MyBB 2.0 dev blog post

[PenguinPaul]

This will be the first of a series of development update posts regarding MyBB 2.0. Currently in pre-alpha, MyBB 2.0 is the long awaited upcoming major version of the open source MyBB forum software. We’ll be posting regular updates (we promise!) in regards to the development to keep you all updated.

http://blog.mybb.com/2015/03/09/2-0-dev-post-1/

 

[Azareal]

It would be somewhat nice, if we got more of the page, like what the posts look like alongside the header and so forth.
Is the license for the icons compatible with the license that you're going for in MyBB 2.0, as they seem to have a fairly unusual one?

Personally, I was expecting some innovation in MyBB 2.0, but perhaps we'll see more of that as it's developed.

 

[PenguinPaul]

It would be somewhat nice, if we got more of the page, like what the posts look like alongside the header and so forth.
Is the license for the icons compatible with the license that you're going for in MyBB 2.0, as they seem to have a fairly unusual one?

Personally, I was expecting some innovation in MyBB 2.0, but perhaps we'll see more of that as it's developed.

More dev posts will be coming soon. Innovation and more of the UI will be included
We're still debating the license for 2.0, and of course we'll have to take FA's license in mind.

 

[euantor]

We'll be doing these posts regularly, and each will include more information. Some posts will talk about the technical side of things, others will talk about the look and feel, others about new features, etc. The idea is to provide a steady flow of information rather than a massive dump of it.

Regarding licensing, FontAwesome uses a license compatible with the GPL. We're still debating licensing, but previously MyBB has used the GPL and more recently the LGPL.

 

[Azareal]

Regarding licensing, FontAwesome uses a license compatible with the GPL. We're still debating licensing, but previously MyBB has used the GPL and more recently the LGPL.

From what I read, there was a special version of the GPL which was compatible with it. Granted, I haven't really looked into it much.

 

[euantor]

From what I read, there was a special version of the GPL which was compatible with it. Granted, I haven't really looked into it much.

I've only had quick glance, but their licensing page claims as follows:

Font Awesome is fully open source and is GPL friendly. You can use it for commercial projects, open source projects, or really just about whatever you want.

http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/

I'm not fully clued up on licensing (I don't claim to be a lawyer after all ), so we'll probably get somebody with more of an idea of what they're on about to check everything out. We obviously prefer MIT licensed libraries wherever possible though.

 

[Azareal]

I've only had quick glance, but their licensing page claims as follows:
http://fortawesome.github.io/Font-Awesome/license/
I'm not fully clued up on licensing (I don't claim to be a lawyer after all ), so we'll probably get somebody with more of an idea of what they're on about to check everything out. We obviously prefer MIT licensed libraries wherever possible though.

http://scripts.sil.org/OFL
The font itself seems to be licensed under the SIL OFL, which has this requirement:

The requirement is for derivative works to remain under the same license to encourage fair collaboration and prevent anyone from locking away contributions.

The GPL turns everything that it touches into GPL licensed items, so I doubt that it's compatible with the GPL. However, there seems to be a special version of the GPL which is compatible with the SIL OFL, so they probably mean that.

 

[euantor]

Possibly. As I said, I struggle with licensing jargon... We'll probably look at other similar libraries with slightly more permissive licenses (MIT, BSD, etc).