Ralph Angenendt wrote: > Ned Slider wrote: >> Would someone take a quick look at the SMF license to see if it meets >> the project's minimum requirements or not: >> >> http://www.simplemachines.org/about/license.php > > "Any Distribution of a Modified Package or derivative requires express > written consent from Simple Machines LLC" turns me off a bit. > <http://cmsreport.com/node/1777> has some more information about that. > > "Any Distribution of this Package, whether as a Modified Package or not, > requires express written consent from Simple Machines LLC." doesn't > really sound better. > >> At least then we can either tick a box or eliminate one possibility >> taking a little step closer to a solution :) > > I don't like the license :) > I don't like it either - that's why I raised it. Is it a show stopper discounting SMF from further consideration or is it something we can still work with (the license) and keep it on the shortlist? No point doing a lot of ldap integration work or whatever to only find out down the line the license isn't tolerable. >>> Requirements: >> <snip> >>> - Must address the specific requirements raised by the present >>> www.centos.org forum users ( Can you please fill this section in ? ) >> This is a task I can do. Where/how would you like the information? > > Why not here in this thread first? > Here is a summary of issues raised by forum users so far: *Major* - Persistent logins (users currently have to re-login every 24h) - The remember me, keep cookie for 1 year option looks broken (relates to point 1 above and is presumably a xoops issue) - View/jump to first unread post within thread feature - Remember read/unread posts across multiple PCs/logins (per user, not per machine) - Ability for users to change/edit their registered email address. - Better management of subscribed threads *Minor* - Thank User button/feature - Quick links feature I'm guessing this list is fairly final as no new issues have been raised for quite a while now in the forum feedback thread. For reference, the thread may be found here: http://www.centos.org/modules/newbb/viewtopic.php?topic_id=14921&forum=18 My understanding is that most all modern forums software caters to these requirements - users are just asking for the features/usability they are accustomed to elsewhere, nothing out of the ordinary, but that is missing from the current xoops solution.