CMS Made Simple Forums

Unprofessionalism... Ha, that's a good one.

MODx puts buttons on the front page of any editable region; the client never sees the MODx admin panel (or anything about MODx) unless you want them to. Guess these peeps are all unprofessional since they INTENTIONALLY made it this way after pooling all their experiences together to fix things they didnt' like in other opensource solutions.

Example:


Similarly, we've inherited clients whose previous sites were put together by any number of methods: ASP, PHP, Cake, Smartytemplates, etc. The code was not commented well and often the client owns a complete mess that they don't understand. It has been up to us to figure these things out. A client is always at the mercy of technology he doesn't understand. At least with CMSMS or any other open-source framework, we are able to keep costs down.

We don't lie to the client and say "we hand-coded this all from scratch" and if we ever folded, we'd let the client know how the sites were created if they were interested. Most of our sites are small-timers who try out a site and let it die within 3 years, ask for Flash and everything else. They wouldn't update security patches even if they knew how.

Don't make mountains out of molehills, please. If we had the whole job created with ASP, the client would have to go find someone who could understand the backend just the same.

Looking at the screenshot, it looks like it can be accomplished with CMSMS as well.
So... what abilities for frontend editing are required? Just Tags...

I'm not sure whether MODX allows you to add pages from frontend... at least, I can't see it from this picture.

[edit] Darn... looks like it's no use - it would take you to the backend anyway...(the customer may scroll down and see this is freeware free software)
Looking for a module, there is Inline tag project, but it hasn't released any files... found CreateUnder tag, which allows you to create a page under the current page (create a children), but that is probably useless for this case, too (and it's old).
Looks like just News module provides inline editing... or am I mistaken?

Try looking at the FormBuilder + FormBrowser combination, too. They may allow inline editing, provided that you use the {cms_module module="FormBrowser" ...} instead of {content}. On the other hand, its help says it's not friendly to pretty urls and has big SQL queries hits... haven't tried.

What about asking Calguy to ressurect the inline edit project (assuming it would cost some money, but you were about to pay for proprietary license anyway, so...?)

I think this is a great discussion to be having!

Across the earlier posts I sense a tendency toward confusing branding / marketing with crediting authorship.

I consider it to be out of place to be marketing CMSMS on a site built for a client by a consultant.  Giving credit for the tools being used in the process is something I support, but it is a different thing.

The logo consisting of the palm tree image plus the stylized text "CMS Made Simple," thematic color schemes, custom-made icons, etc. are what I'd consider branding.  Such branding should not be visible to the client's customers (the end users who are viewing the site).  I'm ambivalent about to what extent they should be present in the Admin section.  Certainly the logo seems out of place. 

The text "CMS Made Simple is free software released under the General Public Licence." at first may simply seem informational, but in the context of the Admin pages, I'd consider it promotional (marketing).  If some people feel the word "free" may cause them grief with their clients it might be time to try a little education on them.  In the world of repair there is the concept of "parts plus labor."  CMSMS is similar to a "part."  A free part does not result in a free repair.  If we use CMSMS to build a web site for "Janet's Nail Salon," we have NOT gotten the Janet's Nail Salon site from somewhere for free, and then turned around and charged Janet lots of money for it!!

What we have gotten (and all that we have gotten) is essentially a free scaffolding upon which we will build Janet's site.  Not to mention that its been delivered in "boxes" and we have to set it up (install and configure it on a server).  The final site will probably be running on that free Apache web server using that free MySQL database too.  Is Janet's hosting service free?  Not likely. 

You could always invoice them for, say, $2,500, to acquire and license a suitable Content Management System, then later down the page credit them for $2,500 because you used CMSMS. 

Anyway...

Something like the sentence "CMS Made Simple -- a fast and easy way to create a web site and manage its contents" is most certainly marketing.   ;)

"Powered by CMS Made Simple." or "Built with CMS Made Simple" (with links) simply credit authorship.  I absolutely believe such credit should be given.  This does not belong anywhere the end user will be seeing it, but in the Admin section seems acceptable.  I think having it appear on every single page there, however, is excessive and unnecessary.  Maybe only on the Admin landing page; maybe on the Site Admin page.

For those who flinch at the word "simple" in there... since it's a component of the name of the product, I don't see an easy way to avoid it.  "Simple" in this case does not mean "Press a button and it's done!"  For example, it is simple to fly a single engine light aircraft (a Cessna)... compared to flying a multi-engine jet powered aircraft.  But if you've never flown a Cessna before, flying one won't feel at all simple.

ericob wrote: The text "CMS Made Simple is free software released under the General Public Licence." at first may simply seem informational, but in the context of the Admin pages, I'd consider it promotional (marketing).

Yeah, it's kind of marketing - both of CMS Made Simple and General Public Licence. It's optional part of the GPL terms and conditions for free software developers, who want to spread the word about usability and quality of free software - license itself provides even bigger promoting, if the developer wants to. And anyone who wants to redistribute the software, has to make this notice visible to users, if there is any. Not such a big deal, but there is the problem with the word "free"  (mainly in English speaking countries). I'm not sure why the authors of GPL don't call it software libre or something like that - I know there is an explanation somewhere, but I'm just too lazy to find it out 

I am OK with authorship or creditship - actually I wonder why there is not some about button in the interface (I know, it's in the doc/ directory).

Just something little in response to nate22:

nate22 wrote: MODx puts buttons on the front page of any editable region; the client never sees the MODx admin panel (or anything about MODx) unless you want them to. Guess these peeps are all unprofessional since they INTENTIONALLY made it this way after pooling all their experiences together to fix things they didnt' like in other opensource solutions.

Well, on modx site, having searched for Quickedit, I found that the intention of this plugin was to ease updating page's content for less web-savvy clients, but nothing about reducing the hassle with free software and MODx credit. Just for information.

Right... and yet nowhere will the client ever see "MODx" when you develop their site for them. If you take a look at MODx's manager, you'll know immediately zero clients were intended to go back there except perhaps possible on-site web developers who manage a team of content editors.  It's way more flexible (and therefore more complex and confusing) than anything else for someone who is not already familiar with templating languages. However, for people with a coding background, it eventually becomes easier than trying to work your way around a rigid templating system like Joomla. But, for the average client? They could screw up their entire site with one click. In several, several ways. So, the client will never see MODx branding in most cases... yet the credit is still given in the code and in the admin.

I know, but I've never seen the credit on the bottom as something confuses people.

What confuses people is a lot of options and toolbars, which can be removed in CMSMS easily (certain group of users may be able to edit just content or one content block and never see the rest of admin options) and client focuses on WYSIWYG editor (whose functionality may be reduced even more so that client see just what he needs).

Anyway, is the main issue having just CMS Made Simple reference or the reference to the "Free Software"?

Actually, it isn't even an issue anymore, but originally, the issue was the words SIMPLE and FREE. The solution that someone suggested above about changing the footer to be a link that says "this site uses CMS Made simple" (or something) is perfectly fine with me.

I didn't know it would turn out to be such an offensive suggestion; I just wanted to know if it was acceptable or not and if I could pay a license to remove the branding.

But, like I said, if I can just change the footer link, that's fine with me!

nate22: The offensive part about your suggestion is nearly coming out and saying: Since you aren't requiring me to give credit where it is due, I am going to do everything in my power to make sure it doesn't happen.

Have you ever spent mass amounts of time on something only to have someone turn around and give you the finger? This is exactly what you are doing. When you look at it even your thread subject could be taken as offensive. CMSMS shouldn't have to require you to give credit or leave the current CMSMS reference there, you should want to because you are using a free open source application that could otherwise cost you thousands of dollars or hundreds of hours developing on your own. These simple links and references can be fairly important in helping a community like CMSMS grow.

I normally try to keep out of these types of discussions, but I have a major problem with someone coming on here and having their first posts describe how they are going to use the product (and likely expect help along the way) without a lick of gratitude. Then continue to flap their jaw about how they obviously know better than some of the major contributors of the project when, god forbid, these people have a conflicting opinion.

Did you really, honestly, expect to post something like that and get loads of responses that say "Yeah, awesome, go for it!"?

nate22: The offensive part about your suggestion is nearly coming out and saying: Since you aren't requiring me to give credit where it is due, I am going to do everything in my power to make sure it doesn't happen.

Have you ever spent mass amounts of time on something only to have someone turn around and give you the finger? This is exactly what you are doing. When you look at it even your thread subject could be taken as offensive. CMSMS shouldn't have to require you to give credit or leave the current CMSMS reference there, you should want to because you are using a free open source application that could otherwise cost you thousands of dollars or hundreds of hours developing on your own. These simple links and references can be fairly important in helping a community like CMSMS grow.

I normally try to keep out of these types of discussions, but I have a major problem with someone coming on here and having their first posts describe how they are going to use the product (and likely expect help along the way) without a lick of gratitude. Then continue to flap their jaw about how they obviously know better than some of the major contributors of the project when, god forbid, these people have a conflicting opinion.

Did you really, honestly, expect to post something like that and get loads of responses that say "Yeah, awesome, go for it!"?

the nail has been hit  on the head

No, the nail has not "been hit on the head."

I asked if it was "illegal or awesome," period. And I pointed out what the License was for. Everything else has been and continues to be your own projection.

Did I "really, honestly, expect to post something like that and get loads of responses that say "Yeah, awesome, go for it!"?"

If you had read this discussion and contained your blind rage for a second, you'd see that indeed I did not expect that. In fact, two or three times on this thread I pointed out WHY I specifically used that wording: to grab the attention of anyone who would be concerned. In other words, I wanted to quickly cut to the chase of what is and is not "cool" with everyone because I did not actually understand the legal type on the Licensing page very well.

And, quite frankly, yes, I did think it was acceptable. Go read the Licensing agreement and see for yourself. Not only that, I've got a few PMs and responses on this thread confirming that removal of branding is allowed and often removed.

So get a grip. It's very easy to pile on and gangbang the common enemy. Take a minute to read and think first.

Notice how different my intentions are from your projections. What is "legally acceptable" and what is "cool with everyone" are two different things. And my question was aimed to cut to the chase of both.

BTW, I happened to notice the main man responsible for CMSMade Simple has read this thread and didn't even bother to respond. I trust if he was very concerned or upset by it, he would have.

I guess it is legal to do with the core, and still pretty shitty.

Just don't do it with any of MY modules.  which include, but are not limited to:

• CustomContent
  FrontEndUsers
  SelfRegistration
  CGExtensions
  CGSimpleSmarty
  CGGoogleMaps
  SimpleGoogleMap
  SitePusher
  Questions
  NMS
  FLVPlayer

and others.

And if I hear of anybody removing all branding from the CMS admin section, without even giving some credit to CMS made simple they shouldn't expect much in the lines of support from me.

nate22 wrote: No, the nail has not "been hit on the head."

It's easy that I have a problem of language but really I don't understand what your problem.
Many people remove the logo and it's not prohibited, but remove any reference to CMSMS only because it contains FREE and SIMPLE seems exaggerated even for YOUR business.
In last Packt 2007, CMSMS had a good evaluation and that is also an advantage for you when you need to propose a CMS to your client

Alby

Robert, to be honest I think that, for your own sake, you should calm down on this subject.

When you put something in the public domain you have to expect such things. I've seen people selling a rebranded Joomla like a their own product (and they didn't even bother to change the favicon, go figure!). Rest assured that more than one people is selling CMSms in the same way. Face it, unless they are very dumb you cannot even track them down. Not even Microsoft and the like are able to do that. You can change to every license you want, to no avail.

Nate22 at least had the good taste to ask (maybe not in the best way I agree), and was willing to pay for something that he can actually do without problem for free, I don't see the point in jumping at him, misunderstandings happen. I had some doubts about the license and searching the forum I've seen that similar questions have been asked frequently in the past years, and eventually Ted came out with the paid license to remove the references even from the codebase, and other open source projects are doing the same.

Why isn't that concept extended to the modules (with author permission of course). I guess it could help funding the project without drawbacks.

Well, I an quite aware of what people do and how impossible it is to track pirates, and people selling somebody else's product as their own.  I'm also well aware that no matter the amount of security or licensing you put in, some people won't care.  After all, licensing, and locks are only good for honest people.

However, I also don't want this person or anybody else to think that they can re-package CMS, hack the heck out of it, sell it as their own AND then feel perfectly free to ask for support, etc.

Also, I like the open source model, I think it's a great way for the community as a whole to benefit.  I do quite alot of development under the open source licensing, and get paid for quite a bit of it too.

I just want people to give a little credit where credit is due..... and this person came in here with one line after the other 'I'm only one paycheck away from homelessness, I've overquoted my customer and don't want to tell him we're using free software.  I promote CMS made simple to my clients.... I even mention its name, and I mention that I contribute to it, and keep it up, and they're happy with that.  I don't think a little 'powered by logo' and a simple link is too much to ask.

Okay...

I deleted a number of posts in this thread, including a few of my own, because it has been degrading into a flame war... and I just don't feel like going down that road any further.

So I'm going to lock this subject, and consider it closed.

If anybody has any further issues, they can start a different thread, or message me offline or something.