Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

[cantab]

Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

I don't have any technical issues with it, however I have issues with the license. It's neither Free Software (as defined by the FSF, http://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html or by Debian, http://www.debian.org/social_contract#guidelines) nor Open Source (as defined by the OSI, http://www.opensource.org/docs/osd), since clause 1d prohibits free redistribution.

Non-free software is not per se a problem (ubuntu includes some, in the restricted and universe parts of the repos). What I have a problem with is that SM market their software making out it's open source, when it's not. (just read their website). They're being deliberately misleading.

If there are not good technical reasons for using SMF, I think it's worth thinking about moving. Despite their claim that it 'will always be free', SM could proprietarise at any time, and then without the rights to distribute the current version, the Free world is screwed.

Just my 2p.

[dibl]

Re: Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

I don't understand.

Where is the "redistribution"? SMF is the product that runs the forum, right? Who needs to redistribute to see the forum?

What is the risk here?

[cantab]

Re: Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

I'm not saying it's an issue currently; it might be in the future, if Simple Machines change the licenese, or gets bought out. Or if it were to go bust.

But my objection is more that I just have a strong dislike of a company that pretends its software is FLOSS when it's not. Given it's a forum about Free Software (most of Kubuntu is free), it would be nice if it itself ran on Free Software. Too many FLOSS-related forums running on non-Free software risks the community being accused of hypocrisy by our opponents. I'm pragmatic enough to understand that there might be technical reasons for using SMF (and I certainly wouldn't advise using phpBB for one), I'd be interested to know what they are.

[Fenyx]

Re: Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

Could you please point to a link where SMF claims/pretends to be FLOSS? I know that their license isn't GPL or even OSI-approved, as they themselves admit. But I haven't seen them claim that SMF is free software or open source software.

Also, as to why we are using it, simply because it is what Open Source, the sole owner of the site, is most comfortable using. I think he's open to changing the software, but we can't really demand it from him, specially if he's not familiar with the software. We are practically living off his paycheck. Everything you find here is from his generosity.

FWIW, KFN is not alone in this "issue", although this is probably the first time it has ever been raised. ubuntuforums.org uses vbulletin and that has been questioned to death. (I think they even have a FAQ for it).

[Snowhog]

Re: Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

Well said Jucato. OS (our host) provides this site completely at his expense. That he uses SMF as apposed to any other medium, is completely his decision to make. Not to bash any member, but to 'drink of the well at no cost' and then to 'question the taste of the water' is in rather poor taste. :P

[cantab]

Re: Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

Jucato: http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php
But well said - it's the owner's decision.

Not to bash any member, but to 'drink of the well at no cost' and then to 'question the taste of the water' is in rather poor taste. :P

You could say that in response to any criticism of Kubuntu itself...

Of course if I felt strongly enough about this, I'd simply vote with my feet - go to another forum. However, I don't and won't.

[Fenyx]

Re: Why do we use Simple Machines Forum?

Jucato: http://www.simplemachines.org/about/opensource.php

Exactly!! They themselves say that their license is OSI-incompatible, and that they had problems with using GPL in the past. Although the last sentence in that page exhorts to "see as open source", they are using the term "open source" very loosely (a practice that OSI discourages actually). It doesn't change the fact that they know their license is not open source and neither do they publicize themselves being open source except for that one sentence (so fart that's the only place where I can see it).