Talk:PhpBB/Archive 5

This is an archive of past discussions about PhpBB. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Edward NZ, you do not have the right to unilaterally remove the phpBBhacks link, you know very well that there is no consensus on the issue, and it is just as valid to leave it until the issue is resolved, as not. To threaten to have the page locked only supports the contention that you are trying to “own” the article and force your views. Please step back from your ego for a minute, and stop trying to force your view, you do not own this article. In addition, you are more than able to call for mediation on the issue if you want. Do you fear that? After all, last time this artical was mediated, the "no unofficial links" rule was tossed out.

131.30.121.23 16:46, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

Register.

Pti 19:29, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

I am not required to do so. 131.30.121.23 19:58, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

In the interests of cooperation, consider it a gesture of good faith to anyone that ever wanted to have any idea what was going on in the edit history or on the talk page. Or get a static IP.

Pti 21:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

More than that - it would seem my job is to now make a case to the Arbcom regarding those who have been immature or uncooperative. Sorry for being away from this, but this nonsense should have been resolved adequately by basic ordering of links. This is beyond trivial - the only thing to do, barring some kind of magical growing-up spurt on the part of the trolls (you know who you are), is to file a case to get the teenagers banned. I recommend the growing up option. -Ste|vertigo 03:42, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well then, what conclusion would a grown-up come to? Should the disputed link be included or not? What is the adult choice? I assume you are talking about me when you refer to childish nonsense.

However, I would like to point out that had I not taken an aggressive stance about links, we would not now have any "unofficial" links at all, as the discussion here would have been drowned out long ago by a number of "views" that in my opinion have motives other than simply providing "the best" resource links. Indeed, this has been the case in the past.

I'm speaking about the bias that I mention over and over again on this "talk" page. I’m speaking about a small number of people who do not believe in compromise unless it is according to their view of exclusion rather than inclusion, a number of people that until I called for mediation, would not even accept non-controversial “unofficial” links.

While I have over and over again referred to what I think is a pretty clear bias in favor of views which imply some connection between the content of this article and the phpBB Group, the bottom line to me is that a valuable resource that quite clearly is a notable related resource on the web, one with quite an active help forum related to phpBB, as well as many many many resources that are unquestionably not copyright violations, is being excluded for what any reasonable person might interpret as a personal vendetta of some sort. This is improper.

It is also improper for several persons, at least one who has connections to phpBB Group, to wield absolute control over the content of this article, even as far as refusing to allow any discussion of commonly known code issues with phpBB in the past, that have been widely discussed in the national press. This combined with the phpBBhacks issue show that indeed certain people here do wish to “own” this article. They can deny this in words, but not in actions. Jake b 06:45, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

The "grown up" thing to do would be discuss both sides of the story. Yes, it may seem like there is a personal thing, but I can assure you we only want what's best for the wikipedia, and this means discussing any articles that in our eyes go against guidelines the wikipedia run under, and would appreciate not being accused of trying to own the article. I just hope that we can sort this out in a reasonable manner. Edward NZ 08:52, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Well it's hard not to make claims of article ownership when you and Pti seem to contribute so heavily to this one article. In your case, 80% of your Article+Talk contribs are to phpBB (out of 18 total edits); in Pti's case 39.1% of his Article+Talk contribs are to phpBB (out of 142 total edits). To put that in perspective, only 1.5% of my Article+Talk contribs are to phpBB (out of 4,658 total edits). It took a mediator to convince you that you should allow other links besides "official" links; it seems it may take a mediator to convince you that this link isn't going to bring down Wikipedia as well. For my part, I am done engaging in these circular arguments where we continually revisit policies and guidelines that are, IMO, totally inapplicable to this specific link. —Locke Cole • t • c 09:46, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

I agree with this. Theres definitely a GAL factor going on here. -Ste|vertigo 18:04, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Which most definately applies to both sides. I wonder what it will take to convince the reactionists and the fanatics that it is possible for rules to apply to them, and that the application to articles of wikipedia policies on articles is not WP:OWN merely because some of the contributors take an interest in maintaining a specific article. Pti 18:37, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Its a never-ending struggle. All the various expertines really love this little website. Arguing over an article about a piece of code - how pathetic is that? Still, I understand the desire of moderates to keep things reasonable. What should I do? -Ste|vertigo 23:41, 17 February 2006 (UTC)

Err on the side of inclusion rather than exclusion. The site in question has an extensive library of undisputed phpBB hacks, and an active forum. It represents an asset to those looking for phpBB hacks or forums to discuss tricky phpBB related code issues. Reject spurious arguments with questionable motives. Jake b 02:50, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

It is also improper for several persons, at least one who has connections to phpBB Group,[...] refusing to allow any discussion of commonly known code issues with phpBB in the past [...] They can deny this in words, but not in actions

Seeing as I've outright admited from the start that I'm from the phpBB group, I generally assume you're reffreing to me with this comment. Thus, I won't try deny it in words, I'll just ask that you show me the edits where I have removed talk about phpBB's old insecuirties. Otherwise please stop assuming that everyone is out to own this article. NeoThermic 08:52, 18 February 2006 (UTC)

I've protected this article. I've seen enough reverts on the page recently. Discussion should be held on talk pages, not in edit summaries. I will unprotect when a consensus is formed on what to do. Talrias (t | e | c) 19:30, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

So, we are to "discuss" this untill people tire of it and allow the phpBB group to own this article? Brovo! It's time to call in mediation. 131.30.121.23 19:54, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

No, it is to be discussed until a consensus forms on whether or not to include the link forms, as both sides seem unwilling to discuss it other than in edit summaries, which is not acceptable. The phpBB Group do not own this article. As it says on the template, protection is not an endorsement of the current version. Talrias (t | e | c) 20:03, 16 February 2006 (UTC)

The policy under Wikipedia:External links#Maybe OK to add states that we should use a reasonable effort to determine if the link, phpBBhacks.com, is acceptable or not:

External sites can possibly violate copyright. Linking to copyrighted works is usually not a problem, as long as you have made a reasonable effort to determine that the page in question is not violating someone else's copyright. If it is, please do not link to the page. Whether such a link is contributory infringement is currently being debated in the courts, but in any case, linking to a page that illegally distributes someone else's work sheds a bad light on us

The reasonable effort is complicated by a few issues:

• Some wikipedians have asked us to take the license of the file as evidence of a violation in redistribution, but that license has only been presented as prima facie evidence, and it has been rebutted:

1. The person that posted the file in question was a member of the phpBB Group, and it is said such group created the file. The details of who has had rights to distribute the file and who still has rights to distribute the file are not obvious.
2. Some of the files were either modified, re-created, or derived. The exact nature of differences from the original file are not obvious.

• Wikipedia is not a court of law, and the gist of the dispute is still in actual courts. It is undetermined if a link contributes to infringement.
• There is history of disunity between the phpBB Group and phpBBhacks, which almost resembles a tug-of-war over related pieces of the phpBB software. The continual struggle may have spilled into this discussion.
• There are users that feel the issue over one file is very minor, and that such minor issue should not influence the decision to include or exclude the link to the site, which is not a direct link to the file and does not include content of copyrighted material.

— Dzonatas 01:05, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

As a note, I've posted a comment at Village pump (policy) asking if a site (such as phpbbhacks) would be in violation of WP:C (which is more or less the grounds for the section in WP:EL). Further, I did some digging in WP:EL's history to determine when this clause was added, and this is what I found–

• 15:14, January 5, 2006 — Copyright bit added to Maybe OK to add by Joestynes (talk · contribs)
• 12:32, January 23, 2006 — Greatly expanded by Anville (talk · contribs)

As you can see, these are very recent additions, and from what I can tell, were undiscussed on WP:EL's talk page. I intend to do some digging on WP:C to determine who added the bit about external links there as well. I'm not saying this clause is bad, but it's poorly worded right now and I sincerely doubt the authors ever intended for it to be applied as it's attempting to be applied here. (And I suspect they didn't add more detail for fear of m:Instruction creep.

BTW, I agree fully with what you've said. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:40, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

Found when it was added to WP:C–

• 05:08, February 17, 2003 — Linking to copyrighted works added by Eloquence (talk · contribs)

A search in the talk page archives didn't turn up any discussion of this, so no guidance there sadly. —Locke Cole • t • c 01:51, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

"The person that posted the file in question was a member of the phpBB Group, and it is said such group created the file."

This is incorrect; Daz was never a member of the phpBB Group (and thus never had authority over the file's copyright), although he was for a long time a valued member of the phpBB team.

"Wikipedia is not a court of law, and the gist of the dispute is still in actual courts. It is undetermined if a link contributes to infringement."

Again, wikipedia policy specifically does not require the link to be considered contributory infringement.

Pti 13:22, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

You've successfully devolved the discussion into wikilawyering. A common sense reading of the copyright policy would tell you that a site with one allegedly copyright infringing link out of hundreds of links is probably fine. —Locke Cole • t • c 13:50, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

And I will be able to discuss the actual issues when we all have a common understanding of what the contested issues are (and stop bringing up points that, aside from anyone's position in this, are actually irrelevant). Hopefully, this will be soon.

Pti 15:13, 19 February 2006 (UTC)

• "Again, wikipedia policy specifically does not require..."

Your right. Any editor can add or delete the link. It doesn't have to be considered good or bad.

• "Daz was never a member of the phpBB Group"...

Ok. That was unclear about the difference between the phpBB Group and Team. Still, there is a question of rights. And, the rights seems to be solved with some careful review. Here is the complete text of the license from http://www.phpbb.com/downloads.php#subSilver for ease:

The subSilver SDK is not released under the GPL and is not subject to that licence.

You are permitted to use the files contained within this package for personal use only. You may not use the files in any commercial package in part or in full without the express permission of phpBB Group. You may not re-distribute this package in any way, shape or form without prior agreement from phpBB Group (this includes linking directly to the package on this site). If the files in this package are used to produce images for any non-phpBB Group product the images or packaged image set should carry a name which indicates its origins as being phpBB or otherwise clearly state that phpBB originated the graphics. This package and its contents are Copyright © 2001 phpBB Group, All Rights Reserved.

What we see above is that the license asks for "prior agreement from phpBB Group" to re-distrubute the package in part of whole. Further, it states "if file in this packes are used to produce..." and the rest of that sentence. That is clearly a prior agreement written into the license itself on conditions of how the file can be redistributed. It appears from a study of the file on phpbbhacks, the readme file and the license file are the same as compared to the version on phpBB.com, and those files contain the "name" that satisfy the agreement. There is no copyright violation with that file on phpbbhacks.

Matter solved. — Dzonatas 01:45, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

"Your right. Any editor can add or delete the link. It doesn't have to be considered good or bad."

I hope that it was an honest mistake on your part to quote me so out of context. If it was not, I would suggest you do not do so again.

Your quote of the license merely proves that the license applies to those files ("this package"), which supports my contention that they are present on phpBBHacks in violation of copyright. Well done, I guess you're coming around to seeing things my way.

Pti 02:36, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Did you completly and utterly fail to notice the bit that says You may not re-distribute this package in any way, shape or form without prior agreement from phpBB Group? Anon 06:18, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The "agreement" made by the phpBB Group is presented in the text: "If the files in this package are used to produce images for any non-phpBB Group product the images or packaged image set should carry a name which indicates its origins as being phpBB or otherwise clearly state that phpBB originated the graphics." If the license holds up and can be enforced, this one sentence still gives legal right for people to copy, use, modify, and redistribute the files. Although this says what you can't do: "You may not re-distribute this package in any way, shape or form without prior agreement from phpBB Group", the next sentence puts a big hole in the "what you can't do" with a "what you can do" clause. The post on the phpbbhacks.com of that file is legit "what you can do". If it is enforceable, the only illegit way is to leave the name out of the file.

There is no copyright violation, infringement, or misuse of link related policy to add a link to the phpbbhack.com site because of the file that is in question.

What else do you think makes it a violation? — Dzonatas 14:48, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That clause means any images files (.jpgs, .gifs, .pngs) that are derived from the psd. The psd itself is not allowed to be redistributed. Anon 07:09, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And where does it say this, specifically? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:14, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

Okay, so, for fun, I downloaded the file which is allegedly "illegal" from phpbbhacks. I also downloaded the subSilver file from phpbb.com. I then did a comparison. Here's what I found:

subSilver.zip from phpBB has the following directory/file structure–

\

LICENSE.TXT

phpBB2 subSilver SDK.psd

photoshop5\

readme.txt

subSilver_big_folders.psd

subsilver_buttons.psd

subSilver_delete_ip.psd

subSilver_folders.psd

subSilver_icon_reply.psd

subSilver_mini_icons.psd

subSilver_post_buttons.psd

subSilver_rank_images.psd

subSilver_voting_bar.psd

281.zip from phpbbhacks has the following directory structure–

\

LICENSE.TXT

readme.txt

subSilver_big_folders.psd

subsilver_buttons.psd

subSilver_delete_ip.psd

subSilver_folders.psd

subSilver_icon_reply.psd

subSilver_mini_icons.psd

subSilver_post_buttons.psd

subSilver_rank_images.psd

subSilver_voting_bar.psd

The files in the phpbbhacks download appear to be only the files included in the photoshop5\ directory in the official phpBB SDK. These files, according to the readme.txt in both releases were not created by the phpBB Group, but instead by a user identified as "Daz". The upload page on phpbbhacks indicates the files were uploaded by "Daz" as well, meaning it was the author/creator of these files that uploaded them there (this same user has also uploaded other files there as well). The file dates on most of the files in 281.zip are from 2002/4/18. However, one file appears to be more recent, subSilver_folders.psd; it is dated 2002/5/7 (and appears to be newer than the subSilver SDK available from phpBB.com). According to phpbbhacks, the file was originally uploaded on 2002/04/22, and was last updated on 2003/1/31. This indicates to me that the author uploaded these files the day he created them, and then updated them later. In the readme.txt, he indicates that he assigns his copyright interest in the files to the phpBB Group, and he also includes the same LICENSE.TXT as is included in the phpBB Group's subSilver SDK. However, it would seem to me that he would be within his rights to redistribute his own creation as he saw fit (and seemingly he has, by his uploads to phpbbhacks).

Now, if someone feels they must still pursue this, they can try and contact the creator/author of these files here, at phpbb.com's forums, or they might try and reach him at phpbbhacks (I haven't checked to see if he's uploaded anything there recently or not). But, for me, this pretty well mutes the copyright arguments from above (it was already ridiculous to begin with, of course, but now it's even more ridiculous because it seems the very file(s) being argued over are in fact owned by someone else; the very someone else who uploaded them to phpbbhacks!). Now someone please shoot me for wasting so much time on something this stupid. —Locke Cole • t • c 07:31, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

The photoshop 5 files are a derivative of the original works of the orignal PSD, and are still therefore subject to the original license, and are not DAZ's Intellectual Property. Also patrick has been known to upload files under people's names, without the person ever submitting it. As it happens, the license says no redistribution, and no amount of looking at it different ways can change that. Anon 09:01, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

Such license text also states how one can redistribute the files, and that seems to be what was done. — Dzonatas 14:55, 20 February 2006 (UTC)

That clause means any images files (.jpgs, .gifs, .pngs) that are derived from the psd. The psd itself is not allowed to be redistributed. Anon 07:05, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

And where does it say this, specifically? —Locke Cole • t • c 07:06, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

The license distributed with the files on phpBBHacks.com refers to "this package", rather than "not this package but the other package". That's a simple and easy way to identify the files as covered by the no redistribution clause.

Pti 12:32, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

You have expressed the spirit you want with the license, but the license text does not convey that same spirit. One catch that allows redistribution is with the words "used" and "produce images." We could continue to debate the technical details, and you would get a free review over the jurisdiction of the license text. — Dzonatas 16:51, 21 February 2006 (UTC)

If an admin would add Category:Free Groupware to the page, I would greatly appreciate it. Where ^(talk) 00:58, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Done. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

Numerous times I have placed links to providers of (free) PHPBB boards (hosted versions) and they keep getting yanked. They are as relevant as any other style, mod, etc. Please STOP or tell the community as to why you think any resources other than Hacks should be placed in the links section? If folks do not know what PHPBB is, it is probably safe to assume they dont know how to install it themselves or would even know what MYSQL is for that matter.

From WP:EL

Links to normally avoid

1. Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services.

Unless you have reason to believe webhosts do not fit into this category, please do not add the links back in.

Additionally, please sign your posts with ~~~~. Thanks

Edward NZ 04:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

From Stack

1. Sites that sell products or services charge money for their service
2. I do have reason to believe they fit, they were free other wise I would not have posted them.
3. As stated before -- if folks are looking for PHPBB here on wiki, it is going to be safe to assume they have little clue on how to install it. I think this is going to be a valuable resource for people. If you now see and agree with my reasoning please let me add them back without deleting them.
4. Heres your signature: 23:40, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

A host by definition is a business, and exists to make a profit. Hence they are selling a service, paid or not.

Also from WP:EL:

# Links that are added to promote a site.

Hosts to links promote them. Additionally, when trying to make a point, try to be sensible. This means not citing your evidence from random unrelated articles. Edward NZ 07:50, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

I unprotected per request. If things flare up again, let me know. --Woohookitty^{(cat scratches)} 05:17, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

From the wise keyboard of NeoThermic: "Removing phpBB2hacks.com. It points to a spam domain. Please check your edits and put in correct exsisting URL's please :)"

NeoThermic: Why do you say this like it's a "done deal"? You know very well this issue is still under discussion and there is no consensus. It's hard not to assume some type of editorial control from the phpBB Group when you make sweeping statements like this that suggest the discussion is over and the decision has been made and there is happy agreement all around. Suppose I start removing phpBB2mods.com because I consider their site design to be a hideous affront to good taste? Any problems with that?

The rule should be inclusion rather than exclusion unless there is consensus about it otherwise. Unless, of course, you are exerting some sort of ownership here. Jake b 20:36, 26 February 2006 (UTC)

Actually, sometime during our revert war the domain was changed to phpbb2hacks.com (which is a spam domain). The actual domain is phpbbhacks.com (no 2). Of course the ideal thing to have done would have been to remove the "2" and fix the URL. But meh... —Locke Cole • t • c 00:01, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

As per Locke Cole above, the domain was wrong. Alas, its far quicker to revert for me (with automated tools) than to adjust the 2. But in future, click on any URL you put in an article to double check it points where you want. And please, Jake B, AGF. NeoThermic 01:32, 27 February 2006 (UTC)

Re the official links to the IRC chats: Maybe the link should actually mention, for the uninitiated the they are "phpBB MOD Writers IRC channel on Freenode..." where the IRC is a linky to the wiki artcle on Internet Relay Chat... Just a thought... Jake b 20:44, 4 March 2006 (UTC)

Is this link useful? I can understand linking if a website has useful additions from multiple authors, however this site only has John Aleba's MODs. While they may be good MODs, it would mean that we'd have to lin to other single author sites. Besides, aren't his MODs on phpbb.com/phpBBhacks? 60.234.212.157 21:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC) Sorry guys, the above was me. Forgot to log in after clering cookies :) Anon 21:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

It's one thing to link to a directory of mods, it's another to link to a site with just one authors mods. Unless he's made a ton of mods (or they're wildly popular; in which case he might be worthy of his own article), I don't think we need to include every individual mod authors page. I'll take a look at it in a little bit though (just leaving right now, heh), but based on your description I agree it shouldn't be there. —Locke Cole • t • c 21:39, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it. Any problems don't hesitate to speak up. Anon 07:43, 12 March 2006 (UTC)