Wasn't there a WPI Lite at one point?

[Dumpy Dooby]

It'd be nice if there was a version of WPI that didn't cater so much to the configuration end of things.

I can configure WPI just fine and dandy without a fancy interface. I'm comfortable with editing config.js manually.

I'm still using a super old version of WPI because I'm just not a fan of the all the bells and whistles that have been in it since version 5. But what I DO like are some of the new end-user interface features, like the pretty little progress window (though I'd prefer the media player to be invisible).

Anyway, wasn't there, at one point or another, a "Lite" version of WPI that was basically just slimmed down by removing all of the superfluous administrative stuff (like the "silent install finder")?

If there isn't one or whatever, would be OK if I make one?

[Grake]

Ah same problem here. I've never used the GUI to add commands, always edited it myself. If you look a bit further down I created a thread, and removed some of the things he said, and I just ran into random problems for some reason. Need nuhi to create a wLite =D

[Dumpy Dooby]

Oh wow. Quite the coincidence that you and I both happened to bring this up now after being long-time users of WPI. I guess it's just that time of the year or something. lol.

I'm handy enough with VBScript and JavaScript to do a complete rewrite if I wanted to, but I'd rather just modify what the WPI guys have already built.

[mritter]

If you are that anti-progress, use WPI Classic. It has none of the new features/improvements so you can still live in the past.

Sorry for the sarcasm, but I really don't see why people complain when the size has grown 2MB. If 2MB is all you have left on a 4GB dvd, then it may be time to clean out your config. If anything, you should be embracing the new versions since I am building in a lot of new features to make your life easier.

Do you say the same thing about nLite? "nLite has way too many options to remove things. This is just too bloated for me. I'm going to stop here and never upgrade. I can't handle all these check boxes and radios!" Doubt it. "This car is too fast for me. What are all these buttons? I want a boring mini-van with an AM radio."

I am not going to stop improving WPI. I am not going to rip out all of my hard work. If you like the older versions, don't upgrade. Simple as that.

[Dumpy Dooby]

I'm not sure what you think I've asked you to do, but clearly you've misread something.

I didn't ask you to code anything, "regress" your program, or otherwise make any changes at all. I asked for permission to modify it and do it myself. I also asked if it had been done in the past (which I've now confirmed it has).

There definitely was a "Lite" version. So that's cool. That would give me a starting point.

[deadbug]

It'd be nice if there was a version of WPI that didn't cater so much to the configuration end of things.

I can configure WPI just fine and dandy without a fancy interface. I'm comfortable with editing config.js manually.

If I read this correctly then you think it's easier to fiddle with config.js manually rather than use WPI to do it but you like WPI once it runs and installs things silently for you. I don't think you need WPI-Lite, I think you need Notepad++ . That's certainly how I configure new entries, and I even fiddle with the 'yes'/'no' bits in various places so I can easily test an install of just the new stuff by changing one line. All strictly unsupported, but no-one's complained too loudly yet!

The disadvantage of a putative "WPI Lite" would be that either you need to keep in step with WPI or you miss out on new functionality (I'm thinking mostly new JSCRIPT functions and {FUNCTIONS} and so on).

[Grake]

I don't want to get into an argument. Like I said, I have been using it for years and I love everything about it, but there comes a time where there's too much of it. Not for everyone, but for me. N-lite was created for the sole purpose of slimming down XP, a big chunk of the software forum here is how to eliminate un-needed things and not install services and tool bars and all the stuff the companies bundle it with. Then I see WPI with flag icons o.0 I was just trying to get rid of things I'll never use and apparently it hit a nerve. Reason why I upgrade is because there are few IE fixes that come along with it, but it seems all that is solved so I might just stick with the current one I have. Sorry, and continue your work and thank you for it.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Yes while there was a WPI_lite at one point it was decided (By me mainly) that it needed to be discontinued. Like deadbug says they would need to be developed side-by-side and that would be a pian in the a** because then it would end up boiling down to "Which features would be kept?"

I do have almost EVERY past version in an archive on the server. Plus there is WPI classic.

However if you wanted to make a script wich the end-user could use to remove some of the extra stuff I wouldn't stop you. (I would even be inclined to hep)

Edited October 15, 2009 by Kelsenellenelvian

[CoffeeFiend]

I asked for permission to modify it and do it myself.

The home page seems to say it's under the creative commons license which says:

You are free:

* to Share — to copy, distribute and transmit the work

* to Remix — to adapt the work

So you don't actually have to ask for permission.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Thats right.

Der go ahead just remember it has to follow these guidelines that are stated in the license notes it the WPI program itself.

2. WPI can be modified as long as you share your modifications with others.

2a. It still must remain under the WPIW program name and the modifications need to be sent back to us.

2b. Modifications can sent us at the www.msfn.org WPI forum section, or preferably be emailed to Kelsenellenelvian or mritter with full documentation of all changes made.

Edited October 15, 2009 by Kelsenellenelvian

[mritter]

I purposely didn't respond to the part where you said you would do the mod yourself. I sure am not going to do it. It just frustrates me when people volunteer to do stuff then don't follow through. I ask/post for help a lot and RARELY do I get a reply. But if I don't reply to someone's post, they rip my head off. Patience people. I have a life, too.

Deadbug just made the perfect example for me: In the Classic thread he asked to have JSCRIPT features added. Where does it stop?! What should be taken out and what left in? Why not just use it the way it is?

This kind of stuff makes me mad. Knock yourself out, make a Lite version. All you can really take out are graphics.

I'm with Grake, I'm not here to argue. Go for it. Follow the rules.

[CoffeeFiend]

...and this is why you don't normally use a CC license for software. It's ambiguous. Here, you're taking a license not meant for code ("We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software.") and then try to "modify" it with other clauses...

WPI can be modified as long as you share your modifications with others.

The share-alike license already states that... Kind of redundant.

It still must remain under the WPIW program name

That's kind of funny in a way. Usually, the name is the one thing people don't want others to use (e.g. Firefox "tweaks" that have to be rebranded to "Iceweasel"). If you force everyone else to use that name (which might actually be against the CC license -- isn't modifying as one wants permitted after all? Are you trying to say the license doesn't fully apply?), then is the name really yours anymore? Just like to keep a trademark, you normally have to "defend" it. IANAL, and you'd have to be one to answer this (a copyright lawyer no less, and his area of expertise doesn't always apply to every country either). See what I meant by "ambiguous" yet? I'm not sure I'd want random stranger's work to use my product's name either (it could harm its reputation if it's buggy or whatever)

and the modifications need to be sent back to us

Which again the CC doesn't mention (so you're trying to make it into something it's not, and/or making a frankenlicense out of two things, or does it try to enforce 2 licenses together at once?). Even in traditional open source licenses, you don't have to do this (it only has to be made available e.g. upon request), so it even goes against that.

with full documentation of all changes made.

And you're even forcing people to fully document their changes and send that to you? Not that I've ever seen a license that even tried to pull that off (nor that there are any "real" definitions of that in the first place)

And what you're doing here goes right against the terms of the CC license too:

8.e

This License constitutes the entire agreement between the parties with respect to the Work licensed here. There are no understandings, agreements or representations with respect to the Work not specified here. Licensor shall not be bound by any additional provisions that may appear in any communication from You. This License may not be modified without the mutual written agreement of the Licensor and You.

i.e. it basically says only the CC applies, and nothing else. You picked a license that says to disregard your other licensing terms, so seemingly one could legally ignore them all (essentially waiving them by doing so).

This is why one usually picks a standard license meant for software (GPL, LGPL, BSD, MPL, CDDL, Apache, MIT, etc) and sticks with it (as-is). Or if you didn't really want the CC (or another license as-is), then you write your own... And even if you wanted to change your confusing license now, the CC license (the unaltered one, that doesn't include your extras) is non-revocable. And all future versions (that would be derivative works) also have to be covered by it.

[Kelsenellenelvian]

While I am all up for a lively debate we need to stop and calm down.

I haven't had any help with licensing and cannot afford a laywer. Are you saying that the CC license cannot be removed at all?

See I have had and am having an issue with a couple of people that have completly stolen and hacked up WPI so I try to protect it as much as I can.

What are the roper steps that can be taked to protect WPI as much as possible. (You seem to know alot in this field)

[CoffeeFiend]

Are you saying that the CC license cannot be removed at all?

Well, it depends. From the current and previous releases? Too late ("Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual" -- that is, until copyright expires and then it's no longer protected). Can it stop others from doing whatever they please with those versions? Nope, as long as whatever they do falls within the CC rules.

For upcoming releases? The "licensor" has the right to change the license, but that requires you to "own" all of the released code & other bits (text, images, translations and all), or to get the creators of everything to agree upon that change (you can't just change the license on the bits you didn't create yourself). Kind of like Sun does when you submit patches with their Sun Contributor Agreement when you submit patches (they make you agree to terms that makes them the [co-]owner of the said patch basically). Various other companies do the same.

Then again, you could try to release it with different parts covered under different licenses (e.g. "pics, documentation and translations under CC" and "everything else under xyz"), but that's kind of a mess...

You seem to know alot in this field

Not at all. But personally, I'd definitely look into moving to a license meant for software. I wouldn't want them to use the WPI name either (the license forces them to give credit e.g. "based on WPI" or such). It's always going to be fun trying to prevent random strangers on the internet from editing jscript (or plain text and such content) regardless. Everybody assumes the creator isn't going to sue unless you're big fish and there's money to be made (lawyers cost a LOT to begin with, and lawsuits in foreign countries are well beyond merely expensive). It's always going to be an uphill battle.

[deadbug]

Deadbug just made the perfect example for me:

Glad to have been of service

In the Classic thread he asked to have JSCRIPT features added. Where does it stop?!

Probably when I can convert my WPI config.js and have it work under WPIC. I do realise that other people's configs would probably require different extensions. But the basic commands ( {FILECOPY} etc.) look to be simple substitutions. Admittedly {EXTRACT} needs some external 7z support and {JSCRIPT} support looks easy but then you need the relevant JavaScript functions in place.

Still. That's all for Kel to worry about.

Why not just use it the way it is?

I have this burning need to get my W2K install working again from my AIO-DVD (mostly, I suspect, because an AIO-DVD that only has XP on it is pretty dull ...). I tried WPI and it wsn't a happy bunny. I don't remember the last version of WPI that did run on W2K ... I just kept upgrading WPI and testing my XP installs and then one day I just noticed.

(I realise that you're talking about WPI Lite and I'm talking about WPIC. I still think the OP can make life easy for himself by editing config.js directly, thereby avoiding the eye candy he doesn't want in the configurator whilst still getting the eye candy he does want during the actual install).