Dan
Well-known member
He means he would like to see a configuration setting explicitly opting IN as opposed to having to add a setting opting OUT.
Good Night
- Thread starter Lawrence
- Start date
Jon W
Well-known member
Isn't the law in Canada just to do with spam, or is there some other law I don't know about?
CTXMedia
Well-known member
My interpretation is that @Lawrence is saying that he'd like the default to be disallow @Jon W's add-on from gathering any usage data about other developer's add-ons - unless the board admin explicitly gives permissions for the data to be shared.
Privacy ON by default - with an option to disable (or share).
Privacy ON by default - with an option to disable (or share).
The people in question have said that they're happy with that by installing an add-on that necessitates that to provide the functionality and that clearly explains what will be sent.
You mean the add-on that is explicitly designed for checking whether you have add-ons that can be upgraded? The one whose explicit purpose is to use the data needed to provide the exact purpose that the people using it have asked for? It is opt in by definition of someone installing the add-on and it being explained on the resource page what data it collects.
To my understanding, your entire complaint revolves around the Waindigo install and upgrade add-on which has no connection to the premium discussion any more (from what I understand).
Seriously? If you want your argument to be taken seriously, calling me some sort of racist is clearly not a good way to do it.
Last edited:
Ridemonkey
Well-known member
The Canadian law is around opting users into behavior that they didn't initially sign up for. That doesn't apply here, the users signed up for the behavior when they initially installed the add-on. Again: they installed the add-on for this purpose.
I don't really see any reason why you can't put that request in your resource listings, but you demanded it in your first post, and putting it in your license agreement is similarly blunt. Since it's likely unenforceable, I think you'd do better to just politely state your thoughts and request, and let users choose for themselves - since they'll be doing that anyway.
You're doing nothing here to protect privacy rights. At all.
This is utterly ridiculous.
A subscription model for licensing is not inherently evil or arbitrary, and there is a very clear statement about what information is collected and why.
Snog
Well-known member
This has gotten completely out of hand.
While I don't agree with Jon's business model, it is his model and I don't have any say about how it works.
So far as the add-on that monitors other add-on version numbers for upgrades, it needs the name and version number to do it's job. I have absolutely no objection to that.
While I don't agree with Jon's business model, it is his model and I don't have any say about how it works.
So far as the add-on that monitors other add-on version numbers for upgrades, it needs the name and version number to do it's job. I have absolutely no objection to that.
Jon W
Well-known member
We are talking about one add-on, not a business model.
Snog
Well-known member
The other thread was referenced, that's the only reason I mentioned it.
tajhay
Well-known member
Wouldnt all this be so much simpler that only Waindigo addons are checked for upgrades UNLESS Waindigo has permission from the other developers to check explicity for theirs as well. As Waindigo gets permission, they can be added on his backend rather than new addon updates.
Edit - Nice OP post edit mods, but you gotta admit the original deleted sentence is infact very true
Not sure why all the fuss, when Chris D's addon installer is far superior anyway. No fancy callbacks, no collection of data. Just does what it is supposed to. Bloatware be gone.
Edit - Nice OP post edit mods, but you gotta admit the original deleted sentence is infact very true
Not sure why all the fuss, when Chris D's addon installer is far superior anyway. No fancy callbacks, no collection of data. Just does what it is supposed to. Bloatware be gone.
Last edited:
If I remember correctly, Jon already changed his code to transfer and compare MD5 strings of the add-ons and it's version numbers only. This makes it impossible for him to even identify single add-ons.
This should be more than sufficient for any developer to be okay with it.
This should be more than sufficient for any developer to be okay with it.
Jon W
Well-known member
I requested the edit.Edit - Nice OP post edit mods, but you gotta admit the original deleted sentence is infact very true
I wouldn't say that. There's a lot of bugs that I haven't yet had time to fix and really its method of collecting data is far from optimal to the point that @Mike will probably start docking my pay to cover all the bandwidth it sucks up
No, why should we? And I am not going to do so. You know my feelings, and the feelings of a couple of other developers here, so why not show some respect and automatically set the mining of data to opt-out? But you won't, because that is not in your character.
You need to make money, understandable, well why not do what everybody else does? Work part-time somewhere to supplement your income and work on add-ons in your spare time, until your company can sustain itself and your family? That actually works.
******* gets caught (before the reason they were banned here), and sweeping changes were made to protect the rights of forum owners from developers with their own agendas, and what was the result? An opportunists jumps right in and takes over, and the staff here endorses it. You make a request to have a thread closed, the staff does it. You request to re-open a thread, the staff does it. You request to have posts edited and the staff does it. I tried to figure out why in a previous post and Mike jumped all over it, so the why, I guess, is irrelevant.
Like I said before, I can't stop you. However, I will be changing my licensing agreement for installing any future add-on I create. That, like life, isn't fair, but it is what I will do to protect the privacy of my add-ons and those who choose to use them.
otto
Well-known member
@Chris D
I have the solution ...
Talk with Mike, Kier - than make your installer work best as you can and make it a core feature for xenforo from 2.0 upwards.
Then this discussion is ending and things would be much better than actualy and your community will also be happy.
I see the problem deeper as others here. I think its not good, when one or two extern developers holds a core feature in theyr hands like installation and upgrade. This is why i think - this one should core in a better xenforo.
When i see how easy it ist to install an add-on in a wordpress eg ...
I have the solution ...
Talk with Mike, Kier - than make your installer work best as you can and make it a core feature for xenforo from 2.0 upwards.
Then this discussion is ending and things would be much better than actualy and your community will also be happy.
I see the problem deeper as others here. I think its not good, when one or two extern developers holds a core feature in theyr hands like installation and upgrade. This is why i think - this one should core in a better xenforo.
When i see how easy it ist to install an add-on in a wordpress eg ...
Ridemonkey
Well-known member
You should stop the hand-waving about the privacy of "your users."
If one of your users has chosen to install Jon's add-on, they are making an informed decision about their own privacy and the amount of data they are willing to share.
You are not protecting them from anything - nor should you, nor can you.
You should make whatever decision you want about you own data, but it's disingenuous to pretend that you're on some morally superior crusade to protect your users.
Similar threads
- Question
