Skip to main content ↑ ↓
Topic: Wedge (Read 14383 times) previous topic - next topic
0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Wedge

I've been posting a lot here these days and feeling well, and perhaps it's because we have a common cause in spite of using different tools (and licenses that are opposite in spirit!), I don't know, but I like you guys and if people aren't with what they see in Wedge, I'll always tell them to give ElkArte a try, because I think it caters to a different kind of forum admin (but similar user, though.)

Anyway, I figured you wouldn't mind if I opened this topic, to announce that for the first time in three years, the Wedge source code is now available to the public.
http://wedge.org/blog/
http://github.com/Wedge/ (the wedge repo has the main source code, other repos are also interesting.)

It feels good to finally be able to share this awesome codebase (not only my work, but also Pete's, whatever my differences with him.)
Also, even though Wedge's license is restrictive, I just wanted to let you know that if there's any piece of code you'd like to 'borrow', just ask me and I'll look into it!

Re: Wedge

Reply #1 –

Don't know what else to say other than Congratulations !!!!  Its an awesome software package you created, you should be very proud :D

Re: Wedge

Reply #2 –

Glad to see, congratulations.

Re: Wedge

Reply #3 –

A quick congratz!! (dealing with some tons of emails and things after a couple of days not in front of the computer for most of the time... lol)
Bugs creator.
Features destroyer.
Template killer.

Re: Wedge

Reply #4 –

Good for you. Hope it opens the doors to get others sticking their hands into the pot to help out.
Success is not the result of spontaneous combustion, you must set yourself on fire!

Re: Wedge

Reply #5 –

Congrats, and well done going public... I'm confident this is a good step forwards for the project.
Thorsten "TE" Eurich
------------------------

Re: Wedge

Reply #6 –

Thank you, guys!

Oh, it might interest you that the 'congratulations' message I got privately from the SMF team was accompanied by a cease & desist.... 8)

@IchBin, I doubt it'll bring any further contributors, perhaps in the far future, but really that's not the point. I wanted the codebase to be on github, as a central location for all things 'SMF forks', I suppose. ;)

@TE, can you look into the importer then? :P http://github.com/Wedge/importer/ is the repo for the Wedge-only importer. (It's the only one I got to work, anyway.) I also fixed the path bug I reported so long ago, as you can see in the changelog.
I just need to import avatars, attachments and media items. Think you could do that..? Is it implemented in OpenImporter, or not?

PS: mentions don't get linked when added through Quick Edit.

Re: Wedge

Reply #7 –

this one ? https://github.com/Wedge/importer/commit/44f239b6219a976b3e29683c06635673665ea97b

QuoteI just need to import avatars, attachments and media items. Think you could do that..? Is it implemented in OpenImporter, or not?
Avatars and Attachments Import is implemented in the Elk Version, but it's IIRC still incomplete.. As far as I remember multiple attachments directories aren't supported yet, but  I'll check that soon and also port it to the Wedge Version. I'd love to merge both Versions into just one version at some point, it's a nice little project for the futue..
Thorsten "TE" Eurich
------------------------

Re: Wedge

Reply #8 –

Quote from: Nao – Oh, it might interest you that the 'congratulations' message I got privately from the SMF team was accompanied by a cease & desist.... 8)
Let me guess: missing (c) in the header of each file.
I just noticed while wandering around in the code and I suspect github may receive a DMCA (happened recently for the very same reason: tapatalk).

Quote from: Nao – PS: mentions don't get linked when added through Quick Edit.
Yep, true...
I was still thinking if it was worth implementing it or not. lol
Since it "has been discovered" I suppose it's worth. :P
Bugs creator.
Features destroyer.
Template killer.

Re: Wedge

Reply #9 –

Quote from: Nao – Also, even though Wedge's license is restrictive, I just wanted to let you know that if there's any piece of code you'd like to 'borrow', just ask me and I'll look into it!

Just a word of caution:
Quote from: Github's Terms of ServiceWe claim no intellectual property rights over the material you provide to the Service. Your profile and materials uploaded remain yours. However, by setting your pages to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view your Content. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and fork your repositories.

You may claim your license is restrictive, but to Github the actual text of your license doesn't matter. If it's public, it's permissible; if private, it's proprietary. Just saying that, sooner or later, someone is going to take advantage of that, restrictive license or not.

Re: Wedge

Reply #10 –

@Eliana Tamerin if you think that, then you don't know much about github. In fact, that's the reason they're pushing authors to put a LICENSE file into their repos: because without a license file, the repo is considered proprietary work, and cannot be redistributed. They consider, however, that given the fact that github's fork feature is well known, putting one's repo there allows anyone to fork it, regardless of its license. But still, the forks are governed by the original license, and they can't be redistributed outside of github.

Of course I 'accepted' that Wedge would be forked on github, that's the main reason I put it there: to make it easier for people to contribute to it. Just because I happen to be re-using a modified version of the SMF 1.1 license doesn't mean I'm not open to external contributions, unlike SMF back in the day.[1]
So, to be clear:
- Wedge being on github is something I've wanted to do since day one (well, since SMF went BSD, technically).
- Wedge being on github does allow anyone to 'fork' it in the github sense of the term, and send pull requests.
- Wedge being on github doesn't allow anyone any other distribution rights.
- And given the sentiment over at SMF, why should I even reconsider my closed license? So that they can freely rip off my code and I have to systematically check their commits to see if they credited my bits or not?
Believe me, it's hard enough as it is. I'm open to sharing with ElkArte and other third parties, but SMF..? They NEVER did me any favors.

Heck, after that e-mail, I'm willing to say f*ck it and remove Aeva Media from over there.

Quote from: emanuele – Let me guess: missing (c) in the header of each file.
Of course. It had already been discussed in the past.
I wasn't too sure what to do.
But Pete was adamant that we didn't have to credit SMF everywhere; just in a single place would do. Eventually, we had their credits in contributors.txt, license_smf.txt, and the Credits page. That's more than enough, because that guaranteed SMF a 'visible' link in the software once installed somewhere, whereas the strict minimum according to them, doesn't allow them any visibility for visitors.

But the whole thing comes down to the fact that the BSD license really is unclear about one thing. It says, from memory, "provided the above copyright notice is retained". It doesn't say "provided the above copyright notice is retained IN EVERY FILE". It just says "the ABOVE" copyright notice. To me, it's always meant "See this file? Keep it. And don't change the copyright notice above this text. Now go do whatever else you wanna do, but really, don't change this file."
It's about respecting the original work. But that's what we did in Wedge, with the credit page's nod to SMF and its developers.
If we're going in that direction, then I'll send SMF a DCMA for not crediting Wedge for the code that Pete is adding into it. Sure, he owns that code, too, but he wrote it for Wedge, and it was published to our beta testers years ago. And who knows how many lines of code he's reusing from my own commits?

Really, I don't appreciate their hostility. I haven't been to sm.org for months, decided to leave them alone, especially Pete. Didn't launch any flame wars, didn't do crap in years at their place. I've been friendly to all the SMF devs I've been talking to (it's harder to be friendly with Pete after what he did, but ignoring him is the best I can do). This morning, upon reading this e-mail, I only felt one thing: disgust.

QuoteI just noticed while wandering around in the code and I suspect github may receive a DMCA (happened recently for the very same reason: tapatalk).
What happened to tapatalk?

QuoteYep, true...
I was still thinking if it was worth implementing it or not. lol
Well, don't worry, Wedge quick edit also has its share of missing goodies... For instance, Ctrl+B doesn't do anything in quick edit. In Quick Reply (or at the very least Reply), it bolds your selection.

QuoteSince it "has been discovered" I suppose it's worth. :P
"Aww, and here I thought I was safe!" :D
1 Heck, SMF 1.1 never was available on github, Google Code, or any public SVN server for that matter. In order to simply view new commits, you had to basically offer yourself as a slave to the SMF team. And even after being such a good slave (500+ bug reports and twice the commits everyone else did in the period I had SVN access), I was still never granted a SMF team status. Yes, SMF is definitely a bunch of close-minded people who only are on github because the new license was imposed upon them by ex-developers who threatened to sue. Ahhh, good times...↵

Re: Wedge

Reply #11 –

Quote from: TE – this one ? https://github.com/Wedge/importer/commit/44f239b6219a976b3e29683c06635673665ea97b
Yup. Not your typos, but the .replace() part. It was all down to the fact that if I added a slash at the end of my path (which I usually do), another slash added to it by the script itself would then break the path.

Quote
QuoteI just need to import avatars, attachments and media items. Think you could do that..? Is it implemented in OpenImporter, or not?
Avatars and Attachments Import is implemented in the Elk Version, but it's IIRC still incomplete.. As far as I remember multiple attachments directories aren't supported yet,
Ah, yes, NOW I remember why I thought attachments weren't supported in the Wedge importer... Because you didn't support all kinds of attachments! All right then... So, yeah, the whole thing was broken in /importer, and Pandos managed to spot the reason, and fixed it. You can check out the latest commits. Feel free to move them to OpenImporter if not already fixed over there.
Oh, BTW, my importer repo is under the BSD-3 to match your own repo, but I personally prefer the MIT license (shorter, cleaner) for everything copyleft (see the /languages repo.) Any reasons why you favored BSD over MIT? SMF ecosystem, I suppose..? Or do you actually care about their extra name clause?

Quotebut  I'll check that soon and also port it to the Wedge Version. I'd love to merge both Versions into just one version at some point, it's a nice little project for the futue..
Isn't that already done..? I mean, I thought OpenImporter was based on the Wedge Importer codebase? Even when doing a quick diff, you can see they're both very similar... Most of the changes are added or deleted functions, and all language strings got the 'we.' header removed (I can understand that :P).

Re: Wedge

Reply #12 –

Quote from: Nao – But the whole thing comes down to the fact that the BSD license really is unclear about one thing. It says, from memory, "provided the above copyright notice is retained". It doesn't say "provided the above copyright notice is retained IN EVERY FILE". It just says "the ABOVE" copyright notice. To me, it's always meant "See this file? Keep it. And don't change the copyright notice above this text. Now go do whatever else you wanna do, but really, don't change this file."
It's about respecting the original work. But that's what we did in Wedge, with the credit page's nod to SMF and its developers.
Yeah, it's not very clear.
I always considered it like: "any place I put my (c) you have to keep it".
It's probably a matter of interpretation, but I think Arantor was wrong saying that one place is enough, in particular considering that SM is known to take in huge consideration the importance of its (c) disclaimer inside the source files.

Quote from: Nao –
QuoteI just noticed while wandering around in the code and I suspect github may receive a DMCA (happened recently for the very same reason: tapatalk).
What happened to tapatalk?
https://github.com/tapatalk/tapatalk-smf2
Bugs creator.
Features destroyer.
Template killer.

Re: Wedge

Reply #13 –

I told coreisp that I was fine with adding the copyright info as requested, as long as it was short enough not to be larger than the Wedge copyright info (which I wanted to be as short as possible). He said he'd come back to me soon, but I'm still waiting. I'm thinking I'll be releasing the first public alpha without the copyright adjustments, but at least I'm doing it in fair use.

Interesting that Tapatalk got into problems with SMF. One would think they NEED to be on good terms with everyone for their business to thrive... No?

Re: Wedge

Reply #14 –

Quote from: Nao – Interesting that Tapatalk got into problems with SMF. One would think they NEED to be on good terms with everyone for their business to thrive... No?

Maybe they want to push their new and upcoming and fresh and all mobile interface.  ::)
-