• This site uses cookies. By continuing to use this site, you are agreeing to our use of cookies. Learn more.

License for all Waindigo add-ons - CC BY-NC-ND [Deleted]

Jon W

Well-known member
#1
Waindigo submitted a new resource:

Copyright Notice by Waindigo (version 1.0.0) - Hide the copyright notice on Waindigo add-ons.

We are incredibly thankful for the incredible support of the XenForo community and as such are committed to providing access to all of our add-ons free of charge to the XenForo community.

However, in order to protect the interests of the kind contributors who have allowed for this to happen, we licence our add-ons to you with the following conditions:
  • that the add-on is only licenced to non-commercial websites;
  • that any copyright notices remain intact.
We also reserve the...
Read more about this resource...
 

Adam Howard

Well-known member
#2
I must say.... This release surprises me. Most developers or companies don't just tell people they can remove it.

I would like to alter the license under these terms of it is OK with you

  • We keep the copyright (y)
  • We relocate it under the current XenForo copyright

While I am very grateful for your willingness to bypass the copyright (allowing us to remove it freely) .... I do not mind giving credit to where it is do and you have been a valid resource for many people here on XenForo.

Would this be acceptable to you?
 

MagnusB

Well-known member
#5
Not to start a flame war, but using hidden links is a big no no at Google: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66353

If your site is perceived to contain hidden text and links that are deceptive in intent, your site may be removed from the Google index, and will not appear in search results pages. When evaluating your site to see if it includes hidden text or links, look for anything that's not easily viewable by visitors of your site. Are any text or links there solely for search engines rather than visitors?
What SEO impact it has is negligible, but the fact that you risk a temporary ban from Google is almost destructive. I am very vary of using hidden links in any shape or form. It is much better that you keep any backlink visible.
 

Jon W

Well-known member
#6
Not to start a flame war, but using hidden links is a big no no at Google: http://support.google.com/webmasters/bin/answer.py?hl=en&answer=66353

What SEO impact it has is negligible, but the fact that you risk a temporary ban from Google is almost destructive. I am very vary of using hidden links in any shape or form. It is much better that you keep any backlink visible.
This is why the copyright notice was made visible by default, but users have the choice to hide it if they choose.

I think the key here is the pluralisation of the 'links' in your quote. My guess is that they are referring to sites littered with hidden links. Clearly this would be a problem if all developers did the same thing as me and you had add-ons from dozens of developers. If this was the case, a realistic solution to this would be a page added to the help section or similar with a list of all the add-ons installed.

Different developers have different policies for different reasons. Some are just happy to sell their branding rights forever for a quick buck. The same developers may also disappear in 6 months once they have no rights left to sell, but that is their decision. I am here for the long haul and my policy reflects this.
 

Jon W

Well-known member
#7
The note at Google does not mention hiding through JavaScript. Is this an option that you would like me to include in the Copyright Notice add-on?

Also, I am always happy to consider other options if you really want to avoid hiding links.

Take a look at the following site as an example:
http://www.holdtheline.com
 

Chris D

XenForo developer
Staff member
#8
I have two queries.

1) Define "commercial website". By definition, surely most of the sites here are commercial as most have advertising space which generates revenue. Are you saying that actually most of your add-ons would need to be paid for to be compliant with your license terms?

2) If you're allowing people to hide the copyright text, why not just let them remove it entirely? Does the copyright text link back to your own site? Is this an effort to increase your own page rank? Would Google bother following and indexing it if it's hidden anyway?
 

MagnusB

Well-known member
#9
This is why the copyright notice was made visible by default, but users have the choice to hide it if they choose.

I think the key here is the pluralisation of the 'links' in your quote. My guess is that they are referring to sites littered with hidden links. Clearly this would be a problem if all developers did the same thing as me and you had add-ons from dozens of developers. If this was the case, a realistic solution to this would be a page added to the help section or similar with a list of all the add-ons installed.

Different developers have different policies for different reasons. Some are just happy to sell their branding rights forever for a quick buck. The same developers may also disappear in 6 months once they have no rights left to sell, but that is their decision. I am here for the long haul and my policy reflects this.
Again, I wasn't trying to start something. I think having a backlink in the footer is not uncommon, nor unreasonable. I personally don't like it cause it tends to leave the footer very messy once you install a few addons. Using hidden links are an all together different ballpark IMO. Yes, they use plural of links, and if you only have one hidden link, you might not get banned, but it is still against the Google policy, so it is a gamble, even with just one hidden link. I doubt using hidden links have any more SEO impact than using a visible link, except a hidden link is frowned upon. At least it is sorted out, so not a major issue, IMO.

EDIT:
@Chris, Google will most likely treat it as a ordinary link.
 

Jon W

Well-known member
#10
1) Define "commercial website". By definition, surely most of the sites here are commercial as most have advertising space which generates revenue. Are you saying that actually most of your add-ons would need to be paid for to be compliant with your license terms?
If revenue from advertising space goes towards hosting costs (and maybe a couple of beers for the admin), then I would consider it not for profit (hence non-commercial). If the forum had a shop for selling items or if it was a support forum for a company, then I would consider it to be commercial. The line is blurry and I recommend that people contact me if they are not sure. If people contact me first, I am more likely to say their site is not commercial. If I catch them later, then I am not going to be so nice.

2) If you're allowing people to hide the copyright text, why not just let them remove it entirely? Does the copyright text link back to your own site? Is this an effort to increase your own page rank? Would Google bother following and indexing it if it's hidden anyway?
Of course Google will index these. Hence why it is their policy to discourage sites from deceptively hiding links.
 

Adam Howard

Well-known member
#14
Waindigo,

I love the concepts of many of your add-ons, but have noticed 1 small flaw in all of them. (thought I'd address you here)

They remind me of old Microsoft Windows ... ie ... You seem to have a "shared resource" in that all your modifications share a few library files and last night I learned installing more than 1 of them is a lot like the old .DLL Hell problem from old Microsoft Windows.

What this means is that you release X product with the newest code, but if someone installs "Y" product with "X" product they clash, because the shared file resources (or in this case, feels like .dll files) clash because they're not the same (and both add-ons are looking for different libraries).

It makes it impossible to install more than one of your modifications. I think it would be easier for you, not to have any "shared" files ... ie... Files that are named the same and use the exact same path (causing overwriting and conflicts)

This is not a personal attack on you, but rather some respectful constructive criticisms. I think you're doing a wonderful job and service to the XenForo community. And I have the highest respect for those who are kind enough to release free products for us to all love and enjoy using.
 

Sheldon

Well-known member
#15
Waindigo,

I love the concepts of many of your add-ons, but have noticed 1 small flaw in all of them. (thought I'd address you here)

They remind me of old Microsoft Windows ... ie ... You seem to have a "shared resource" in that all your modifications share a few library files and last night I learned installing more than 1 of them is a lot like the old .DLL Hell problem from old Microsoft Windows.

What this means is that you release X product with the newest code, but if someone installs "Y" product with "X" product they clash, because the shared file resources (or in this case, feels like .dll files) clash because they're not the same (and both add-ons are looking for different libraries).

It makes it impossible to install more than one of your modifications. I think it would be easier for you, not to have any "shared" files ... ie... Files that are named the same and use the exact same path (causing overwriting and conflicts)

This is not a personal attack on you, but rather some respectful constructive criticisms. I think you're doing a wonderful job and service to the XenForo community. And I have the highest respect for those who are kind enough to release free products for us to all love and enjoy using.
I thought he answered that here: http://xenforo.com/community/threads/self-delete-by-waindigo.32728/#post-388670
 

ManOnDaMoon

Well-known member
#17
Waindigo developed/uses his own framework in order to manage addon (un)installation. If you look closely, the files in there are named after a timestamp. These are the files that are included in all his packages and get overwritten when you copy the whole addon directory.

I must say, this is clever and works like a charm. :)
 

Adam Howard

Well-known member
#18
Waindigo developed/uses his own framework in order to manage addon (un)installation. If you look closely, the files in there are named after a timestamp. These are the files that are included in all his packages and get overwritten when you copy the whole addon directory.

I must say, this is clever and works like a charm. :)
So I'm noticing ....

But I'm wondering if I install a new mod with the new framework, followed by an older mod (released before) which has no doubt an older copy of that framework .... Is that a cause for issue
 

Adam Howard

Well-known member
#19
Screenshot from 2012-07-24 16:01:32.png

It would seem it didn't like something in my side bar, so for now I disabled this.

The only option that did work .... Thought I'm not using, cause I'm not authorized, but did temporary try for testing .... Was the complete off option.
 

Sheldon

Well-known member
#20
Same here. I installed, was attempting to move it. Whatever it did causes my Header to explode (for visitors), and the only way to correct it was "complete off".

With Copyright on and these options [Hide Copyright with CSS], I get this:


With it turned off, its back to normal: