reason for SMF to want to take from us at all.(And no, the Wedge licence is not "unclear".
It is the original SMF licence, with the names changed. Oh, and a clause to prevent two specific jackasses from using the software, because they have demonstrated admirably that they are unpleasant to ever deal with.)
I particularly like the second post. In case any of you didn't follow (and none of you saw our recent PM exchange), she was addressing me and Pete in particular over our refusal to implement threaded view in Wedge. I confirmed to her by PM that I had found ideas that might allow me to implement threaded view and I'd like to try and do that in the future, if only as a test -- and she basically told me to screw myself, it was too late etc... :^^;:
You know -- as if it was an *honor* to have her scream at us constantly on our boards. Sure, we're into that ;)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.
Heck, *I* would do well to learn from your manners. But then again, I'm not particularly well known for my people skills. ;)
-
I have been advised this by someone who is currently on the team, who is not involved in the public discussions on either side and who has shown me more willing to listen to my concerns and actually see where I'm coming from, even if they do not agree, they at least take the time to see it from my point of view.
I know that many at the SMF team are still friendly to us, and I certainly wouldn't put the blame on them should the situation worsen. But after K@'s departure, there are no people in the BOD who are clearly neutral to us (let's not even ask pro-Wedge.) So I can hardly believe the situation is being examined in an unbiased way.Now, this person assures me that it was done in good faith to encourage open source, and I believe them.
Just because we're not a friendly fork doesn't mean we're here to fuck with them. What did I say in the FAQ about this, already? Something along the lines of "we didn't choose to go hostile, they did."
Our choice of license was only a reaction to their behavior. If a project manager bans you from his site, strips you of your badges, removes your beta tester accounts (and much later starts to censor your profile and mod page without any valid, clearly stated reason), would you consider them as "friendly" to you? Would you want to give them the benefit of the doubt? I gave SMF the benefit of the doubt 3 years ago.. Then 2 years ago... Then a year ago... Then my ass started to hurt a bit too much.
Now, it's all about one thing: who runs the project now? And do they think about the best way to serve their users, or the best way to serve their own interests.So, I'm calling for a line to be drawn in the sand on this point. I recognise that the team have made an honest attempt for them to actually accept forks as not being competition in the original sense of the word, but as stablemates from which they can learn things, and that the forks can learn something from it. We've learned a great deal about SMF in this process, some of it rather good when you think about it.
I also recognise the fact that they have been civil towards us, if not entirely respectful in appearance, and I would urge any members thinking of posting to consider very carefully what your motives are in doing so.
As has been noticed, this is a step forwards for SMF. It's not a huge step, it's not as big as I would have liked, but it IS a step forward, even if it was a bit of a stumble. Please don't try and undo their work on this, because it does have the potential to go somewhere.
I guess the fact that another fork came out was the main factor that triggered the need for that board.The team do not understand why we are so reticent at giving back. I doubt they ever will understand, but that's not our problem.
I also doubt we fully understand their view,
it's because we have taken the bold step of stepping back on the licence, and like it or not, the old SMF licence isn't open source - and they're honestly trying to encourage actually open licensed creations.
I am given to understand that when we become BSD or similar, we will be treated equally,
SMF. Wedge. People. Everyone.
Fight with knowledge -- fight for knowledge.
Ignorance is the worst plague of all.
That will be my final statement for tonight.
-
One thing I find interesting. Motoko mentions that the name of Wedge is scattered liberally throughout their board, but not once is it noted that neither myself nor Nao are the ones mentioning it, neither of us could even if the rules permitted it since I don't have an account and Nao is post banned.
-
Very interesting thread. To borrow a vaguely literary reference, what's happening over there very much reminds me of "he who must not be named" (and the variations thereof) in that series of children's books by J.K Rowling, making them (the Team) the Minister: ...
-
Then in the spirit of what Pete noticed, that board is full of little Harry Potter wannabes. "Wedge? Why can't I name it? Wedge, Wedge, Wedge!" :lol:
-
There is also a greater irony in the fact that I've spent a good deal of my free time in the last week playing Lego Harry Potter, and interestingly getting about as frustrated by it. :lol:
-
There is also a greater irony in the fact that I've spent a good deal of my free time in the last week playing Lego Harry Potter, and interestingly getting about as frustrated by it. :lol:
-
I have a Wii remote for that :lol:
Honestly, the frustration comes from the fact that the Lego HP game is surprisingly buggy (there are two game-stopping bugs I've encountered, and quite a few niggles) and the fact it has points where you have to use your wand to levitate bricks and assemble platforms and stairs for things out of multiple separate bricks.
So while you're holding down a button, you're squinting to see which of the studs you're lining up with and whether it's the right one, only to mis-align it with a twitch of the nunchuk thumb joystick.
-
Lol :eheh:
Back on topic, I've just noticed that JBlaze is going to fork SMF as well.
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=446866.msg3139025#msg3139025
-
Yep, saw that too while I was writing my blog post about forks... (Well, right now I'm busy looking into Pete's latest commits so that'll have to wait :P)
JBlaze is a Friend here, but he hasn't posted in over 3 months. I was considering removing his Friend badge because here, Friend = active member. (I may make later a new group for inactive members, but right now there's only Friends and Consultants. And us.) Now if I do that, he'll think it's a declaration of hostility :lol:
I must say, though, that I'm a bit... circumspect, when it comes to the timing of it all.
It's also interesting that vblamer's and JBlaze's forks will both remove support for PGSQL and SQlite. I'll start counting the number of features they're taking verbatim from the Wedge Feature List... :niark:
-
It's also interesting that vblamer's and JBlaze's forks will both remove support for PGSQL and SQlite. I'll start counting the number of features they're taking verbatim from the Wedge Feature List...
I understand that vbgamer's choice was simply about the timing of acquisition of a domain name, i.e. ezforum in the com TLD. As for JBlaze, he has threatened to do something like this for a while...
Posted: August 18th, 2011, 03:34 PM
And if Nao can be Voldefork, I can definitely be Ara Potter.
-
And if Nao can be Voldefork, I can definitely be Ara Potter.
-
I am a member of the SimpleMachines NPO BOD. http://www.simplemachines.org/about/members.php
My feelings toward Wedge are, at worst, neutral. :)
-
His domain name was created in 2002 and has the same expiration date day, which shouldn't have happened if the domain was transferred in the meantime... Usually the expiration date gets reset. Sounds odd to me.
As for JBlaze, I find it odd that you should choose the word 'threatened'... It applies best to vblamer's... Poor users :P
@Ara Potter> Neither can commit while the other codes! Err...
@DC> With 29 posts, you could be Ron Wedgely's rat. :niark:
@AngelinaBelle> Admit it, you have a thing for Snape! :P
-
Sirius Shadow? I'm bad with names. Wanted to adopted Snape but a member here already had it. :P
-
I am a member of the SimpleMachines NPO BOD
His domain name was created in 2002 and has the same expiration date day, which shouldn't have happened if the domain was transferred in the meantime... Usually the expiration date gets reset. Sounds odd to me.
As for JBlaze, I find it odd that you should choose the word 'threatened'...
@Ara Potter> Neither can commit while the other codes! Err...
@DC> With 29 posts, you could be Ron Wedgely's rat.
@AngelinaBelle> Admit it, you have a thing for Snape!
We rewatched HP 5 on TV at the weekend:
Umbridge: So you were unsuccessful at applying for the post of Defence Against the Dark Arts teacher?
Snape: Obviously.
-
Why do you think I mentioned him, DS :P
@Ara Potter> Neither can commit while the other codes! Err...
That would make him an Animagus working for the bad guys, who's been hiding in secret for years. There are very few people I would suggest are worthy of such a title...
You should hear my other half about him.
Or his characters in H2G2, Sense & Sensibility or Galaxy Quest...
Anyway.
A few minutes ago, the fork board was gone... They had only one topic in it. The rest was gone. I thought, "already the end eh...?" Then it came back a couple of minutes later. Weird!
-
Are they the reason for your forehead scar?
I don't know, depends if you like Timothy Spall... I've loved him since his part in Red Dwarf Back to Reality, where he delivers this excellent line: "Ah ah, that's a classic!" I always quote it
Well, if I were a girl I'd probably be drooling over him as well...
A few minutes ago, the fork board was gone... They had only one topic in it. The rest was gone. I thought, "already the end eh...?" Then it came back a couple of minutes later. Weird!
-
Sorry to butt in, 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....
I thought by going BSD, it does not matter if the forks are BSD or non-BSD (because BSD license allowed such thing)...
So if Wedge chooses not to go BSD at the moment, it does not hurt if it is being discussed or mentioned at the original board...in fact they should be proud of it (that the software is being forked by many)...
Just my 2 and 1/2 cents...
-
It's also interesting that vblamer's and JBlaze's forks will both remove support for PGSQL and SQlite. I'll start counting the number of features they're taking verbatim from the Wedge Feature List... :niark:
PostgreSQL is, without doubt, a fine database, in some areas much better than MySQL, but its importance for forum installations is close to zero and I'm unsure about SQLite, which is also a very nice piece of software just not very important as a database for web applications.
I'll also kill support for PHP4, caching support for eAccelerator (doesn't make sense, because eAccel has been stripped from the required functionality) and Turk MMCache (doesn't make sense to support it when you're PHP5+). Furthermore, APC, XCache, memcached and the fallback method with disc caching should be enough options to cover the vast majority of installations.
I'm also considering wiping MySQL fulltext search, because it's pretty much useless when you have custom index (sufficient for most installations) and sphinx (for the big guys).
I hate legacy code that just sits there, making the code harder to read and maintain while doing absolutely nothing for 99% of all installations.
-
Sirius Shadow? I'm bad with names. Wanted to adopted Snape but a member here already had it. :P
-
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....
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.
-
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?
TL;DR: Yes obviously it's beneficial
-
I agree that it is beneficial.
And there is no war. Competition. As friendly as is humanly possible, I hope.
-
That was a hyperbole.
I could have said "competition brings progress" or "even enemies gain by discussion" but it would not have the same effect. My point was never that there was a war, but that even the most bitter enemies only lose by limiting their knowledge.
-
It's also interesting that vblamer's and JBlaze's forks will both remove support for PGSQL and SQlite. I'll start counting the number of features they're taking verbatim from the Wedge Feature List... :niark:
PostgreSQL is, without doubt, a fine database, in some areas much better than MySQL, but its importance for forum installations is close to zero and I'm unsure about SQLite, which is also a very nice piece of software just not very important as a database for web applications.
I'll also kill support for PHP4, caching support for eAccelerator (doesn't make sense, because eAccel has been stripped from the required functionality) and Turk MMCache (doesn't make sense to support it when you're PHP5+). Furthermore, APC, XCache, memcached and the fallback method with disc caching should be enough options to cover the vast majority of installations.
I'm also considering wiping MySQL fulltext search, because it's pretty much useless when you have custom index (sufficient for most installations) and sphinx (for the big guys).
I hate legacy code that just sits there, making the code harder to read and maintain while doing absolutely nothing for 99% of all installations.
The PGSQL layer is incomplete and has at least one fatal error in it, the SQLite layer is even less tested, but it's also based on SQLite 2.5 while most hosts run SQLite 3. The idea was that at the time, PHP were pushing it as their next generation DB for smaller purposes, like a starter forum could use.
We came to the same conclusions about PHP 4, the caching technologies and also with respect to full text indexes, especially as InnoDB doesn't support them and as of MySQL 5.5, InnoDB is the default engine.
Regarding competition, 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. We took a bold road in some of the changes we're making and it'll be interesting to see if our instincts about them were right, and I know I'd be interested in sharing how we get on in that respect.
-
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.
-
I'm going to do this as well in mine and it has little to do with copying, just with agreeing on the fact that it wasn't a very bright idea to include it in the first place. Seriously, how well are the PGSQL and SQLite layers tested in a real-world scenario?
I'll also kill support for PHP4, caching support for eAccelerator (doesn't make sense, because eAccel has been stripped from the required functionality)
I hate legacy code that just sits there, making the code harder to read and maintain while doing absolutely nothing for 99% of all installations.
-
Well sqlite and pgsql were all tested (i did most of the bug hunting on it).
But both got repeatadly broken with each RC. Some sites did start using them, but I don't think any survived.
-
I think it's fairer to say that they weren't "broken repeatedly with each RC" - each RC did have more bug fixes for the PGSQL stuff, and almost nothing for SQLite, but no-one really tested them that thoroughly, and as such the bugs that are coming to light are simply ones that fell through the cracks.
-
Interesting...
My fork is just a side project I've started working on just for fun. Something to help me increase my skills in programming. I highly doubt it will be anything successful.
As for "stealing" features, there's not much a forum can have implemented that hasn't already been done. Forums can have similar features without them being stolen. It's not the idea that matters, it's how you implement said idea.
And I know most of you know I have commitment issues (dropping in/out of team, etc), but that's a wonderful trait of me being ADHD.
And no, it's not a "hostile" fork. It's not even competition from the way I see it, but rather building on an existing structure and molding it the way I would like it to be.
-
I think a lot of capable people are going to be building their own SMFs... Sometimes even when it just could have been all made into a mod... And you know why? Because mods in SMF are painful :P
Although I'm not sure the weight of having to support an entire SMF codebase is going to be worth it!
Basically, I think what SMF should be going, if it HOPES to have a chance at surviving, is moving its SVN to git, and allowing anyone to commit patches for the lead devs to check and push into the core.
Since the SMF devs are obviously unable to do the amount of work they're expected to do, I'm sure the SMF team will eventually rely on this. I'm not saying it won't be exploitative of external developers.... But that's the 'spirit' of open source... :whistle:
-
Since the SMF devs are obviously unable to do the amount of work they're expected to do
-
A new fork brewing: http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=450521.msg3147283#msg3147283
I wonder who the person is...
-
Me too. He/she has great plans though
-
I have a few ideas, too, but the fact that it's a new account does put the nail in the coffin in most of them, mind you it's admitting that it's an alias...
Though I have to say though, I'm not actually that impressed, sorry to say. Nothing there is particularly imaginative: it's practically a run through of a good number of mods, though I'd swear that they've borrowed some of the stuff from what I'm doing to the package manager.
Mind you, I know also that some of the things we have planned are massive, far larger and more ambitious than is commonly known ;)
-
He does acknowledge the influence of Wedge for his feature list.
JBlaze maybe? Bloc? They both are interested in forking.
-
JBlaze already posted about his, Bloc has said lately that he's looking a little smaller in scale.
-
Well, so I have no idea, since I don't follow the SM.org activity streams...
Anyway, a long to-do list is nice, but how much of it will be implemented eventually....?
Even Wedge has a very long to-do list and many "would like" features are in both forks, and yet to be done. Even if they're already done on Wedge.org (things like the thought system on Noisen.com or here for the Friends group, or the Buddy system being asynchronous -- I don't remember the exact term, just the fact that you can 'friend' someone without needing to be 'friended' back... -- so many things really), it doesn't mean they'll be in Wedge 1.0 -- well, hopefully they will, but there's only so much I'm willing to do to get Wedge out before 2012 :P
-
Anyway, a long to-do list is nice, but how much of it will be implemented eventually....?
-
So... Someone who knows what Wedge is doing... But wants to have their own features implemented in...
Maybe someone who asked us for one of these features to be implemented, and we politely declined...? :P
I can't see any mention about threaded view so that can't be Clara... :lol:
Posted: August 29th, 2011, 12:09 AM
To ScottyBoy on the linked topic:I'd like to suggest getting rid of every .gif image in SMF. As a theme designer, those drive me crazy.
-
So... Someone who knows what Wedge is doing... But wants to have their own features implemented in...
I can't see any mention about threaded view so that can't be Clara...
Well, actually GIF images are sometimes the best choice... When it comes to small icons (16x16 or smaller) with a limited number of colors (~16), GIF is often more efficient than PNG at compression time.
-
A lot of our plans are public, but they want more social features.
She doesn't have the skillset for it either.
Can't say I've ever found that to be the case though...
But as a theme designer it *does* make it easier on themers because then they're not bound by the 256 colour rule and can have alpha blended icons etc.
Not like it's much of a problem in Wedge though -- most icons (even the smileys) are integrated through CSS.
-
His ideas sure are interesting. Especially that theme maker. Wonder how he'll do it..
-
Not that it's a bad thing to add social features... But I think they should be as low key as possible. i.e. if I'm ever adding some "+1/like" option, I'll be very likely to put them into the post menu.
Besides, the Internet was going to kill Usenet, and it didn't. Then social networks were going to kill forums, but I see no evidence that they're going to die out.
I think the social platforms like FB, Twitter, G+ are going to come down hard in the next few years. Firstly, I think users are going to stop accepting the erosion of their digital privacy in the name of profiteering, and I think in consequence there is going to be a gradual move off these platforms: relative anonymity with the ability to comment as you see fit under a pseudonym is going to come back into fashion!
Yes, adding social features - making it easier to share and discuss, but without taking away the implied group nature of things.Remember how she has a groupie who's also the best coderz around?
Dozens of times for me...
Agreed, but the system needs to check for both gif and png then.
Not like it's much of a problem in Wedge though -- most icons (even the smileys) are integrated through CSS.
His ideas sure are interesting. Especially that theme maker. Wonder how he'll do it..
I do not particularly like this idea, though I don't have a reason for it.
-
I was wondering about the statement Moto made:
http://www.simplemachines.org/community/index.php?topic=450521.msg3148011#msg3148011
How can the forks be draining the SMF dev team?
-
Because all of the people who have the skills to work on forks are the sorts of people that would otherwise have been core dev candidates. The theory is reasonable: Nao was halfway onto the dev team, I was considered for the dev team, Bloc was part of the dev team at one time, I suspect the other fork person to have been former team, and likely former dev team.
I like how it's a subtle dig, as though the team could do no wrong, as though all of the fuckwittery that occurred was our fault.
-
That makes sense.
-
At the same time, it's frightfully naive.
The assumption, like so many 'bleeding the parent dry' debates, is that all the fork people would suddenly work together on SMF core.
There was a time when both of us would gladly have said yes to working on SMF's core as devs, no messing about with politics or BS. You can probably guess what our thoughts were at the time, too, when this was made known to the team.
That said, I've long suspected that post-2.0, Nao and I would have been stifled with the conservative mindset SMF has. Don't get me wrong, conservative isn't necessarily a bad thing, but it isn't necessarily a good one either.
-
Interestingly, I thought the comment could just as easily be read as a dig at the team.
One of those inkblot problems, I guess.
-
When I first saw it. It made me wonder about SMF upper managements inability to retain those skillful enough to be core devs.
-
When I first saw it. It made me wonder about SMF upper managements inability to retain those skillful enough to be core devs.
Couldn't resist...
-
Basically, I think what SMF should be going, if it HOPES to have a chance at surviving, is moving its SVN to git, and allowing anyone to commit patches for the lead devs to check and push into the core.
Since the SMF devs are obviously unable to do the amount of work they're expected to do, I'm sure the SMF team will eventually rely on this.[nb]
I'd like to make changes, but I don't have time to make massive ones. Using git would encourage me to get more active in SMF/forks development.
-
Hi Mark,
Could you share the vulnerability itself...?
-
Hi Mark,
Could you share the vulnerability itself...?
-
Would you mind PMing me as well? Thanks in advance :)
-
(Forwarded.)
-
I am glad the vulnerability itself are taken into account seriously here on Wedge. :)
-
Yup, I spent a couple of hours going through the specifications and trying to make sense of how big - exactly - the vulnerability is.
In this case, it's more that SMF and Wedge are potentially vulnerable because of a specification that came out after them, and more than that, it's one where the specification itself relies on the *browser* implementing security measures. We haven't heard the last of it, I'm sure.
-
Since the SMF devs are obviously unable to do the amount of work they're expected to do, I'm sure the SMF team will eventually rely on this.[nb]
-
A security flaw in SMF? Surely you must be joking...
-
I really hope that's sarcasm.
Any sufficiently complex piece of software has bugs, some of which are possibly security related. This particular one is because technology moved on and applications haven't caught up yet. Interestingly this particular vulnerability probably applies to other forums and other applications.
-
I really hope that's sarcasm.
Any sufficiently complex piece of software has bugs, some of which are possibly security related. This particular one is because technology moved on and applications haven't caught up yet. Interestingly this particular vulnerability probably applies to other forums and other applications.
-
To be honest, until it was mentioned to me, I didn't even know the specification of newer technology even existed, though it's something that needs to be attended to.
Given that it's been forwarded to SMF and us, I don't personally see any issue with notifying you about it (though IIRC you should be able to see it on SMF's bug tracker anyway)
-
To be honest, until it was mentioned to me, I didn't even know the specification of newer technology even existed, though it's something that needs to be attended to.
Given that it's been forwarded to SMF and us, I don't personally see any issue with notifying you about it (though IIRC you should be able to see it on SMF's bug tracker anyway)
-
It's worth the trip and reading up on the subject, if nothing else, because it's something to bear in mind in future application development.