«Real Name» plugin (version 4.0, 2015-07-31)


(Discourse.PRO) #1

The «Real Name» plugin improves real user names support for Discourse.
The original post about plugin (4 weeks ago).
The full documentation: «Real Name» plugin (discontinued, because its functionality is in the Discourse core now) - Discourse Plugins

Version history

See also my other plugins:

The full plugin list is always here: Other Plugins - Discourse Plugins

Decription for version 1.0

Description for version 2.0

Today the version 2.0 is out with support for the official Accepted Answer (Solved) plugin!
So you can see the real user name instead of “username” in the accepted answer block.
A live demo is here: Real Name in the Accepted Answer (Solved) block - Discourse Plugins

«Restrict Files» plugin. Sell a digital content on your Discourse forum! (version 1.2.1, 2015-07-19)
«Paid Membership» plugin with PayPal integration! (version 3.0, 2015-08-31)
Image Gallery plugin: working and supported! (version 3.0, 2015-08-07)
(Martin Dörsch) #2

Am I able to install in ruin this plugin on discoursehosting.com?

(Discourse.PRO) #3

It depends on your pricing plan on discoursehosting.com: Pricing « DiscourseHosting
As you can see they allow custom plugins only for Business and Enterprise pricing plans (starting from $80 per month).
I host 3 my Discourse forums on Hetzner EX40-SSD: Dedicated Root Server Hosting - Hetzner Online GmbH
For € 49.58 per month they give 32 GB RAM, 2 x 240 GB SSD disks and Intel Core™ i7-4770
Quad-Core Haswell.
So the single server hosts 3 my Discourse forums, 1 IP.Board forum (with 6500 members) and 5 Magento stores.

(Discourse.PRO) #4

Version 3.0 is out!
Now you can setup Real Name / Username appearance on User Profile page and on User Card (mini-profile) popup.

1. User Card (mini-profile) popup

Controlled by the «Real Name» User Card popup option.

1.1. The default Discourse appearance:

1.2. The «big Real Name and small Username» mode:

1.3.The «Real Name only» mode:

2. User Profile page

Controlled by the «Real Name» User Profile option.

2.1. The default Discourse appearance:

2.2. The «big Real Name and small Username» mode:

2.3. The «Real Name only» mode:

Allow site operators to control full name suppression on posts
(Discourse.PRO) #5

Version 4.0 is out!
Now you can setup Real Name / Username appearance in email notifications.

There are 3 modes:

  • Default Discourse mode: bold Username and light Real Name
  • Real Name only mode
  • Bold Real Name and light Username

Real Name only mode

The Real Name mode is enabled and can be tested in action on Discourse Plugins site: https://discourse.pro

Bold Real Name and light Username

Default mode: bold Username and light Real Name

(Discourse.PRO) #6

Version 5.0 is out!

Now you can display the real names in the notification feed.

The option name is Show the Real Name in the Notification feed:

See the demo video:

The option is enabled:

The option is disabled:

The option is enabled:

The option is disabled:

(Michael Downey) #7

Are the license terms for this plugin stated anywhere before paying? That makes a big difference in purchasing decision.

(Discourse.PRO) #8

The decision is simple: I am not willing to see in my clients the people who are thinking during the months about whether to spend $39. I value my work and time and I definitely work for another market segment.

(Michael Downey) #9

Sorry. Maybe I wasn’t clear.

Are you willing to provide a copy of the license agreement for the software before taking my money? Virtually every software vendor does, and it’s very important because such agreements may place restrictions on how I use the software.

(Mittineague) #10

AFAIK because it works with Discourse, it falls under the same license as Discourse, no?

That is, one could purchase it, modify it, and redistribute at a lesser cost or even for free - under the same license.

(Michael Downey) #11

The license of the software is determined by its creator. Technically it is possible for a plug-in to have a proprietary license and be compatible with a GPL system; but it depends how tightly they are coupled:


That is why it’s really important to understand the licensing of plugins for GPL systems like Discourse before making a purchase. A plug-in that is incompatibility licensed with a GPL system could lead to legal troubles, and I want to make sure that I’m not getting in to any of those before buying. (A reasonable position, I think!)

(Discourse.PRO) #12

Please keep your $39 with yourself. As I clearly stated I work for another market segment and will not work with you nor @Mittineague.

(Michael Downey) #13

I’m confused, what do you mean by this? I’m just trying to get clarification on what specifically you’re selling before I buy. It’s not clear in the documentation. Did I say something wrong?

(Mittineague) #15

No need to get aggressive.
(BTW, I would not buy any plugin from anyone. I would write my own)

So you are saying it has no license?

Or that you are unwilling to provide it?

(Michael Downey) #16


Well, OK. That’s your choice, I guess…

Would you mind answering the question about license terms for other customers, at least?

(Logan Mathews) #17

This is from the law department over at Washington State. It’s interpritation was sent to me by a previous professor ( Kenneth Star, so I’m likely to take his word as pretty solid foundation ).

If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plugins, then the plugins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. On the other hand, “If the program dynamically links the plug-in … they form a single program, which must be treated as an extension of both the main program and the plugin.” The terms fork and exec refer to UNIX system calls that a running program uses to launch another program. Every modern operating system provides some equivalent set of system calls. The GPL drafters therefore draw the boundary around components that are linked together, operate in the same address space, and have some intimate level of interaction and communication.

Simply put, if the discourse plugin architecture launches plugins and runs them in separate address spaces and are/or isolated executables, then the GPL does not impact the plugin. In Discourse’s case, the plugin sits within the same environment and is run mingled with discourse. Additionally, plugins can not function on their own. His plugins are entirely dependent on discourse. If they are in no way independent, they are GPLed.

All of his plugins seem like they would be forced to be gpled if he likes it or not. If he doesn’t want to release them, he is of course not forced to. Once he sells them though, that author is free to put them up on github himself and give them to everyone.

So really, he doesn’t need to tell us what his license terms are, because it’s likely he can’t dictate them; they’re gpl. If he were to rewrite his plugins to make api calls to an an independent app/handler, then he could separate himself from the gpl.

There are however quite a few ways to monetize GPLed software. If that is his goal, I’m sure someone would gladly give him a few ideas.

Are paid plugins with undisclosed license allowed to exist on meta?
(Michael Downey) #18

He can say what the terms are, because he is the copyright holder … but that doesn’t mean those terms are compatible with the GPL. Presuming the plugin author is unwilling (or unable?) to provide a license for the software, it is presumed by law to be “All Rights Reserved” … and yes, that would be a GPL license violation which the copyright holder of the “parent” GPL software (who licensed it to the plugin author) is legally allowed enforce.

Source: Friends at FSF; IANAL

(Logan Mathews) #19

Okay that is entirely true. He can in fact provide a license that is in violation of the gpl. Any of these plugins under a non-gpl compatible license would be in violation and the Discourse team could enforce it, effectively overriding his license. That of course would be a terrible legal mess that I’m sure both parties would want to avoid having to go through.

It would seem to make more sense to monetize his work in far more effective ways. That includes charging for support, modifications, and installation.

(Sam Saffron) #20

Nothing is stopping you charging money for GPL work you make, true, it is an honour system, but in the past when I was running media browser this was very effective.

(Michael Downey) #22

I would have totally paid for the plugin were I allowed to! :wink:

(And were it respectful of Discourse’s license.)

Who knows, maybe it is GPL or will become so, and maybe I will be allowed to buy it. One can hope!