I don't think this thread is the right place to post feature suggenstions ;)

By the way, I'm getting many mails and pms from people asking if I could send them a copy of vBHosting. Please stop this. I won't answer you. This won't change until either Jelsoft makes an official decision or if they don't do this until then, exactly one week after the original thread has been deleted.

glad to hear you will still make this available.. i am looking very forward to this hack once i upgrade to gold.. need for several hacks to come on out before my license expires in april.. after that, not sure if i will be back for another year long soap opera under the guise of license agreements..

If Jelsoft decided to sue for redistributing this hack, then could go after you for redistributing copyrighted code which the defendee wouldn't be able to defend. The amguity in the liscence regarding the context of this hack would never even be heard.

As for the Hasbro arguement... they would have bought a second or a third or even a tenth liscence. Thier corporate lawyers have a better understanding both the spirity and the letter of the agreement and for a multimillion dollar company, spending an extra $60 bucks or so for another liscence isnt even something to think about.

For that matter... Hasbro likely wouldn't want an administrator creating unlimited forums and changing the themes around and such, nor would I.

I think its best to wait and see what Kier and everyone says. :) again.... or did they ?

I think you missed my point. My point related to the concept of trying to enforce a license based on its "spirit", and how little effect that would have when dealing with anyone who knows what they are doing. Hasbro was just an example of someone Jelsoft wouldn't go to with their "spirit" argument, and my point is that if they wouldn't go to Hasbro with such an argument, then they shouldn't be going to Joe Smallsite with the argument.

Just is the official statement made, and I'd stick with it and I don't see a reason to change it until a valid point is provided to correct his words. I think it is settled now and we can all go back to our daily life again.

One of the recurrent themes in this Thread is the notion that Jelsoft is not taking into account all of the ramifications of it's actions in regards to this vBHosting hack. I would be willing to wager that they have given the matter far more consideration than those who advocate circumventing Jelsoft's wishes - which could have a profound effect on the way future versions of vBulletin are developed, released, and supported. I for one give no credence to the assertion that Jelsoft is trying to prevent any reasonable use of it's software. Despite all manner of adversity, including the dDoS attacks, server crash with inadequate host support, and continual bombardment from the naysayers, vB3 is here in final form and is quite the accomplishment. Jelsoft is a business, a software development corporation - just because they are accessable and responsive to their customers doesn't mean they are your buddies - they do what they do to be able to continue to provide the vBulletin we all want.

Sure, I agree completely. And we do what we need to do to continue to provide our own websites, even if those actions are not in Jelsoft's interests. Our own communities come first.

Jelsoft needs to look after its own interests, of course. We have to look after our own interests. That's the nature of doing business, unfriendly though it sounds.

Ok Wayne Luke or Kier throw the cards on the table. Which of these are you saying?

1. This hack (as it is currently) isn't allowed to be downloaded here.

OR

2. This hack (as it is currently) isn't allowed to be downloaded here AND can't be installed on any board.

Dark Shogun

I believe my post shortly after Kier made his statement completely refutes his claim.

Look, we can go on about this round and round.

#1 Having vB Staff approval for all hacks would doom this product.
#2 Jelsoft has agreed to work out a comprimise on this hack. If the author is unwilling, then he is as guilty as Jelsoft for thinking it was a good idea to just ban this hack outright in the first place. Drawing any type of hard line in the sand (as put forth by another contributor) is bad for all parties involved.
#3 The license agreement will have to be revisited at a later date. Its obvious that there are many flaws in it, including a VERY large loophole they have left wide open.
#4 Oh, and those of you talking about starting a new hack site (you know who you are), I will avidly support a boycott of that site, and do everything in my power to ensure it doesn't fly. I will not condone a site that is being designed as a vbulletin.org alternative simply so that you can begin to charge for hacks. One of the great things about vBulletin is that most hacks are free. Try getting a macromedia extension for dreamweaver nowadays...they all used to be free, now they all cost money...I cannot willingly support something like that.

You have no idea what you are talking about.

Jelsoft permits hacking their code and have even dedicated a website for the exchange of those hacks. They CANNOT selectively enforce a ban on hacking. If they tried to sue someone for distributing a hack because the "CHANGE THIS" part of the instructions contained code snipets protected by copyright, they would be tossed out of court in a New York minute. The only defense needed would be to give the judge the URL to this site.

Their attitude may do that just as easily.

The hacker has no driving reason to engage in a compromise. He believes the code does not violate the LA. Jelsoft believes it does. The burden of proof is on Jelsoft. They may be able to curtail distribution through this site, but that is all they can do outside of a courtroom.

They can revise it all they want, but it won't affect anyone with an owned license prior to the change. Their ownship remains under the LA in place at the time of pruchase. Nor will it affect a leased license until the renewal date following the revision.

Who said we advocate charging for such a site? Is this your first and blatantly obvious attempt at discrediting such a site? I think we need a VB hacks site completely independent of Jelsoft's draconian overlord policy.

Fasherman,

If this legal endevor took place here in the states, the DMCA (as much as I hate it) would make it even easier for Jelsoft to get it shut down. Yes, Jelsoft can enforce this because only liscenced users are able to view the code alterations here at vb.org. Joe off the street does not have access to that copyrighted information as they would on a third party hack site. This is trivial. My arguement was simply to proove that in a court of law, Jelsoft would have a leg to stand on.

Now, if this made it to a court of law, would that really benifit anyone? No. Thats untold amounts of time and aggrivation for everyone involved. Ultimately that hurts us because thats time that could be better spent making vbulletin better.

My final thoughts on this is that there needs to be compromise.

I think we all recognize vbulletin as a quality product since we've all purchased it and are using it. What makes our forums better are the hacks we're now using for it, some of which we've probably obtained here at vb.org.

If we wanted to draw a hard line in the sand and not give an inch, then Jelsoft may decide a site like vb.org is more hassle than its worth and close it down. Would that hurt thier business? Yes. Would it hurt us? Yes.

Obviously there is mutual benifit to having an active and growing hacking community since it promotes thier product, making it more desireable, and makes our own lives easier or better with the add-ons we find here. Its a symbiotic relationship were all benifit.

If they decide that out of the hundreds of hacks that have been created and posted here, that 1 should be revised a bit so it complies with the spirit of the liscence, that is not a huge compromise to make. In return, we have had Jelsoft listen to our feedback just days before this started about the changes we felt were needed here on vb.org. Thats compromise.

i remeber a time when john was just some guy on the infopop ubb boards talking about a php based forum package he was working on. infopop continually refused to implement features that had been requested (and promised) time and time again. thats what vbulletin was borne of. how long have we been waiting for jelsoft to release a vb version that actually works the way most of us use our forums? clan forum hosting is big part of vb, and many of us have been waiting AGES AND AGES AND AGES for jelsoft to make this sort of thing less of a pain. if vb3 allowed an option to allow forum mods to select colors, buttons, and a header.gif i would have no use for this hack. but, just like infopop, you let the releases go and go while never implementing this functionality. where's infopop today?

i will be installing this hack, and i am confident that i am well within my legal rights to do so.

There is no "spirit" of the license. Licenses are strictly interpreted agreements. In areas of ambiguity, the law always makes the presumption in favor of the person that did not author the license, in short, us.

Thats the way the legal system works. If Jelsoft cannot find a violation of the literal words contained in the license agreement, they have no legal standing.

Their whole argument consists of loose interpetation, on their part, of sublicensing. It would be clear to anyone who viewed the hack CP that there is no sublicensing issue.

EDIT: I know my post is long, but if your viewing this message, please read it. Pretty much poured my heart out into what I said, and I really mean it, but for both this issue and a lot of other issues, I make a good point at the end if you want to skip the whole "Music Industry" analogy.

This quote is from like... page 2, but anyways. I know this has been said HUNDREDS of times, but restatting the point. On my forum, I have just under 75 sub-forums, in over 15 categories. To save space, I used this hack to assign each category an actual forum. This is because our company has 5 different subsidiaries, and each of those has its own group of subsidiaries. Charging people for virtual VB THAT IS ILLEGAL. It clearly says you cant resell or rent out space. So, yes, thats where the liability is. But its just like the thousands of pirated VB's out there. we dont know they are pirated until we catch them, and we dont know if someone is using this hack to do what you said unless we catch them. Even though we know there are so many pirated copies, that doesnt stop Jelsoft from distributing copies of VB instead of making customers "host" their forum on a shared server (and thus, not being able to edit, retrieve, or view the code of the files).

I take this thread as an omen right now, because as we speak, I am finishing up a persuasive speach about warez (in particular, whether downloading music should be outlawed and can/should be stopped). The answer is flat out NO. It cant. What goes on behind private FTP's is nobody's business. Hell, I know people who have burned copies of VB for friends and mailed it USPS. I mean, you cant just take away peoples rights. When somebody goes in to a movie to videotape it, thats against the law. BUT, its against the law because that directly violates copyright issues. Same with music, games, etc. Nonetheless, people still do it. People dont get caught. Why? Because it would take the entire world's police force to crack down on people who steal copyrighted material. As I said earlier, you dont know who is doing it until your caught. Just like the poor 12 year old kids that are getting sued for downloading Britney spears. And you know what my speech says? "Let em do it". Sure, they may not be going out and spending 18 bucks on a CD. But ya know what they ARE doing? Going out and begging mommy and daddy to buy them a $100 concert ticket. So, wheres the oppurtunity cost in that? Reports show that 10% of an artist's income is from CD's. The rest? Promotions, Ads, Concerts, etc. How do people KNOW who Outkast is? Because 100,000,000 copies of Hey Ya are on computers ILLEGALY. So why is Outkast one of the wealthiest artists? Because everyone goes to their concerts, everyone listens to them in their ads, everyone KNOWS them.

IRCSpy.com has been up for a long time. You go there knowing you're getting illegal material. But, whats also on IRCSpy is freeware, trialware, demo's, etc. Thus, you're mixing the legal with the illegal. And again, you can't stop it. People pay for their servers. People pay for their homes. I have friends that keep cocaine, pot, all sorts of drugs in their homes. They arent caught. Why? Because the Feds dont know. Cyber-property is the same way. The gov isnt ALLOWED to snoop peoples servers with un-justified search and seizure. Its in the damn Patriot act.

My point here is, and I do have a point, and this isnt because I like the hack, but its because I am a huge civil rights person (and Im only in 10th grade). In the majority of software business', close to 75% of all of a company's sales are from resellers (our definition of resellers doenst include other companies, it could be ads on sites, word of mouth, etc). I am going to let you know right now that 8 of my forum members asked me whether to buy the Owned License or the Leased license of VB in the last week. Why? Because they loved what you can do with it. What I did for a few days, before this hack was taken down, was offer trial admins on a little sub-forum made by VBHost. So, I resold 8 copies of VB. Imagine that times 100 other forums. Whats going on here is an unjustified assumption. You are ASSUMING that if this hack gets into peoples hands, they will use it wrongly. And you know what, that could be true. Many warez sites that offer VB also offer fake VB.org accounts, ftp's with hundreds of hacks, etc. Why are they still up? you havent caught em. But, I bet you my entire lifes savings, that at least ONE person, of all of those illegal forums, have bought VB because they enjoyed it and didnt know where or how or even that they could get it illegally. One person DOES make a difference.

On an expoential equation, if you take one person, double it, and each month double it again, in a few years, your Bill gates =) Simple story. I rest my case. I dont care whether or not this hack is re-instated, but I hold my ground. Thats all I got to say =)

I agree.

It's not a vB owner who would take this to court, you know! The only people who could is Jelsoft - they're the only ones who have an interest in enforcing anything (and "standing", to use the correct term). They need legal action to prevent someone from using the hack; no one needs legal action to use it in the first place - they just go ahead and use it. So it's a non-issue unless Jelsoft decide to make it one, and I doubt very much that they would.

No offence, and I can see that you care very much about what you're saying, but have you read the license or - more importantly - this thread?

The whole discussion going on in this thread centers around the fact that the license DOESN'T say that. It only says you can't resell the software itself.

If the license actually said that, this thread wouldn't exist. :D

This is where your arguement fails and you would lose in court. By allowing other sites to use your forums, ie," link back to your site: " to create subforums and control them as they see fit, that is a violation of the LA.
No one, according to this section, has the right to sublicence or assign their copy of vbulletin to other sites without Jelsoft's approval.
Since the hack contains the ability of another site to use your vb, again the "link back to your site:," it is in direct violation of the LA.

Exactly. The reason why I brougt that up was to counteract what Hyper said. The rest was directed towards Jelsoft / Wayne in attempt to persuade them that maybe allowing this, especially since it doesnt mention anything about this in the license, would benefit them as it is doing to other industries. Its interesting, because the music business, which is the one that is persuing warez the most, is the ONLY industry out of Games, Movies, and Music, that is currently benefitting from Warez.

It is not a sublicense. It doesn't allow the user who creates the forum to establish any policy.

Whatever my policies are regarding user registration, avatar usage, group memberships, attachments, PMs, calendars, etc are inherited by the newly created forum. Linking has no bearing. VB allows one to create forums that are really links, hence they already stipulate to the use of cross-linking sites within the software. It is immaterial whether that occurs in a header - which many forums do through banner ads, or as the forum.

Remember, they can't create a forum and control it as they see fit. They can merely create subforums and assign styles. Plain and simple. That very limited functionality will not stand up in court as a sublicensing.

Simply put, that is just wrong. The problem with any type of verbiage associated with that type of implication, is that you couldn't create any manner of portal site or way for sites to be networked. In effect, vBulletin itself would be nearly in direct violation of that agreement by providing the ability to setup a link within the forumhome template back to another site.

The only thing preventing this would be the sheer fact that all of those links also are running their own vBulletin.

The problem here, is that this is a huge grey area. Sure, GreyFinalFantasySite.com can create a page and say, "To discuss GFFSite.com, click here." Then, the user would be moved offsite to VbHOSTINGVBulletin.com where the person has set up their own part of the site, with similar colors and a different header.

The problem is, they still work off the same vBulletin. The user would have to still register within the overall network of vbhostingvbulletin.com, and anytime they reach the top of the breadcrumb, it would be the true nature of the site that runs and owns the content.

That being said, I have wasted ENTIRELY too much time researching and pouring my heart over the vBulletin Licensing Agreement...I've read the thing almost 10 times now. Here are the parts which trip up either side if this were brought to litigation:

The Good: Jelsoft does the smart thing by declaring vBulletin as The Software. Provided that copyright law has been followed, the terms of exactly what vBulletin is should be easy to prove in a court of law. Thereby determing that the licensing agreement is in fact viable.

The Bad: Insufficient by any standards. You cannot claim copyright without broadcasting type of copyright (US, International, etc.) or broadcasting that copyright data can be obtained by contacting the following source. Also, a broad assumption of "Applicable Database Laws" does no good without citing which laws the licensing agreement heretofore references as being the foundation for said license agreement.

The Good: Jelsoft does a bang up job here by declaring that only one instance of the software be installed on one web server and one web site for each license purchased

The Bad: No verbiage about exactly what defines a singular instance. In these estimations, any link to www.speedstreet.org/forums is ok, irregardless of content provided, so long as the link that appears in the URL bar is only to one server, one database and one domain.

The Good: The wording is ok.

The Bad: By not clearly defining what an instance is in the previous bullet, assigning a software function such as vbhosting as a sublicensing product is nigh impossible. Since the hack falls within the established parameters of an instance, you cannot apply any manner of infringement violation due to its inherent nature.

---
This is all I will go into without working directly with the JelSoft team. I think that the best thing to do for Jelsoft would be to bring someone in to help with Risk Assesment, because having a virtual company such as this leaves you open to risk and liability because you have so many "representatives" of your organization speaking. The minute someone posts and a Team suffix is attached to their name, it becomes company mantra.

We cannot blame GameCrash for the fantastic work he has done with this hack. He takes some of the best features of the vBulletin software and develops them even further. The sadness ensues when you realize that this hack can facilitate the destruction of the integrity of our community, simply by allowing any jackass to create their own section on your boards.

GameCrash, please consider revising your hack to increase additional security. It can be a tremendous boost to our group as a whole, if only a few minor tweaks were made to it.

Perhaps you should see the hack.

You have alot of control over forums. You can create forums, categories, subforums, etc. You have TOTAL control over the display of forums and content in your subforum. What you do not have control over are global options...and that is where the gray areas are.

That is completely wrong and you should see that from reading your own post. I already have subforums for other sites.. if that is illegal, sue me.. if this hack makes my ability to provide that exact service, as i already do, as do a million other sites, then gimme the hack and sue me some more..


No one is sub-licensed.. I am the license holder, I and the dude within the vB info on the vB.com/members section..

this entire arguement anymore is stupid as people are making out what they want and reading into what isn't there..

release the damn hack.. if some admin is dumb enough to just let anyone create forums on his board, the good luck in the contest.. the forums won't last long anyway.. this is stupid anymore.. people have no clue or idea of the original arguement anymore..

and as far as the DMCA protecting Jelsoft, sick those anal tards on me too.. EFF.org exists for a reason.. and they will deal with it for me after examining the software package, the license, and everything contained with vb.com and .org..

No, thats what makes it so clearly not a sublicensing. Its not grey at all.

An excellent idea! Perhaps someone shoulf email the EFF and request they join the discussion. I'd but dollars to dounuts that Jelsoft would take notice if they gave an opinion that the hack doesn't violate the LA.

To echo one of SpeedStreet's comments, and to go back to my original post on page 12: I don't think we've received a response from GameCrash about the possibility to modify the hack to meet the vB Team's concerns.

I believe there was already a response from at least one vB Team member advising that if the hack were set up so that moderators had access to the vBHosting admin, then it would meet current criteria.

GameCrash, I realize that this is a change from your original intent... but based on the value it would provide to the community as a whole, and specific users like me, I'd encourage you to consider changing the scope of the vBHosting hack. It would require admins to setup their moderation staff, but would then give those moderators significant control over their own conferences/subforums, allow admins like me to step back from making individual changes for multiple subforums. Overall, it would be an incredible value to communities... while it may not give the same functions to every user, it would still allow smaller communities within a large discussion community.

It's obviously caused quite a stir, both for the immense value it has and the licensing issues. I'd encourage you to consider re-releasing it with the 'compromise' modifications.

-Chad

wow such trouble makers, if you all make it a bigger issue than it is then what's to stop jelsoft closing down the service that is vb.org? upsetting an organisation for one hack is pointless, to the best of my knowledge jelsoft rarely revoke licenses and thus pm'ing gamecrash and asking him to send you the hack won't cause you a problem, just install it, be happy and leave this thread alone.

it really isn't that big of a deal.

I think it should be left as-is. The value isn't in having moderators build new forums, but rather users - the ones who ultimately build up the community.

I'd suggest that you stick to your guns and release it somewhere else as it is now.

I hope he does....

This hack in the manner I would be using it for would be totaly legal. I would only be using it to host a forums for my users like I already do. This would just make things a little more streamlined.

I have not yet gotten a message by Jelsoft stating what they want. All I know is they deleted my thread, so I don't know what would be needed to make the hack compatible and if that would be acceptable.

Users provide content to the community...Even though I love my guests, there is no way that I want to give them access to creating forums.

If there is a need dictated by my driven content, then I, as an administrator and owner of my organization, will decide where it should go. I like this hack because it gives me the abliity to turn areas over to my moderators, and allow them to build them up, based on my reccomendations.

You don't want every jackass in the world requesting a forum, simply because they want their own little piece of the pie...look how crapped up EZBoard is! If you give people the ability to do the same thing with a sleeker package like vBulletin, you are going to have 8,000 forums per board, with 10 posts per forum!

GameCrash was definitely on the right track, trying to add as much functionality as possible to his hack, but there definitely has to be a line drawn somewhere.

a lot of interesting points of view in this thread for and against but the one thing that cleary sticks out is that if the hack is made so mods and above have complete control then jelsoft will allow it and seeing as their is no control over new members making sections id rather go for the moderators thing.

Lets not kill this hack - lets compromise so vbull can get back to where it was as to be honest the board is dying at moment as all eyes are on this thread.
A little bit of give on both sides goes a long way so GameCrash choice is with you - If Jelsoft say they will allow it if Mods and above control the sections will you go with it ?

You know whats EXTREMELY ironic. People have been waiting for VB3 Gold for weeks, months, some even years. After finally releasing it, not even more than 24-48 hours after its release, look what comes up. First, I take back most of what I said earlier, because after installing the hack on my testboard, I now see why there is some concern. However, I am not going any further into my opinion. I feel this thread should be locked, because as someone else said, the argument and facts are being twisted way to much.

Thats no compromise. It kills the purpose for the hack. The bottom line is Jelsoft has no legal basis for their decision. Release the hack elsewhere, but by god, release it.

*thoughts - of this hack

Its about time. I have been looken for a lot of what has been done.

If I make a person a Admin of a forum they should be able to add forums, colors, ect .. in their forum they are incharge of. I like a lot of what I see in the hack. Few changes here and there to make in where ppl can not sign up. I dig on the options of making a user class be able to do what they want in the forum they are responcible for.

I have been looking for those kind of options in a forum script since I went to personal hosting vs. EZboard when I started playing with vb2.0

ere cant lock the thread just cause u dont like the debate - leave it open.Is reason why nothing gets sorted cause people wanna sweep it under the carpet.
Most of us who have replied in this thread proberly will never use this hack but the underlying point here is based on one thing and that is the PRINCIPLE.

Amen, Brutha!

I think everythig has been said sooooooo many times that if you deleted all the duplicate arguments the thread would only be 5 pages instead of 22 :)

Give it a break and get a life ..... there is more to vborg than this thread!