It certainly seems that way.

to me it's just another form of a 'sponsored link'

do the OD rules say whether or not a design is allowed to have more than 1 attribution to be kept intact?

We're gonna see designs with authors that have a dozen different websites needing attribution

here we go again

Great! I have a LOT of websites!

We've just found another 'backdoor' that if accepted here will allow the wrong thing to happen.

The fact is if there is no rule to say a designer is not allowed to submit more than one of his own sites that cannot be removed and two removable sponsored links then we will see designs with a designer's dozen websites that must be kept as is.

maybe i do see wrong in this but what's too lose? If we ammend the rules to stop this then we have there is nothing to lose... but it will stop the wrong doers from exploiting this

Sorry, you are just wrong. Rules are made exactly on the "what if" bases. If not for the "what ifs", there wouldbe no need for rules.

Posted By: fernbapSorry, you are just wrong. Rules are made exactly on the "what if" bases. If not for the "what ifs", there wouldbe no need for rules.

sorry, you are just wrong. horribly stink wrong. Rules are put in place when things become a problem. But for some reason this place latches onto a big what if, blows it out of proportion, then makes the rules based on the worst possible scenario. If we want to base them off of what-ifs, fine. Whatever. But do we have to act like it's the end of OD if we don't make a rule?!

Posted By: perthmetro

Posted By: JeremyD or you could stop acting like every little thing is going to mark the end of OD.

Jeremy, this a public forum where you and I can say what we like - end of story .

In any case if I, or this dicussion looks like it will upset you, don't read it .

If you want to be involved here try to concern yourself less on the person and more on the issues discussed.

and as this is a public forum i have every right to annoyed by you and be angry at your obsession with blowing things out of proportion and causing problems that lead to huge arguments on the board.

I've focused plenty on the issue. My opinion is that 1) it's not a big deal 2) It's alreayd been stated that this isn't a case of masking a sponsored link 3) And if this were to become an issue, it would fall under the jurisdiction of admins/mods. So there is no need to put yet another restriction on sponsored links.

Posted By: JeremyDBut do we have to act like it's the end of OD if we don't make a rule?!

Jeremy, you seem to be the only one that's mentioned the end of the OD world as we know it - everything's gonna be ok.

Posted By: perthmetroJeremy, OD put design rules in place before any templates were submitted? why? in anticipation of what would be submitted - time goes on and isues arise that require rules to be amended regardless of whether they are a problem now - it makes sense to nip these potential and very likely probs now. And if these probs don't appear well then no one has lost, BUT if the prob was going to occur it has been stopped dead in it tracks - good work all round.

We put them in place because they'd been implemented before at OSWD and OWD. Things have become issues and we've added to the rules. I don't deny that.
But I don't see any reason to make an issue out of something that didn't happen (masking sponsored links) just because you think it might happen. I say that as soon as it actually becomes a problem we nip in the bud. OR we just leave it up to the admins/mods as the sponsored link rule implies we do.

It seems you're wrong. Acting like we need to take care of a non-issue is blowing things out proportion. Someone points something out, it's debunked, and all of a sudden we need to take care of something that didn't happen because we don't want it to eventually?

and might I suggest you change 50+ links to "no restriction" on the vote, Perth?

in this situation (that of reality softwares') i this its acceptable seeing as the templates are all similar the Flash mp3 players' website... and he developed it.... notice hw i said "in this situation" .... this is what needs debating

50+ is an unrealistic number anyway. Which is why I think it should be changed to Unrestricted.

Let's look at it this way:

If a policeman didn't have the law to rely on and had to use his own judgement each time he saw a situation that he thinks is wrong, would his job be possible?

Now think of the admins here. Isn't rules the way to take this burden off their shoulders?

And if discussions arise, isn't that clear that the rules don't cover situations that are happening?

And that's why issues must be brought up, so that the admins don't have to take positions based on their judgment alone, knowing in advance that their position will be contested.

The thing is this site was started because it about giving freely.

Now we're finding designers are finding more and more ways to exploit this.

This site is simple - submit a site for free and we'll host it for free and give you a link to your site - easy.

But many designers don't share the same spirit this site wants to portray 9in my mind.

call them what you like but having unremovable links by licence is not what this site is about, it's not a matter of let one and all submit a design, put conditions on it as they can and if we don't like it don't download it.

Why should it be up to the admins to step in every time something happens, lets put in limits and rules that reflect what this site is about and let the designers decide if they want to submit.

If as greg suggests it won't happen as it would be designer suicide then what harm would a limit on the number of designer links do - nothing. If a designer won't submit a design because he isn't allowed to insert more than 1 non removable link to his/her website then what are the motives?

OD has given enough to designers to feed their families
- 2 sponsored links
- a link to their website

surely that's enough, surely we can start to put a bit of open source ideology into this site and sadly if that means rules to keep that spirit going then so be it.

Don't forget admins will come and go, it's not healthy to rely on personal ideas as to what goes through and what doesn't - make it objective and no one can blaim the admins.

The two designer links is not in the spirit of the CC licence - the CC licence is only about recognising the author not promoting their specific products or wares... the same as this site.

At a stretch couldn't the CC be interpreted as allowing an author to demand an image link to their site be left intact? in spirit, no... by the letter yes.

So, do we now find ourselves accepting a template being released with the entire footer with say 5 links to various author sites?

Normal websites you pay for don't have this, they only have the designer link that's it. So how can we claim these templates are worthy of using like a normal paid site if they are not allowed to be like a normal one.

You know what I'd like to see... incentives for PD designs to be submitted. As it is there is a lot of incentives for CC deesigns (especially now they can submit multiple, mandatory links).

Why not feature the latest 2 PD templates above the normal template thumbnails?

to hard for the admins to decide case by case, you need rules so they don't have to consider every damn design.

You don't mind it but others would especially if they want to use it for a business website

it doesn't happen often because most designers know the spirit of the site and keep within the meaning of CC, others, more and more wont be so accommodating

this is not an advertising site for designers etc. if they want to advertise DON'T MAKE THE LINKS MANDATORY

OD is a site for free templates not free with 'strings attached' like, you can remove all my EXTRA links for a fee - thats not what CC was for, making money.

Uhh guys what a discussion again. This reminds of Shakespeare's "Much Ado about Nothing!"...

Just my opinion.

Edit: A cool Flash Player! Just downloaded it. Thanks for giving it out for FREE!

Argh! Is it just me, or do we seem to be going round in circles.

What situations like this need are firm rules, by active admin putting in place now. That's what the admin are here for.

If the reigns aren't pulled in now, it's going to be the downward spiral of the site that we don't all want to see.
Non-Active admin (non-active as in not taking control, sitting back and watching, or just not here at all) are what caused the other sites to fail; and it's getting to be deja-vu all over again.

*wonders if the open.org domain is available as we've gone from oswd, osd, od*

Posted By: perthmetroYou know what I'd like to see... incentives for PD designs to be submitted. As it is there is a lot of incentives for CC designs (especially now they can submit multiple, mandatory links).

Why not feature the latest 2 PD templates above the normal template thumbnails?

//Offtopic, but a good idea nonetheless

DeanStev: Chris stepped in last time, but I'm going to try to keep this under control. (It didn't work last time, but I think it could)

Metamorph: the three currently submitted templates with the dual-links in them are unlikely to be affected, along with designs currently in the queue. (It is possible that they may be removed, but I see it as unlikely). This debate is NOT about those three specifically, but about the general case of designs with multiple author links.

XSQueen: I'll have to think about collaborations...

Arguers: Let us focus on policy making. How about this for a rule:
Each design is allowed to require that only a single
link be maintained by template users through the use of the
Creative Commons Attribution license. I think that if that rule replaced the rule on sponsored links, it would make people happier. If it wouldn't, shoot me now. This would allow any number of non-mandatory links, because they won't affect either end-users or TODC.

Is there any situation which could justify the need for more than one mandatory link in a template?

I'm an admin on OD. I was an admin on OSWD and OWD. My thoughts on this is an author should have one (1) author link in a design they create. That's it.

A lot of authors, designers, programmers, etc have more then one site but I don't think it's cool to add links to all your sites in a design template, at least on OD. If you want to do it on your own site, fine.

Yes, I know OD is for the people, by the people, blah blah, but we need some order around here.

Someone needs to put there foot down. Yes it will upset people, but tough. If we don't have set rules and guidelines, OD will crumble... just like Rome did... from the inside.

If I have my way, one (1) author link in a template. Nothing more, nothing less.

the issues are about
1. mandatory links
2. sponsored links

Each design is allowed to require that only a single
link be maintained by template users through the use of the
Creative Commons Attribution license and that the link to be maintained is to the author direct.

- admin edit to fix broken blockquote

This scenario seems too familiar. Let's not let it get carried away again where good people leave our community.

Sometimes it comes down to the fact there are "too many indians, but not enough chiefs." Express your opinions, then let the mods and admins make a decision, and quickly.

For the record, I do not have a problem with one required link, but as some have said, it is always nice when it is not mandatory, but a courtesy to leave it. There are some who have asked my permission to remove a link on my templates, and I only said no once, since the person was so arrogant.

You get that "here we go again feeling".

The fact it is being discussed again has got to tell you something isn't right.

What sort of template would have 50+ required links?

Holy Cow! I know I've been really busy, but I checked in 24 hours ago, come back now...and there's another one of "those threads" with 48 posts :|

Posted By: JeremyDWell perth you enjoy seeing wrong in everything then complaining about it until we have a huge argument.

Amen.

Posted By: perthmetro
OD has given enough to designers to feed their families
- 2 sponsored links
- a link to their website

What give you the right do tell other people what it takes to "feed their families" or more generically what they do or don't deserve to make.

Posted By: DeanStevArgh! Is it just me, or do we seem to be going round in circles.

What situations like this need are firm rules, by active admin putting in place now. That's what the admin are here for.

I agree it would be nice to have more active admins, but just FYI, this discussion had only been going on for 12 hours at this post. Even if there were active admins, there could easily be a 12 hour gap in activity.

**************************************
Now for my opinion. I think you should be able to put as many as you want in the template, but require only one to be kept. I think Gnome's rule is good, but I might even take it a step further:

Posted By: gnomeEach design is only allowed to require that only a single designer link be maintained by template users through the use of the Creative Commons Attribution license.

The purpose of the changes would be to limit the required link to be a designer link.