SMF is not GPL!

[attitude]

Hello! I would like to mention one thing. If you want to stay consistent to the free software idea (and from the lates happenings I can see you do), SMF shouldn't be used because it is not free software! I assume that nobody read the licence, but I did. You are not allowed to redistribute modificatios, andd every modifier peace of code automaticly becomes a property of Lewis Media (company that develops SMF). So, SMF is not free and should not be used.

Just to say, I support this thing, just want everything to be right form the beginning.
Regards!

[stingrey]

We are aware SMF is not GPL, but it is released freely, unlike VB.

[attitude]

Free in sense of price, but not liberty. That is very important

[hazman]

This is the same as one person I know that has a portal released under the same circumstances as SMF.

If SMF decides to charge for it, I think I would just simply buy a vBulletin version. I wouldn't pay for SMF, unless it rivaled vBulletin.

[Regenerate]

Well, IPB also was like this, until it became commercial. But íf this happens (I don't know anything about SMF or the licence so I really don't know) it is very easy to import all users, post and threads from IPB to vBulletin so there's no need to buy a vB licence just yet.

Besides that: a vB licence needs to be bought for a specific domain. Since this site is on the domain opensourcematters.org the licence should be bought for that domain only. BUT this is (I guess) NOT the new name for Mambo and another domain will be the new home, hence the licence for vB (if that is going to be used at all) should be bought for the new domain and not this one. Purchasing a vB licence for opensourcematters.org therefore is quite useless...

[cozimek]

I'm sure we could get the money to purchase vBulletin...and couldn't we just change the license so that when a new domain is used we can just switch it?  I'm sure this happens all the time.

-RYan

[Ivo]

I would stick to SMF. It's very fresh and is packed with features.

I started using it on our production site some days ago...

[attitude]

The question is should we support free software like we do now, by using nonfree forum engine. WOuld you use mambo or how is it going to be naed if it would bee free of charge, but not free software. I would not.
Also, are we spaking here about software freedom or not?
XMB is great free forum engine, but simoleboard for Mambo is also great solution...

[Predator]

Well, IPB also was like this, until it became commercial. But íf this happens (I don't know anything about SMF or the licence so I really don't know) it is very easy to import all users, post and threads from IPB to vBulletin so there's no need to buy a vB licence just yet.

Besides that: a vB licence needs to be bought for a specific domain. Since this site is on the domain opensourcematters.org the licence should be bought for that domain only. BUT this is (I guess) NOT the new name for Mambo and another domain will be the new home, hence the licence for vB (if that is going to be used at all) should be bought for the new domain and not this one. Purchasing a vB licence for opensourcematters.org therefore is quite useless...

This is not correct you have the ability to change the domain for your licensed vBulletin Board to an other in the memberarea of vbulletin, if you change only this domain has the license, it doesn`t matter how often you change, but only this added domain has the license.

[Tom]

You gotta' be careful about using free forum packages, because as you know, some of them have major security issues.  I'm not going to name names here, but I think that many of you know who I am talking about.

So far, SMF has had a good security track record and the development team has proven to be good at keeping up on the bug submissions as well as security advisories.

Yes, I like vBulletin and there is no doubt that the general public likes vBulletin too.  vBulletin, the most feature packed forum software that money can buy, but I don't suggest getting it now.  Still too early.

[guilliam]

The question is should we support free software like we do now, by using nonfree forum engine. WOuld you use mambo or how is it going to be naed if it would bee free of charge, but not free software. I would not.
Also, are we spaking here about software freedom or not?
XMB is great free forum engine, but simoleboard for Mambo is also great solution...

aside from mendtioned, any other alternatives for a FREE/OS forum?

guilliam

[spacemonkey]

That is the dilemma - there are no FOSS forums out there that can power a large, active community.

I know I know, we are only at 300 and counting, but I expect these boards to get busy soon ;-)

There is the closed/free option (SMF) or the closed/pay option (VBB). I am all ears as to any reasonable alternatives.

[Tom]

Can someone answer a question of mine?  What is the difference between Open Source and Open Source with GPL?  Last time I checked I could still read the source code of SMF and it definitely wasn't obfuscated using something like Zend or IonCube.

Now, if it was obfuscated, than we would have a slight problem.

[Ivo]

If software doesn't have a GPL or something like that, it isn't open-source.

[xenovanis]

SMF will always be free. Even though it has it's own license, it will never become paid software. You can tweak and modify your forum as you wish, just keep the license in mind and leave the copyright in place. That's all what we ask for.
Although it is still a young project, SMF has proven to be a stable, reliable and secure forumsoftware.

[gram]

The question is should we support free software like we do now, by using nonfree forum engine. WOuld you use mambo or how is it going to be naed if it would bee free of charge, but not free software. I would not.
Also, are we spaking here about software freedom or not?
XMB is great free forum engine, but simoleboard for Mambo is also great solution...

I personally think little of this distinction.  If I were planning to do development around this set of scripts (the forum), it would mean much more.  But using it as is, no development, it just doesn't mean as much.  I would hate to see this project turned into a lightening rod for Open Source (free as GPL) issues.  GPL has its place, and many of us participate and support it.  But ultimately we need to stay goal driven, and choose what fits the need in the best way.  SMF has done a great job on thier forum, and quite frankly it is just about the best free forum software out there (I prefer Vbulletin - but not free$$).  It is open source, and they encourage folks to develop solutions for it. 

Open Source GPL has done many great things for all of us.  But please, remember there is a place for ALL others, and it will be driven by need and objective.  Other wise we are saying that no software that is not Open Source GPL should be used or advocated, its something I could just never do.  The field of competition should be open to all, not just GPL.

GRAM

[keliix06]

If software doesn't have a GPL or something like that, it isn't open-source.

GPL and open source are 2 completely different things.

GPL is a licensing scheme that gives users rights to do pretty much anything they want as long as credit si given to the original authors.

Open source simply means you can read the source.

The issue that was raised is that SMF is not GPL and that all code changes immediately become the property of the company that orignally developed the software. However that does not seem to have slowed down the huge community of developers.

[[Unknown]]

Open Source and GPL are not the same thing.  A software could be BSD licensed, and still be Open Source.  As well, "Open Source" and "Free Software"  differ from just "open/readable source".  For more information, please see:

http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition_plain.php

That said, SMF is not technically Open Source.  It is very close to Open Source, except you cannot redistribute the entire package without permission - you can modify it, you can redistribute modifications, you can do all that - but you cannot fork it, in short.  The Open Source definition above does allow this, actually, but only if you allow the redistribution of modified binaries (which we don't, and isn't even applicable.)  Still, it is true that SMF does not fit the definition because of that.

This is because of our experience with forking and the YaBB SE project.  In short, every fork was a stab in the back.  The Italian fork was never updated with security updates and gave us and YaBB a bad name, the ttForum fork involved slander and the software being sold (which was in no way okay with us), the SuperMod fork which pretty cleanly killed all mod development...

Forks can be good, and forks can be bad.  I think we're all seeing the good part of a fork.  If the world turned around and I was away for a year (it would take both at least) and this resulted in SMF no longer being free, the first thing I would do would be to fork it, and I'm sure I would have the explicit permission.  For more information on this, please see the forum on simplemachines.org.

-[Unknown]

[Joseph Fung]

As Unknown mentioned above - the reason for the distinction is because of past experiences with regards to forking of the codebase.

If you ever want to know more, or just want to pick the brains of the project team, feel free to drop by our forums (http://www.simplemachines.org/community) or give Lewis Media a call.

We do have a toll free number 1-866-478-6927

[Tom]

Joseph, I don't think it was the brightest of ideas to post that 1800 number.  I see a very large phone bill in your future.

[Joseph Fung]

We have a great long-distance rate, and to be honest, I could use the conversation - we just finished a very hectic move and a distraction would be welcome

[keliix06]

Joseph, my apologies if I got anything wrong in my explaination of your license. To be honest it was something I had heard recently so I was just a parrot

Anyway, it's a great forum solution and thanks for it.

[ptglidden]

Forgive my ignorance...I'm a newbie at CMS's & BB systems...What is wrong with the other bb software such as as phpbb?  It's important to me, as I am just getting into developing websites using these items.  I'm from the old days where all web pages were hand-coded.  If there's security issues, I'd like to know about them.

As far as SMF goes, if it does the job, I'm cool with using it as this is not a BB development site, it's a site to develop Mambo's successor.  I would like to see a good, stable, secure, native mambo BB component, though.

[Tom]

Security?  phpBB?  ROFLMAO  The two words "phpBB" and "security" don't go well together.  I won't explain it, other people can do a lot better than I can.

[Ivo]

Something that explains forking, very informative: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fork_%28so ... lopment%29

[ptglidden]

Thanks, Ivo for the forking link.  Anybody got a link re: BB security comparisons for newbies like me?

Thanks!

[keliix06]

Well, here is a non-scientific experiement.

I googled "phpbb security hole"- 60,600 results

I googled "smf secutiry hole" - 20,000 results

phpBB is notorius for horrible security flaws. So bad, in fact, that some hosts won't even allow users to use phpBB on their shared servers.

[stingrey]

i would just like to publicly acknowledge the efforts of the SMF devs and their supporters/users.

They have always been suportive of Mambo and working to create an integration between our two projects.
I know they've been nudging us for a while to move to SMF.


They also have been providing us assistance in the use of SMF as we get used to it.


So kudos to SMF and its community.

[attitude]

open source definition is based on Debain social contract, and that basicly menas that you can use, modify, copy and redistribute modified code freely, along as it is free software (you can't modifu GPL program and make it non GPL). SO, term "open source" means source code that is available for seenig, but open source software must satisfy these four freedoms. You can't copy and share SMF. You can't redistribute modified version and anything you modifu automaticly becomes property od Lewis Media. So what is the use of that source code, if you can't make it better. You can, but someone desides what way is it going to be. SMF is NOT Free software, or open source software. That should be clear.
XMB is very stable and realible solution, anyone had or expirienced problems with it?

I just want to say that currently, we are using non open source or free software, by using this forum. I think that it is not right.

[Predator]

open source definition is based on Debain social contract, and that basicly menas that you can use, modify, copy and redistribute modified code freely, along as it is free software (you can't modifu GPL program and make it non GPL). SO, term "open source" means source code that is available for seenig, but open source software must satisfy these four freedoms. You can't copy and share SMF. You can't redistribute modified version and anything you modifu automaticly becomes property od Lewis Media. So what is the use of that source code, if you can't make it better. You can, but someone desides what way is it going to be. SMF is NOT Free software, or open source software. That should be clear.
XMB is very stable and realible solution, anyone had or expirienced problems with it?

I just want to say that currently, we are using non open source or free software, by using this forum. I think that it is not right.

It is your right to say it is not right, but your comments are not productive at all it is more important to get a infastructure for this site here.