Menu
▾
▴
linuxsampler-devel
|
From: Robin G. <ro...@ga...> - 2016-06-28 19:41:30
|
> That commercial exception, being ( snipped and quoted for the sake of > pedantism ), > > '..under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, > libraries and applications *FOR* COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE > PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission..' GPL section 6 says "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein." So how does that work out? That additional commercial exception contradicts the GPL on which it is based on and as result LS does not have a license. It is fully copyrighted. It could become an new license: GPL without section 6 but with that exception added instead. Then again this is at odds since one is not allowed to modify the GPL itself. You can get around that by calling it the LinuxSampler-License and not mention the GPL at all. As side-note, generally source-code header license for individual files trumps the license file from the collection. A quick grep shows that the source itself has a GPLv2 boilerplate with no commercial exception (unless I've missed some). So if one were to take the individual source files and re-roll them into a new archive... ?! 2c, robin |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-06-28 20:15:34
|
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 21:41:20 Robin Gareus wrote: > > That commercial exception, being ( snipped and quoted for the sake of > > pedantism ), > > > > '..under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, > > libraries and applications *FOR* COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE > > PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission..' > > GPL section 6 says > > "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise > of the rights granted herein." > > So how does that work out? > > That additional commercial exception contradicts the GPL on which it is > based on and as result LS does not have a license. It is fully copyrighted. > > It could become an new license: GPL without section 6 but with that > exception added instead. Then again this is at odds since one is not > allowed to modify the GPL itself. You can get around that by calling it > the LinuxSampler-License and not mention the GPL at all. Robin, please understand that this issue had been discussed over and over again on this list. So please refer to the list archive on this one. You are really not adding anything new on this topic and this has also been discussed with several people of the FSF before. > As side-note, generally source-code header license for individual files > trumps the license file from the collection. A quick grep shows that the > source itself has a GPLv2 boilerplate with no commercial exception > (unless I've missed some). > > So if one were to take the individual source files and re-roll them into > a new archive... ?! Wrong. Neither are all files of LinuxSampler's sources pre-headed with a GPL intro text, nor would this action be legitimate. If you missed it, have a closer look at the source files. And in the end: You know the terms under which LinuxSampler is released, its clearly and prominently written on the website, on binary installers, in the README file of LinuxSampler's sources and even on Wikipedia. So even if all source files were GPL pre-headed (which is not the case), then your suggestion would be a conscious disregard of our release terms. CU Christian |
|
From: Robin G. <ro...@ga...> - 2016-06-28 20:24:18
|
On 06/28/2016 10:20 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > Robin, please understand that this issue had been discussed over and over > again on this list. So please refer to the list archive on this one. You are > really not adding anything new on this topic and this has also been discussed > with several people of the FSF before. Hi Christian, Thanks for the quick reply. When searching the archive I only found issues due to linking. "Linuxsampler is NOT gpl" in 2005. Would you mind pointing me to a reference in the list-archive that points out how GPL section 6 can be combined with a commercial exception? Is that discussion with the FSF public? Cheers! robin |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-06-28 21:38:39
|
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 22:24:08 you wrote: > On 06/28/2016 10:20 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > Robin, please understand that this issue had been discussed over and over > > again on this list. So please refer to the list archive on this one. You > > are really not adding anything new on this topic and this has also been > > discussed with several people of the FSF before. > > Hi Christian, > > Thanks for the quick reply. > > When searching the archive I only found issues due to linking. > "Linuxsampler is NOT gpl" in 2005. > > Would you mind pointing me to a reference in the list-archive that > points out how GPL section 6 can be combined with a commercial exception? Robin, there were more license discussions on this list than I could even count. Searching all of them just to find this particular issue would also take a load search time for me. I am sure you will find it if you invest a certain required amount of time. You might also check the respective other license discussions on other lists like LAD and LAU. > Is that discussion with the FSF public? No it was not. CU Christian |
|
From: Robin G. <ro...@ga...> - 2016-06-28 21:32:45
|
On 06/28/2016 10:20 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > You know the terms under which LinuxSampler is released, its > clearly and prominently written on the website Sadly no, those terms as self contradictory and hence invalid. One can only assume or guess your intentions. You're on the safe side: Any just court would uphold your (C) claim and clearly stated intention for no commercial use, but it leaves users out. One can assume that you won't be suing users for non-commercial use but there's no guarantee. It's a status-quo. >> So if one were to take the individual source files and re-roll them >> into a new archive... ?! > > Wrong. Neither are all files of LinuxSampler's sources pre-headed > with a GPL intro text, nor would this action be legitimate. Where does this leave files that do have a GPL header? say for example http://svn.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/linuxsampler/trunk/src/common/Thread.cpp Can I use that in an independent project with vanilla GPLv2? COPYING in the source-dir is GPLv2, the README contradicts that. I would like to encourage you to properly license LinuxSampler if only to prevent future threads like this. Cheers! robin |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-06-28 21:52:55
|
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 23:32:34 Robin Gareus wrote: > On 06/28/2016 10:20 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > > You know the terms under which LinuxSampler is released, its > > clearly and prominently written on the website > > Sadly no, those terms as self contradictory and hence invalid. > One can only assume or guess your intentions. > > You're on the safe side: Any just court would uphold your (C) claim and > clearly stated intention for no commercial use, but it leaves users out. > > One can assume that you won't be suing users for non-commercial use but > there's no guarantee. It's a status-quo. > > >> So if one were to take the individual source files and re-roll them > >> into a new archive... ?! > > > > Wrong. Neither are all files of LinuxSampler's sources pre-headed > > with a GPL intro text, nor would this action be legitimate. > > Where does this leave files that do have a GPL header? > > say for example > http://svn.linuxsampler.org/cgi-bin/viewvc.cgi/linuxsampler/trunk/src/common > /Thread.cpp > > Can I use that in an independent project with vanilla GPLv2? > > COPYING in the source-dir is GPLv2, the README contradicts that. > > I would like to encourage you to properly license LinuxSampler if only > to prevent future threads like this. You don't need to encourage me. If you are really interested in resolving users' drawbacks of the current license situation, then let me invite *you* to resolve them! CU Christian |
|
From: Robin G. <ro...@ga...> - 2016-06-28 20:16:51
|
Sorry for this self-reply follow up post, I forgot to include a pertinent reference. On 06/28/2016 09:41 PM, Robin Gareus wrote: >> That commercial exception, being ( snipped and quoted for the sake of >> pedantism ), >> >> '..under the GNU GPL with the exception that USAGE of the source code, >> libraries and applications *FOR* COMMERCIAL HARDWARE OR SOFTWARE >> PRODUCTS IS NOT ALLOWED without prior written permission..' > > > GPL section 6 says > > "You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise > of the rights granted herein." > > So how does that work out? > > That additional commercial exception contradicts the GPL on which it is > based on and as result LS does not have a license. It is fully copyrighted. > > It could become an new license: GPL without section 6 but with that > exception added instead. Then again this is at odds since one is not > allowed to modify the GPL itself. https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#ModifyGPL > You can get around that by calling it > the LinuxSampler-License and not mention the GPL at all. > > > As side-note, generally source-code header license for individual files > trumps the license file from the collection. A quick grep shows that the > source itself has a GPLv2 boilerplate with no commercial exception > (unless I've missed some). > > So if one were to take the individual source files and re-roll them into > a new archive... ?! > Also let me add that I by no mean want to encourage that. I'd like users to respect the intention of the authors of this IMHO great software. But I very much wish for these intentions to be clearly solidified by a proper license (until a time comes where software licensing becomes irrelevant). One practical example: forking linuxsampler: A lot of users are/were not happy with 32 channels LV2 output by default in Ardour (though this has meanwhile been solved in in Ardour with plugin pin connections). How could a user modify the source and redistribute the changes and make sure they're likewise not used in a commercial product? Would you oppose a non-free debian package alike the adobe-flash-installer? Basically a script that automatically get the source and compiles a local version or grabs a binary from some place? ciao, robin |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-06-28 21:34:25
|
On Tuesday, June 28, 2016 22:16:41 Robin Gareus wrote: > I'd like users to respect the intention of the authors of this IMHO > great software. But I very much wish for these intentions to be clearly > solidified by a proper license (until a time comes where software > licensing becomes irrelevant). [snip] > > One practical example: forking linuxsampler: A lot of users are/were not > happy with 32 channels LV2 output by default in Ardour (though this has > meanwhile been solved in in Ardour with plugin pin connections). > > How could a user modify the source and redistribute the changes and make > sure they're likewise not used in a commercial product? Correct, the current license definition creates drawbacks for the user in certain scenarios which could be addressed by writing one precise, long, new license text as replacement for the current short "GPL + commercial exception" definition. This has also been argued by people i.e. from Debian before and is the main reason why LinuxSampler is currently not even in the so called "non- free section" of Debian (which is BTW not an official part of Debian). However writing such a long new license text takes a load of free time (which is already quite limited on my side), energy, research and finally a clear consent by the developers. And to be honest, if you look at the discussions here, do you really think that motivates i.e. me to do that? I mean there are people coming to this list or contacting me directly, whom I never heard of before in my entire life, not participated to this project in any way before, and dozens of them are telling me in all kinds of harsh ways over and over again what I "must" do with our software. There were even people before who claimed that we would break laws by releasing the sampler under those terms and other ridiculous things. So once and for all guys; if you want to discuss license issues: do your home work (i.e. especially check the FAQs and the list archive by yourself), be polite, don't be offensive (we are all doing this in our spare time, you cannot force us to do anything), and be constructive: if you really want license issues to be addressed, sit down, elaborate and suggest clear license terms by yourself which could become a candidate to resolve those overall issues. > Would you oppose a non-free debian package alike the > adobe-flash-installer? Basically a script that automatically get the > source and compiles a local version or grabs a binary from some place? I never was, nor was anybody from this project. I think we have Debian packaging scripts almost since day one. And like I stated above, it was Debian's side who told us that they would like to, but currently cannot add it to non-free due to i.e. some reasons you mentioned as well. And obviously, there is a difference between just rolling a package and the actual use case. Putting the package on a public web server is one thing, linking or even incorporating the package with a hardware product is a completely different thing. CU Christian |
|
From: Robin G. <ro...@ga...> - 2016-06-28 22:12:56
|
On 06/28/2016 11:39 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > However writing such a long new license text takes a load of free time (which > is already quite limited on my side), energy, research and finally a clear > consent by the developers. I understand. I am however of the strong opinion that one should have a full understanding of how ones work is to be treated before publishing it and not gray areas with possible backdoors or loopholes (think Disney not LS). If LS licensing was clear, how do you explain those tiring discussion that you mention: > And to be honest, if you look at the discussions > here, do you really think that motivates i.e. me to do that? I mean there are > people coming to this list or contacting me directly, whom I never heard of > before in my entire life, not participated to this project in any way before, > and dozens of them are telling me in all kinds of harsh ways over and over > again what I "must" do with our software. I'm sorry I came across harshly. I didn't mean to offend nor push anyone into doing anything. I hoped to paint a clear picture based on facts about the current licensing situation. > There were even people before who > claimed that we would break laws by releasing the sampler under those terms > and other ridiculous things. > > So once and for all guys; if you want to discuss license issues: do your home > work (i.e. especially check the FAQs and the list archive by yourself), be > polite, don't be offensive (we are all doing this in our spare time, you > cannot force us to do anything), and be constructive: if you really want > license issues to be addressed, sit down, elaborate and suggest clear license > terms by yourself which could become a candidate to resolve those overall > issues. Ok here it goes: I suggest to take the GPLv2. amend Section 1 with the non commercial exception and change the name to LinuxSampler License. * "You may not use the source code, libraries and derived applications in any commercial hardware or software products." after the "You may charge a fee for the physical..." sentence in section 1. * Delete section 9. and the part referring to the FSF in section 10. * s/GNU/LinuxSampler/ * save the file as COPYING.LS * rename the currently COPYING to COPYING.GPLv2 * Add a new file: COPYING ------8<------ All source files that include a GPL boilerplate are subject to terms of the GNU General Public License which can be found in COPYING.GPLv2. The complete project and all other files are subject to the LinuxSampler License as found in COPYING.LS Linuxsampler is available for commercial licensing, a written permission by the authors is required for this. Please inquire with the authors. see http://linuxsampler.org/developers.html ------8<------ I think that would make things clear and may not even require agreement of all developers since it just a proper form of what you have currently and intend and should take less than 1h. ciao, robin |
|
From: RDP <gli...@gm...> - 2016-06-29 18:17:39
|
On 28 June 2016 at 23:12, Robin Gareus <ro...@ga...> wrote: > On 06/28/2016 11:39 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: >> .. if you really want license issues to be addressed, sit down, elaborate and suggest >> clear license terms by yourself which could become a candidate to resolve those overall >> issues. > Ok here it goes: I suggest to take the GPLv2. amend Section 1 with the > non commercial exception and change the name to LinuxSampler License. Might it not be a good idea for this discussion to be taken here, http://bb.linuxsampler.org/ .. with some drafts published ( wiki style ), so that such a beast can be formalised? Chris. |
|
From: Robin G. <ro...@ga...> - 2016-06-29 19:09:30
|
On 06/29/2016 08:17 PM, RDP wrote: > On 28 June 2016 at 23:12, Robin Gareus <ro...@ga...> wrote: >> On 06/28/2016 11:39 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > >>> .. if you really want license issues to be addressed, sit down, elaborate and suggest >>> clear license terms by yourself which could become a candidate to resolve those overall >>> issues. > >> Ok here it goes: I suggest to take the GPLv2. amend Section 1 with the >> non commercial exception and change the name to LinuxSampler License. > > Might it not be a good idea for this discussion to be taken here, > > http://bb.linuxsampler.org/ > > .. with some drafts published ( wiki style ), so that such a beast > can be formalised? > wiki-style sounds good to me. As to where I don't care. Does http://bb.linuxsampler.org/ facilitate editing a shared topic? or a google-doc or page on wiki.linuxaudio.org - Can you set this up? As for discussion while editing #lad IRC on freenode.net http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=lad would be a good idea. ..to roll the ball a bit further, the goal is a proper valid license which directly answers the following questions without doubt: * Under what conditions can I use Linuxsamler ? use: GPL * Can I change linuxsampler and redistribute the sources? yes, that's how you send patches & contribute * Can I build and distribute binaries not for profit? Even if the target host is a commercial system? probably :) --- needs clarification * Can automate compilation and binary distribution not for profit ...and accept donations for it? -- Even if the target host is a commercial system? probably not. --- needs clarification * Who needs to accept the license? both: distributor and user. * Can I include binaries pre-installed on commercial hardware? No. * Can I use GPLed parts of the source in a GPLv2 application? I suppose so. --- needs clarification * What commercial licensing options are available? -> send email to ... ciao, robin |
|
From: RDP <gli...@gm...> - 2016-07-01 21:42:10
|
On 29 June 2016 at 20:09, Robin Gareus <ro...@ga...> wrote: >> Might it not be a good idea for this discussion to be taken here, >> >> http://bb.linuxsampler.org/ >> >> .. with some drafts published ( wiki style ), so that such a beast >> can be formalised? >> > > wiki-style sounds good to me. As to where I don't care. Does > http://bb.linuxsampler.org/ facilitate editing a shared topic? > or a google-doc or page on wiki.linuxaudio.org - Can you set this up? I don't know ( yet ). Seems a tad dead there at the moment, with no 'current' topics. Maybe it's time liven it up and start one?!.;o) If the resources are there to be used, then let's use them. If'n they ain't, then they can always be found somewhere else. > As for discussion while editing #lad IRC on freenode.net > http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=lad > would be a good idea. Possibly. Remember, there may well be those who, for various reasons, are not inclined not to chat > ..to roll the ball a bit further, the goal is a proper valid license > which directly answers the following questions without doubt: Some of your questions could already be answered, here, http://www.linuxsampler.org/faq.html#commercial_products As I understand it, the current licensing is already GPL, but with that little additional commercial exception. ;o) IMHO, that commercial exception is relatively clearly stated. While I can appreciate the reasoning behind it, there may well be some grey areas open to interpretation. Regards, Chris. . |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-07-02 11:42:18
|
On Wednesday, June 29, 2016 21:09:20 Robin Gareus wrote: > On 06/29/2016 08:17 PM, RDP wrote: > > On 28 June 2016 at 23:12, Robin Gareus <ro...@ga...> wrote: > >> On 06/28/2016 11:39 PM, Christian Schoenebeck wrote: > >>> .. if you really want license issues to be addressed, sit down, > >>> elaborate and suggest clear license terms by yourself which could > >>> become a candidate to resolve those overall issues. > >> > >> Ok here it goes: I suggest to take the GPLv2. amend Section 1 with the > >> non commercial exception and change the name to LinuxSampler License. > > > > Might it not be a good idea for this discussion to be taken here, > > > > http://bb.linuxsampler.org/ > > > > .. with some drafts published ( wiki style ), so that such a beast > > can be formalised? > > wiki-style sounds good to me. As to where I don't care. Does > http://bb.linuxsampler.org/ facilitate editing a shared topic? > or a google-doc or page on wiki.linuxaudio.org - Can you set this up? > > As for discussion while editing #lad IRC on freenode.net > http://webchat.freenode.net/?channels=lad > would be a good idea. Well, you can simply start a topic on bb.linuxsampler.org and update your (i.e. upper most) post with the latest version of the text. Of course I can also make a separate forum section and make the specific thread with the license text sticky (so that it stays on top). Whether there is some kind of shared/wiki feature on the forum, I don't know, it's a (more or less) standard phpbb installation after all. So you may check that on the phpbb website. Since the license is a fundamental issue of this project, I would rather prefer to keep its discussions and working versions on our sites. > ..to roll the ball a bit further, the goal is a proper valid license > which directly answers the following questions without doubt: > > > * Under what conditions can I use Linuxsamler ? > use: GPL Why? If there is going to be specific clear license text (whatever it will be named) then that should apply. > * Can I change linuxsampler and redistribute the sources? > > yes, that's how you send patches & contribute Yes, but the commercial exceptions stay valid. So that means the distribution might be OK (i.e. consider a public web server) but the user might face the actual restrictions (requires permission for commercial products). > * Can I build and distribute binaries not for profit? Even if the > target host is a commercial system? > > probably :) --- needs clarification What exactly did you have in mind? > * Can automate compilation and binary distribution not for profit > ...and accept donations for it? -- Even if the target host is a > commercial system? > > probably not. --- needs clarification If it is really a "donation" and not a hidden way to force the user charging for something, then yes it should be OK. My understanding of a "donation" is that the user is not forced in any way to actually donate/pay, right? However there are some sites which claim to provide software for a donation, and you have no way to get that specific software (version) without "donating". So the latter is not actually a donation from my point of view. > * Who needs to accept the license? > > both: distributor and user. Sure, everybody who "does" something with the software needs to act according to the license. > * Can I include binaries pre-installed on commercial hardware? > > No. Of course not. Commercial actors need prior permission to do so. > * Can I use GPLed parts of the source in a GPLv2 application? > > I suppose so. --- needs clarification No, the sources were released with commercial exception from day one (even the proof of concept code where I was not even on board yet). When there is a final license text, I would probably talk with the developers and update the header of the individual files one by one to explicitly clarify for the source code reader which exact terms apply to which source file. For certain source files it would make sense to release them under pure GPL. > * What commercial licensing options are available? > > -> send email to ... Yes, or it would also be possible to create a commercial license text as well and release the software dual licensed that way. But obviously that has less priority than clarifying the non-commercial license first. CU Christian |
|
From: RDP <gli...@gm...> - 2016-07-03 19:12:21
|
On 2 July 2016 at 12:47, Christian Schoenebeck <sch...@li...> wrote: > Well, you can simply start a topic on bb.linuxsampler.org and update your > (i.e. upper most) post with the latest version of the text. Of course I can > also make a separate forum section and make the specific thread with the > license text sticky (so that it stays on top). Initial posting on the matter, submitted by user RedDwarfPlanet. Once moderated, t'will appear under General LinuxSampler Discussion. Away you go.. ;o) Chris. |
|
From: RDP <gli...@gm...> - 2016-07-07 17:56:48
|
On 6 July 2016 at 17:28, Christian Schoenebeck <sch...@li...> wrote: > On Sunday, July 03, 2016 20:12:12 RDP wrote: >> On 2 July 2016 at 12:47, Christian Schoenebeck >> >> <sch...@li...> wrote: > I was not even aware that posts of newly registered users were forced for > moderation. Quite a bunch of permission levels with phpbb which make it > confusing sometimes to see which permissions actually apply. One learns something every day, doesn't one? ;o) I have similar issues keeping track of a mediawiki installation ( for another, now well unmaintained 'legacy' project ). on one of my servers. > Anyway, I approved your forum user, so you should be able to post now on all > forums without moderation. And I also changed the board's settings so that > newly registered users can at least immediately post on the "Newbies & > Support" section without having to wait for a moderator passing by after > weeks. ;-) Thank you. After recent list exchanges I decided to start the ball rolling.. however, I rather suspect now, that apathy will reign and silence on the matter will be truly deafening! You mentioned previously, bumping licensing to a separate forum section, and making it 'sticky'. Possily still worth doing, so as the matter doesn't get lost in the myriad of postings! ;o) Regards, Chris. |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-07-09 11:44:01
|
On Thursday, July 07, 2016 18:56:40 RDP wrote: > > Anyway, I approved your forum user, so you should be able to post now on > > all forums without moderation. And I also changed the board's settings so > > that newly registered users can at least immediately post on the "Newbies > > & Support" section without having to wait for a moderator passing by > > after weeks. ;-) > > Thank you. After recent list exchanges I decided to start the ball > rolling.. however, I rather suspect now, that apathy will reign and > silence on the matter will be truly deafening! Yes, that happens mostly. > You mentioned previously, bumping licensing to a separate forum > section, and making it 'sticky'. Possily still worth doing, so as the > matter doesn't get lost in the myriad of postings! ;o) As soon as there is some real activity on that matter I will make the post sticky. And in case this issue really spawns several "hot" topics on the forum one day, then I'll make a separate forum section and move those posts there. However ATM there is no reasonable general forum activity right now anyway. CU Christian |
|
From: Robin G. <ro...@ga...> - 2016-07-09 12:01:38
|
On 07/07/2016 07:56 PM, RDP wrote: > On 6 July 2016 at 17:28, Christian Schoenebeck > <sch...@li...> wrote: [..] >> Anyway, I approved your forum user, so you should be able to post now on all >> forums without moderation. And I also changed the board's settings so that >> newly registered users can at least immediately post on the "Newbies & >> Support" section without having to wait for a moderator passing by after >> weeks. ;-) > > Thank you. After recent list exchanges I decided to start the ball > rolling.. however, I rather suspect now, that apathy will reign and > silence on the matter will be truly deafening! > > You mentioned previously, bumping licensing to a separate forum > section, and making it 'sticky'. Possily still worth doing, so as the > matter doesn't get lost in the myriad of postings! ;o) Cool, thanks a lot. I do have a drafted reply to an earlier message on the ML here. I'll copy that over there. Cheers! robin |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-07-06 16:23:00
|
On Sunday, July 03, 2016 20:12:12 RDP wrote: > On 2 July 2016 at 12:47, Christian Schoenebeck > > <sch...@li...> wrote: > > Well, you can simply start a topic on bb.linuxsampler.org and update your > > (i.e. upper most) post with the latest version of the text. Of course I > > can > > also make a separate forum section and make the specific thread with the > > license text sticky (so that it stays on top). > > Initial posting on the matter, submitted by user RedDwarfPlanet. Once > moderated, t'will appear > under General LinuxSampler Discussion. I was not even aware that posts of newly registered users were forced for moderation. Quite a bunch of permission levels with phpbb which make it confusing sometimes to see which permissions actually apply. Anyway, I approved your forum user, so you should be able to post now on all forums without moderation. And I also changed the board's settings so that newly registered users can at least immediately post on the "Newbies & Support" section without having to wait for a moderator passing by after weeks. ;-) CU Christian |
|
From: RDP <gli...@gm...> - 2016-07-10 18:19:55
|
On 9 July 2016 at 12:49, Christian Schoenebeck <sch...@li...> wrote: > On Thursday, July 07, 2016 18:56:40 RDP wrote: >> You mentioned previously, bumping licensing to a separate forum >> section, and making it 'sticky'. Possily still worth doing, so as the >> matter doesn't get lost in the myriad of postings! ;o) > > As soon as there is some real activity on that matter I will make the post > sticky. And in case this issue really spawns several "hot" topics on the forum > one day, then I'll make a separate forum section and move those posts there. > However ATM there is no reasonable general forum activity right now anyway. A post will only spawn 'hot topics' if it can be found, and not lost in either the deafening silence or the noise! For example, surely recent ( as in by date and time ) posts should bubble to the top of the board by default, taking the appropriate board topic with it? Dates and topics seem to be all over the shop. Humbly and respectfully suggest those board settings need tweaking a tad! ;o) Cheers! Chris. |
|
From: Christian S. <sch...@li...> - 2016-07-11 10:20:09
|
On Sunday, July 10, 2016 19:19:47 RDP wrote: > On 9 July 2016 at 12:49, Christian Schoenebeck > > <sch...@li...> wrote: > > On Thursday, July 07, 2016 18:56:40 RDP wrote: > >> You mentioned previously, bumping licensing to a separate forum > >> section, and making it 'sticky'. Possily still worth doing, so as the > >> matter doesn't get lost in the myriad of postings! ;o) > > > > As soon as there is some real activity on that matter I will make the post > > sticky. And in case this issue really spawns several "hot" topics on the > > forum one day, then I'll make a separate forum section and move those > > posts there. However ATM there is no reasonable general forum activity > > right now anyway. > A post will only spawn 'hot topics' if it can be found, and not lost > in either the deafening > silence or the noise! There is currently no information in that particular post yet. As said, as soon as there is some real activity, I will take the appropriate actions (sticky, separate section, etc.). > For example, surely recent ( as in by date and > time ) posts should bubble to the top of the board by default, taking > the appropriate board topic with it? Dates and topics seem to be all > over the shop. Humbly and respectfully suggest those board settings > need tweaking a tad! ;o) Even though I am not convinced about phpbb's overall settings design, in this particular case there is no issue. It behaves just as expected. The sorting criteria in the forum is: 1. is topic "sticky"? 2. time stamp of last post of topic So the sticky topics are displayed always before non-sticky topics, and both are then sorted by criteria 2. And when you look at the topics of the forum, it really did that. CU Christian |
|
From: RDP <gli...@gm...> - 2016-07-14 21:15:51
|
On 11 July 2016 at 11:25, Christian Schoenebeck <sch...@li...> wrote: > On Sunday, July 10, 2016 19:19:47 RDP wrote: >> On 9 July 2016 at 12:49, Christian Schoenebeck > Even though I am not convinced about phpbb's overall settings design, in this > particular case there is no issue. It behaves just as expected. The sorting > criteria in the forum is: > > 1. is topic "sticky"? > 2. time stamp of last post of topic > > So the sticky topics are displayed always before non-sticky topics, and both > are then sorted by criteria 2. And when you look at the topics of the forum, > it really did that. The definition of what is 'sticky', and whether it should be classed as so, is debatable ( and configurable ). For example how can a topic be considered sticky, in other words easily accessible and current, when it has last post date of Sat Mar 22, 2014 9:50 am?? Current/recent topics, really should bubble to the top of a board. If this is not the case then a board just stagnates.. which is what seems to have happened to the linuxsampler one.. Regards, Chris. |
Thanks for helping keep SourceForge clean.
X