[issue] Snow flat theme, text going outside box

Question

@Jatin, could you please look into this issue.

see this question

http://www.question2answer.org/qa/18755/name-instead-of-username?show=23697#a23697

screenshot

Comments

Http://www.question2answer.org/qa/54442/converting-q2a-to-anything?show=54482#a54482

Looks like Jatin is not interested in dev of Q2A. Anyone can help for this issue? You can commit changes on github. Thanks!

Answer 1

Fixed in my branch and sent the pull request: https://github.com/q2a/question2answer/pull/463

You can modify the files manually if this is urgent for you.

BTW, SnowFlat is not exactly the theme Jatin created. The theme he created is FlatBox https://github.com/q2amarket/FlatBox , which was merged into the core and modified since then.

Comments

Great! thank you for the quick fix, appreciate your help!

---

I also know its history. However, his bland name and shop URL have been described yet in the Theme Author and Theme Author URI of the core sources and credit of page footer. Most users are misunderstanding it as official author and official shop by these things. Jatin will be able to continue to claim the copyright. But, usually, author of the software included (donated) and modified as a part of the core will be replaced with project name. This is my opinion (common handling), there is no legal basis. Anyway, modification of the theme source would be necessary.

---

@sama55, agree with you.

---

@pupi1985, I thought it is completely developed by Jatin.

---

@q2a.info
Welcome. Anyway, no need to say thanks in a Q&A forum. That's what accepting answers is there for :)

@sama55
We don't really know if there had been any kind of agreement between Gideon/Scott and Jatin regarding getting the theme into the core. I think there was none. Anyway, the theme is GPLv3 so as long as the core stays GPL too and the copyright marks from the comments are kept it should be fine. I believe it is also possible to remove the copyright marks from the HTML itself and distribute it that way too as you are allowed to change the code. Anyway, I find no reason to do so.

When I fork a GPL project I leave the copyright in comments as the author made them but I updated the metadata this way "Author: John (extended by pupi1985)". If I consider I made significant changes (e.g.: rewritten 50% of the logic) to the code then I also add myself as another author to the copyright in comments. That's the most you can do. Nobody can replace it's name in the copyright comments but it's possible to add more. A good related practice is adding a changelog that details the changes from your version and the author's version but as forking a project already links it to the original one I don't do so.

---

@pupi1985
Open source software becomes infrastructure of society when it is released to the world. Reason for displaying project name to copyright and credit is :
1. Neutrality ([Mis]appropriation of the project is not allowed)
2. Fairness (Cooperation with the interests of certain people is not allowed)
Your conduct in here is very devoted and wonderful. However, those acts should be done in the correct core organization.

In the PowerQA I forked, names of Q2A and Gideon are firmly left as comments.
Example:
**********************************************************
Originally based on Question2Answer by Gideon Greenspan
**********************************************************

---

Thank you, sama. And yes, leaving the copyright in the comments is the right way to go.