Talk:Elgg (software)

message: :Image:Newelgg.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is  other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.
BetacommandBot 10:07, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:Newelgg.gif

message: look it up. It was talked about in 2006 and never happened. 70.94.3.101 (talk) 03:57, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: There is no Drupal (etc) integration

message: Is the "white label" description accurate? You can rebrand any open source software or use it to create a website with its own identity where the identity or brand of the underlying software is not shown. But does that make the underlying software "white label"? 
Full rebranding of a FOSS application is technically a fork, and that's the meaningful description of rebranded FOSS used by the FOSS community. But that's not how FOSS web apps are generally used, nor is it how Elgg is likely to be used most of the time. Elgg is like Joomla or Drupal as a FOSS platform for wwbsite development. Nobody calls Drupal a "white label" CMS. 
My understanding is that white label web applications are not FOSS--you buy them and the right to rebrand them. 70.94.3.101 (talk) 16:42, 18 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: That is correct. "white label" should not be used to apply to elgg. 70.94.3.101 (talk) 03:56, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I am replying to myself? I don;t recall being here before. Whoa. 70.94.3.101 (talk) 03:58, 7 February 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure your not just Schizophranic, and your other personality posted the question? lol, jk. Either way, your right, the term "white label" should not, and can not apply to an open source program such as Elgg. CrAsHeDaTatalk 19:25, 11 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  white label? 

message: As I thought and the article said in a section, it runs on LAMP. I think this should be in the opening paragraph though. 82.25.130.155 (talk) 16:11, 17 April 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Better Description of Software

message: The NASA link in "Sites Powered by Elgg" section seems to be broken.  It redirects to NASA site page which displays a message "Page not found".  This link should be removed.
--Caliberoviv (talk) 05:34, 5 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Broken Link(s) 

message: In the LICENSE.txt it states that the license is GPLv2 and that the copyright holder is the FSF.
But in README.txt it is written that the license is GPLv2 or later (in the discretion of the licensee) and that the copyright holder is Curverider Ltd.
I have found in the 1.7.1 version (latest stable) of Elgg for this to be true.
As a lawyer (especially since the attached license is a verbatime copy from the FSF's website together with the HOWTO in the end) I would assume that Curverider Ltd. was just sloppy and what they really meant is in the README.txt
The difference between GPLv2 and GPLv2-or-later is immense, since one can be relicensed into GPLv3 and with that into AGPLv3, while the other cannot.
I have contacted the Elgg community about this already, but I just wanted to point this out. When I get an answer I will change the license here accordingly.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Valerei (talk • contribs) 17:59, 11 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: For the record, mentioned copyright is part of the GPLv2 license text and it specifies copyright holders of the license text itself :-) For the copyright holders, check file COPYRIGHT.txt in the package you downloaded. It's worth mentioning that as Elgg is dual-licensed, so in MIT packages there's text of MIT license instead of GPLv2. It depends on kind of a package you downloaded. Anyway, current information in article is correct. Srokap (talk) 16:02, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  License mismatch 

message: The redirect Elgg (software has been listed at redirects for discussion to determine whether its use and function meets the redirect guidelines. Readers of this page are welcome to comment on this redirect at  until a consensus is reached.  Utopes (talk / cont) 07:01, 21 February 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  "[[:Elgg (software]]" listed at [[Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion|Redirects for discussion]]