Regarding the vBHosting Hack

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by ap0c

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.

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.

[SpeedStreet]

Originally Posted by ap0c

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.

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:

vBulletin ('the Software') is a copyrighted work of authorship and is also protected under applicable database laws.

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.

vBulletin licence grants you the right to run one instance (a single installation) of the Software on one web server and one web site for each licence purchased. Each licence may power one instance of the Software on one domain. For each installed instance of the Software, a separate licence is required.

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 Software is licensed only to you. You may not rent, lease, sublicence, sell, assign, pledge, transfer or otherwise dispose of the Software in any form, on a temporary or permanent basis, without the prior written consent of Jelsoft.

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.

[SpeedStreet]

Originally Posted by FASherman

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.

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.

[13th_Disciple]

Originally Posted by ap0c

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.

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..

Originally Posted by ap0c

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.

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..

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

What you do not have control over are global options...and that is where the gray areas are.

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

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by 13th_Disciple

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..

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.

[CMerritt]

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

[sabret00the]

Originally Posted by FASherman

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.

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.

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by CMerritt

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

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.

[Dark_Wizard]

Originally Posted by FASherman

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

I hope he does....