Back Home

Open Designs

Community. Driven.

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

Bottom of Page

101 to 116 of 116

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. 3
  5. >
  1.  
    Posted By: gnomeAre there any objections to Christopher's phrase (outside of the minor typo)?

    Haha I always spell sponsored wrong, and I blame my laptop keyboard for rmeoval tongue (aren't i good at making excuses?!)

    @acousticsam: To be fair the thread has been spurred on by the original post, so it's not really off-topic so I see no reason for it to be closed. If another admin/moderator disagrees then they can close it if they wish, either way doesn't bother me so as long as we come to a decent solution over all this - which again, was kick started by perthmetro's orignal comment:

    Posted By: perthmetroit could start a whole bag of worms/sponsors that must be attributed.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 20th May 2008 at 17:42:49 EDT
     
    Emailed By: ainslieI think you are doing more damage to the OD community by your insistence on arguing with me rather than addressing the real issue of spam links in templates.

    Haha oh dear. I am not/have not been arguing with you (so apologise if it seems that way) and anything I say to you will not damage the OD community at all... lol.

    You just can't go around calling designers selfish when they contribute so generously and expect them all to just sit back and take it on the chin. People will call you up on it.

    P.S. Please don't email me bigsmile

    As for the issue at hand here... I wouldn't class the links as spam links but I guess that's all a matter of opinion really. Are we agreed on implementing Christophers idea?
  3.  
    Gnome already pretty much covered it but:

    CC > GPL

    CC is:
    Easier to read
    Can be easily applied to web templates

    GPL doesn't require attribution
    GPL is hard to read, and most people wont bother with it
    GPL is geared towards software.
    GPL licensed templates tend to get their footer links illegally removed more often than CC

    Our community will lose many great designers if CC will be removed, including myself.

    We should be supporting as many open source licenses as possible. period.

    "Someone tell me why CC is better than GPL" is such an incredibly stupid question, it never should have been asked. Some people just get an idea in their head an never let it go. We should have been finding a way to allow all licenses without having sponsored links incur. Props to you christopher.

    Anyways, reality check for you guys but especially perthmetro:

    All free template designers, NO exceptions, we don't release high quality templates expecting nothing in return. Of course we like to help out, but we're doing it also for

    SERPS / SEO
    Links
    Well known / trusted websites
    money
    traffic
    and many more

    Bottom line is, think realisticly, FORCING, MORE LIMITING RULES, on us designers, WILL NOT MAKE MORE COME, it will make many leave. Also I hate to say it but OD is becoming less and less of a "valuable resource" to us designers, I haven't even bothered submitting my last few templates.

    This was a stupid discussion that should have never happened.
  4.  
    By the way, always remember:

    Nothing is free
    •  
      CommentAuthorJJenZz
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by JJenZz on the 20th May 2008 at 17:58:26 EDT
     
    Wahey, SeanPollock nailed it there... I'm glad I'm not the only designer fighting this corner!

    Posted By: SeanPollockAll free template designers, NO exceptions, we don't release high quality templates expecting nothing in return. Of course we like to help out, but we're doing it also for

    Damn tooootin' bakie
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by fernbap on the 20th May 2008 at 18:22:15 EDT
     
    Yea, nothing is free, that's why designers submit templates here in the first place, for the exposure they get. Isn't that enough?
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008
     
    no sponsored links, of any type - it's not within the spirit of this site
    •  
      CommentAuthorgnome
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by gnome on the 20th May 2008 at 19:59:53 EDT
     
    I agree completely on the licenses. Currently we have no plans to remove licenses. That was a proposition which has been shot down for clear and well-defined reasons. That issue is essentially closed.

    Sponsored links which users are prohibited from removing is not good for the people using the templates, as per NickyD's example with his child oriented sites. With the rule preventing non-removable sponsored links, designers still have plenty of options to get money through sponsors and advertising. Andreas has a rather unique plan, which is worth a read if you are interested in monetising your templates.
  9.  
    Posted By: christopher"Sponsored links are perfectly acceptable within submitted templates but removal restrictions on the links are not." (Typos corrected)

    Posted By: gnomeWith the rule preventing non-removable sponsored links, designers still have plenty of options to get money through sponsors and advertising.

    Agreed. Here's one vote to implement Submission Rule #7 and get this can of worms sealed up as soon as possible.
    • CommentAuthorramblingsoul
    • CommentTimeMay 20th 2008 edited by ramblingsoul on the 20th May 2008 at 22:02:38 EDT
     
    Alright, thought i have the obligations to clarify what i was trying to say.

    forget about the sponsored links. i did a mistake, i apologized and compensated by deleting the two templates that violated the rules. end of story.

    then i get a mail from someone (might be a kid just new to internet) with words to this effect

    hey _______

    i am gonna hack your website. your templates are copies. don't submit in OD.

    and lots of hahaha s


    thats when i deleted all the templates.

    now the issue is not about whether you allow spam links. the question is how the decisions are made here at OD.

    it belongs to the designers as much as it belongs to the benefiting members. it belongs to me as well, if i am a member of the community. IF you want to call it a community.

    and just a 5 of you can't decide what we designers should follow. there should be proper system that allows the members to have their say / agree or disagree before implementing a new rule. have you asked what other designers feel about the new rule ? no.

    i have read posts here that suggests if one leaves, 10 others will come. it is true as well. but somehow shows how much the community care about the designers. "Oh well, they get a link from here, get some page ranks and a pat on the back" - thats enough for them huh ?

    well, for me it its not. if i want to feel like i am part of the community, i should have the right to have my say. if not call yourself OpenDesigns Company or OpenDesigns Pvt. Ltd.

    I am sure if you had asked the designers what their openions are about dropping CC license, they would agree to drop it. even I would. but the issue is it wasn't considered. some of you thought that there were no need.

    how would you like to be uninvited to an event of a local community where you are an active member ?

    Think it over.

    Arigato


    cool
  11.  
    Posted By: ramblingsoulI am sure if you had asked the designers what their openions are about dropping CC license, they would agree to drop it. even I would. but the issue is it wasn't considered. some of you thought that there were no need.

    The fact is that this is an open forum. Any registered member can have their say and participate as much or as little as they want. Furthermore, the issue of dropping the CC license was considered. I proposed the idea in the beginning of this thread. Over the course of the discussion, the suggestion turned out not to be the ideal solution, as gnome pointed out above.

    This forum is the only way for members to have a say in The Open Design Community. We have no polls, no mass e-mails asking people what they think. If people have an opinion, they should express it on the forums. The need for communication is what keeps this site going. If there were no forum, then no, we wouldn't have a community. But there are many people who used the forum, even in this discussion, to tell everyone what they feel should be the future of this community.

    Nothing posted here is conclusive. We will always have to change policies and rules in the future, and a good healthy debate is just the thing we need to come to the right solutions.

    Sure, we have members with conflicting ideas. The point of discussions such as this are to resolve those conflicts.
    •  
      CommentAuthorainslie
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2008
     
    Posted By: ramblingsoulnow the issue is not about whether you allow spam links. the question is how the decisions are made here at OD.


    I agree 100%. There should be a clear way of deciding on the rules and settling disputes. Until the community can work out how it is going to be run in an effective and democratic way then there isn't much future.

    Your opinion has just as much value as anybody else's so please speak up and do not be intimidated.
    •  
      CommentAuthoricyone
    • CommentTimeMay 21st 2008
     
    Rambling soul...I applaud you on your fair opinion and discussion on this controversial topic, It was only a matter of time before this was brought up bakie
    •  
      CommentAuthorkirby145
    • CommentTimeMay 22nd 2008
     
    I think we need a poll feature added to the site
    •  
      CommentAuthorLobsterMan
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    OK, I'll admin i didn't read all 140 posts, but in general, if someone wants to put a link in their design, they should be allowed. BUT, this site is about open source, I barely agree with having creative commons. It is definitely against any of our open licences to add conditions like that to a design.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeMay 25th 2008
     
    @LobsterMan: It's not an issue with just a link per se, it's about a paid non author link having to stay in the design.

101 to 116 of 116

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