Also true.

Another issue to consider is that there's a world of difference between claiming this hack illegal and refusing to host it on ones' messageboards. Whether the existence of the hack itself is legal or not, they are certainly within their rights to moderate this board as they see fit, and that includes removal of any content they wish for whatever reason they wish to.

Fully agreed. Wayne can't and can never be blamed for this IMHO, no matter, what will be decided. He's just doing his job, as I stated above. And right now not even Jelsoft could be blamed as a company.

I guess, we all should sit and wait, what will be decided.

This is one of the main reasons that this site has gotten to be how it is now, with all of the turmoil going on. Everyone seems to want to go against the grain these days instead of accepting policy as was done in the past. As long as things like this continue, those of us who have taken our hacks elswhere, will stay where we are at and leave this site to the ones who seem to no longer care how it is handled. It's sad to lose something that at one time was the place to be. ;)

Sure, that's self-evident. I don't blame them one bit for worrying about it; unfortunately, they didn't consider this possibility when drafting their licensing agreement.

It's not that they don't want people to make a profit - I doubt they care how rich you or I are - what they need to avoid is a situation where people don't buy their software any more because it is easier/more convenient/cheaper to use "vB EZBoard". EZBoard itself is immensely popular, and such a situation could potentially put Jelsoft in a very awkward situation. Imagine: the convenience of EZBoard combined with the coolness of the vB software. In their place, I'd have changed the license already.

An unfortunate oversight on their part. I'll bet they're cursing; I also bet the license gets changed very rapidly.

It's not like someone would be running a business off of this hack because it is stated in the copyright for the hack that it isn't allowed. Now since that is the case I see nothing wrong. It is like setting up a forum for someone and giving them Mod powers. The head admin's will still own/run the board in general but that mod will run their forum and subforums. There is NO difference. 1 license, 1 copy of vbulletin, and 1 database.

Dark Shogun

LOL I guess that's one way to handle it. ;)

Where did your post go Vampireman?

Drk, I understand what you are saying but it is the one or two bad apples that would use something like this for illegal purposes that they are concerned with. ;)

so where are your hacks located? Link please.

Yeah but if they are using it for illegal purposes get them not everyone. Thats just like if someone is using vbulletin illegally. :)

Dark Shogun

Can I suggest that this thread be moved to the discussion forum??????

Which post i have made too many to keep track of in this thread lol

I don't think there is anything wrong with asking for a setup fee.. hell, even a recurring fee.. it takes up space, it takes up bandwidth.. and it is also using more server resources.. the way i see it, even if you charge for hosting a sub-forum, it is not like it will be enough from one particular person to afford a vBulletin license..

of course, as a collective whole, the forum hoster may make enough, but people tend to forget, the vast majority can't afford a single license.. so if they only have to pay 5 dollars a month for someone else to bare the burden of server resources, bandwidth and the like, i see no way in hell it would effect anyone including jelsoft since the person could NOT afford a vB license otherwise.. but that is my simple logic from knowing most people can't afford hosting, support and license fees involved in maintaining a vB license themselves..

Thing about that is it is Jelsoft's and a lot of other peoples policy that if you can't afford the software you don't use the software. THAT's why this hack is being considered because people would get to use the swank features of vbulletin but they aren't paying jelsoft for it but the problem with that logic is, you can do everything that hack does without the hack it just makes it easier with the hack.

Dark Shogun

First off, I think some people are giving Wayne a very hard time. Alot of people expressed thier disatisfaction with how things were being handled at vb.org and Wayne took time out to listen to everyones feedback and is in the process of implementing a plan to make things better. This may be jelsofts repsonsibility but he as an individual is still trying to help everyone out. For that alone, he should be given at least common courtesy to do as he said, check the hack to ensure it's not breaking any liscencing agreements.

That said, ... from the moment I first saw the hack, I personally thought it was going against some of the liscencing agreements.

Is it necessarilly a bad thing? No, I dont think so. I've enteretained the idea of starting up a sister forum (which I would buy a liscence for) and I could see alot of benifit to me as an admin if I only had one set of php files to hack and an intergrated user base.

On the other hand, I can see the potential for certain abuses that would go above those of 'personal use'.

As Wayne said earlier, they are looking into the hack so let them do so. If you have a concern, share it, but please quit the whinning. It makes you all sound extremely immature and hurts the arguements your putting forth.

I'd prefer that to sounding like a butt kissing sycophant. :devious:

welp i thought about adding this to my forum and making it more limited only a few specific users could gain access just because there are items that a few on my forum need to know and not everyone and its easier to do that than make a forum make a custom group add the few people to that group... it just makes it cleaner imo.
i see both sides of the arguement... lets just hope they dont try to limit the power of our forums due to this... it is a fine line that needs to be followed on this

no doubt! I think I'll switch to the new invision when it comes out!

So going by that, would I not be violating your license to have other admins and mods on my forum?! They can access my forum and are non license holders!

i've seen some invision boards crumble under intense usage dont know if this has changed or not just something to think about.

Yep that's basically what he is saying. Should we remove all administrators from our vBulletin installations while this investigation is going on?

Well as Invision 2 is not out yet it is hard for me to test it and see if that is still the case. But I will be (as I like the option of not being forced to buy it, tons of free skins and Invision doesn't dictate what hacks I can use!)

Yeah but you have to be licensed to get staff support.

Dark Shogun

I'm wondering this myself, while this seems to be a ridiculous statement, it seems thats where it's going. I would like to see an official comment making it clear as to just how that part of the license should be read. Based on this I'm almost tempted to remove the admins from my board until this is settled.

There's some ambiguity here, but I believe as liscence holder in this context means the site of your forum.

Under the law (at least here in the US), corporations are considered entities with certain rights associated with people and as such entities are sometimes refered to in that sence. I believe in this case, using the same logic, a website would be considered an entity.

In contracts that I have seen with similiar language, there is usually a clause that states the 'services' being provided cannot be resold or provided to persons not with the customer organazition... yadda yadda yadda.

Of course, I may be wrong, only jelsoft can say for sure...

well then it is a good thing I've never had a need for their support :)

Then that brings up the question of what if I have a network of sites and have the same board for all of those sites and have different mods, supermods, and admins for each said site.

Dark Shogun

Wow...this is about the quickest I have seen a thread propogate!

Wayne, I handle copyright law all the time. There are some gray areas that may have to be dealt with (specifically the automation), but the user database, post database and everything else function off of one license. vBHosting does not grant each user their own vBulletin license, nor access to all of the features of an Admin. Simply put, it just gives our Moderators a bit more control than vBulletin saw fit to do.

I hope that instead of issuing a declaration from on high, vBulletin will look at this hack and work with the developer to ensure a great hack that adds even more functionality to an already stellar product. I for one see a great chance to allow my moderators the ability to design their own subforums, and to have access to ban people (using access masks) from their part of the site.

Please....don't jump the gun on this one.

Funny i saw this coming............ ho hum

Best post I've read in this entire thread. It truly is a great hack, and as you can see Mr. Luke's strong language has worked counterproductively. Support the creativity, it's what Vbulletin as a community has thrived upon as well. I'm completely going with SpeedStreet on this one.

Agree with both of you entirely.

LoL.
This script did already exist in a version for vb2 and many many big sites used it in the past. They made their own additions or changes to it and I am sure they will also use it in vb3.

If this is illegal then maybe we should start a list here which pages are using such a system and then see how Jelsoft acts on this.

Btw. as the author said this script is a major addition to vb3 and gives more power to it, nothing else.
Take a look on scripts like Photopost or Hivemail which are also own scripts and can be connected to vb3.
Looks like this is ok and needs no investigation cause hey, who wonders, all the guys know each other :D

Be consequent for those scripts then also or let the authors do their work.
At the moment they like vb3 and work on it but they can also switch to other software if this is not longer wanted.
Infopop did the same and take a look where they're now. From the BB Market leader to the last on the market in two years.

So please Wayne be fair end let the author show how powerful vb3 is and what for things can be done with it. This hack is a good advertisement for Jelsoft cause it brings more people to vb3.

For those sending me (and others) tons of emails and pms:

No, I will not give out the vBHosting zip file anywhere else than at vB.org and vB-Germany.com to prevent it to be used by pireated boards. This has always been a policy of my hack and will not be changed, at least not until this current problematic has been clarified.

For those running Beta 1 of the hack I will attach the security bugfix that has been part of Beta 2. Just upload it to your includes/ folder and overwrite the existing file.

Question: If I had downloaded the vBH hack before it was deleted some time later by vB team members, installed it, and since then never came back to vB.org - how would I know that I was using an "illegal" hack? How could I be reliable for something that I downloaded from a vB-supported forum?

Sadly you have just negated that possibility :)

Anyway, according to current vB.org rules, the hack was to be removed regardless of this whole issue (as trafix already pointed out).

I couldn't find where trafix posted something about this issue, however, if you mean what Zachery posted about the installer was, simply, no more true as beginning with Beta 2 the installer was part of the vBHosting zip file (which has been discussed with the vB.org staff and they stated this whould be enough to make the hack compatible to the rules).

This just proves that the current vb.org staff lacks any ability to enforce their own rules consistently.

Anyway, I think your hack is a nice piece of work. It isn't breaking the *current* vBulletin license agreement - I expect Jelsoft will be releasing future releases of vB with a new agreement that will limit this kind of hacks though...

In your original thread you said that the HTL had missing features. Might I suggest that you contact Kura to work with him to create a combination of both installers, creating an even better end-result? I know Kura is willing, and he asked me to direct you to this link: http://everythingvb.com/showthread.php?t=39

With regards...,

Look, guys, people aren't helping by spreading this "making a profit is illegal" nonsense. If you want to make money off your vBulletin board, it is perfectly legal to do so - and so it should be.

The vBHosting license itself does require that anyone using the hack does not make a profit from it but that has nothing at all to do with Jelsoft, and nothing at all to do with this discussion. This discussion is purely about the legality of the hack according to Jelsoft's published licensing agreement - which is a factual, legal thing, and not something which Jelsoft get to "decide".

I don't think so. The rule (as they told me) exists to make sure nobody has to download one hack just to install another one. Combining vBHosting and vBHMS to one hack simply lets you download one hack which contains an installer, not more and not less...

Yes, you may be right. However that rules are not here now and so there was no reason to delete the hack thread. It's that simple for me.

Kura already contacted me. We'll see what happens to vBHosting and then we'll see if I have time for HTL ;)

I think the point that needs to be clarified here is what this hack does versus what people think the possibilities of a violation are.

vbHosting simply adds additional subroutines to your forum. Without the automated part of the hack, this gives me, the Administrator, the ability to create a new subforum whilst automatically creating a new style for that subforum. Now, I can appoint an "admin" to the forum that can modify ONLY buttons and styles.

How is this hack not incredible?

Ok, now let's dive into the license agreement in question, thereby resolving this beyond any reasonable shadow of a doubt:

In no manner of speaking does vBhosting recreate an additional software instance. The hack itself should be more aptly named "SuperSubForums"

As "The Software" has been determined to still be in the sole possesion of the Administrator of the existing site, and new "admins" do not have access to the source code (without additional renumerations from the aforementioned Administrator), this bullet point is also not subject to the issue at hand

There isn't anything within the terms of this agreement that would hold a product such as vBhosting in violation.

For posterity purposes, I will post the rest of the agreement:


Now, believe it or not, the second to last line, "Jelsoft reserves the right to modify these terms at any time." will not hold up in most United States Courts when it comes to contractual agreements. The only time an agreement can be altered in an instance when goods or services are bartered or purchased is when said agreement comes to the table again. In this instance, the license agreement can ONLY be altered if you have to make a payment on a lease or if you are purchasing an additional unit, and then only that unit is subject to the new agreement. This flaw (or feature) is known throughout the world as a "Grandfather clause" and is the source of many a copyrighter's nightmare.

I would continue my diatribe of contractual law and corporate ethics 101, but it is 5 am here and I have gotten very little done on my own board this evening. I hope this post has been somewhat enlightening.

I think that's actually a good rule...How long will it take you to whip up a text installer?

Excuse me for going offtopic in this thread again, but I just have to point out that this merely shows how the average vb.org user (mayhaps even staffmember???) does NOT understand the current rules - note that I could be the one confused; I'm as much an average user as you :).

Anyway, what you say implies that hackers are now allowed to release HTL releases PROVIDED they include the HTL in their zip - which is ofcourse far from desireable; dozens of different HTL versions floating around everywhere. That is, where it not for the fact that each release should include a textfile with instructions - as the ever evasive rules dictate.

Let me stress that it is not my desire to point you wrong, but to show how horribly confusing and erratic the current vb.org staff governs this site.

Again with regards...,