Jump to content
[MUST READ] Forum Rules ×

Please review Spookhost


Recommended Posts

4 hours ago, Fastniteowl said:

What about SMF? Simple machines forum, that one is good as well

Forget SMF. Most of their "staff" are plain idiots that don't even know their own software as well as they should, and usually don't reply to posts that concern issues. You'd be better off with ElkArte. It's based off of SMF, but has been modernized and recoded to be a lot more secure.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 51
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

1 hour ago, Burke Knight said:

Forget SMF. Most of their "staff" are plain idiots that don't even know their own software as well as they should, and usually don't reply to posts that concern issues. You'd be better off with ElkArte. It's based off of SMF, but has been modernized and recoded to be a lot more secure.

oh god thats a lot better

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpookyKipper said:

 

it's a modified version of Xera that is closed-source

Xera is licensed under the

GNU General Public License v2.0
The GNU GPL is the most widely used free software license and has a strong copyleft requirement. When distributing derived works, the source code of the work must be made available under the same license. There are multiple variants of the GNU GPL, each with different requirements.

 

This means it is not legal to make a closed source project from an open source project.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Burke Knight said:

Xera is licensed under the

GNU General Public License v2.0
The GNU GPL is the most widely used free software license and has a strong copyleft requirement. When distributing derived works, the source code of the work must be made available under the same license. There are multiple variants of the GNU GPL, each with different requirements.

 

This means it is not legal to make a closed source project from an open source project.

 

5 hours ago, ChippyTech said:

If a modified version of Xera is closed-source, it likely means that the source code for the modification is not available for public viewing or use, and thus is proprietary. As Xera is licensed under GPL 2.0, any modifications to it must also be released under the same license and made available to the public. If the modified version is closed-source, it may be in violation of the GPL 2.0 license.

Thanks for notifying me about it, I will certainly read the license and take actions if needed!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, ChippyTech said:

If a modified version of Xera is closed-source, it likely means that the source code for the modification is not available for public viewing or us

Incorrect. Please read the licensing again. Derived work must be made available under the same license. 
 

I did not check your Generate Aera application, but it’s illegal if you are not distributing it under the same license. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 minutes ago, TinkerMan said:

Incorrect. Please read the licensing again. Derived work must be made available under the same license. 

I think what he means is he was explaining "closed-source", which is in fact unavailable for the public to view or use. He was not talking about the licensing. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, Burke Knight said:

Xera is licensed under the

GNU General Public License v2.0
The GNU GPL is the most widely used free software license and has a strong copyleft requirement. When distributing derived works, the source code of the work must be made available under the same license. There are multiple variants of the GNU GPL, each with different requirements.

 

This means it is not legal to make a closed source project from an open source project.

 

10 hours ago, ChippyTech said:

If a modified version of Xera is closed-source, it likely means that the source code for the modification is not available for public viewing or use, and thus is proprietary. As Xera is licensed under GPL 2.0, any modifications to it must also be released under the same license and made available to the public. If the modified version is closed-source, it may be in violation of the GPL 2.0 license.

The Client Portal Source is now live on https://git.spookykip.xyz/SpookyKipper/SpookhostClientPortal. If I accidentally leaked some of the API Credentials, please do tell me.

If anyone (mostly ChippyTech for GenerateArea and SpotyHost(CSR Generator, lol) would like to use my code, feel free to do so, additional credits to me would be appreciated!  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, SpookyKipper said:

 

The Client Portal Source is now live on https://git.spookykip.xyz/SpookyKipper/SpookhostClientPortal. If I accidentally leaked some of the API Credentials, please do tell me.

If anyone (mostly ChippyTech for GenerateArea and SpotyHost(CSR Generator, lol) would like to use my code, feel free to do so, additional credits to me would be appreciated!  

Well as changes have to be disclosed, so _if_ someone uses this without mentioning you, they have top disclose the new code too, and indicate changesm, thus still having your credits in the vcs history/a specified file.

Edited by BastelPichi
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, ChippyTech said:

As Xera is licensed under GPL 2.0, any modifications to it must also be released under the same license and made available to the public.

The highlighted part is incorrect. Although I am happy with the release of the source code, @SpookyKipper was not in violation of the license, and the truth must be stated.

16 hours ago, Burke Knight said:

The GNU GPL is the most widely used free software license and has a strong copyleft requirement. When distributing derived works, the source code of the work must be made available under the same license. There are multiple variants of the GNU GPL, each with different requirements.

4 hours ago, TinkerMan said:

Distributed derived works must be made available under the same license. 

This is correct (I added a correction to TinkerMan's message), although there is a common misconception of what "distribution" means in this context and how it's applied. In fact, it is the reason that the GNU Affero GPL was created:

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/why-affero-gpl.html

Quoting from the article:

Quote

Suppose you develop and release a free program under the ordinary GNU GPL. If developer D modifies the program and releases it, the GPL requires him to distribute his version under the GPL too. Thus, if you get a copy of his version, you are free to incorporate some or all of his changes into your own version.

But suppose the program is mainly useful on servers. When D modifies the program, he might very likely run it on his own server and never release copies. Then you would never get a copy of the source code of his version, so you would never have the chance to include his changes in your version. You may not like that outcome.

Using the GNU Affero GPL avoids that outcome. If D runs his version on a server that everyone can use, you too can use it. Assuming he has followed the license requirement to let the server's users download the source code of his version, you can do so, and then you can incorporate his changes into your version. 

In the ordinary, non-Affero GPL, distribution of a program is applied when the program is released to the public. However in our case, @SpookyKipper's modifications to the original Xera program fall under the category described in the article: they are ran on his own server, and distributed to no one else but himself, so there is no requirement for him to share the source code. For him to have to publish his changes, the developer would have to have used the Affero GPL or a license with a similar clause that "lets the server's users download the source code of his version".

TLDR: He wasn't in violation of the license, and won't be if he decides to unpublish it either (considering it wasn't meant to be distributed).

I would personally be happy if he keeps the changes up, even without providing support, but some changes might need to be done (that will be addressed with him privately).


4 hours ago, TinkerMan said:

Incorrect. Please read the licensing again.

I did not check your Generate Aera application, but it’s illegal if you are not distributing it under the same license. 

@ChippyTech stated this (which sounds like a ChatGPT text but let's be honest, pretty much everything does nowadays):

14 hours ago, ChippyTech said:

If a modified version of Xera is closed-source, it likely means that the source code for the modification is not available for public viewing or use, and thus is proprietary. As Xera is licensed under GPL 2.0, any modifications to it must also be released under the same license and made available to the public. If the modified version is closed-source, it may be in violation of the GPL 2.0 license.

You were in complete agreement with his view, so I don't see why you called it incorrect (although it technically is, lol, just not for the reason you mentioned).

Also, we're talking about @SpookyKipper's SpookHost, not GenerateArea.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TinkerMan said:

I suppose this is what happens when you follow a legal topic on a mobile device 😂 

 

1 hour ago, ChippyTech said:

My apologies for the incorrect information. It is important to accurately represent the facts and ensure that no false or misleading information is provided. Thank you for bringing this to my attention.

 

Hey, that's ok to me.

I have privated the repo for now since I have actually leaked some api credentials. After I have fixed those, I will change it to public again, since I seldom (actually) contributed to the community :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, TinkerMan said:

When creating a new account, you are not away from the creator screen, but prompted to choose a domain. But the account is created, so it basically just shows the user a loop without confirmation that an account was actually created.

hmm???

let me try it

it redirects me to the view accounts page

Edited by SpookyKipper
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Unfortunately, your content contains terms that we do not allow. Please edit your content to remove the highlighted words below.
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


×
×
  • Create New...