Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Who actually still uses vB 1.x?

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Arsenik
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Schreiber
    The "powered by" and the version numbers can be removed, but the product name (vBulletin), company name (Jelsoft Enterprises Limited), and copyright 2000-2002 must remain intact.

    So the minimum requirement is having "vBulletin Copyright © 2000-2002 Jelsoft Enterprises Limited" visible.
    Lets move on...

    I believe were-here.com was on 1.x untill a few months ago.(they are now on 2.2.5) If i had a big board i sure would think before upgrading for the work it may involve in editing the templates and so on but usualy upgrades are there to fix bugs and security issues so they are a most.

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Machol
    replied
    Please do not post any more off-topic messages. The topic for this thread is:

    'Who actually still uses vB 1.x?'

    Now back to our regularly scheduled program.

    Leave a comment:


  • slinky
    replied
    Originally posted by xCRYINGoutLOUDx

    It's two *at the most* lines of code.. I hardly think that's going to mess up ANYONE's layout.
    1) It's not a good idea to lecture others on what works for their design and layout. With all due respect, you might think differently when your board generates some traffic, has several different PHP packages installed, and you need and want to give everyone credit.

    2) The fact is that the day I legally renewed my license, I was threatened with revocation of my license without refund for what wasn't a big deal, especially when I have more than the minimum legal accreditation necessary on my site. I'm told one thing and others here are told something completely different about the legal requirement. I was NOT happy about the unequal application and I think you would have felt the same way.

    But that is all over with and finally we have some clarity on what is and what isn't required so that this unfortunate error doesn't happen again. Let's just cool it.

    FYI - you may want to have someone look over the nuke-like legal language and accreditation on your site. It has the potential to land you in a mess, especially about the posters.
    Last edited by slinky; Tue 9 Apr '02, 9:38am.

    Leave a comment:


  • slinky
    replied
    http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showt...419#post274419

    That's all I have to say. Don't want to belabor the issue but, unfortunately, it is an issue.

    Leave a comment:


  • tubedogg
    replied
    Originally posted by slinky
    1) Since when is "powered by" part of "copyright notice?" It isn't. I'm quite offended that this promotional language, that is virtually always bargained for, is somehow bootstrapped into the $160 license that I purchased. This should have been made manifestly clear. It is NOT lost on me that there is now some other unlisted license offered where I can "upgrade" to at a price.
    The license clearly states that the notice in the design templates must remain unchanged. The templates very clearly indicate what is part of the copyright. Almost every vBulletin on the internet has the exact same copyright notice on it. It's not like it is anything new - the license has not changed in this regard in at least 14 months.

    2) It presents a burden because I have at least 3 parties requiring credits at the bottom of my pages and that will probably grow to 5. Taking up 2 full lines for Jelsoft alone plus adding the "powered by" text is chunk of screen real estate and totally unnecessary. Also added is a hyperlink in addition to the valid copyright notice, which not surprisingly no complaint was made.
    As I noted in my email, you may run the lines together on one line. Adding a hyperlink does not change the wording of the copyright notice and it has always been allowed.

    What makes me incredulous and highly offended is that Jelsoft decides to enforce its intended license against me, especially when they got more than the actual copyright notice on the bottom of every page. I'm quite confident that most thought the same when purchasing the license. And it makes no business sense to do this... I'm just wondering if this is just an omen for things to come.
    We enforce the license as evenly as humanly possible against everyone. Your site was submitted (or resubmitted) for the Links Directory today, at which point it was reviewed as all others are. It was found to not have the required copyright, and a notice was sent, just as it would be with any other site that did not have the copyright as required.

    Leave a comment:


  • slinky
    replied
    Originally posted by eiSecure
    I don't think that states the thing about the brackets. Anyways, I left mine in unmodified, except integrated to fit into my (tiny) space available in my footer
    Absolutely. The license says nothing about the brackets. But right after I upgraded my license and requested that my forum be placed in the live community links, I was informed from Jelsoft that it would not because they discovered that I was in violation of my license. After repeated conversation, I was told:

    "In the design templates, the only place the copyright appears there is very specific language indicating that it may not be removed; both lines are surrounded by this no-removal notice. Removing it is in violation of the license."

    I'm still in shock that this is enforced to the letter of their intent. FYI, for $250 you can buy ikonboard without any copyright license. My $160 bought me a Jelsoft promotion version (free at ikonboard) that they are calling a copyright, and now I am informed of the option and privilege to pay several hundred dollars more in addition? Ridiculous. Absurd. I have more than a legal copyright online.... I think I'm more disgusted by the principle of the matter. I'll let you all know what I'm planning to move do.

    Leave a comment:


  • DirectPixel
    replied
    All vBulletin copyright notices within design templates must remain unchanged (and visible).
    I don't think that states the thing about the brackets. Anyways, I left mine in unmodified, except integrated to fit into my (tiny) space available in my footer

    Leave a comment:


  • NetherChris
    replied
    Somebody correct me if I am wrong, but by purchasing it you had to agree to the liscense agreement, and as long as you had the oppurtunity to read it and weren't under duress then it's legal... I suppose they could put 5 books of Moses in there... but it is their right to...

    Leave a comment:


  • slinky
    replied
    1) Since when is "powered by" part of "copyright notice?" It isn't. I'm quite offended that this promotional language, that is virtually always bargained for, is somehow bootstrapped into the $160 license that I purchased. This should have been made manifestly clear. It is NOT lost on me that there is now some other unlisted license offered where I can "upgrade" to at a price.

    Jelsoft is asserting that since they have a comment tag in the code that says "do not remove this notice," then everything within that tag is now considered part of the "copyright notice." With that reasoning, if the full text of the 5 books of Moses appeared within those brackets, the law according to Jelsoft states that it is considered as part of the copyright notice.

    2) It presents a burden because I have at least 3 parties requiring credits at the bottom of my pages and that will probably grow to 5. Taking up 2 full lines for Jelsoft alone plus adding the "powered by" text is chunk of screen real estate and totally unnecessary. Also added is a hyperlink in addition to the valid copyright notice, which not surprisingly no complaint was made.

    What makes me incredulous and highly offended is that Jelsoft decides to enforce its intended license against me, especially when they got more than the actual copyright notice on the bottom of every page. I'm quite confident that most thought the same when purchasing the license. And it makes no business sense to do this... I'm just wondering if this is just an omen for things to come.

    Leave a comment:


  • IDN
    replied
    Originally posted by Chris Schreiber
    Here's what it looked like "out of the box": http://www.chrisschreiber.com/vb1/
    looks like tforum

    Leave a comment:


  • Steve Machol
    replied
    I could be wrong but I thought a valid copyright notice must include a year. As I said, I could be wrong though.

    The wording on the licensing agreement seems pretty unambiguous:

    All vBulletin copyright notices within design templates must remain unchanged (and visible).
    I'm not sure why this presents such a burden, but whatever you decide I wish you the best of luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • slinky
    replied
    Well, it bothers me a great deal, for a variety of reasons.

    I was just informed that the copyright notice at my site, http://www.thelaw.com, contains an invalid copyright notice and that I'm in violation of the license. No joke. Much to my surprise, Jelsoft considers the "Powered by" line to be part of the copyright notice since vB comment tags are now the defining indicator of what constitutes valid copyright notice. I read the license, gave them more than a bare copyright notice -- and we still have a difference of opinion.

    I'm not sure what I'm planning to do yet but I have been looking around, especially at the incredibly impressive PHPBB2 at phpbb.com. I'm not paying any extra fee nor getting into any extended dispute about the 2 line requirement with promotional language that is something more than legal copyright notice, IMHO.
    Last edited by slinky; Mon 8 Apr '02, 6:26pm.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheComputerGuy
    replied
    Well the copyright doesnt bother me, as it tells others what they should be using

    But sometimes you do not need to let everyone know your best secret in certain fields, so others do not start a site like yours, I have seen it happen in a few choice fields, usually haveing to deal with money.

    Leave a comment:


  • nuno
    replied
    Originally posted by Nafae
    Just out of curiousity, how much do you charge to remove the copywrite?
    your soul

    Leave a comment:


  • Overgrow
    replied
    I was still on a modified 1.1.3 in January of this year with 20k members. I think we're seeing, the bigger the board, the more pain in the ass it is to upgrade! I think I have my vb2 looking just like my vb1, which was the point... I still use the vb1 under the post icons, I think they look better... and yea, I remember that vB1 look that Chris posted!

    Leave a comment:

widgetinstance 262 (Related Topics) skipped due to lack of content & hide_module_if_empty option.
Working...
X