Is the bbpixel.com intergration with Vbulletin Legal ????

[pooky786]

I have read tru your forums, and I like what I see. I am currently usin IPB, and Mambo CMS for my site. The people at bbpixel.com are advertising a plugin that combines VB and Mambo thru some modifications to VB files.
When I ask them if it easy, because I dont know anything about doing code stuff, they say to me that they give me the complete modified vb files, so al I have to do is upload.

I see in you License info that it is against your rules to give out your files.

Is bbpixel.com doing the right thing, and is the plugin legal to use on vbulletin ??????

[conqsoft]

The only way they can legally do it, as far as I know, is if you let them make the changes to YOUR vBulletin files for you. Basically, an installation service.

[pooky786]

Thats strange ? I know he told me at bbbpixel that they just send the files already changed.
when I ask what they need from me, he writes - You just include your license number, or customer number from vb to prove you owner. You then only need to upload files. I just send you files. not need to go in your server at all.

[conqsoft]

From looking at the features/installation instructions they have on their site, it doesn't look like you need to make any changes to your vBulletin files. Their product just links the two together, via the database.

[pooky786]

:confused: :confused: I'm very interested to here what is Jelsoft official position on this plugin, and if we are violating the copyright rules of Jelsoft by using it.

Some of the files they provide are modified vb files.

[Floris]

Unofficially, by our copyright information nobody is permitted to distribute vbulletin files.

[Steve Machol]

And officially - no one is allowed to distribute vBulletin files, modified or not.

[Hooper]

Steve, Floris, and Jelsoft,

Kevin "Tubedogg" and I had this discussion years ago about the trading of vBulletin files. It was stated that if both parties were registered vBulletin users, that you could share your templates and files. I'll find the thread. Chen was helping with the hack as well and in fact wrote it.

Might want to read my post:
http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showthread.php?t=32677&page=2&pp=15&highlight=chen

My Statement:
"Yes, we can exchange templates , just not program files. If you have anything that you think you could help me with please do."

Answer:
http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/showpost.php?p=202942&postcount=26

Kevin's Answer:
"As long as both of you have licenses you are free to exchange program files. You may not exchange or give them to unlicensed individuals, however."

You can exchange licensed files with a registered user. It was well known for years that it was legal and broke no TOS, license agreements, or copyrights to trade source between licenced users. In fact, Amy and I did just that at the time as well as multitudes of others for years. I was working on a news page and Amy and others were assisting.

I wrote BBPixel about their hack and it was mentioned that they are getting paid to hack your site for you. They are a registered vB user as well as I.
I see no breaking of the terms of service as long as they are a registered vbulletin user whether you are trading files or not. The only situation I can see if you cannot trade files is that Jelsoft must have changed the "Terms of Service" and license agreements. If this is the case, it's not right. Jelsoft makes no way to download original files and updates to the vBulletin software that gives original purchased software to the end user. Jelsoft wouldn't even help me get original buttons from pre-release 2.0. Like I said, I've printed all my trouble tickets since 2001. All my helpdesk support messages that I've written in on over the years have vanished from vBulletin.com. A few of my trouble tickets were asking questions that concern the legalities. Due to my primary intentions at the time of purchasing vBulletin, I've asked legal questions to James Limm, John, and others.

=======

I own the BBPixel hack. I wrote in to vBulletin support recently about the situation and no answer was given as to whether or not the BBPixel hacks are Illegal. The damn help desk lost all my past trouble tickets as well. How thoughtful. That's why I print out all my helpdesk tickets. All I received was a statement that vBulletin wasn't sure if the hacks were legal or not. Well here is your answer.

YES THE BBPIXEL HACKS ARE LEGAL.

BBPixel distributes hacked vBulletin files to registered vBulletin users. They are considering just giving the instructions on how to hack vB to work with other CMS's. As far as I'm concerned, they can release their hacked files to those whom need them as a registered vBulletin user. The vBulletin hacker community has always donated their code and ideas to vBulletin. What you see with vB3 in part is hacker ideas and code. It's clearly evident. Chen's quick reply, others top login/avitar hack amoungst others. The only difference is BBPixel and others are charging for their code changes and not giving their code to Jelsoft.

=======

What this boils down too is that if you use Mambo/vB and integrate them with the BBPixel hack, there is no need for the 4 year old vBCMS airware. If you really want to hold to your statements Steve, you need to shut down vBulletin.org. There are hundreds of hacked vBulletin source files being traded between "registered" and "licensed" vBulletin users. I will uphold my "original" license agreements and terms of service from the date I purchased the licenses. This other is nonsense. Jelsoft vBulletin is getting to where you can't even hack your own board without the discussion of policy. It's rediculous. Next thing you know, Jelsoft will tell you that you cannot remove the call home function. That's the first thing that needs to go. I didn't purchase Microsoft big brother forum software. This is vBulletin and needs to remain vBulletin. What has happened in the past in terms of being open as a community and the ability to freely distribute source between registered users is what has made vBulletin what it is today. Anything other brings "Questionable motives by Jelsoft". When all else fails, re-write policy to ensure that those who purchased to be "legal" and upright, become the "Illegal" and pursued. The way of the world.

=======

So officially, I have serious issues with the below statement and question the legality of it's enforcement. I base my analisys on prior vBulletin versions dating back to Release Candidate 2 for vBulletin 2.0, the coding, the direction, the fact that the hacker community has contributed a huge amount of work to the source of vBulletin, the fact that it was well known that original terms of service, license agreements, etc.. allowed the hacker community to openly distribute vBulletin source code between licensed users. As well as the fact that Jelsoft does not make available original, downloadable software and updates that directly reflect the agreement between the parties at the time of the prior purchase if indeed such policies have been changed to reflect the below statement. All of these reasons above gave way to the purchase vBulletin software and dumping of Infopop and their less than caring attitude in that day. Vbulletin is the best because of the vBulletin hacker community, their contributions, and the open support and help made available for free to those who ask. That and the vBulletin core Devs listened when ideas were brought to the forefront. No other reasons whatsoever. The below statement is in dark contrast to what the "Official" position has been for years in terms of the vBulletin community software. I don't believe in theft. I don't promote unlicensed copies of vBulletin being distibuted across the web and discourage others from doing so. The ability to distribute between licensed users within the vBulletin hacker community should be upheld. This is not a case of copyright infringement or theft. This stance of no distribution under any circumstances is "theft" of the rights of those who contributed and continue to contribute to the betterment of vBulletin. It's "theft" of the rights of those who purchase the vBulletin software after so many have contributed to what it is today.

If you are going to change policy on a daily basis, I want a complete refund of the over $1,400.00 I have in this Jelsoft product and the respective licensing. I'll use open source if this be the case.

Steve, this was a new user with a whole 3 posts wanting to purchase vBulletin. I'm utterly shocked at the response given by Jelsoft. This is not the type of response that was given to pre-sales questions in 2000-2001. This is not the community attitude given when I asked questions either. For years myself and many others have wanted a CMS that worked with vBulletin. Jelsoft promised and to date has failed to deliver. Now you are telling this person that he cannot use Mambo and vBulletin either the way I view it. Good sales strategy.

"And officially - no one is allowed to distribute vBulletin files, modified or not."

======

Ps. I would have sent in a ticket on this but you would have deleted or lost it.

[Steve Machol]

Sorry but what Kevin said over 3 years ago does not apply, and the truth is I think he was wrong when he said that. (Just because someone was a vB Mod does not mean they are infallible and that all their pronouncements are part of Jelsoft's official policy.)

As per the license agreement:

The Software is licensed only to you. You may not rent, lease, sub-license, sell, assign, pledge, transfer or otherwise dispose of the Software in any form, on a temporary or permanent basis, without the prior written consent of Jelsoft.

and

You undertake to;

ensure that, prior to use of the Software by your employees or agents, all such parties are notified of the terms of this Agreement; and
hold all data (including object and source codes), software listings and all other information relating to the Software confidential and not at any time, during the period of the license or after its expiry, disclose the same whether directly or indirectly to any third party without Jelsoft's consent.
This has always been interpreted to mean that vB files cannot be shared, modified or not. The only people who can change this policy are Kier, John or James. I will ask them what they think and if they would like to revise this policy.

[Hooper]

Sorry Steve, But anyone who has been around a while knows how it worked. Just like you do despite your "official" position. Kevin fully understood what he said, Chen was aware of the statement as well, and so was it that many people had read the thread. Both Chen and Kevin have connections with Jelsoft. Both have contributed code to Jelsoft. The point remains. The policies of Jelsoft are not of that which I puchased my licenses under. If you have issue with my statements, then refund every dime I've paid in to the software and I'll use open source. What kevin said 4 years ago does apply to the licenses I purchased 4 years ago. That's why I asked. Soon after I found many dev's etc.. shared source amoungst them. It's a known fact and has been accepted for years that there was no policy against sharing source amoungst licensed individuals.

[Steve Machol]

I have forwarded this to James, John and Kier. They will make the decision.

[Hooper]

Good. I've discussed my goals and intentions for vBulletin with both James Limm and John. I have the emails and support conversations somewhere on cd.

[Brad.loo]

Sorry Steve, But anyone who has been around a while knows how it worked. Just like you do despite your "official" position. Kevin fully understood what he said, Chen was aware of the statement as well, and so was it that many people had read the thread. Both Chen and Kevin have connections with Jelsoft. Both have contributed code to Jelsoft. The point remains. The policies of Jelsoft are not of that which I puchased my licenses under. If you have issue with my statements, then refund every dime I've paid in to the software and I'll use open source. What kevin said 4 years ago does apply to the licenses I purchased 4 years ago. That's why I asked. Soon after I found many dev's etc.. shared source amoungst them. It's a known fact and has been accepted for years that there was no policy against sharing source amoungst licensed individuals.
Hooper, I was not involded with the company back when kevin made that statement. But as long as I have been involded we have always upheld this policy on vBulletin.org, we remove posts all the time that have entire vBulletin files attached to them.

Infact it is even part of our forum rules:

* Complete script files from vBulletin must not be posted. You may only post instructions for the users to change the file themselves.

see: http://www.vbulletin.org/forum/rules.php?

I am not trying to defend anyone or take sides, just making it known that this rule has been enforced for some time. Yes we sometimes miss posts with full files, but we remove the attachments when we see them.

[Hooper]

Then the rules had been changed. There was no vBulletin.org when I purchased vBulletin. All hacks were done right here at vBulletin.com. The org didn't happen until later. The rules and policies have changed. I have a few other areas I can prove the policies and rules have changed in terms of what I purchased in 2001. I can prove it. Nevertheless, most of the changes, as far as I know, have not been anything that would offend. Not that I set around reading the Jelsoft Terms of Service and Policy restrictions. Creating policy that makes lawbreakers out of law biding citizens of the community is another issue and worth speaking out on. To be told that you are breaking the terms of service and license agreements would be nothing to take lightly in my opinion. Nor do I.

Vbulletin.org's stance at a later time was "don't post" as you have shown above, it clearly didn't say that you could not share files. "Don't post" was do to the fact that Jelsoft didn't want code publically available for downloading and viewing by the public. vBulletin.org was not what it is today when it was fired up, nor was it setup as it is. The rules were not put there to ward off the practice of sharing files, either hacked or otherwise, within the community.

If Jelsoft is going to cheat the community that helped to bring vBulletin to where it is, refund the money for the licenses or produce what I purchased so I can download it under the terms and conditions of the purchase. Better yet, allow what has always been done as a community effort and do away with all this "Official" attitude. All of this began when Jelsoft started doing what they could to protect the software. It's since gone overboard. It's one thing to go after theives, but to turn the community into lawbreakers by changing the policies is not right. First it was the "call home" code that was never mentioned until it was discovered by an end user. I was outraged at that as well. It certainly was not what I purchased, nor was it in the terms of service. And since have removed the call home admin panel code over the years. Like I've mentioned, it's steadily turned in to what you are witnessing. The concept of collapsable forum elements? Who created the concept? Who's idea was it if you know? Who created the hack. I assure you it was not Jelsoft the corporation. It was a person in the vBulletin hacker community called Bira if I'm not mistaken. Who came up with the idea of having all the posts numbered if you know? Was it Jelsoft the corporation, or was it a hacker?

Of course a hacker. Who came up with the idea of having an available search field within the admin panel for searching through a template? Answer: It was my one idea that ended up in the core of vBulletin. Not much of a contribution I'm afraid although It sure made searching templates nice.

That is the point. vBulletin is a product of the people of the community. Not a product of Jelsoft alone. There is no reason to not allow the community and license holders the right to distribute and hack vBulletin amoungst themselves like they always have other than the fear of losing a dollar.

I assure you that what you are witnessing with "Official" responses and changes in terms of service and policy is not what vBulletin was founded on nor was it what put the software where it is. Not then, not now.

[Freddie Bingham]

I registered at this forum on May 24th 2000 and have been a developer since 2001. I know quite well that our modus operandi is that we are very steady in our direction. We don't ever change the way things work around here. You know other companies seem to always be in turmoil about what they want to do and how to treat the community but we don't have that issue. The simple fact is the policies of today are the same as they have always been. What Kevin and Chen may have said or did, does not supercede the license agreement. What you and other owners have been sharing privately does not supercede the license agreement, which has always had the bit about not giving source code to a third party without our agreement.

vBulletin.org was started by Mike Sullivan, a developer, and has never allowed vBulletin source code to be posted and has never endorsed the sharing of source code between licensed users.

[feldon23]

There's nowhere this topic can go but down, since all that's left is:

* Ask why is the policy that way (allowing the exchange of the exact same file except for license # between 2 licensed customers seems logical to any bystander and would pass any litmus test on reasonable use)

* Explain to Jelsoft that "very steady in our direction" is a euphasism for rigidity and stubbornness. I think Jelsoft generally has very good business practices, but for a top developer to say "we're never going to change and we're proud of our position" is not going to win any awards.

I don't think questioning the license agreement is allowed on this forum anyway.

[Freddie Bingham]

You could also say it is an euphemism for stability and trustworthiness. You can twist it any way you wish to support your position. I was not stating that we wouldn't clarify the license one way or another in regards to this. I do not make those decisions and do not give advice in regards to them.

The point I was making is that it factually incorrect to state that we've had a policy in effect that we have since changed in regards to the transfer of source code. I was not offering an opinion on the subject itself.

You can question the license agreement. You are not going to be banned or censored for doing it as long as you remain civil about it.

[Hooper]

Hi Freddie,

I'm quite sure you were here in 2000 as we have both taken part in many of the same discussions in the past.

I ask outright. Does the policy that I signed when I purchased vBulletin directly reflect that of what the current policy is? It has not been changed whatsoever is what you are telling me? No vocabulary changes? No changes in policy and terms of service since 2001? Are you sure?

Thank you.


And Feldon, this is a serious matter. There are many ways this can go besides down.

[Freddie Bingham]

Yes, over the years the license agreement has been revised. It has never had a section that permitted the exchange of source code though.

Look, I am not supporting either position in regards to this dispute. Personally, I have no issue with licensed (active licenses) owners exchanging source code. Obviously, Chen and Kevin also had no issues with it but our own thoughts on the matter do not supercede the details of the license agreement.

Only Jelsoft knows who actually owns a valid license. Since you can not know who actually owns a valid license and for what forum a license is valid for, you are in a gray area to begin with, and that is assuming the license agreement explicitly allowed this.

[Hooper]

Then I've proven my point without having to copy and paste what needs to be said. The fact remains, Jelsoft has changed the way the company works and has taken the stance that everyone that trades source is illegal.

I'm the first to say, and I repeat what I've said, the community was allowed to trade souce between themselves for years. It was widely known and accepted. I don't believe that the original agreement I signed when purchasing the vBulletin software is at all the same that Jelsoft now has in terms of rules and regulations of software usage. I purchased in 2001. I should be under the same restictions of the time of purchase.

Kevin and Chen are only two. Many have traded source in this community. I've just brought up these two names do to the fact that both have contributed more to Jelsoft and vBulletin than any other two names alike.

If you have one word changed in the Terms of Service since the date of purchase, this doesn't mean I have to agree or abide by it. I purchased the software under the terms of agreement of the date of purchase. I have given reason as to what would be necessary. The ability to download software under that agreement.

The whole point behind all of this mamble is that the community is what made vBulletin what it is. Not just core dev's here. I think if nothing else, the policies should be reversed to reflect that of what created vBulletin. The sharing of source between licenced community members. A little less strict on the "Official" attitude by your moderators.

[Hooper]

I also wanted to mention that I wrote BBPixel and notified them that they would have been better off if they would have synchronized two separate databases and utilized the member functions of vBulletin without modifying the vbulletin files. I have licenses for miraserver, subdreamer, and a couple other programs that integrate with vBulletin. Mambo is becoming a pretty powerful and easy to use CMS. More so than others. Mambo doesn't have the best of permission systems and the integration of such a cms while using vBulletin for the permissions system is of great value to those interested.

[Icheb]

In Germany, if you buy something from a company and you agree to the Terms of Service valid at that time, you have to agree to any change that the company wants to make to these TOS or they don't apply to you.
I don't know how it is ruled in other countries, especially in the UK, though.

[Wayne Luke]

In Germany, if you buy something from a company and you agree to the Terms of Service valid at that time, you have to agree to any change that the company wants to make to these TOS or they don't apply to you.
I don't know how it is ruled in other countries, especially in the UK, though.

You agree to the vBulletin license everytime you download it. The latest license you agree to covers the version downloaded. If you do not agree to the license then you cannot download the server. If Hooper is using vBulletin 1.1.3 from four years ago then his argument might be valid, if that clause didn't exist in the license. If he is using vBulletin 3.0.7 then the current license is in effect, regardless of when his original purchase was made.

[Steve Machol]

In addition to what Wayne and Freddie have said, let me reiterate that it has never been Jelsoft policy to allow people to share vB files, nor has this ever been allowed in the license agreement. I've also been around a while and at no time do I recall this being 'widely known and accepted'.

In fact here is a post made by Wayne on September 1, 2001 in what was then the vBulletin Hacks forum on this site and which was later migrated to vbulletin.org. I could resurrect this from the recycle bin if absolutely necessary:

vBulletin Hacks
In these forums you can find help on modifying the vBulletin code to add new features or change how features work.

vBulletin Hacking Rules:
Hacks are not template changes. Hacks are not questions on how to use a feature. Hacks are PHP code changes, nothing more and nothing less. If it can be done from the control panel it is not a hack.

vBulletin Lite hacks cannot be distributed.
Place all Hack Requests in the "Requests" forum. This will make it easy for hack writers to see what you want.
Before requesting a new hack or add-on be sure to search the forums to see if it has been done already.
Make sure to specify whether you want a Hack for 1.1.X or 2.0 when making your request. The code is not interchangeable.
When Releasing Hacks put them in the appropriate forum.
Complete files from vB must not be posted. You may only post instructions for the user to change the file themselves
Hopefully Kier, John or James made archives of the previous license agreement versions, but as Wayne said each customer is asked to read and approve the license agreement before downloading vBulletin.

As for whether or not this policy changes in the future, that's realy up to the main guys to decide.

[feldon23]

So... at this point we have a philosophical conversation about whether the terms should be amended?

The irony is, if someone has access to download files on vB.com, they are a licensed user. So the plausible way to ensure that someone has legitimate rights to download a modified vB file would be to attach that file on vb.com somewhere. I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how *exchanging* hacked vB files can increase or promote copyright violation and theft of service/product and/or dilute the brand.

This is not a battle I want to get much more involved in. Thankfully I don't write hacks for a living.

[Steve Machol]

For that last 4 years while I've been around, people have been releasing hacks and add-ons for vB without the need to distribute vBulletin files. I'm not sure why there is a urgent need to change this policy all of a sudden.

Nonetheless allowing people to distribute vB files would be a major shift in policy and there is a lot to consider. The principles have been made aware of this thread and will consider what, if anything, needs to be changed.

[ManagerJosh]

This policy only affects files that are originally developed by Jelsoft correct?

This doesn't mean we can't release full plugin styled items, that allows full functionality, but has only small bits of code written by Jelsoft merely for functionality.

[Steve Machol]

Style files have always been allowed to share. We have them available on these forums.

[ManagerJosh]

How about in terms of codehacks though?

[Steve Machol]

How about in terms of codehacks though?
Sorry, I don't understand the question.

[Wayne Luke]

How about in terms of codehacks though?

The after market code modification community seems to be thriving at vBulletin.org without the need to distribute entire files from the vBulletin codebase.

[ManagerJosh]

The after market code modification community seems to be thriving at vBulletin.org without the need to distribute entire files from the vBulletin codebase.
but entire distribution of non-vBulletin files with minimal vB code is acceptable correct?

[Freddie Bingham]

but entire distribution of non-vBulletin files with minimal vB code is acceptable correct?
You can call vB functions but you should not be duplicating vBulletin code.

[kermit2]

Nice discussion.

In the Netherlands a software company was convicted to implement a conversion when customer wants to use another software package with the same by customer collected data.
See: http://www.webwereld.nl/articles/35516 (in Dutch)

The whole discussions comes down on one thing, have licensed vbulletin users the right to make changes to the PHP code of Jellsoft?

According to everything I have read, we do.
Does this mean that we have the right to share complete code no we don't.
But in Europe (like in the Netherlands) we have laws on copyright, which include "quoting". You may quote a small part of the code without breaking any laws.
That said, there is no need to exchange code completely.

On Unix there is a tool called patch : "patch (1) - apply a diff file to an original" with this tool, the changes that must be done can be applied.
If any party sends you a patch file with a script, which makes it easy to obtain some functionality, no contract agreements or laws are broken.

It is rather simple to code a script that does the changes for you.

Unless, Jellsoft claims that no changes to their original code may be done by a third party.

In that case, allot of current licensed customers will ask for a refund, and Dutch customers should go ask for a conversion paid for by Jellsoft. (As they should know, not their user agreement is leading, but the laws of the country of the customers they sell to.)

The only thing I don't get is why a formerly open source team is doing so weird about their code.
If you do not want other to see it, you can make it a binary, or code it in another language etc..etc...
I think that you should know that allot of performance issues are caused by bad coding, and that some sales arguments of yours are not true, like scalability, with only one mysql r/w database you can not call your software scalable, especially when there is no option in your configuration to define more mysql r/w or only read databases, as was posted on your website 4 years ago....


That kind of changes to your code can not be restricted; in European law the software company is liable for that kind of problems.

So why don't you create an open hack agreement, on which you will publish the hacks that have big impact on your code, to licensed customers?

Or better, why don't you make the hacks that your customers need?

CMS implementation and Ads server (google sense) are common now a days...
I also rather do not want to use hacks and changes made by third party, after all who is going to support that?
Beside the fact that allot of us are willing to pay jellsoft for patches/upgrades/modules/hacks/whatever that bring some new functionality and is managed and supported by jellsoft.

For corporate customers of Vbulletin this is an obligation, you can not expect that corporate customers will obtain vagely software to include functionality, why did you think that they bought Vbulletin? Yes, because they want software with support.

With Kind Regards,

A satisfied customer.

and lawstudent.

[kermit2]

Some articles that are 'not noticed' by development team:

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=47909&highlight=replication+write

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=60018&highlight=replication+read

http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=42032&highlight=replication+read


http://www.vbulletin.com/forum/showthread.php?t=105655&page=2&pp=15&highlight=replication


That isnt all that difficult, you just need to create a second instance of the $DB_site class which connects elsewhere, and replace any writing instances of $DB_site to $DB_write, or something

I hope with the beta-testing going on they also implement this easy way to make Vbulleting (supported) scalable.

[taffy056]

Hi,

I have bbpixel installed on one of my sites, I didn't run into this problem, they simply sent the code that needed to be inserted into the php files and that was it, when I had a problem they came and fixed it without sending them any files.

One question I have about this though, if for example you give someone access to your server to do modifications on the vBulletin code, and its then copied and then sent to people as warez, where do you stand as the licence holder?

The irony is, if someone has access to download files on vB.com, they are a licensed user. So the plausible way to ensure that someone has legitimate rights to download a modified vB file would be to attach that file on vb.com somewhere. I'm waiting for someone to explain to me how *exchanging* hacked vB files can increase or promote copyright violation and theft of service/product and/or dilute the brand.

Perhaps the reason why the full code is not allowed, is to make sure you renew your subscription every year, that way you can't get your hands on upgrades without paying for them.

taffy

[feldon23]

For that last 4 years while I've been around, people have been releasing hacks and add-ons for vB without the need to distribute vBulletin files. I'm not sure why there is a urgent need to change this policy all of a sudden.
Some of the hacks I've dreamed up would require changing so many parts of vB files as to be impractical to release as "find this" "change to that".

[Steve Machol]

Some of the hacks I've dreamed up would require changing so many parts of vB files as to be impractical to release as "find this" "change to that".
Okay. But it would still be against the license agreement to distribute vB files - modified or not.

[scotsmist]

as a developer of vbportal we were clearly told by jelsoft as far back as 2000 never to distribute any modified vbulletin files. vbportal back in version 2.x required you hack vbulletin files. We had to include instructions for the users to modify the files for themselves. Many new members had difficulty with this and we where always answering posts from members asking why we couldn't just distribute the modified files to them instead of them having to make the changes, they where licenced users after all.
Its the main reason why we had to put in so much effort not to need to 'hack' any vbulletin files with vbportal for vbulletin 3.

for example if vbportal where to use vbportal.org to distribute hacks to members, we at least would have full control over the site, who had access to the hacks (providing members didn't share login details) and would be reasonably happy that our hard work wasn't being shared with users who where not licenced to use the code. However if we allowed members to post complete files with their changes here or at vbulletin.org for example then we would have no control over how much of the full program (all of the scripts) a user could harvest from all of the hacks. When someone doesn't have the money to pay for the licence, they often have time on their hands.

perhaps jelsoft could provide a hook for 3rd party developers to automatically authenticate a vbulletin user.

[feldon23]

Okay. But it would still be against the license agreement to distribute vB files - modified or not. You're like the heckler at a medical marijuana conference who every 3 minutes says "Yes, but drugs are evil and will ruin your life."

I thought this thread was trying to look behind the scenes at the license agreement and how/if it has impacted possible development.

[Reeve of Shinra]

I've been following the thread and with all due respect Feldon, you and a couple of other here are the ones that decided to take the coversation in this direction arguing about what may or may not have been allowed in past rather than focusing the conversation on what is needed today and why. Rather than taking the conversation in that direction now, which seems to be goal, your heckling the staff who've been more than accomodating in keeping this post open for discussion. This would be a great opportunity for you and everyone else to take the discussion in the a positive direction before it degrades further and gets locked.

[feldon23]

My primary complaint with the license agreement was that we cannot exchange or download older versions of vB even if we have verified that the person we are trading with is a licensed customer. It just seems bizarre to me. But with vB3.5's new template history and template comparison features, this won't be such a problem. I feel sorry for anyone who has a hard drive crash and needs to compare whatever version of the forum they're running with a virgin copy that is no longer available.

I know I'm a left-wing free speech kinda guy and the developers and moderators HAVE been kind enough not to shutter this thread even with my prediction that the thread won't go anywhere positive.

On the TiVo forum, questioning forum management and policies is a good way to get banned. Which is why a lot of really good forum members (including moderators) have quit in protest and that forum is a much weaker one for it.

So I apologize for being a hardass.

[Colin F]

feldon23,

Have you looked into the members area lately?
Customers can now download all versions that were available during the time they had a license with access to the members area.

[feldon23]

Guess not.

Jelsoft... You guys are my hero. :)

[Steve Machol]

Guess not.

Jelsoft... You guys are my hero. :)
Yes, Mike added that option when he upgraded the backend stuff a couple of months ago. :)

[Reeve of Shinra]

And they lived happily ever after...