Regarding the vBHosting Hack

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

Jelsoft has the right at any time to alter the license agreement in a retroactive fashion at which would render your theory wrong.

No, they don't. Whoever informed you of that is incorrect.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

Additionally, and add-on or modification to the source code of vBulletin is subject to the same license agreement under International Copyright Law and therefore would be considered a violation of the LA.

Again, you aren't taking the full situation into consideration. You can't ignore past history. Taking a few hours to Google copyright law doesn't make you an expert. That fact that this site and others, such as vbulletin.nl and eVB, exist and distribute hacks would be considered implicit permission to the community at large. Selective enforcement is, in itself, a valid defense.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

Jelsoft has every right, and I would assume every intention, or protecting itself.

No one disputes this. The question is whether their interests and mine coincide. If they do not, I have every right to protect myself and seek my best interests.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

Yes, you could go run off and threaten a lawsuit, FASherman, but what would it accomplish? The destruction of vB? Them altering the flexible licensing agreement already in play?

Where are you getting this from? The only party that would have a need to initiate a lawsuit is Jelsoft.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

It has been the benefit of the community to be able to use and modify vBulletin. Paying for a thing does not necessarily give you the right to destroy a thing.

You are so far off in left field that I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you. Your arguments are illogical and you ascribe actions and motives to people where none have been suggested or even implied.

[Thanatos]

Originally Posted by Zachery

The lockdown hacks policy is Jelsofts and it was imposed at the original hacking forum at vBulletin.com. It is used most of the time on warez boards for bad reasons, thus its not allowed.

So, they took a poll to find out it was mostly used on warez boards and for neferious purpose? or did they assume?

I mean, if they claim 'most of the time' they have facts and figures to back up that claim? or is it a proclamation from on high, just because it can be abused? in which case...they could claim that of any hack, what-so-ever...ban anything, for any reason..simply because it 'might' be abused on a warez board.

Hmmm. Well, I always do say, its good to be the King

Just goes to show..there needs to be a non-controlled vbhack's site.

[Zachery]

Originally Posted by FASherman

No, they don't. Whoever informed you of that is incorrect.



Again, you aren't taking the full situation into consideration. You can't ignore past history. Taking a few hours to Google copyright law doesn't make you an expert. That fact that this site and others, such as vbulletin.nl and eVB, exist and distribute hacks would be considered implicit permission to the community at large. Selective enforcement is, in itself, a valid defense.



No one disputes this. The question is whether their interests and mine coincide. If they do not, I have every right to protect myself and seek my best interests.



Where are you getting this from? The only party that would have a need to initiate a lawsuit is Jelsoft.



You are so far off in left field that I'm not going to continue to discuss this with you. Your arguments are illogical and you ascribe actions and motives to people where none have been suggested or even implied.

From the license agrement

Jelsoft reserves the right to modify these terms at any time.

[Thanatos]

Originally Posted by Zachery

From the license agrement

Speed pointed out that was a weak clause here:
https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showpost....&postcount=118

I also do not think that encompasses the ability to retroactively change the license agreement.

Anytime a LA changes, the end user still has to accept it...as evidenced by paypal or Everquest on a regular bases

[ManagerJosh]

Originally Posted by Miratos

Speed pointed out that was a weak clause here:
https://vborg.vbsupport.ru/showpost....&postcount=118

I also do not think that encompasses the ability to retroactively change the license agreement.

Anytime a LA changes, the end user still has to accept it...as evidenced by paypal or Everquest on a regular bases

I think the only reason why Jelsoft doesn't want to go towards the ezBoard model is its complexity and lost of revenue. If this hacked had offered less control than an administrator, it would probably encourage users to get the full version of vBulletin rather than using a hosting solution.

More to a point, Kier is product manager and I don't think he felt this hack represented vBulletin properly.

This hack could violate another agreement, and that would be profiting. Imagine if someone charged money for hosting....and hosted a gazillion vBulletin hostees, well they would be profiting more than Jelsoft and that would be putting Jelsoft out of business.

A very similar idea/concept would be buying a single copy of Windows and installing it on a dozen computers.

That's basically what this hack is doing..

Having a person buy a single copy of vBulletin and having multiple individual UNIQUE boards running.

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by Zachery

From the license agrement

Yes, but that doesn't mean that it is in force once changed. A modified LA would apply to any new licenses sold after that date or any leased licenses upon renewal after the change. It would not EVER affect any owned licenses sold prior to the change.

[SpeedStreet]

Wrong again.

And after your comments, I refuse to partake in this discussion further. At this point FASherman, I consider your comments to be incindeary and out of line.

I am choosing to leave this discussion and I hope that those of you that have read my posts have found some sort of sense applied to them.

On a final note, I will say this: The laws binding this license agreement allow Jelsoft to apply changes retroactively to the license agreement. A license agreement is a rolling contract, whereas a Terms agreement when you purchase product cannot be applied at a later date.

You are free to try this in a court of law if you want, but in the past ten years, Microsoft, Yahoo, AOL and Real have had similar cases brought against them, and they have won them with resounding results. Therefore, precendent has been set.

[GameCrash]

Originally Posted by ManagerJosh

A very similar idea/concept would be buying a single copy of Windows and installing it on a dozen computers.

That's basically what this hack is doing..

You don't really have any idea what this hack does, right?

[FASherman]

Originally Posted by ManagerJosh

If this hacked had offered less control than an administrator, it would probably encourage users to get the full version of vBulletin rather than using a hosting solution.

DING DING DING! We have a winner!

The hack does not in any way, shape or form, offer admin access. That seems to be a common misconception.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

More to a point, Kier is product manager and I don't think he felt this hack represented vBulletin properly.

There is no requirement that it should.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

This hack could violate another agreement, and that would be profiting. Imagine if someone charged money for hosting....and hosted a gazillion vBulletin hostees, well they would be profiting more than Jelsoft and that would be putting Jelsoft out of business.

That does not violate the LA.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

A very similar idea/concept would be buying a single copy of Windows and installing it on a dozen computers.


That's basically what this hack is doing.

No, it doesn't. You are misrepresenting the nature of the hack.

Originally Posted by SpeedStreet

Having a person buy a single copy of vBulletin and having multiple individual UNIQUE boards running.

They are not unique. Riddle me this one, Batman...

Can they change the avatar policy for "their board"?
Can they change the attachment limitations for "their board"?
Can they change the PM policies for "their board"?
Can they change the calendar policies for "their board"?
Can they change any user attributes for "their board"?
Can they view user IP addresses on the posts in "their board"?
Can they hack "their board"?

No, they can't do any of those things, can they? They can't even email users. They can't archive threads. They have no access to the admin functions within a thread.

In short, they are not unique boards. Please, in the interest of honest, do not lie to folks who may not have seen the hack first hand and only have your misleading descriptions to rely upon.

ALL they can do is create a subforum or set of subforums and apply a style or set of styles. Plain and simple. Making this out to be a "unique board" is intellectually fraudulent.

[Wayne Luke]

This has gone far enough and is simply going in circles. We will continue discussing this with our lawyers and the business owners and at such a time that a decision is made, the original author of the hack will be contacted.