Back Home

Open Designs

Community. Driven.

General Talk: [Closed] Simple Life v2 - appending multiple 'author' attribution

Bottom of Page

1 to 50 of 77

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. 2
  4. >
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited by perthmetro on the 23rd June 2008 at 22:12:42 EDT
     
    I disagree with the concept of a template being re-submitted and the modifying author then adding their mandatory link under the guise of CC.

    2 reasons

    1. It's not what CC was intended for:
    Most if not all CC designs here that people use would probably have some code change to fit it with their needs, but this doesn't mean they can claim it as theirs by way of demanding an extra/appended mandatory link. - By all means have your removable link somewhere - or ask the original author to allow their link to be removed and the modifier's link to take their place.

    2. Again the potential is there to be abused. Each time someone modifies the code they add their little "keyword friendly" link that can't be removed.

    I see that the whole issue of mandatory links is becoming a bit of a game now with some wanting to push it as far as they can. I believe OD should not let this happen on this site.

    I see the CC licence being taken outside it's meaningful use more and more. I think it's a good case to abandon the option and only allow for GPL or PD... OR... make a stance and keep on updating the rules.

    Love,
    Pete
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     
    With all these 'back door' attempts at putting in more and more mandatory links, i think lessens the significance of the CC licence, which will in turn make the CC licence a laughing stock of the licence world so to speak as the licence terms will be completely ignored.

    CC wasn't put in place to be a way to get a search engine friendly links plastered around the web.
  3.  
    My stance is simple. I think you should be able to put as many links as you want in your template. Link to every site you have and every site you like if that's what you want to do. However, I think that only one should be mandatory to keep. Unfortunately there are cases where more than one author really did work on the template, but if you don't draw the line at one link you're asking for people to try to subvert the rules.
  4.  
    Jesus Christ, this template is like 2 months old! Snop has seen it, the community has seen it, stop trying to start shit, it's not necessary!
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008
     
    As i see it, if you modify a CC template, you are making a derivative work, and according to the CC licence the link to the original author must be kept. So, i don't see the legitimacy of adding addicional mandatory links....
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 23rd 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 11:19:43 EDT
     
    @SeanPollock... Hi. Why do you think you should be able to keep your extra mandatory link on this design?
  7.  
    I just say to hell to manditory links! They cause so much trouble and the people downloading them couldn't give a rat ass and are deleting them. Wow. I had to get that out. This link thing has gotten so big. Its rediculous
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    and yet your designs are all creative commons, connor tongue

    if you want to remove cc from this site, fine, but be prepared to lose over a thousand templates.
    • CommentAuthorbluecafe
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Seeing all these copycat .. ehem .. I mean 'inspired by' templates I wonder where creativity has gone? Hope ramblingsoul will come back soon .. :)
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    There are, however the genuine co-productions, like what XSQueen is doing, and we don't have a policy about those.

    And of course, most of those that use CC licences tend to "forget" giving credit to the authors of the CSS they rip....
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    if the template was made before the rule was put in place, I think it should be immune to the rule. Simple as that. Pollock didn't do anything wrong, because the rule wasn't in place at the time. There's no need to take it out. There's no need to make him feel like he's done something wrong.

    Just let it go. And I'm pretty sure that almost all of these backdoor attempts are in your head, perth. You find one or two examples of something "bad" and all of a sudden we have an epidemic on our hands? Chill and give it a rest.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Posted By: bluecafeSeeing all these copycat .. ehem .. I mean 'inspired by' templates I wonder where creativity has gone? Hope ramblingsoul will come back soon .. :)


    This one isn't an inspired by, obviously. It's a resubmission of an existing template with modifications done. IT's not like Pollock tries to hide that or takes the code, changes teh colors, then markets it as POLLOCK TEMPLATE 8000 or whatever. That's fully permitted under the rules of this site.
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Posted By: bluecafeSeeing all these copycat .. ehem .. I mean 'inspired by' templates I wonder where creativity has gone? Hope ramblingsoul will come back soon .. :)
    the template being discussed here isn't an "inspired by", it's, as JeremyD stated, a resubmission of an existing template with some alterations. let's not forget that it was a discussion like this that made RamblingSoul leave.

    Posted By: fernbapThere are, however the genuine co-productions, like what XSQueen is doing, and we don't have a policy about those.

    And of course, most of those that use CC licences tend to "forget" giving credit to the authors of the CSS they rip....
    given that i use the creative commons license i suppose i should be insulted by this. the majority of template authors here use creative commons, does that mean the majority of templates have ripped code?

    seriously, we all need to relax a bit. this is meant to be a friendly community, yet every time i click on to the forums there's another thread accusing someone who has generously donated their time and effort to give us a free template of doing something immoral or wrong.
    • CommentAuthorwfiedler
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Pete - an advice of a really good friend: Go out and play with some of your neighbour's cats wink!
    • CommentAuthorXSQueen
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    LOL. This is definitely getting a little out of hand. Personally I don't care if my "link-back" on the joint productions is mandatory or not. If people want to keep it, GRRRRRRRREAT ;) If not, no amount of threats or promises will force them to keep the link... so I will simply not worry about it. Maybe I am weird in not wanting to toot my own horn with a mandatory link to my site (or even my profile on here)BUT then I do not freelance for a living so anything on the side is either 1) for fun and learning or 2) something that needs to be done in my "free" time and many of my friends have not seen me in nearly a year as is! ;) Have any of you ever attended one of the "Adobe Max" (or prior to their acquisition, the Macromedia Max) conferences? Ever seen their "Intranetworks" widget that shows all attendees and their skillsets? Wish there was something like that available opensource ... we could ad another layer for "collaborations" and show the collaborated on designs when someone clicks on the link-between ... Just a thought ;)
    • CommentAuthorbluecafe
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Posted By: greg the template being discussed here isn't an "inspired by", it's, as JeremyD stated, a resubmission of an existing template with some alterations. let's not forget that it was a discussion like this that made RamblingSoul leave.


    Actually my post was more a loud thinking and had nothing to do with any license. I just saw the template and the original and the only difference seems to be the background image. No way would I dream of calling myself co-author of a template for altering a few lines of css (no matter if this was within the rules or not).

    Re ramblingsoul .. I don't think that the discussion about sponsored links was wrong and it wasn't about RS at all. I think it is a pity that ramblingsoul decided to go. Such discussions should be possible among mature people. Freedom to express the own opinion is the basic of all democratic societies and I would hate to see it go for a shallow "conflict-free" community.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by perthmetro on the 24th June 2008 at 10:11:28 EDT
     
    Wolfram, I'll go play with a cat if you tell me your thoughts on my original post here... read it carefully.

    Lets not lose the focus on my original post... mandatory
    • CommentAuthorfernbap
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    given that i use the creative commons license i suppose i should be insulted by this. the majority of template authors here use creative commons, does that mean the majority of templates have ripped code?


    Read the terms of CC license: if you use all or one part of a work in your own work, that is still a derivative product of the original work, and credit to the original author must be kept. See how ridiculous it is?

    Example: in one of my templates, i used a free CSS menu available in the net. Not only i gave credit to the author of the menu but also to the original CSS i used (with considerable alterations. And, being that my only "inspired by" template, i released it as PD.

    While i was waiting for my template to be approved, i witnessed a template released here under a CC license, that used that exact same menu.
    • CommentAuthorwfiedler
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 11:22:43 EDT
     
    Pete - I don't see a problem, what SeanPollock did with the template. What's wrong with it? I'm an "old" man (like you use to say) hating talking about things, which result at the end of the day in - nothing!

    I'm married for 20 years and I know, what I'm talking about - you guess, what I meanwink?

    I love the forum on OD for constructive threads and not for the same discussions over and over again, which results in - nothing!

    And I don't wanna see SeanPollock leave OD like Roshan did!
    •  
      CommentAuthorgreg
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 11:23:03 EDT
     
    Posted By: wfiedlerI love the forum on OD for constructive threads and not for the same discussions over and over again, which results in - nothing!

    And I don't wanna see SeanPollock leave OD like Roshan did!
    well said.
    • CommentAuthorconartistdesigns
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by conartistdesigns on the 24th June 2008 at 11:27:33 EDT
     
    Posted By: gregand yet your designs are all creative commons, connor tongue

    if you want to remove cc from this site, fine, but be prepared to lose over a thousand templates.


    And I havent submitted a template at all during this big link thing have I now greg wink
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 12:24:43 EDT
     
    Roshan left because he wanted to, not because their were opinions expressed here at OD - we shouldn't be scared to express our opinions because someone might get sulky, spit the dummy and leave.

    "What's wrong with it?"
    exactly what i wrote in the first post...

    1. do you agree with SeanPollock's link being mandatory (extra to the original author) or should it have been removable? I don't
    2. Is the mandatory link Sean has demanded stays within what the CC license was intended for? I don't think it is.
    3. Is what SeanPollock did (demanding the EXTRA mandatory link in a slightly modified design) in the spirit of OD? I don't think so.

    The other thing that makes SeanPollock's mandatory link all that more wrong in my eyes is the "Free CSS Templates" name of his link - doesn't that smack of being purely for keyword baiting - why not make the mandatory link TemplateFusion like the other one?

    Lets get real... if we let this site become a MANDATORY link farm OD will lose it's meaning. And when it loses that it will lose designers (and it's active open source community) a whole heap more.

    But times change and if this community wants it to go the way of mandatory links vaguely protected by CC then so be it - but it will come at a price.
    • CommentAuthorbluecafe
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 12:23:00 EDT
     
    Posted By: wfiedler
    And I don't wanna see SeanPollock leave OD like Roshan did!


    Only because ramblingsould decided to go he shouldn't be used for some kind of extortion purposes ... :).

    Is link exposure worth more than creativity? Not that it is the end of the world ... but except the lack of creativity I think it is not very fair against the original creator of the template.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    This is not the same old thread... this is the first time someone has demanded their mandatory link be appended to another design that has only been slightly modified - or the first time it has been discussed.
    • CommentAuthorwfiedler
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Only because ramblingsould decided to go he shouldn't be used for some kind of extortion purposes ... :).

    Oh no, come on bluecafe! That's childish..., sorry to say that, but I don't use Roshan for this purpose.

    And - many initial members (also mods) have left us in the last months. That's alarming...
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    it's not alarming consider how this place has turned into a bitching contest to see who can find the most wrong with the site and provoke large arguments over it. What's funny is that there's only one contender in the contest.
    • CommentAuthorconartistdesigns
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 12:25:26 EDT
     
    Posted By: perthmetro
    1. do you agree with SeanPollock's link being mandatory (extra to the original author) or should it have been removable? I don't
    2. Is the mandatory link Sean has demanded stays within what the CC license was intended for? I don't think it is.
    3. Is what SeanPollock did (demanding the EXTRA mandatory link in a slightly modified design) in the spirit of OD? I don't think so.

    The other thing that makes SeanPollock's mandatory link all that more wrong in my eyes is the "Free CSS Templates" name of his link - doesn't that smack of being purely for keyword baiting - why not make the mandatory link TemplateFusion like the other one?


    I think CC was intended for people to use. I dont believe He is doing anything wrong. The original template was released under CC so I thing what sean did was fair.

    As far as the name of his link.... His Title the his site is: Template Fusion | Free CSS Templates.... so i see nothing wrong with that
    • CommentAuthorbluecafe
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Posted By: wfiedler
    And - many initial members (also mods) have left us in the last months. That's alarming...


    People come and go ... that's life. Interests may change, real life may require more time or you find new places ... nothing alarming at all just normal changes that occur everywhere and all the time.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Posted By: perthmetroThis is not the same old thread... this is the first time someone has demanded their mandatory link be appended to another design that has only been slightly modified - or the first time it has been discussed.


    it doesn't matter. He can't be held accountable for something he did before the rule was put in place. What he did was 100% "legal" when he did it. And if your intent is just to bring awareness to this sort of thing happening, then leave the finger pointing out of it. If you truly care about the community, stop pointing fingers and making people feel like they're at fault or harming the community.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Posted By: bluecafe
    Posted By: wfiedler
    And - many initial members (also mods) have left us in the last months. That's alarming...


    People come and go ... that's life. Interests may change, real life may require more time or you find new places ... nothing alarming at all just normal changes that occur everywhere and all the time.


    that's true, but plenty of them don't bother coming because the forums are now 80% arguing over really stupid sub-arguments of arguments finished weeks ago.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Jeremy, we all get your point that you think this topic is stupid - do you have anything else to add?
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by JeremyD on the 24th June 2008 at 12:27:30 EDT
     
    that's not my point. my point is that you think you're helping everyone by posting something new to complain about everyday and pointing fingers and stuff, but really you're just annoying the hell out of everyone and making yourself look like a huge ass. Just because no one else has the balls to up right say it, that doesn't mean I'm the only one that thinks it.

    but yeah, nothing else to add. I think that about covers it.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 12:27:29 EDT
     
    Posted By: perthmetroJeremy, we all get your point that you think this topic is stupid - do you have anything else to add?

    @Pete: Now this statement is just being a jerk. You have the right to express yourself and so does JeremyD. Stop stirring the pot. You are always doing this.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    No your wrong Sean.. you're being a nosey dickhead.
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Sean on the 24th June 2008 at 12:37:09 EDT
     
    Posted By: perthmetroNo your wrong Sean.. you're being a nosey dickhead.

    How am I wrong? So am I not allowed to express my opinion? I am an admin as well as a long time member of the open source community. I have just as much right as anyone else. Have some respect. Sheesh. Good thing you're not a moderator or an admin. har har. You sir, with talk like this should be banned :)

    If you have something to say Pete, contact me off forum.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Jeremy, stop reading this thread, that goes for you to Sean...

    Leave this thread to those of us who want to say something and those who want to read it - don't blaim me for how you feel, be responsible for your own anger management... Stop reading this thread!
  37.  
    shocked
    This is getting rediculous. Oh wait it already was. Like what the hell.
  38.  
    Posted By: gregand yet your designs are all creative commons, connor tongue

    if you want to remove cc from this site, fine, but be prepared to lose over a thousand templates.


    and that wasn't my goal. I just think links aren't worth this. We already made a rule and the admins (or mods) approved it so I think its ok.
    • CommentAuthorbluecafe
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Posted By: JeremyD
    that's true, but plenty of them don't bother coming because the forums are now 80% arguing over really stupid sub-arguments of arguments finished weeks ago.


    It wouldn't be so heated if some wouldn't fight the simple existence of the discussion instead of discussing the actual subject.

    Ok you don't like the discussion but personally I think it is worth to discuss if submissions should be protected against misuse for promoting purposes. Is it all about hairsplitting if something is allowed under a generous license or is there also some common sense about who is considered being author or co-author of a template?

    See, you are afraid somebody could leave the board ... but have you ever thought that other creative (emphasis on creative) designer could be afraid publishing their templates if they see that they could find themselves being co-author of their own template the very next day because somebody changed the background image?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    @Pete: Do you talk to your son like this? For someone who claims to have a heart, you sure have a bad way of showing it.

    I am an admin... I will read every thread. If you don't like it, tough. You need a time out :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    @bluecafe: I agree that people should talk and discuss, however Pete is known for beating people down in threads. I've been compiling a document on every time he's done this. He seems to be very one sided. It's his way or no way. Discussions can have two sides.
    • CommentAuthorTrin
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    Any chance of adding an ignore feature to this forum?

    While I have been in agreement with Perth, (although not with his antagonistic way of posting) he's clearly crossed a line with the personal attacks now.

    IMO he should be banned for violating forum decorum repeatedly.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by JeremyD on the 24th June 2008 at 12:45:39 EDT
     
    Perth who the hell do you think you are telling me, and even more so Sean the admin, not to read a topic?
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    @Sean, I'd probably talk worse to your Mum than to my son
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    you just keep slipping deeper and deeper into ass hole territory, don't you?
    •  
      CommentAuthorSean
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    @Pete: I probably talk worse to my mom then you ever could, so attacks on my mom won't do anything. I'm looking forward to giving you an OD time out :)
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by perthmetro on the 24th June 2008 at 12:49:45 EDT
     
    @jeremy: There'd be nothing big enough to fill yours
    •  
      CommentAuthorJeremyD
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by JeremyD on the 24th June 2008 at 12:51:32 EDT
     
    Perth, I think some little kid has accessed your account because you're acting way too petty and childish to be an adult. In less than half an hour you've resorted to your mom jokes and big butt jokes... seriously? are you 11 years old?
    •  
      CommentAuthorNeuen
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008 edited by Neuen on the 24th June 2008 at 12:53:11 EDT
     
    I'm going to have to go with Jeremy and Sean on this one. I grow tired of coming to the forum and reading long posts that become nothing more than personal beatings and one sided arguments.
    •  
      CommentAuthorperthmetro
    • CommentTimeJun 24th 2008
     
    @Sean, I'm looking forward to you acting like the man you're not and closing this thread like you said you would - but can't because you're too weak not to have another dig at my son - good work experienced Admin guy.

1 to 50 of 77

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