Has subSilver always been non-GPL?

The 2.0.x discussion forum has been locked; this will remain read-only. The 3.0.x discussion forum has been renamed phpBB Discussion.
Locked
User avatar
greggish
Registered User
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 3:39 pm

Has subSilver always been non-GPL?

Post by greggish » Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:46 pm

I just noticed on the Downloads page that you can't use subSilver on commercial sites...

http://www.phpbb.com/downloads.php

"The subSilver SDK is not released under the GPL and is not subject to that licence. You are permitted to use the files contained within this package for personal use only. You may not use the files in any commercial package in part or in full without the express permission of phpBB Group..."

--- Wow, that's very disappointing considering that many people's Forums might qualify as commercial. How strict is phpBB Group about this? Is this just a matter of asking for permission in most cases? What types of sites would phpBB Group not grant permission to use subSilver? Would phpBB Group request payment for subSilver use?

theFinn
Founder and ex-Contributor
Posts: 1767
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 7:58 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB, Canada
Contact:

Post by theFinn » Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:55 pm

You can use the subSilver graphics that come with phpBB 2.0 on your sites, commerical or other wise. However, the SDK contains the development images (in PSD format) and they are not released under the GPL. You cannot make images based on that SDK for your sites if they are commercial in nature.
James 'theFinn' Atkinson
Founder & ex-Contributor
http://www.thefinn.net

User avatar
greggish
Registered User
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 3:39 pm

Post by greggish » Thu Apr 04, 2002 7:59 pm

OK. That shouldn't be a problem then. Thanks for clearing that up for me. :D

Dave Bean
Registered User
Posts: 210
Joined: Thu Jul 12, 2001 4:55 am
Location: Denver, Colorado
Contact:

Post by Dave Bean » Sat Apr 06, 2002 1:26 am

This confused me also, perhaps something on the download page should indicate what is meant. In my mind any site that is provided for a fee or is designed to solicit business is a commercial site.

Glad someone else asked !!

Any insight into why the difference for the .psd files ?

User avatar
psoTFX
Former Team Member
Posts: 7425
Joined: Tue Jul 03, 2001 8:50 pm

Post by psoTFX » Sat Apr 06, 2002 2:18 am

I thought the difference between the licences was quite clear "Please note the subSilver SDK is not released under the GPL", etc.?

A different licence is in effect because it's a fair bit harder to 'rip off' subSilver just by trying to alter the existing button images which form part of the phpBB2 package compared to having access to the basic psd used to create them :)

As many people know, when subSilver was unveiled quite a few months ago now (indeed, it's coming up to a year) many 'competing' boards decided "ooohh that's nice must copy" ...

All of sudden numerous boards had graduated headers and smart buttons, etc. Indeed one or two look more like subSilver with each passing improvement ...

We then had a splurge of people just taking the graphics and using them on different boards and other applications, without so much as a "please" or "thanks" ... v. v. annoying :) It became quite irritating having to correct people posting to our dev board saying "hehe you've copied this design from x board haven't you? it sucks on yours though!" or some such ... :lol:

So, we've slapped a restrictive licence on the SDK, it won't stop people nicking stuff but it does prevent them knocking out rip-offs without some mention of phpBB :)

User avatar
Jamer
Registered User
Posts: 316
Joined: Fri Apr 05, 2002 2:11 pm
Location: UK
Contact:

Logo

Post by Jamer » Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:11 am

I love the whole design, it is by far the best bb on the net, that I have ever used!

In the top left hand corner of my phpbb is obviously you phpbb logo, may I please have your permission to change that, to my own version to blend with my site, all I want to do, is remove the wording phpbb & put the name of my site there instead... :?:

Billabong2k2
Registered User
Posts: 46
Joined: Tue Mar 19, 2002 8:52 pm

Post by Billabong2k2 » Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:14 am

yes you are allowed to do that, make your own image and put it up. ;)

User avatar
ffeingol
Former Team Member
Posts: 1329
Joined: Wed Jul 11, 2001 4:51 pm
Location: Earth
Contact:

Post by ffeingol » Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:14 am

You don't need our permission to remove the phpBB logo at the top left. YOu can replace it with your own. It's the "copyright phpBB group" and link at the bottom that have to stay.

Frank

Kylecool
Registered User
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 3:51 am
Location: Southern California, U.S.A! GO USA!
Contact:

Post by Kylecool » Sat Apr 06, 2002 3:41 am

Yes, that logo you can just change to whatever you want. You can even make your own templates. Do whatever you want, just leave the copyright phpbb thing at the bottom. It's not a big deal, not many people pay attention to it anyway. It's a small price to pay for such a Great FREE BBS! :)

-Kyle 8)
VACATION UNTIL june 29TH or 30th. :)

User avatar
greggish
Registered User
Posts: 86
Joined: Fri Oct 26, 2001 3:39 pm

Post by greggish » Sat Apr 06, 2002 4:21 am

psoTFX wrote: I thought the difference between the licences was quite clear "Please note the subSilver SDK is not released under the GPL", etc.?


I think many people don't know what SDK stands for (I didn't), and will think that the subSilver SDK download is simply the subSilver theme...and that they won't be able to use that theme on a commercial site. I think it would be helpful if you explained this on the download page, and call it "Software Development Kit" instead of SDK.

Kylecool
Registered User
Posts: 674
Joined: Sat Feb 02, 2002 3:51 am
Location: Southern California, U.S.A! GO USA!
Contact:

Post by Kylecool » Sat Apr 06, 2002 4:36 am

Yea, I second that idea. It may be confusing to a lot of people. At first, I didn't know what it meant but I quickly learned. :)

-Kyle
VACATION UNTIL june 29TH or 30th. :)

Locked

Return to “2.0.x Discussion”