SimpleDesk

SimpleDesk! => SimpleDesk Discussion => Topic started by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 02:20:56 PM

Title: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 02:20:56 PM
Not necessarily an issue with SD, but a place to note the possible interaction issue with SimplePortal 2.3.3 under SMF's new 2.0 final.

Simple Machines Forum 2.0/Final
SimplePortal 2.3.3
SimpleDesk 2.0 (r483)

When using Front Page mode in SimpleDesk, the SimplePortal copyright is displayed twice on the Front Page screen.  This did not occur while running under SMF 2.0/RC5.  It has only cropped up since updating the forum to SMF 2.0/Final.

Will post the same thing at SimplePortal and then provide cross links.

Link HERE. (http://"http://simpleportal.net/index.php?topic=8987.0")
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 02:24:47 PM
Very likely that's SP vs SMF going on and that it being SD in standalone mode is incidental to it. SD does not interact with the copyright code, never has.

I wonder if it can be reproduced in SMF + SP without SD being involved? If SD is involved in any way, I'll investigate.
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 02:28:11 PM
Doesn't seem to matter if SD is in stand-alone mode, only that it's using the Front Page plugin.  On the Front Page, SimplePortal displays its copyright two times.
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 02:32:51 PM
...yes, but does it do it if SD isn't running?
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 02:34:31 PM
Wouldn't be possible to test, because if SD isn't running then there's no SD "Front Page" on which it could happen.
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 02:35:38 PM
Screenie
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 02:40:20 PM
Oh, I see.

I'm almost certain it's an SP bug.

Out of interest... is that a bbcode or PHP front page?
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 02:43:04 PM
It's BBCode using an html tag to display html that was ultimately stolen from YOUR SimpleDesk Roadmap.  :)
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 02:46:27 PM
Would that happen to end in, say, </body></html> ?
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 02:52:00 PM
</body>
</html>
[/html]
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 03:03:36 PM
Take that out, as well as anything preceding the main content (like a <body>) - the front page is only needed for actual content, and <head>, <body> and <html> are not needed.

The </body> and </html> are used by SimplePortal as a trigger point for injecting their copyright.

(FWIW, this sort of thing is precisely why I never put visible copyright in SD: too many ways it could do odd things inadvertently.)
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 03:34:40 PM
Yep, that did the trick.  Thanks!

RE: Copyrights in the footer... I've passed up some very nice mods because they like to put their junk in the footer.  SimplePortal is the only one I've ever made an exception for, and that's only because I NEED it.  But even still, I wish they wouldn't.  Every single thing that gloms onto the footer reduces the professional feel of the page.
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 04:16:56 PM
Well, it's interesting to note that with 2.0 final you can even remove SMF's copyright if you feel like it.
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 04:37:31 PM
Quote from: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 04:16:56 PM
Well, it's interesting to note that with 2.0 final you can even remove SMF's copyright if you feel like it.

Hmmmm.... Well, that bodes ill for SimplePortal on my system then, because if I were to remove the SMF copyright then I certainly wouldn't want a SimplePortal copyright there all alone.

It'll be interesting in the days to come seeing what happens to mod licenses now that SMF is BSD.
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: tfs on June 12, 2011, 07:12:59 PM
Quote from: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 04:16:56 PM
Well, it's interesting to note that with 2.0 final you can even remove SMF's copyright if you feel like it.

In the index.template.php file it still says...

Quote// Show the "Powered by" and "Valid" logos, as well as the copyright. Remember, the copyright must be somewhere!

...is that an oversight that someone neglected to remove, or does it still hold true?
Title: Re: SMF 2.0 Final, SimplePortal 2.3.3, and SD 2.0 - Duplicate SP copyright
Post by: Gruffen on June 12, 2011, 07:23:06 PM
Quote...is that an oversight that someone neglected to remove, or does it still hold true?

It's an oversight. The licence says you can do what you like provided you retain the copyright in the files. Whether the team will offer you support in that case is another matter, of course.

QuoteI certainly wouldn't want a SimplePortal copyright there all alone.

It'll be interesting in the days to come seeing what happens to mod licenses now that SMF is BSD.

It'll be the same clusterdisgracefully insult it's always been because the vast majority of modders do not care what licence is used, are not interested and just want to share.

Those who care about it invariably err towards GPL with their heart in the right place but not understanding that GPL is, in my view, a dangerous licence with tentacles that would put certain Japanese artists to shame, not to mention totally unsuitable for scripted source files. The remaining few who took the time to understand the implications of the licences - and there are a few but it's in single digits - either go for BSD because it's what SMF uses now, or Creative Commons which actually better protects mod authors, IMO.


Incidentally, the whole copyright on a mod thing is ridiculous. Most mods end up doing vague hacks to the theme template, which causes problems, and those that don't do so via buffer manipulation. What amazes me about this is how buffer manipulation can be used for all sorts of fantastic and wonderful things and yet almost exclusively gets stuck at bodging in a line of copyright. I love what I've been able to abuse the buffer by doing (standalone mode removing the search form, the departments on board index), and I kind of hope that mod authors realise the power of using the buffer to do all kinds of awesome things, but sadly I somehow doubt it.