yeah.. but sadly they can keep you from getting your hands on it if they don't want it on their site(s)..

i disagree 1000% percent with the idea this hack is illegal, against the LA, or will do jelsoft harm.. what is doing the harm here, at least in my opinion, is the oppression of certain things based on someone elses understanding, or lack there of, of the current LA and no real clarification of things for days or weeks at a time..

Wayne just gave the answer folks.

1. The website entity owns the VB license. In other words, the license belongs to "MyWebsite Club", running vb as forums.mywebsite.com. Be sure to write by-laws and/or a constitution and elect the minimum officers required by law, normally a President, VP and secretary. Treasurers are required if money is exchanged (ie membership dues)

2. As part of the registration, members agree that they are also members of "MyWebSite Club". Now they are part owner of the VB license, since it is owned by the entity, not an individual. A single individual is merely the point-of-contact.

3. Any club member in good standing, as dictated by the by-laws can create any number of sub-forums. Any look and feel and any topic. It is not a license violation since they are part owner.

And that is that.

I just did and guess what? If you go to court and try to claim this sublicenses VB, you will get your head handed to you by the judge.

Can I manage smilies, avatars, PM, users, calendars? Can I turn off searches? No on all accounts.

I find it laughable that anyone would claim this very, very limited functionality is a relicense or sublicense.

YOU INSULT OUR INTELLIGENCE.

If, by providing us access to a working hack you hoped to make your point, you fell woefully short. You only exposed the weakness of your assertion.

With the test board that, according to the LA, he can run on a server not available to the public.

I don't understand why you guys are getting so worked up over this hack, jelsoft has a right to pull anything posted on this site if they belive it violates the licensed agreement, they have stated that the hack will be reviewed and a answer come soon.

VB made thier decision and expressed the concerns they had and are willing to work with the creator of the hack to modify the code so its suitable for every ones needs and interests. Aside from whinning what do you hope to gain by this?

All the more reason for a VB Hackers community not under Jelsoft's thumb.

Personally I find the fact that they pulled it weak. BUT as was claimed here it is their site so let them do what they want with it. Having the creator of that hack remake it or edit a lot of stuff is just plain wrong in my opinion and stifles the creativity of the creator.

Wait I just came up with an idea. Why not pass all hacks that are made from now on through vbulletin.com's staff so they can approve it before everyone else sees it that way nothing like this will EVER happen again.

Dark Shogun

/agree.

Just to play devils advocate,... since it is a copyright violation for anyone to share the vbulletin code, don't you think that jelsoft could shut down a hack site if they felt that particular site was stretching the spirit of the agreement?

I think alot of people need to learn the value of compromising. When you draw a hard line in the sand then that forces the other party to take an equally hard stance... in the end thats unpleasant for everyone where-as a willingness to work with each other fosters harmony and help everyone reach thier mutal goals faster.

Very well said and I agree 100%. ;)

Actually you insult your own intelligence and until such time as you can actually act as a Human Being, I reserve the right to totally disregard anything you say.

I am actually interested in working a way out so this hack is available...

This could definately be a possibility. At the very least it would allow quality control.

QA is one of the main things that we hopt to focus on at EVB once we finalise the details :)

lol. hi, you don't know me, but i found that amusing. and yes, i like shiny things. :)

going back to the topic, i don't see what all the fuss is about though i can't fault jelsoft for being overly cautious. i just hope that they come to their senses and realize the immense positives that can come from this hack not only for jelsoft but the site owners and communities everywhere that are proud to use vB.

Dream on. :)

That sounds like a great idea to me. Maybe they could fix all of my mistakes that I usually make in a hack BEFORE it is released and I could learn from them. ;)

*gets off topic*

Wow..I cant believe I just read all 18 pages. Its like reading a murder/mystery novel and getting to the end to find you dont get to know who killed the bulter.

I hope a compromise can be found without losing too much of the hack. Would love to use this hack as well.

Well the outcome is in Jelsofts hands :) As far as I can see they are trying to negotiate the best solution for everyone ....

SO to those who still want to protest ...

Build a bridge and get over it!

Kier, the whole point of licensing agreements is related to the letter of the agreement. That's why you have them. If you have a licensing agreement, you don't get to waffle on about nebulous "spirit" and such.

If Jelsoft don't want to be bound by and adhere to a licensing agreement, then they shouldn't create one.

I licensing agreement's raison d'etre is to make is plain and clear what the obligations of both parties are. That is what Jelsoft has chosen to do. Now Jelsoft doesn't get to complain about actions taken by people which are within the terms of the agreement: you certainly wouldn't be so lenient with people who violated the agreement - so what on earth makes you think that any other party to the agreement is going to be?

You have to realise that many of the licensees you deal with here are businesses, just like you. They don't enter into licensing agreements lightly, and they expect you to hold up your end. There are some big, big companies using vBulletin - you go to, say, Hasbro (which uses vBulletin, e.g. http://www.wizards.com/default.asp?x...boards/welcome) and try to tell them that they can't do things permitted by the license because it's against the "sprit" of it and see what happens. These companies regularly enter into licensing agreements with the likes of LucasArts, Pokemon and such), and they take such things very, very seriously.

It's not even a moral issue here. Some of us run businesses just like you do; we make agreements with other businesses because it is in our long-term (financial) interests to do so. If the license had prohibited what you're implying you believe it prohibits, we would not have entered into those agreements, because it would not have been in our long-term interests. As it is, we have an agreement with you, and we fully expect Jelsoft to hold up its end of the agreement.

If you want to debate "community issues", morality and fairness, stop charging for the product and release free software. When you start taking money, you find yourself in a different league.

18 pages? This is crazy.

Jelsoft should bring out an official statement and don't wait so long.
They have a license agreement and in my opinion the hack is not against it, so what?

Wayne, this is where you're going wrong.

You're fixating on the issue of creating new "communities". However, that nebulous term is not part of the licensing agreement which everyone here read, agreed to and then paid for. Communities are irrelevant.

Your licensing agreement refers specifically to the software, and the distribution/leasing/sale thereof. The software is what has been licensed, and Jelsoft has very deliberately entered into a specific, binding agreement with those people who purchase such a license.

If licenses were flexible artifacts, where the licensors/licensees were able to enforce "spirit", interpret the terms how they chose and so forth, then the whole concept of licenses would break down. That's not what a license is, and that's not what it's for.

Everyone here expects you to enforce the license (according to the letter), and everyone here has no doubt that Jelsoft would not hesitate to do so were it to see someone actually violating that license. That's not a problem, and nobody is going to argue against that. But, the flip side of a licinsing situation, is that the licensee is going to do the same thing.

It seems to me that Jelsoft need to completely revise their licensing strategy so that it meets their aims more adequately. Right now, they are in the position where they have accepted money from people, and are bound specifically by the terms under which they accepted that money, in the same way that those people are bound specifically by the terms under which they purchased their licenses.

The hack will be published, if not here, than somewhere else. I just won't do that until it has been officially banned from vBulletin.org as I want to be sure that the one downloading the hack is a licensed vBulletin customer which I can't be anywhere else.

I know that hack is at least legal in Germany so it's no problem for me to release it...

No, vBulletin Germany didnt have the authorization to tell you it was legal, Kiers word is the final decision on it.

I'm sorry, but I'm going to have to say this again. Kier's word is not the final decision on anything. The most Jelsoft can do is issue an opinion as to what they believe is legal or not legal under their license, and then other parties can take whatever action they feel appropriate, depending on how confident they are of their own legal standing.

Any assertions otherwise indicate a very fundamental misunderstanding of how the law works in relation to licensing agreements. And someone who doesn't understand such things really shouldn't be dabbling in them (or should employ a lawyer who can handle it for them).

If jelsoft bans a hack of this nature it would not be allowed to be distributed on any of the offical vBulletin / Jelsoft websites. It is Jelsofts final call on their own websites.

Ah, we have a communication issue.

I thought you were refering to use of the hack; in fact you were refering to distribution of it on Jelsoft's websites. In that case, we are in agreement,

Again, this is wrong. The only "final word" can come from a judge. That "final word" must be sought by Jelsoft. The burden of proof to receive that "final word" belongs to Jelsoft. Any area of ambiguity will be interpretted by the courts in favor of the the defendant, ie not Jelsoft. Should Jelsoft loose in court - which is likely - then they not only have pay their own legal costs, but also those of the defendant. Moreover, they face the prospect of civil suit damages far in excess of actual cost.

All the while, this issue will damage Jelsoft's reputation with other customers and potential customers. The performance/feature gap between Jelsoft and Invision is not so great that it makes doing business with a draconian company palatable. In fact, that is the largest reason why NFL teams like the Philadelphia Eagles and San Francisco 49ers chose IPB over VB.

Many thanks to Wayne for allowing us to view this hack first hand. Anyone who sees for themselves the complete lack of features available in the hack's Control Panel can see first hand how this is nowhere near a "sublicense".

What Jelsoft need to do now is this (and this is what I'd be doing in their situation, because I agree that this hack is not good for them!):

1) Change the license now. At the very least, all new licensees will be bound by the new terms. Make sure you incorporate a defined concept of a "community" and the licensee's rights in sub-assigning such things. Make sure you include any restrictions you wish to include regarding how people can generate revenue using the software (at present, there is no restriction other than that of selling/distributing the software).

2) Make sure that anyone renewing a leased license agrees to the new terms upon renewal.

There will be a problem for them in that some people will be using the old license (either temporarily, in case of a leased licensed, or permanently in case of an owned license). But these measures will help.

I can't remember offhand the structure of the members area as connected with licenses, but access to the members area (and thus upgrades) is connected to a yearly renewal, is it not? That's another opportunity to change terms.

What will happen is that the majority of people, within a year or so, will be bound by the new terms. A select few with owned licenses will choose to stick with what they have (and forego upgrades and so forth); these people will probably be those comfortable with hacking their boards anyway, and to whom an upgrade would probably be more hassle than it's worth.

While it seems the issue of distributing this hack has been setteled based on the last couple posts, I would still like a better explanation of just what that clause in the license represents. It seems there is a great deal of confusion, perhaps if Jelsoft released a somewhat more detailed statement it would help clear up the legel issues.

No, it would only help clear up Jelsoft's opinions. I'd happily release an (equally valid) opinion of what the clause means, but, frankly, that would also just be an opinion.

As FASHerman says, above, if Jelsoft wish to assert that it means something other than what I think it means, in a manner more than just saying "well, umm, this is what we think", they need to assert it according to proper legal process. In other words, they need to take action against someone using the hack; however, I wouldn't recommend to them that they do that, for reasons stated previously by various people. :)

There is two debates going on here, and it seems there is a fair amount on confusion about which everybody is talking about. There is the issue of if it's legel & if it will be distributed here.

Based on the comments made by Jelsoft reprsenitives obviously they have decieded about the distrobution issue. This is thier site, they chose what to allow and what not to, that simple. Even if it is someday found to be within the confines of the license they still have the right to not allow it, thats their chose, this is their site.

So you are banning the hack, yes?

Nope its not end of matter.
If we all took someones word at face value then we would never get anything sorted.This aint just about the hack it has deeper Issues for everyone who buys a vb license and how jelsoft controls what we are allowed to use.19 pages because one hack is removed goes to show that people are not happy with the situation.

Problem with vb is there is 2 diversions - the die hard vb fanatics who believe that anything said is solid and then you have those who are only interested in releasing hacks or helping others.
If the hack is allowed you would use it if u needed it would`nt you ? so all you lot saying waynes word is final it aint as GameCrash said if its banned here he will release it elsewhere and because of that the hack will be a sought after one just because Jelsoft decided to ban it in the first place.
Remember if we all roll over and die nothing would ever get sorted so sometimes people need to come together like this to clear the air.

I run a small site and even if I was doing something that was later proved to be legal, a very short legal battle would destroy my company. I can't afford to get cought up in a legal fight over something like this, I would rather see their legal opinion and abide by that, then not know and accedently do something to get myself sued.

(BTW: No, I'm not running this hack, I'm just trying to get some answers for future refference)

I'm not using it, either. Just interested in the topic. :)

Anyway, I wouldn't recommend that a small business get involved in any legal tests (although Jelsoft aren't exactly a giant). Leave it to the bigger boys. It only takes one instance for the legal precedence to happen.

I don't think there's much danger of it happening, anyway. I'm pretty sure I know what Jelsoft will eventually say, although weirder things have happened...

• I am not talking about distribution, I am talking about legality
• I am not talking about what either the Jelsoft staff or the Adduco staff sys, I am talking about laws
• I had written permission from both, vB.com and vB-Germany.com - it's just the problem that I can't no more access this at vB.com as I don't have any license left there.
• If Kier has any decision on what vB-Germany.com does with its customers and its licenses depends on the internal agreement between both. However, as a customer, internal agreements are irrelevant for me, the only relevant thing is what the ones I have a contract with say. This is (at least German) law.

Never let the fear of legal costs keep you from pursuing your rights. Take this situation, as an example. First, Jelsoft would have to file suit against you. As the defendent, you have certain legal rights. One is to be compensated for the cost of your defense if Jelsoft fails to make their case. Secondly, you are entitled to countersue for damages to your good name. Just making an accusation of software piracy is highly damaging to those of us in the IT industry, even if we prevail in court.

A good lawyer will see just how fragile Jelsoft's claim is and may agree to take the case on a contingency basis. That is, if you loose, you pay the lawyer nothing, but if you win, Jelsoft pays the legal fees, plus the lawyer gets 20-30% of the damage award from the countersuit.

This type of arrangement is much more common than you might believe.

That's why I'm asking the questions now :)

Incidentally, those who are having moral issues with this hack (as opposed to legal issues) should glance at this thread:

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=54327

It makes it clear that Jelsoft are willing to enforce license terms to the letter, even against someone harmlessly using a "test site". That's fine - it's their right, and it is clear in the license agreement that one cannot do that. But I don't see a moral quandry here should I find myself in a position where I might want to do something permitted by the license but which is against Jelsoft's interests.

Licenses work both ways. :)