Other New Resource Manager at waindigo.com

[SchmitzIT]

I don't get why you don't understand this. The only thing I see going on here is a bunch of people desperate for this add on who really don't care that it screws over the XF team.

Seeing I was the one saying I wanted a RM, I figure I'll clarify. I have asked the devs (through a third party) if there were any plans on releasing the RM any time soon, as I and several of my customers are waiting for it. The reply at the time was that there were immediate plans to release the product.

If the XF team is unable or unwilling to sell their product, and a third party produces a product that meets the goals I or my customers need, how would I be screwing over the XF team by buying the alternative solution, exactly? I do agree that if the third party RM is a plain rip of the RM, it would be fairly dubious, and I probably would not end up buying it, for that reason.

I would love to buy the RM, but for some reason am unable to. If I would be able to pick up a third party add-on that allows me to launch a new website, I'd at least have to pick up another license of XF (and just to clarify, I own more than 5 of those already) and thus still put money in their coffers.

My customers are basically in the same position. People had the RM carrot dangled in front of them, and started planning ahead for using it. When the RM was released, I'm pretty certain nobody expected it to not be available to the masses for over a year.

TLDR: I am *not* looking to screw over the XF Team whatsoever. I am merely trying to get my hands on something that allows me to use a product like the RM. Whether that is made by the XF team or a third party, I really don't care. I like KAM, and am a staunch supporter of XF, but I'm also trying to run a business here, and I don't think I should be expected to sit around forever waiting until the RM gets released if there are viable alternatives.

 

[Kim]

TLDR: I am *not* looking to screw over the XF Team whatsoever. I am merely trying to get my hands on something that allows me to use a product like the RM. Whether that is made by the XF team or a third party, I really don't care. I like KAM, and am a staunch supporter of XF, but I'm also trying to run a business here, and I don't think I should be expected to sit around forever waiting until the RM gets released if there are viable alternatives.

So..Go for it, buy the one that is already available that Shelley linked earlier, called a download manager has been in the RM for a while now.

Or Bobster65 is building one that knowing him won't be long, his stuff is good.

Waindingo mods are great, and he is welcome to build a RM too, just not a direct copy, and not one that utilizes the data in the one here for his own purposes.

What got me and a great many others in a tizz is the WAY this was done, not the WHAT it is

 

[Morgain]

Many addons here have replicated some vBulletin addons functionalities, do we have to delete them to? Some developers have also replicated addons of others who decided to leave, do we have to delete them to?

I mostly agree with you Cedric on all you've said in this post and others above.
But the cloning of a VB mod as an XF addon means a very different coding backend because XF works differently.
When developers have brought over someone else's VB mod (like MicroCart) and coded an XF version they state they have permission.
When an XF developer replicates an XF addon whose developer no longer supports or develops it, they do it with permission.If the original dev cannot be contacted the attempt is still made to get permission, and not ust a symbolic once.

Waindigo has admitted he did not understand the issues. He's taken the Waindigo RM down.

Now I got confused with all the extra copyright discussions -so I am wondering does Waindigo want to just demo his new RM? or does he want to actually run it as a service on his or another site?

Either way other devs' permission has to be gained to display any part of their resource except perhaps a title, a 30 word snippet description, and a link to the XF RM page. I would think that's like quoting, or reviewing, or merely mentioning a link on a page. An RM would need to do a lot more, to be useful.

If it's a demo perhaps Waindigo could do that with a handful of his own addons?
heaven knows he's made enough of them! Perhaps the demo could dummy the developer names Waindigo1 Waindigo2 Waindigo3 like that. But otherwise use his own content. I mean other devs are displaying their XF addons on github, and that XF show site said it would be presenting its own XF addons as companion community.

If WAindigo's RM is intended to be an operational service - in the absence of the XF RM - or as an alternative longer term, it would have to build power functions and invite devs to try it who might like those functions.

Either way this new RM would need a different frontend page design so it's not a clone of XF. That would happen naturally by it developing other functions as Waindigo said he intended. But that would be too slow. It sounds like it was released a bit prematurely before its frontend presentation was thought through. A lot of devs do that
It would be far better if the page design was original right away.
On the other hand Waindigo says he intended this as a possible stopgap which could be replaced by the XF RM when it comes. Maybe a user option? XF page design to support XF replacement later. Or a new Waindigo design for an independent alternative. The second would increasingly diverge from the first.

I mean no disrespect to Wai8ndigo or any other developer here. But we all know that Kier and Mike are top of the league. When they get going again they will code an RM that makes the current one look like wet sstring It'll knock anyone else's RM for six! - and there are several contenders around already. I'd put my money on KAM genius for a good while yet.
So I'm really not worried about anyone trying to make an alternative. XF is the best because it's the best. It doesn't have to fear competition. Another RM will either be inferior to a the XF RM when it comes, or it will have to go a very different direction to win any following. On that basis Waindigo said his RM was very much a first draft so who knows? Could flop or could be a good alternative for different needs.

Viva XF!​

 

[cclaerhout]

I mostly agree with you Cedric on all you've said in this post and others above.
But the cloning of a VB mod as an XF addon means a very different coding backend because XF works differently.
When developers have brought over someone else's VB mod (like MicroCart) and coded an XF version they state they have permission.
When an XF developer replicates an XF addon whose developer no longer supports or develops it, they do it with permission.If the original dev cannot be contacted the attempt is still made to get permission, and not ust a symbolic once.

You're absolution right, I totally agree with you (To be clear: I wasn't asking for these addons to be deleted).

Waindigo has admitted he did not understand the issues. He's taken the Waindigo RM down.

I don't want to speak for Waindigo but I think the reason he took back the RM was the concerns of everybody about privacy. Again, I don't see how he could have copied the code of an unavailable addon. And I can't speak for sure about the design. But put this "RM" (Luxus Post) using XenForo class and I guess the look will be closed.

 

[SchmitzIT]

So..Go for it, buy the one that is already available that Shelley linked earlier, called a download manager has been in the RM for a while now.

Or Bobster65 is building one that knowing him won't be long, his stuff is good.

Waindingo mods are great, and he is welcome to build a RM too, just not a direct copy, and not one that utilizes the data in the one here for his own purposes.

What got me and a great many others in a tizz is the WAY this was done, not the WHAT it is

I haven't checked the one Shelley linked to, other than superficially, and probably will not go for it, either.

If bobster is working on something, I might give that a go, though

We're in agreement for the rest, though I just wanted to point out I'm not trying to rob the XF team.

 

[Shelley]

I mostly agree with you Cedric on all you've said in this post and others above.
But the cloning of a VB mod as an XF addon means a very different coding backend because XF works differently.
When developers have brought over someone else's VB mod (like MicroCart) and coded an XF version they state they have permission.
When an XF developer replicates an XF addon whose developer no longer supports or develops it, they do it with permission.If the original dev cannot be contacted the attempt is still made to get permission, and not ust a symbolic once.

Waindigo has admitted he did not understand the issues. He's taken the Waindigo RM down.

Now I got confused with all the extra copyright discussions -so I am wondering does Waindigo want to just demo his new RM? or does he want to actually run it as a service on his or another site?

Either way other devs' permission has to be gained to display any part of their resource except perhaps a title, a 30 word snippet description, and a link to the XF RM page. I would think that's like quoting, or reviewing, or merely mentioning a link on a page. An RM would need to do a lot more, to be useful.

If it's a demo perhaps Waindigo could do that with a handful of his own addons?
heaven knows he's made enough of them! Perhaps the demo could dummy the developer names Waindigo1 Waindigo2 Waindigo3 like that. But otherwise use his own content. I mean other devs are displaying their XF addons on github, and that XF show site said it would be presenting its own XF addons as companion community.

If WAindigo's RM is intended to be an operational service - in the absence of the XF RM - or as an alternative longer term, it would have to build power functions and invite devs to try it who might like those functions.

Either way this new RM would need a different frontend page design so it's not a clone of XF. That would happen naturally by it developing other functions as Waindigo said he intended. But that would be too slow. It sounds like it was released a bit prematurely before its frontend presentation was thought through. A lot of devs do that
It would be far better if the page design was original right away.
On the other hand Waindigo says he intended this as a possible stopgap which could be replaced by the XF RM when it comes. Maybe a user option? XF page design to support XF replacement later. Or a new Waindigo design for an independent alternative. The second would increasingly diverge from the first.

I mean no disrespect to Wai8ndigo or any other developer here. But we all know that Kier and Mike are top of the league. When they get going again they will code an RM that makes the current one look like wet sstring It'll knock anyone else's RM for six! - and there are several contenders around already. I'd put my money on KAM genius for a good while yet.
So I'm really not worried about anyone trying to make an alternative. XF is the best because it's the best. It doesn't have to fear competition. Another RM will either be inferior to a the XF RM when it comes, or it will have to go a very different direction to win any following. On that basis Waindigo said his RM was very much a first draft so who knows? Could flop or could be a good alternative for different needs.

Viva XF!​

Nope not necessarily. The RM does not cater for multiple attachments alienating graphic standalone packs, styles to a degree where authors want to post other coloured variations of that pack in the same release thread which they can't do separately. Mike made this quite clear that he has no intention of supporting multiple attachments where some people (3rd party add-on makers may do so).

Each to their own I suppose, If an RM comes out that supports multiple attachments (without having to embed attachment zip inside attachment zip) I'll be considering this myself and will be highlighting that to potential buyers who will want this feature.

With that said, and no offence to the author of Micro there are parts of the download system i simply detest that I don't feel conform to a certain layout standard as the xf RM so I'm still waiting for <insert 3rd party developer> to take note that there is more to contributors than coders, there's stylers and graphic designers which I feel the RM really does not cater for.

If I'm not mistaken, and memory recalls you did note a few issues with the RM yourself when there was the debate a while back with Mike, Brogan and a few members of the community. Not sure if those same issues are still bothering you, or showstoppers.

 

[Lawrence]

Many addons here have replicated some vBulletin addons functionalities, do we have to delete them to?

With the exception of one add-on for XF, the add-on's I have released here you will find somewhere on vB.org or on vB.com as uploaded attachments. I needed the same functionality for XF as I had for my vB forum. They were not replicated by me, I just re-wrote my own products and plugins to work with XF; and I would say that many other add-on authors did the same when they switched over to XF.

That one add-on I am referring to above I created for XF is something I wanted for my site that I never wrote for vB; does something similar exist for vB? I have no idea, I just create add-ons as I need them; and release them here if I feel at least one person will find it useful.

 

[cclaerhout]

With the exception of one add-on for XF, the add-on's I have released here you will find somewhere on vB.org or on vB.com as uploaded attachments. I needed the same functionality for XF as I had for my vB forum. They were not replicated by me, I just re-wrote my own products and plugins to work with XF; and I would say that many other add-on authors did the same when they switched over to XF.

I did the same thing for my addons, so again I can agree more than you Lawrence. What I was trying to say is having a same functionality doesn't imply to have copied the code. Anyway I'm not going to debate with a XenForo staff on how unfair can be an allegation of having copied a software

 

[Luxus]

Hey guys, a question to you about ripping the html and CSS of the RM: What if Waindigo uses his own classes and his own CSS to achieve the very same look of the official RM? I mean, technically he wouldn't do any ripping if he uses his own code. There are more ways than one that lead to the goal.

Have a look at digitalpoint's download manager: https://marketplace.digitalpoint.com/mass-thread-move.922/item
Looks familiar?

 

[RobParker]

Hey guys, a question to you about ripping the html and CSS of the RM: What if Waindigo uses his own classes and his own CSS to achieve the very same look of the official RM? I mean, technically he wouldn't do any ripping if he uses his own code. There are more ways than one that lead to the goal.

Have a look at digitalpoint's download manager: https://marketplace.digitalpoint.com/mass-thread-move.922/item
Looks familiar?

KAM have shown they don't care by allowing themes on here that did exactly the same. There was loads of drama over it a while ago, hence the reference to "shared common usage" in the description

 

[digitalpoint]

Have a look at digitalpoint's download manager: https://marketplace.digitalpoint.com/mass-thread-move.922/item
Looks familiar?

Other than using standard XenForo styling elements like the sidebar or use of tabs, no... Not really. If that's what we are measuring "copying" on, then I guess this is a copy of the XF home page too.

https://marketplace.digitalpoint.com/sites

 

[Forsaken]

Hey guys, a question to you about ripping the html and CSS of the RM: What if Waindigo uses his own classes and his own CSS to achieve the very same look of the official RM? I mean, technically he wouldn't do any ripping if he uses his own code. There are more ways than one that lead to the goal.

Have a look at digitalpoint's download manager: https://marketplace.digitalpoint.com/mass-thread-move.922/item
Looks familiar?

The issue wasn't 'ripping css html', it was that it was made to look like the resource manager here.

If he wasn't using the CSS/HTML classes used by XenForo, there would be a lot of extra work, and it would be a styling nightmare.

 

[Luxus]

Actually it's because of the tabs and the blocks in the sidebar that makes this look similar to the RM. But similar isn't equal.

The issue wasn't 'ripping css html', it was that it was made to look like the resource manager here.

There were 2 issues:

1) Mirroring others resourced without permission
2) Using the HTML and CSS of the RM

My point was, he can bypass issue 2 by using his own code, regardless if it's hard or not.

 

[Jon W]

There were 2 issues:

1) Mirroring others resourced without permission
2) Using the HTML and CSS of the RM

Both come down to the same point... what is "fair use" (legally and ethically)?

I have a license to use XenForo and I would suggest I have a license to use its "look and feel" as determined by KAM for the purposes of running my XenForo forum. It is almost an unwritten requirement that any good XenForo add-ons must follow the XenForo look and feel.

I did copy and paste chunks of HTML and CSS code that I needed to mimic some of the look (although the vast majority is in the XenForo core -- tabs, sidebar, content blocks, member list item, ratings, etc.). Yes, I could not look at their code and spend hours writing it myself. Other than wasting a few hours, I don't see that making much of a difference. I would still be copying the look and feel. Ultimately, the copied HTML and CSS was a very small proportion of the add-on. I think some assumed that whole pages were just copied and pasted from the Resource Manager which was simply not the case. There was an awful lot of PHP coded from scratch and the bulk of the HTML/CSS is already licensed for use or was coded from scratch. Is this fair use? No idea.

As for mirroring resources, the question gets even harder. I think there are some easy ones -- is it fair use to copy an entire guide and display it on my site -- almost certainly not. This was done in error, but was almost certainly illegal. Quite simply, this should never ever have happened and I apologise unreservedly for this mistake.

How about displaying a full description of an add-on, but removing any attached images and linking to the page that the description originated from and the page where that add-on could be downloaded? I would suggest this is borderline "fair use" -- perhaps I needed to make it clearer that the description was taken from elsewhere and that the add-on was not my own. Would a court agree with me? No idea.

How about displaying just the title and short description of an add-on and some related statistics, some of which (i.e., the number of downloads and ratings) were taken directly from the RM, but nothing else. Almost certainly this is fair use. Would every court in the world agree that I should be able to do this at no cost whatsoever? Perhaps not... http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-21302168