| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
muzishun
Senior Member
United States
1079 Posts |
 Posted - 09 December 2005 : 16:40:07
|
I have been asked to help redesign a web page that appears to be running Snitz. It is at http://www.mwpx.com and is the Max Web Portal page. I vaguely remember reading a few things about MWP here, but can't find them and don't know if they were positive or negative. There is no Snitz link on the page, but I don't know how much one has to change to qualify as a new product.
If they are in breach of the license, I don't want to work on the project (unless of course they're willing to put the copyright back in). I just wanted to get a little advice before I made my decision.
Thanks. |
Bill Parrott
Senior Web Programmer, University of Kansas
Co-Owner and Code Monkey, Eternal Second Designs (www.eternalsecond.com)
Personal Website (www.chimericdream.com) |
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
|
|
muzishun
Senior Member
United States
1079 Posts |
Posted - 09 December 2005 : 20:14:56
|
| Thanks for the info. We'll see what the outcome is. They may just change their mind on wanting my help. |
Bill Parrott
Senior Web Programmer, University of Kansas
Co-Owner and Code Monkey, Eternal Second Designs (www.eternalsecond.com)
Personal Website (www.chimericdream.com) |
 |
|
|
ruirib
Snitz Forums Admin
Portugal
26364 Posts |
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 09 December 2005 : 21:42:14
|
Just out of curiosity I went and took a look at it. After downloading a copy and reading the Readme they do at least acknowledge that they started off with MaxWebPorta, but seeing it as 'dead' they didn't see a need to make their project an obvious continuation. I think that is where the disconnect between them and the Snitz roots comes in - in cutting their ties to MWP they also cut the ties to Snitz too. (If you want, I can post a link to the readme from their download - or post the pertinent part.)
Based on what I've read there I doubt they will add the link back.
Its a shame in a way. I kinda liked it, but I'm not sure that their position is as cut-and-dry as they seem to interpret it. I also don't think they really care what we think, and that in itself bothers me. I will give them credit for at least acknowledging their MWP origins.
I wonder if they would get mad if I used it and added back the link to Snitz ... 
Or more appropriately, since they aren't concerned with the blessing of their forum's predecessors, if the Snitz crowd would have a problem with me using it after adding back the Snitz link and (c)... |
|
|
|
HuwR
Forum Admin
United Kingdom
20600 Posts |
Posted - 10 December 2005 : 04:18:17
|
No, there position is not as cut and dried as they think it is, their forum uses our code and should therefore have the copyright notices in it (by Law), even if they only took one line it needs the apropriate copyright, how can they call themselves a "community based open source project" if they just steal other peoples code.
|
|
|
|
AnonJr
Moderator
United States
5768 Posts |
Posted - 10 December 2005 : 19:41:49
|
quote:
Originally posted by HuwR
No, there position is not as cut and dried as they think it is, their forum uses our code and should therefore have the copyright notices in it (by Law), even if they only took one line it needs the apropriate copyright, how can they call themselves a "community based open source project" if they just steal other peoples code.
I kinda figured that. My question still stands as a point of clarification though... If I were to use their package with all the proper (c) and links added back in, would it be a problem? I like that its got all the parts of SHN that I like, but it doesn't run as slow. However, if its not in compliance, and it would be improper to use in the contex of Snitz (c) et al, I don't need it that bad. |
|
|
| |
Topic |
|
Topic Locked
