Back Home

Open Designs

Community. Driven.

General Talk: Rambilng Soul's Tomodachi and it's licence

Bottom of Page

51 to 100 of 116

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    I'd be keen to hear from other's as to what CC can give to the designer (that goes with the spirit of this site) that GNU GPL can't.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgnome
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    So, technically speaking, we need to send a message to each user with CC-license templates, telling them to change their licenses to one of the two remaining licenses: GPLv3, or public domain. If they haven't changed licenses in a month, remove the designs.

    The problem is that creative commons allows the forced attribution of sponsors, which the GNU GPL specifically disallows. The trick is that in the past, I don't clearly recall any template which required sponsor attribution. It may have been done once before, by a designer with quite uninspiring templates, although I am not sure.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    Let's not worry about the one's in the past let's just make a new rule now...

    New rule #1. Don't submit a design unless your willing to submit it under either GPLv3, or public domain licences.
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    Just to chime in on the issue of other templates that have been pointed out that contain links to other sites etc.

    We need a "report design" link on the preview page so that members can report designs that are not in the spirit of OD. Then an Admin or Mod can check them out. Better would be to make sure they don't get through in the first place.

    To think we are even discussing this when OD was born because of sponsor links being put in templates!

    As for the license - CC or GPL doesn't matter if OD rules say we don't accept templates with sponsors links.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    i don't care either way for sponsored links that can be removed...
    except if
    1. they can't be removed
    2. they hurt this site

    in which case..

    3. ban ALL links except for the designer's

    or if 1 and 2 don't apply...

    4. there's no more than one sponsored link and that link is only placed on the design once.

    or if that's too hard... see point 3.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgnome
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    I think that if OD added the rel="nofollow" to links in templates, we wouldn't help the rankings of any site linked to in a template, which is fine, because everyone has a well indexed link on their profile page to their own site. Does anyone have a strong objection to such a practice? The rel="nofollow" would only be added to the design previews, the downloadable zip files would be untouched.

    We don't actually need to get rid of the creative commons license, if we just add something to the guidelines: Submission Guidelines.
  7.  
    Like many others, I really don't have a problem with sponsored designs, but I don't like the idea that the sponsor link has to stay forever. If it were my choice, I'd say that templates containing sponsored links had to be submitted as Public Domain. The designer already got paid to make the template, and "link love" is usually to offer the designer something since they created the design for nothing. Rather than getting paid in clicks, they decided to get paid in cash. Fine by me, but it seems like they should have to choose.

    I have no idea how to police that well though, because people will always be trying to slip links past. I'm 100% behind disallowing sponsor links that are required to stay. I think links should be allowed in templates (and I've said why which is basically that not all non-design-related links are bad), but you should only be able to require a user to keep one link, and it must be the designer's.
  8.  
    Posted By: gnomeWe don't actually need to get rid of the creative commons license, if we just add something to the guidelines: Submission Guidelines .

    True enough. That would probably be an easier course of action than dropping CC altogether, and changing licenses of existing designs.

    Still, I don't see a purpose for Creative Commons here.
    •  
      CommentAuthorNickyD
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    As far as I can see, Roshan did nothing wrong, as no set rules have been put in place. I think the question now is, "what rules do we want to put in place to avoid this in the future?"

    I also have a problem with future templates having a sponsor on it. To me, it is a conflict of interest. As I said earlier, I could not use a template if it had 'wine' as a sponsor, because it would be a huge conflict with my web site's message. Many of the word press templates have sponsors on it, which always bothered me, because I could not use many of them.

    Roshan (Rambling Soul) was not around when we all left OWD over something similar to this, so he would not know. But for many of our new people here, many of the originals here migrated away from another site, because our templates secretly had sponsors placed on them. Although this is not the same, it still may strike a chord with some due to the topic.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    okay, this thread is starting to get somewhat ridiculous.

    Posted By: perthmetroI think it should be more like... If the designers don't like it (the licence), then they don't have to submit their templates, rather than if we don't like the designer's licence then we don't have to download it.
    wtf?

    Posted By: acousticsamAs for all the designs currently under CC, just make them default to GNU GPL. If the designers don't like it, they can request for their designs to be removed.
    wtf?

    Posted by: gnomeSo, technically speaking, we need to send a message to each user with CC-license templates, telling them to change their licenses to one of the two remaining licenses: GPLv3, or public domain. If they haven't changed licenses in a month, remove the designs.
    then prepare to lose hundreds of quality designs.

    Posted By: perthmetroNew rule #1. Don't submit a design unless your willing to submit it under either GPLv3, or public domain licences.
    let's not forget that, if it weren't for the people who submit free templates, this site would not exist. if you don't like the license of a template, DO NOT USE IT. but do not tell a designer what he or she can or cannot do with their own templates, and do not restrict their licensing options: the end result is fewer designs will be submitted here.
  11.  
    ^ I agree. Now, people illegally removing copyrights is a big issue, but for some reason GNU GPL Licensed templates are a hell of a lot more prone to having their links removed than CC licensed templates.

    Regardless, personally if you decide to remove CC templates than you can go ahead and remove my templates, and I will not submit them to this site. I guarantee tons of other designers will agree with me too. Are you sure you want to remove the license?
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    Posted By: greg... do not tell a designer what he or she can or cannot do with their own templates, and do not restrict their licensing options: the end result is fewer designs will be submitted here.


    This is a specific type of site with specific type of requirements, therefore by default it requires that we as a community 'tell' the designers what the rules are (so they don't say "WTF" all the time). They either accept it or they don't. If designers want to put in sponsored links they are more than welcome to, but not here... we're asking them to make a choice that's all. Life is like that.

    If that means that the OD world only has templates with no sponsored links in them then so be it. I doubt it will have any impact on the quality and number of designs submitted. In fact it will make it more popular as it will be more popular among end users and therefore more designers will want to have exposure to all these end users.

    History tells us in all sorts of areas of life that when restrictions get imposed on others under the guise of being 'free' then it doesn't last.

    Without a strong stance on sponsored links, copied designs, etc then this site will become irrelevant to it's purpose.

    I've still yet to here anyone tell me what CC gives the author that GPL doesn't 9in the context of this site).. see the site rules discussion on this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    i have no idea how GPL differs from CC, but the majority of designs are released under CC - there is probably a reason for this.

    SeanPollock has contributed several high quality templates to this site, and as stated above, he will remove his templates if the CC license is removed. these are templates with NO SPONSORED LINKS IN THEM. if you do not want sponsored links, disallow sponsored links. this will affect one (or only a few) templates already submitted here. fine. but removing the CC license will affect HUNDREDS of templates.
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    We must not forget a general rule that should always be followed:No law can be retroactive.

    The present templates were submitted following the rules, so no rule can make them illegal.
  15.  
    Speaking of the site rules discussion, I think aaroncampbell's suggestion in that thread is a fair compromise. It prevents this sort of thing from happening again, but doesn't encroach on designers that have already submitted under CC.

    Posted by: aaroncampbellThe way around that would be to remove it as an option, but keep old templates licensed just the way they are. Grandfather them in so to speak.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgnome
    • CommentTimeMay 19th 2008
     
    *sigh* I did try to break the policy-making off into the thread it is supposed to be in...

    This is the current plan (which is subject to change at any time, based on input in the rules and guidelines for submission conversation): at some point in the future, new templates submitted will not have the option of using a Creative-Commons license. No currently-submitted templates will be touched. Unless anyone has a good answer to pete's question (again, please see the policy thread), then that is probably what is going to happen.
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by ainslie on the 20th May 2008 at 05:19:43 EDT
     
    I think we lost the plot!

    Do we or do we not want sponsored links in themes? It's as easy as that!

    The WordPress community have tacked this same issue with the result that all themes with sponsored links were removed from the official theme viewer. Some even wanted to go as far as removing designer links from themes. Pretty much everywhere on the internet sponsored links are regarded as spam. Got that, SPAM!

    And another thing, sorry I'm on a roll, but this site gives many designers a foot up in the world and set them on a road to success. The template is the designers but even they have to abide by the rules! I don't think people will stop submitting just because we don't allow the minority to use us as a link farm.
  18.  
    Thought I might say good bye.

    I have taken out all my templates.. This doesn't mean that I have anything against the Admins or members who spoke against me. It is just difference in opinion and if anyone is in need of help you can always send me a mail from my contact form. Not that I know a great deal, but within the limitations of my knowledge, I will always try to help - I always have.

    About the thread

    I do not have any problem if you are going to disallow the sponsored links. I do not have any problem in changing the Template license. It does not matter to me if someone links to my website or not. But shouting it here in this thread gives a clear message - We dont give a damn about the designers. And when I say that i am not blaming anyone. and no.. i am not starting a new community.. lol

    anyway, as you pointed out ainslie, it is true that the community has helped designers a lot. I have learned a great deal from here. I have got a better traffic to my site because i was submitting the templates HERE.

    But.. if I submitted a template and if it is regarded as a spam, admins have every right to take it out. and i would understand that very well as well. But this thread has changed directions. after reading all the comments, the only message i could summarize from it is - "submit the templates if you like our new rules. if not, we don't give a damn"

    so, fine.

    I hope I haven't offended anyone.


    NB : To whoever sent me the mail yesterday from my website - I am sure he is following this thread - I would expect people to be a bit more professional and act like grown ups wink . abusing people is bad. unless I have done something awfully wrong to you. I am sure I haven't.
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by ainslie on the 20th May 2008 at 06:06:52 EDT
     
    Posted By: ramblingsoulBut.. if I submitted a template and if it is regarded as a spam, admins have every right to take it out. and i would understand that very well as well. But this thread has changed directions. after reading all the comments, the only message i could summarize from it is - "submit the templates if you like our new rules. if not, we don't give a damn"


    This is not personally about you. Can't you see that this is an open source community that will be damaged by templates with sponsored links? This community started when sponsored links were put in our templates. Most of us came here because of sponsored links being put in our templates.

    How selfish you are! I can't believe you think it is acceptable! angry
  20.  
    well, if it isn't about me. then leave it. Go a head with the rest of discussions. But i still would have understood your point without the word "Selfish"

    bakie
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    @ramblingsoul: Sorry, maybe that wasn't called for. This is all getting blow up beyond all proportion.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    let's hope this will be the last of the templates to go. roshan's designs were of an incredibly high quality and now, thanks to this incredibly retarded thread, they are no longer available to the users of this site. but now there isn't a template with a compulsory sponsored link, so i guess everyone got what they wanted. congratulations, everyone, great job. way to support the designers who make this site what it is.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Roshan, just because many of the designers and members don't want sponsored links in templates (that especially can't be removed due to the licence) doesn't mean we don't give a damn about designers.

    It has always been submit your designs if you like our rules. And as all gropus do form time to time, they update the rules to address potential problems.

    Tell me honestly, would you like to see a template here with a compulsory link to a adult only website that sells anal butt plugs?... perfectly legal!

    this site is about attributing designers, it's not about assisting 3rd parties to get hits to promote their sites, and there are other ways to make money from your templates. So if you really think we don't give a damn then i can only think your pride has been hurt and that you're over reacting to show you're upset.

    I'm a bit disappointed you've reacted like this - but i respect your choice to do so.You could have gone quietly and not made any accusations of 'us' not giving a damn - but you decided not to. I think it would have been more constructive for you to have participated in this discussion a bit more.

    I'd love to know what your point of view is about my question of how CC is any better than GPL in regard to attributing the designer.

    Believe it or not there is a huge community desire to have open source/free templates without having compulsory links - and this site is here for that.

    What I don't understand is that you said "But this was something I did expect" yet you still went ahead and did it. That tells me that you had some idea that it was not what this site is about?

    take care Roshan,
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by perthmetro on the 20th May 2008 at 10:01:42 EDT
     
    http://www.opendesigns.org/forum/discussion/1213/

    http://www.opendesigns.org/forum/discussion/1367/


    whoops wrong post
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    @ramblingsoul: This was always going to be an emotive subject. Arguments over sponsored links have blown up all over the internet. I'm sorry if I insulted you. Please consider staying. How much exposure has OD given you? Have you not found it helpful in getting your designing skills known? I think you will find that the majority of people will not want to see sponsored links in themes. Especially Google!

    @greg: You can always visit ramblingsoul.com to download the templates. You need to understand that the community is bigger that any one individual, never mind how talented they are. ramblingsoul is a big loss but if he feels that he has to put sponsored links in his themes then so be it.

    We need rules to prevent our reputation becoming tarnished. I think perthmetro has given quiet clear reasons in his post above.

    I have been approached an offered $150 a piece to put sponsored links in WordPress themes but It is obvious to me that these would reduce my reputation even though I could make some good money doing it. So I don't.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    wow. I love how everyone blows everything out of proportion until someone feels like they have to leave. Is this what TODC is really about?
    •  
      CommentAuthorNickyD
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Posted By: perthmetroadult only website that sells anal butt plugs?
    Now I know this topic is getting out of control....lol. Pete has a secret side we don't know about.

    Posted By: ramblingsoulThought I might say good bye.
    Roshan, no need to say good bye. You are a valuable member of this community, so please reconsider that comment. As I wrote earlier, you did nothing wrong, as no rules were set in place. It is not like this happened earlier, and you did it again, so I hope you stay.
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Posted By: JeremyDwow. I love how everyone blows everything out of proportion until someone feels like they have to leave. Is this what TODC is really about?


    That depends how sensitive you are. It is the usual forum way to spit-your-dummy-out when somebody said something you don't like. wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorOutsider
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by Outsider on the 20th May 2008 at 09:24:45 EDT
     
    It would be sad to see ramblingsoul leave, as I'm on the fence about this issue. On one hand, provided sponsored links conform to the CC license, this shouldn't be an issue. But on the other hand, it will limit who would want to use it as is; some will opt to not use it, others will use it and remove the link, while others will use it as is. perhaps a footer note that says something to the effect of:

    This web template was made possible by the talent of [insert web designer] and their sponsor [insert sponsor link].
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Posted By: ainslieThat depends how sensitive you are.

    Posted By: ainslie How selfish you are! I can't believe you think it is acceptable! angry
    that would piss anyone off. it may depend on how sensitive people are, but it also depends on the crap people are dishing out.
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by ainslie on the 20th May 2008 at 10:09:47 EDT
     
    Spam links equal crap. crap = crap. End of story! Need I say more...

    Sorry I am blunt, but using the community for your own selfish means (i.e. tarnishing the reputation and quality or templates available here with spam links to make yourself money) isn't in the spirit of OD and it needs saying to anybody who can't see that.

    @greg: if you really want to fight about this let's take it off forum and contact me here

    I think I have made my position very clear and I did apologised to ramblingsole for my comment as I felt it was over the top.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Wtf... I'm baffled as to why this has become such a huge discussion. The solution seems so simple to me. Leave everything as it is.

    This situation is ENTIRELY different to that of what happened on OWD, so people should stop comparing it to that right away. OWD took control of designers templates and modified them without consent, potentially ruining the designers reputation. In this situation, it is the designer himself who has CHOSEN to add a link of this sort and if he wants to, then so be it.

    We as designers are spending hours working away to create something that people can have for free. If you don't like what we've created (and that includes the license agreement alongside it) then don't use it. If you were paying, then sure that's a different story... moan then.

    The CC license shouldn't be removed. As others have already said that will just stop some of the communities great designers from submitting and the community will suffer.

    I do agree that porn related links are not acceptable though since we have a community full of youngsters but we haven't seen this occur yet (well I haven't) and i'd like to think people have a little more respect than that.

    The rel="nofollow" discussion is a good one if you intend to put those on sponsered links only. I totally disagree with adding this to the designers link to their portfolio as that helps their reputation/SEO when users download their tempaltes and keep the link. This is one of the main reasons why I submit.

    IMO, RamblingSoul has done absolutely nothing wrong here... He put in the hours, he can put what he likes in his template.

    As for him leaving though... that's a bit silly as he knows fully well he will more than likely end up returning! This community offers benefits to designers that you'd be insane to give up.

    Finished tongue
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 20th May 2008 at 10:25:59 EDT
     
    Posted By: ainslieSorry I am blunt, but using the community for your own selfish means (i.e. tarnishing the reputation and quality or templates available here with spam links to make yourself money) isn't in the spirit of OD and it needs saying to anybody who can't see that.
    That is the most selfish thing I have heard. Tell me how many hours of your time it takes for you to download one of the designers generously submitted templates?

    I bet if I compared it to the amount of hours it takes us to learn and create this stuff it wouldn't even be worth comparing.

    YOU are being selfish by expecting us to work this hard to make it that EASY for you to have a site and not get anything in return for it. Please, get real shocked
    • CommentAuthorwfiedler
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Well spoken Jenna!

    STOP IT NOW!!

    Thought I might say good bye.

    Me too - reading some comments here from some so called "members"!

    Grow up!
    •  
      CommentAuthorkirby145
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Why don't we make a poll
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Posted By: JJenZzWtf... I'm baffled as to why this has become such a huge discussion.

    Because we're all like you Jenna and we have our own opinions, and this being a forum and all... in any case the good thing about this is that if it upsets you, then you don't have to read the post. I think it's great lots of people have taken the time to read other's points of view and be willing to share their own as well.

    If you don't like what we've created (and that includes the license agreement alongside it) then don't use it.

    Or... if you as a designer don't like 'our' licences then don't submit your template... With all respect to you Jenna, this is a community and if the community doesn't want sponsored links who are you say we shouldn't?

    The CC license shouldn't be removed. As others have already said that will just stop some of the communities great designers from submitting and the community will suffer.

    Like i said in the other topic, i think it will bring more designers here by bringing more integrity to the site.

    I do agree that porn related links are not acceptable though

    Herein lies the problem... wine sales may be fine for some and very uncomfortable for others... do we become social police as well? Porn is legal.

    This is one of the main reasons why I submit.

    I'd prefer to have designers main reason to submit designs here was help those who can't design and to promote web standards as well, if it's only due to getting something for you then that's where it can get a bit messy with the CC licence.

    IMO, RamblingSoul has done absolutely nothing wrong here...

    No one has ever said he has done anything wrong, so I'm not sure why others keep on saying this? What we have been saying saying is that we don't agree with sponsored links and want the rules changed to reflect our wishes as a community

    he can put what he likes in his template.

    I agree, but if this community decides on not allowing sponsored links then he and you and me must abide by that, the same as we all must not put text as a image, or be rude and nasty to others, or mention butt plugs too many times (sorry Len I couldn't help myself). Cat jokes should be an immediate bann though.

    This community offers benefits to designers that you'd be insane to give up.

    And dropping the CC licence will not have any negative effect whatsoever - this is too good a site for no CC licence to scare off enough designers to have any significant impact.
    •  
      CommentAuthormarkwest
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by markwest on the 20th May 2008 at 11:32:35 EDT
     
    This is an emotive subject....

    While I understand where the designers are coming from in that it's only one link, people can choose not to use the template, we need to make a living etc. I still think that, looking at the bigger picture, that sponsored links are a bad idea.

    One only needs to look at what happened within the wordpress theme arena. Things quickly went from a few templates with a single sponsored link to pretty much every template many with multiple sponsored links in.

    Now follow this onto OD. How would people feel in 6 months to a year if every single template submitted to OD contained one or more sponsored links that couldn't legally be removed? This, IMO, is the slippery slope the site would be on. The templates would all be unusable by a lot of users thus

    We then come onto the CC licence. IMO the intention of the attribution that CC provides for is attribution for the original author i.e. this is my work please leave my link in. This shouldn't extend to any and all random links that one might put in to a template. I firmly believe that is the ethical intention of the CC attribution license.

    Next lets extend the basic attribution argument into software that people use. Many people here use wordpress (indeed OD is partly based on it) and other web tools. Many coders spend many hours, like designers do on templates, coding these tools. Most don't even ask for attribution. Now imagine if these coders said why not us too. Lets ask users of my web tool to include the link of every person on the development team. Then how about modules and plugins?

    The next issue is SEO. These sponsored templates potentially have a negative impact on the placement of the people that make use of them. In most cases the template users simply won't be aware of this negative impact. No one really knows how google and other engines work fully but there's lots of processes in place to detect attempt to boost pagerank and the like. Sponsored links are an attempt to do exactly that.

    However for me the key issue is that open source is about freedom - anything that restricts that freedom is a bad idea. The sponsers of these links have no interest at all in open source, the freedoms it offers or ensuring the future and principals of open source.

    Some related links

    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Very eloquently put by both perthmetro and markwest.

    I only wish I had been so tactful. bakie
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    That would have to be the most intelligent argument to date so far for not having sponsored links. Very well explained (with no WTF's! or mention of butt plugs either)
    • CommentAuthorTrin
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    At the risk of being redundant, I'll ask again...

    If the designer has been paid for creating a template, and then requires a link to the person/company that paid him, is it still an open source template?

    I'm not trying to be smart here, I just don't know the answer.
    •  
      CommentAuthormarkwest
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by markwest on the 20th May 2008 at 12:10:53 EDT
     
    Trin,

    IMO no. Looking at the three licences possible here at OD

    1) Public domain - Here the designer cannot insist on anything so no possibility of required links

    2) GPL - The GPL only stipulates that any in-code credits remain. i.e. you can't download an open source cms strip out all the credits and re-release as your own. There is no mention in the GPL of the output. So links can't be required here either.

    3) Creative commons attribution - This is the slightly grey area. Here those supporting those links will say that the attribution for the sponser is required and within the license. I would disagree with this and argue that the intention of the license was for attribution of the author of the template.

    So in actual fact the answer is probably 'maybe but only in a CC attribution licenced template'. My opinion would still be that this goes against the principals of open source and the intention of the CC attriubtion licence.

    -Mark
    • CommentAuthorTrin
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Mark,

    Thanks for the explanation.

    While I'm not up on the various licenses, it would seem to me that the spirit of open source is compromised by insisting on links to template sponsors.

    On a side note, I don't understand why two out of three admins remain so silent on this (and other) issues. You've obviously put a lot of time and effort into creating this community. Why then, would you idly stand by and watch it attempt to self-destruct? I don't always agree with what Sean has to say, but at least he puts himself out there and faces the flak.
  43.  
    Oh wow, this is getting rather out of hand!

    I think the simple solution is:

    "Sponsered links are perfectly acceptable within submitted templates but rmeoval restrictions on the links are not."

    So something along the lines of 'you are welcome to submit stuff with sponsered/paid links in them' but 'you must not force the end-user to keep the links on their site'.

    A lot of people use these templates for startups/not for profit organisations who don't have a lot of money to spend on a website, so they choose to use a free template.

    Credit back to the design is fine, so long as it is not abused(more on this in a moment...) and I'm sure everyone would be happy to give credit where it's due. However having a sponsered link to - for example - a vineyard might be unacceptable on a children orientated website.

    But, I think we also need some common sense here as well. As even under these ideas - what is to stop me from creating a template, but then someone paying me to release it under their name.

    So instead of Design by edg3 I could put Design by Vineyard Name which would bypass these ideas for rules as its not a sponsered link as such, merely saying it was designed by whoever.

    Hope I'm making sense!
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by fernbap on the 20th May 2008 at 14:30:13 EDT
     
    You are making perfect sense.
    If you work for a company and create something, the copyright is the company's, because that's what you are receiving a salary for in the first place.
    Someone pays you to make a template, he is the owner of that template.
    But then, where is Open Source? Vanished.....
    A link back to whom? The designer? He did a job, got payed, so the work is no longer his. The sponsor? Yes, he has the right to it. But then, i don't think this is the place.
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    @Christopher: it's getting well out of hand but until we see some leadership and get some sensible rules in place it's unlikely to get any better

    I don't think there is any room for sponsored links but there should be a vote on it so it is a democratic decision.

    @JJenZz: Sorry if my comments offend you but if you take my efforts to keep OD free from being a link farm full of spam as selfish then I think you are mistaken. I also have templates on here, given for free that do not force people to even link back to me if they do not want to.

    Sometimes debates get heated. Take it like an adult!
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 20th May 2008 at 16:54:26 EDT
     
    Posted By: perthmetroin any case the good thing about this is that if it upsets you, then you don't have to read the post.

    It doesn't upset me I am just surprised. And when I said I can't believe the discussion has got so big, I meant so out of hand.

    Posted By: perthmetroOr... if you as a designer don't like 'our' licences then don't submit your template... With all respect to you Jenna, this is a community and if the community doesn't want sponsored links who are you say we shouldn't?

    And how exactly will this community run if there are no designs to download? At the end of the day, the designers play a huge part in keeping this site going and if you are going to make us accept silly rules that we aren't happy with, then you will see the (better) designers slowly disappear.

    Posted By: perthmetroHerein lies the problem... wine sales may be fine for some and very uncomfortable for others... do we become social police as well? Porn is legal.

    I think you're arguing for arguings sake here... it only takes a bit of common sense to realise that porn is less acceptable than a wine site.

    Posted By: perthmetroI'd prefer to have designers main reason to submit designs here was help those who can't design and to promote web standards as well

    That's lovely and I do it for those reasons too, but at the end of the day a lot of us do this fulltime, as our main source of income. We cannot afford to be doing freebies with no return.

    Posted By: Christopherbut 'you must not force the end-user to keep the links on their site'.

    That's a nice/best solution IMO.

    Posted By: ainslieI also have templates on here, given for free that do not force people to even link back to me if they do not want to.

    And so do i. In fact, all of my templates are that way.

    Posted By: ainsliebut if you take my efforts to keep OD free from being a link farm full of spam as selfish

    Link farm? He added one link... lol geez let's not exaggerate the situation.

    Posted By: ainslie
    Sometimes debates get heated. Take it like an adult!

    Haha now that's just ironic. You're the one that started getting childishly personal remember.

    I am simply putting my opinion forward as a designer and see no reason as to why the way the site works at present is an issue. I think Chris's suggestion to add the "disallowing users to remove sponsored links is not acceptable" rule is a good one though.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgnome
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by gnome on the 20th May 2008 at 16:55:44 EDT
     
    Jenna: The proposed rel="nofollow" would ONLY apply to the design previews on THIS SITE ONLY. The downloads would not be affected. This would serve to prevent people from submitting templates with lots of links to sap the Ranking off of our site, with little thought for downloading.

    The Creative Commons license explicitly allows forced attribution of sponsors, and the GPL forces nothing on the output, so removing the CC license isn't an option now that I have all the details. (Thanks for the informative post, Mark)

    Roshan: It is a shame to see you go. You will be missed.

    I didn't realise that GPL didn't require attribution. It is also geared more towards software, so we will probably just add a new rule, like Christopher says. Other than the possiblity of the rel="nofollow" being added to design previews to solve an altogether different problem, this is currently the only real soluion on the table. Are there any objections to Christopher's phrase (outside of the minor typo)?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    Posted By: gnomeJenna: The proposed rel="nofollow" would ONLY apply to the design previews on THIS SITE ONLY. The downloads would not be affected. This would serve to prevent people from submitting templates with lots of links to sap the Ranking off of our site, with little thought for downloading.

    That's a fab idea :)
  49.  
    Wow.

    This debate has certainly heated up pretty quick.

    But, as Gnome mentioned above, this really isn't the thread to be discussing it.

    Can an admin/mod close this thread so we can have a topical discussion in the Site Rules & Design Submission Guidelines thread?

    This discussion is no longer about ramblingsoul or his template. In fact, it never was.

    Let's come to a solution without too much name-calling and personal insults, shall we?
    • CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by ainslie on the 20th May 2008 at 17:27:20 EDT
     
    You may think it clever and very grown up to insult me by calling me childish but you are deflecting the subject from a very serious matter.

    Other communities have been blighted by "sponsored links". Read markwest's comments above regarding the WordPress community. He makes the point very well.

    We should be concentrating on fixing the problems rather than bickering.

    This isn't about any individual, ramblingsoul or otherwise - it is about what's good for the community. Sponsored links in templates are not seen as positive across the internet in general and are regarded as spam (fact). We are no different to any other community - the public do not even like the designers credit link from what I have seen. We need to consider this carefully and do the right thing.

    I don't think me and you arguing publicly is going to do a lot of good. I will contact you off forum to discuss this further. (email sent - awaiting response)

    @acousticsam: I've done you'll not hear any more in this thread by me.

51 to 100 of 116

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. >