Policy on unsupported hacks?
 

What is the policy on a mod for vb 3.5 that is no longer support and the author doesn't come around? I have fixed some issues with it and would like to release it. Someone tried to release it for 3.6 but that one is unsupported and buggy also.

You could post the fixes in the original thread. But you must have the authors permission for releasing a new one

Thats kind of the problem. They don't come around anymore.

That problem happend with vBPlaza, happends to many more

Sorry, but that's how it is. Whether they visit or not, they still own the code, you cannot copy/release it without permission.

Yea I figured that. Thats why I asked first. So who's permission would I need for this mod? There are two versions of it?

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=106239

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showthread.php?t=133204

Crist

As Ziki said Crist, If you don't want to wait for him to PM back he has all the instant messaging contacts you can reach him on.

Not sure really, Crist I would say - I'm actually curious as to where the second poster got permission from as I don't see anything in either thread. However, both authors were active at the same time (for months) so maybe they sorted something between themselves.

Yea thats what I'm doing right now.

Would this be enough?

https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showpost....postcount=1697

Nope, that's second hand - you could ask Redlabour where it was posted, as I cannot find it anywhere. Have you tried to contact Crist ? From reading a few pages in the thread I'm sure he would allow it, I found a couple of instances where he gave others permission for the 3.6 version (inc the eventualy releaser).

Thats how I took it also. So it would be okay? I've tried contacting Crist but nothing has come up yet. I'll ask Redlabour if he can find it for me.

Thanks for you time.

Well I talked to the other Author and he has rights to the mod now from Crist. So he gave me the go ahead to release something. Is that enough?

Did the other author receive permission from Christ?

Read post #9 from Paul

Yes he did. They talked and Crist pretty much gave him control over the mod.

So if Crist gave him permission to, Could he give you permission to instead of Crist

Seems reasonable to me.

Let me suggest something...

Why not a new policy.

If you release a hack - and dont update it to a new version within a set amount of time - then anyone can update or rewrite for the new vB version, provided they give credit to the original author and the original version of the hack.

As an example:
If you release a photo gallery for 3.6x - and 4.0 comes out. And you dont update it or indicate you are in process of updating it, then after say 2 months of the release of the new vb version, then anyone can update the hack to work with the new version, and re release it to work with the new version.

This way, when a hack that people are using wont work with a new version of vB, someone can update it so that it works.

Maybe .org builds in some kind of functionality to make this request -

But this is a problem that should be explored as to how to resolve IMO.

^^ Personally, I see a lot of problems that could occur with that. Even though it's great - in theory.

But, this removes ownership of the code from the author to vbulletin.org upon release. I see that causing many problems, and may deter many hacks from being released here at vbulletin.org.

That might not be the best way of doing it - im sure it could be tweaked - but I dont see how that would stop people from releasing hacks -

Hack ownership wouldnt be removed. What im saying is that if you write a hack for 3.0 - but its unusable on 3.6 - then you own the hack for 3.0 and have first rights to update for vuture versions of vB. But if you dont update and give no indication of intention to update, and the hack is unusable for current versions of the software, then someone else can make it usable so long as they give you credit as the original creator.

Basically - if you release - then ignore - someone else can recreate so its usable for new versions of vb.

I think they should do what he suggested, but with an option to opt out. So its that way be default but you can say "Hey, no way."

If it becomes deserted for more than 90 days then it should be reverted to the community's property. Just like leaving your car at the repair shop dont come back in 90 days "example" car's getting sold.
Now I agree that removes the ownership BUT if you really want to own something then you as the owner have the burden to keep track of it. And I would also make sure the original author still gets credit for the base code he has abandoned. Thats the true essence of the deal here. People are posting code and then abandoning it leaving it orphaned Possession here should be 9/10's of the code law.......lol

But, this isn't a repair shop. This is a community where people offer their time and knowledge to provide hacks for forum administrators, and end users. They are providing US a service, not the other way around.

But the problem is this...

I have a forum -- I install a hack that adds functionality my members come to enjoy and expect.

vB is upgraded - that hack is no longer functional -

That hack is not being upgraded by the owner -

Now what does the forum owner do? - now all those forum owners who installed it are SOL

Thats why I say - there should be right of first refusal - but if the hack author abandons the hack - another coder should be able to step in and recode so it works with the new version of vB.

The method we go about to make that happen is a second question - Clearly the hack author should be notified before this happens - and given a chance to upgrade himself. He should also be given credit for his creation.

What if a modification doesn't need updating? Many modifications from 3.5.x still work fine with the latest version of 3.6.x without any changes.

I agree that there should be some kind of mandatory distinction between supported and unsupported otherwise what's the point of marking either way? I've seen unsupported hacks that are well supported and supported hacks that haven't seen a reply from the author in 6 months or more.

One way I can think of would be to give the option for users who have installed a supported modification to nominate it as unsupported if they aren't getting any support. After X votes, it sends an email to the author asking if they're still supporting it and if not, could they change the supported tag. If there's no response (to the email or in the thread) from the author then the change is automatically made.

But whether the hack says supported or unsupported isnt the problem. The problem is that people make hacks, some of them become popular, and forum owners find themselves screwed when they upgrade.

I just upgraded a forum from 3.0 to 3.67 and I have a hack that doesnt work now. (timeslips) I have a DB full of entries into that hack, and its unusable for me now because there is no real conversion available. My members have come to enjoy that feature.. What do I do?

Do without? Hire someone to fix the plugin? To an extent it's an inevitability, if you don't want problems with upgrades then don't modify your forum. Jelsoft themselves will tell you that.

I appreciate the troubles of your situation but people's work can't be comandeered for convenience no matter how long it's left for, I can't imagine that vB.org would ever allow anything along the lines of what people are suggesting here.

Im not saying comandeered. Im saying converted with full credit given to the author. And thats assuming the original author either doesnt want to or abandons it.

As far as the 'do without' -- then why install any hack? Why not just shut this site down since thats the safest thing to do.

I agree consideration has to be given to the hack author, but there also needs to be consideration for the forum owner.

Then maybe after a certain time of being unsupported to cure this matter archive the the mod and end it there. This hit and run with posting mods is ridiculous and Jelsoft has to do something about it to keep the MEMBERS happy we drive this place start alienating your members and see where that leads.

Well, thats basically what happens now. What we need is some way to make abandoned hacks that dont work with current version of vB to be able to be converted without stepping on the toes of the hack creator.

Thats called a win win.

Please note that if this thread starts going in the direction of suggesting people steal other members work then it will be closed.

As I understand it, the facts of copyright law are that the author owns the work and vb.org cannot change that law to suit itself. Even if we introduced some new policy in the future that included such conditions as are being suggested here (as part of your agreement to release here) - it could not be applied to any existing modifications without the agreement of the original author.

(No, I'm not a legal expert, so if any lawers out there know better then feel to post).

I dont think anyone was suggesting the theft of anyone elses work. I know im not.

I was not suggesting theft. Abandoned property becomes the beholders at some point in time. Not sure if you could apply it to code but if you were to include it as a written clause and or RULE of the membership then I would be willing to bet thats enough. But as Paul said I'm not a lawyer would be nice if one could chime in on this.

This is an interesting discussion.

People rely too much in modifications released here in my opinion. You shouldn't count on modifications posted here as being eternal, and you should know you may not have the modification working tomorrow.

If you really want to do something about it, place an option checkbox on mods that say if the user authorizes people to modify and re-release their mods. I know I would have no problem with someone updating my mod if I'm busy in another place. Of course, if I'm around, it would be rude for someone to update my mods before asking me.

A notice in the mod thread "this mod can be modified and re-released" would be cool. And it could be another reason for you to install the mod, as you know if the mod author vanishes from vB.org someone else can take over.

As for the older stuff, I'm sorry but it's your fault for having modified your board so much.

Certainly it would be more then rude, and I would be the first to back you up. - but for my part, I have only been talking about hacks that have been abandoned and the author cannot be reached or does not respond.

As fas as the notice - thats not a bad idea.

As far as it being our fault for modifying a board so much. It doesnt have to be much. It could be just one hack. Past that - why should it really matter. The whole reason for this site is because vB gives a basic platform. Customizing a community is part of what makes it unique. I know of very few successful forums that have not customized to some extent.

In my case, I earn enough from my forums to hire someone to make something custom or make something work properly. But most forum owners are not so fortunate. I guess for me its a 2 way street. I am very grateful to hack authors who donate their creations. Its what I think makes vB the best platform.

But, I believe we have to also be mindful of the forum owner as well and realize that they come to depend on some hacks as important features for their communities. Just telling them 'too bad' - well - is kinda one sided. I dont see why a way to server both interests couldnt be reached.

The code (made on the coder's free time in most cases) is property of the author. Anyone could recode it, as long as he don't use the author's code.

I agree with you. This is a large problem, and we all run into it. I'm certainly no pro coder, and I will say I have lost a few modifications along the way. But, I uninstall and move on, fix it, or find someone who can fix it. This should be the forum administrators responsibility in my eyes, not the owner of the modifications, nor should it be their obligation to allow people to take their code and re-release it.

Also, your suggestion is a good idea. I hope vbulletin.org takes it into consideration. I think it would have to be more thought out though - of course.

This is also a good idea.

From my understanding, they'd pretty much have to give vbulletin.org ownership of their code (permission to re release it would probably do, but it just seems to me like a sticky situation and a bit sketchy - legal or not). I am not a lawyer or legal adviser either, but that's the only way it would make sense to me, and I think that would turn a few coders off, if not, a lot.

Another thing to consider, is once it's up for grabs is it only allowed to re release here or other vbulletin websites? I can see that causing a headache as well, as even if the policy is only here, there will be many that won't realize or won't care and will release it elsewhere. I've seen this happen elsewhere, so it's not only isolated to this, but this would make it a more common place I would think.

My understanding is that any coder can make his/her modification with a GPL (or derivative of) license. That can happen now, always could happen. The coder would just need to state as such in the description of the mod posted here.

The only thing vb.org could really do is to help make it easier for coders to (1) select/state this option; (2) make it easier for a coder (or coders) to contribute code/modifications/images/documentation to the submitted 'hack'.

I would imagine the upcoming official project tools plugin would be somewhat useful in this regard?

Anyways, just my thoughts and to be selfish, I would like to see vbookie be the first mod to switch over to this with the original author's consent :D

Cheers,

~Regs.

GPL wouldn't really work as vBulletin isn't GPL itself. AS no code released on this site stands on its own and works without vBulletin, you can't release it under GPL according to their site. LGPL would work. As would derivatives of it such as the BSD License, and Mozilla License. However it would still be the Author's choice as they could also use a standard EULA with a no modification and distribution clause.