Man, I couldn't have said that any better, lol.

It looks so good. :(

Just a note, Jelsoft already does prohibit one hack, and no one has ever had a problem with it before.


Also try buying a new laptop online ;)

They are classifed as a possible highly dangerous weapon :)

not true, theirs quite a few people with a problem about the lockdown hack as theirs quite a lot of very legitimate and responsible uses for it.

Most people accepct it, for the fact that it can be used and most oftenly is used for this reason.

i accept theirs no changing jelsofts mind, i couldn't be bothered about whether they're right or wrong, maybe one day when i wanna use the hack till then though :rolleyes: but none the less theirs a different between
and i mean even some of the site members have stated theirs legit uses for the hack. i personally would be interested in the effect it would have on debate forums, would people be less inclinded to go with the dominant flow? would it make debates more interesting? would it kill off debates completely? etc, etc, but that's all off topic :nervous:

I wonder if that is an accurate statement that 'most people accept it'

or if it is just they are pretty much forced into silence about it here.

I know I don't accept it (but neither do I need it or use it either). This is just another example of strongarm tactics being selectively applied to something because it is simply possible to abuse it or because it is viewed as unpopular by TPTB (the powers that be).

You're missing the point.

My point was that almost anything can be considered to have a negative aspect depending on the viewpoint. To sit her and say that one modification over another has a more nefarious use puts Jelsoft in the realm of governing the content that people provide on their purchased product.

Those who run vBulletin.org reserve the right to refuse the publishing of a hack at any time, because you are providing a service to the public. However, saying a hack violates a license agreement is a different thing entirely, and Jelsoft can be taken to court for this. They are providing a good with a limited contract. They are not providing a service in which they can govern terms of usage.

As for the lockdown hack, which I was carefully trying to avoid, this is an instance in which Jelsoft has danced on the line of right and wrong. To my knowledge, you can install the lockdown hack, but you cannot publish that hack here or discuss it. This hack does have many good uses (like my hammer), but because Jelsoft has decided to focus on the negative, they have chosen to ban it in every way that they could.

After seeing twelve pages of rebuttals to Wayne's response...I would urge Jelsoft to reconsider their "review" of this hack...It looks like it could be a deadly corner they are backing themselves into. The last thin you want is your embeded constituency lashing out on all of those forums throughout the Internet where people ask, "which forum software should I buy?"

Are there any changes that could be made to the hack to make it more palatable for Jelsoft?

For example, what if only existing moderators had access to add/modify subforums? That would require the admin to manage his/her moderating staff and would take out an element of the moderation.

I think the majority agrees that the elements of this hack that allow mods to modify their subforums is extremely valuable. So, is it possible to modify the hack to include those options, or is Jelsoft against the entire idea?

-Chad

I'd also like to thank all of you that have shown support for my responses in this thread. It's good to know that people are actualyl reading what I type.

My entire life (and even the company I am a part of that uses our vBulletin installation) is dedicated to helping others. When I see an instance of a stifled growth or oppression of an opinion, it tends to kick my afterburners on.

I want all of you to know that if we keep this discussion civil, and present facts over feelings, that we can hopefully win this battle yet. I think that for what its worth, Jelsoft is not some big company governed by cold-hearted people, and that they look at situations like this objectively.

For every 1 nefarious use of a hack, there will be 20 of us that put it to good use, making vBulletin look *that* much better!

i think that's a very fair compromise :)

You are missing the most important point here. There is no battle because we have no one we could "fight" against. They have removed the thread, and end. There is no official statement except what Wayne has written, saying we may get an official statement in about a week. Which is a week to much. Until then we can't do anything, and I fear until then we will be completely powered out (may this be Jelsofts strategy?).

Technically it would be possible, but it would not make it better for our point of view and for Jelsofts one. You can simply remove the administrators and give moderators access to the HostingCP. Many sites that do forum hosting do it that way. However this would mean that every moderator of a forum can modify its forums, and I don't want that everyone can do this. The other thing is that it would not reduce the problem Jelsoft has with the hack - if you call them administrator or moderator does not change what the system does.

I think the question was more towards a simple: if usergroupid = moderator or great then show vbhosting.php else you don't have permission to view this page.

This would prevent normal users from trying to ask for a forum...only your moderators could do so.

vBHosting is a system that allows normal users to create forums. What you say would be a complete destruction of the system. This would be as if you take the Welcome Panel hack and say, it may be delivered and may do everything it does, it just may not output a welcome panel...

It also would not make sense. You can archieve the same result by creating an administrator with low permissions.

I think the most important thing to realize here, GameCrash, is that if we expect Jelsoft to be flexible on this matter, than perhaps we as the users should meet them halfway.

While from a legal standpoint I cannot condone the banning of a code modification, I do understand their concern about providing an automated system where ANY user can simply signup and create their own forum. Logistically speaking, this could pose problems for many users that simply aren't experienced in running sites.

I think we need to review the great capabilities of this hack, and decide where we can make comprimises to appease the Jelsoft team. An outright ban of the hack is VERY bad, but saying that they will work with us would be a step in the right direction.

They are not saying they will work with us. They are not saying anything. And until then it would be a great mistake to make any compromises like that.

This one line causes the vBHosting hack to break the license agreement.

Even if you don't think it breaks the letter of license agreement, it is certainly contrary to the spirit of the license agreement, which is one license for one board.

Why does vBulletin support the creation of multiple boards if this is not allowed?

They don't. The only time you are permitted to have multiple installations is a private testing site.

This is a brilliant hack, that i have been using since it was released. It has also brought Forum moralle up

If you define a board as a installation of vBulletin, you are right. However, in that case, vBHosting does not create a board, just a subforum...

Another question to Kier, now as you are here: Do you archive support requests done via your support system?

we had wayne remove the hack now the developer replies - i dont think we need wait a week for their decision as reading this thread its clear to see where this is going

Nowhere.

No court I know of would the "spirit" of the license agreement ever hold up.

By the terms and definitions set forth in the License agreement, it is decided that "The Software" is one installation, on database, one server, one domain. Since vBHosting conforms to that standard (New "Forums" are actually subforums, Using the same installation, same database, same server and same domain) therefore is not in violation of any license agreement.

I really hate to be the stick in the mud, Kier. I support everything you do. But when it comes to the letter of the law, I have to be honest.

Please dont private message me to ask for this hack , i have asked the author about passint it on & he has said no. I will abide by his decision.

Also the files are on my scsi hard-drive that just failed, so even if he said yes it's impossible to get to them now.

wow i go away for afew days and miss all theis.....

OK well i agree with most here i guess (even tho iv not seen the hack) it doesnt sound in JS interest. I also think that JS have a right to investigate the hack IF they feel it may be breaking copyright or whatever, it also protects the hacker and everyone who has installed it. If they have gone about this in the wrong way fine be angry but dont be angry about a company protecting its interests, this is a business not a free fun game at the end of the day.

Can you define "board"?

That one line you quoted only relates to the license itself .... the vbhosting hack does not lease, rent, or give out "vb licenses" to anyone. This hack only enhances the functionality that is already there.

If and only if the administrator of the board (owner of license) allows/creates domain redirection than this is in violation of license.
just my .02 cents

Now the real question... would this hack have gone through so much controversy if it wasn't named VBHosting Hack? ;)

YES! The original concern is that the hack requires another hack to install it (not the HTL) .... and did not include txt install instructions ... this is still an issue regarding the HTL

I quite like the name SuperSubForums mentioned earlier in the thread. ;)

But seriously, I hope this hack gets put back up. As the customers of Jelsoft, who paid for the software, we shouldn't be penalized as people who want to legally use this hack, I see know problem with it, and SpeedStreet's posts are great sources that this hack doesn't violate the license agreement.

I was gonna download this hack when it was going to be released as a stable version but now, I can't.

The name of this hack is ambigiuous. When you imply hosting and vBulltin in the title, it gives the impression as if you were allowing others the ability to host their own vBs; clearly against the license. With such a title, this hack asked for Jelsoft's attention.

I've never heard of this hack until I read parts of this thread, and I'm not 100% sure as to how it works. When you say sub-forums, I assume you mean categories on your forums that you allow moderators to control? Certainly not an actual subforum--meaning sub-vBulletin system, for that obviously voids the license.

In the former case, I see nothing wrong with the hack, but I know not of all the details and Jelsoft's justifications. (nor do I really care about this whole argument since the hack itself is unappealing to me, but it's something to read I guess).

Actually, this is exactly what the hack does. It allows every person on a site running this to create their own sub-community with a unique look and feel, control over their members, multiple forums and so forth.

It is a lot more than simply creating a forum on an installation.

No, you are confusing two issues.

One is an issue with vBulletin.org policies
One is an issue with JelSoft's license.

This hack (I have it and have been testing it) simply creates a new Forum within your existing forum. It uses the same db, same php files...same everything.

When you go into your admincp, the new forum appears just like all the rest.

I think you need to check your facts.

It merely automates processes already existing in the vBulletin software.

Look and feel? This is accomplished by creating a child style, and giving the moderator the abililty to modify it. The only really neat feature is the ability to upload your own buttons.

Control over their members? Not quite. Members still have to register with the same domain and website. Members come from the same exact database as the rest of the site. The only option is the ability to manipulate the user mask of the forum the moderator is in charge of, effectively being able to ban them from that specific forum.

There have still been alot of accusations, but there has still been no valid reason for Jelsoft to ban this hack. If you are unwilling to read my previous posts where I made my points, then perhaps this arguement is moot.

I'm holding back one very critical and possibly damaging point concerning the licensing agreement. I'm very interested to hear an official statement from Jelsoft before I continue any further.

Hmm, that certainly shifts my judgement.

Your vBulletin license is applicable to one installation of vBulletin under your identity, and if you're allowing others to replicate your vBulletin under their name, it violates the policy of having a vBulletin without having a license. If you say the user is using your license, then that violates the rule where the installed vBulletin pertains to only the purchaser of the license.

Those of you with complaints of how having multiple administrators is in violation to the license--well, it isn't, because there is only 1 vBulletin in question there. When you create more than 1 vBulletin with unlicensed administrators, then things are in obvious concern.

The main argument provided against Jelsoft seems to be that this hack doesn't cross any boundaries, and isn't a "whole" vBulletin, but simply utilizies a portion.

To what significance is this portion in regard to vBulletin as a whole?

Well, this hack clearly seems to perform the principle feature of vBulletin--a system for creating and managing forums.

In this affect it goes against the license.

And what would happen, if this is extremely limited? e. g. only one forum/subforum/whatever per topic, only, chosen persons to manage them and so on? There won't be any automation then, compared to rapidforum.com, EZboard & Co. where everyone could just create a forum in no time ...

well from what i've seen there is still 1 database/vbull install and this is the same as the administrator(s) issue. the new forum is a subsection of the forum just giving the given catagory more specialization/automation so if a forum user sees the need it can be added with admin either accepting or deneying it. this whole thing has been beat to death already with this much discussion from us alone is either a good or bad sign.
speed street i'm glad you understand the legalities maybe vb will higher you to redefine their agreement
1 week timeframe is long enough for this to die and them sweep the hack under the rug just my opinion there

To that effect, than any subforum you create and allow someone else to run with you is in direct violation.

Without testing the hack, it is impossible for you to make any type of judgement or informed opinion. The hack adds additional tables ot the database in order to allow for additional functionality for categories (also known as subforums). You are not appointing new administrators, merely enabling a moderator to have additional control over how the content is displayed in the forum areas of their responsibility.

The problem here is obviously the logistics of the naming convention being used

A vbHost Admin = A vB Moderator
A vbHost Forum = A vB SubForum
A vbHost Style = A vB child style
A vbHost Ban = a vB Access Mask
A vbHost User = an existing vB User
A vBHost Forum Creation Request = A vB Request for additional content which that person is offering to lead.

I run a 501c3 charity. Part of my site deals with locations throughout the world. The subforums in question are only created when there is a justification for them. Essentially, these forums are run by the Moderators appointed to govern them, and I give them the choice as to how they want their subcategories they want. At the current time, they PM me their requests, and I research whether or not it is a prudent idea.

According to the inferences in this thread, I am in direct violation of the license agreement for what would be considered User Demand/Driven Content.

You can't have it both ways. Either I am in the wrong, or vBHosting is in the right.

My concern is that even though I am approaching this in a benign and innocent fashion, I can definitely see a surge of even more final fantasy boards spawning off additional boards because people don't understand the ramifications. We'll have hundreds of boards throughout the vBLand with 8,000 forums and 400 posts because every jerkass in the world will want to rule their own little section.

Given the choice between governance and self-reliance, the human tendency is to want to go your own way.

That being said, I am thoroughly concerned about the issues that the License Agreement poses. There is not enough verbiage to prohibit this type of behavior, and I would be more than happy to sit down with the group and analyze the loopholes. I understand Jelsoft's desire to KISS (Keep It Simple Stupid) but the possibility of litigation has been left wide open on several accounts.

I strongly urge GameCrash to go back to the drawing board and rework this hack to ensure that only limited users have access to forum creation. I think that the backend for forum manipulation is very powerful, and could be salvaged as a tremendous tool for all vBulletin users in the future.

I would like to hear from Jelsoft what they think a good comprimise would be. Thus far, this is the only way Moderators are able to add functionality to their parts of the board without being given explicit admin access.

If these subforums are for the purposes of your international organization then you are not against the license agreement. If however you are creating forums for additional organizations and therefore sub-licensing vBulletin, then you are violating the license.

That is where the line is drawn. If this hack required people to be staff of the organization through moderator positions or administrator appointments, then there would be nothing wrong with it because it is a single installation on a single domain with a single organization and is not sub-licensing the software. However since it allows any registrant to in effect create their own community with unlimited control of how many forums, the look and feel of the forum, links back to their independant website and control over who can post and not post in the forum (via banning privileges), it violates the sub-licensing portion of the licensing agreement. And before you state that I should look at the hack and install it, I have it installed and I have looked at the code and I know exactly what it does.

It allows vBulletin License holder to issue defacto sub-licenses so that others can use the software. Even has a place where you can state your terms and conditions of their use of a license that a License holder has no right to grant..