Skip to main content
Open

Provide a "branding removal" optional add-on

Related products:CC Customization
security_lion
Blastoise186
techlorax
Onomatopoeia
+2
  • security_lion
    security_lion
  • Blastoise186
    Blastoise186
  • techlorax
    techlorax
  • john.ritterbush
  • Onomatopoeia
    Onomatopoeia
  • beneditacss
  • damian.pupczyk

Blastoise186

I’m quite a fan of the Branded Templates myself and I’m perfectly cool with the “Powered by insided” banner at the bottom of every page, but I can also understand that not everyone likes that. And I also respect the fact that some people might want to remove it… Preferably without risk of a ToS breach.

But section 5.3 doesn’t say anything about inSided doing the modification. :wink:

I’ve seen a few forum software options where you can purchase an optional “branding removal” add-on that permits removal of the “powered by” branding either automatically or allows you to flip the switch on and off freely. It is a paid add-on in those cases, but is a way to allow a customer to remove the branding while remaining compliant with the EULA on the basis that purchasing the add-on grants access to a built-in feature which allows the branding to be turned on/off as desired.

This might be worth having as an optional extra for inSided. I would prefer for it to be an optional paid add-on rather than it being default, given that the branding is reasonably unobtrusive and is very commonly used across most platforms - and is definitely not as horrible to the eye as certain other platforms like Khorus!

It’s hopefully a best of both worlds solution to this thread that will make everyone happy too. :)

6 replies

  • Helper ⭐️⭐️⭐️
  • 732 replies
  • July 14, 2021
Updated idea status NewOpen

  • Helper ⭐️⭐️⭐️
  • 732 replies
  • July 14, 2021

Hello @Blastoise186 thanks for this detailed idea :) I'm very curious to see who would be interested by such an option, I will leave it open to gather some votes


Blastoise186
Forum|alt.badge.img
  • Author
  • Helper ⭐️⭐️⭐️
  • 538 replies
  • July 14, 2021

Thanks!

In that case, I’m pretty confident it will rapidly attract attention from @Scott Baldwin and @security_lion as they sparked me to create this Idea.

I personally don’t mind the branding myself, but in recognition of allowing choice while remaining ToS compliant, I always think it’s nice to have options, just in case.


security_lion
  • Helper ⭐️⭐️
  • 134 replies
  • July 14, 2021

Upvoted, thank you @Blastoise186 !


  • 0 replies
  • July 14, 2021

Interested, but often don’t see this as a paid capability -- it’s simply something negotiated during the contract. In our case we worked around it with CSS, but it’s not ideal.


  • Contributor ⭐️⭐️
  • 3 replies
  • October 11, 2021

For those of us that like to audit our sites using Lighthouse it might also be nice to add a rel=noopener or similar to address Google’s concerns.

 

https://web.dev/external-anchors-use-rel-noopener/?utm_source=lighthouse&utm_medium=devtools


Reply


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings