Is this a ethical policy? I'm an early adopter and long time modifier and amateur (on my own, not in sync with the community) developer of php-fusion, and the php-fusion.co.uk is hosted by Thinkhost. They don't allow mention of other webhosts.

I wanted to offer low priced hosting to other users of PHP-Fusion. Apparently I can't even mention that I also offer webhosting. I wouldn't do this if I owned a webhost and gave free hosting to someone- this is damned unethical. I'll just have to put all the guides I'm writing for the php-fusion community on my OWN website right below my advertising banners, instead of posting them on php-fusion.co.uk ;)

http://www.webhostingtalk.com/search.php?s=&action=showresults&searchid=3723711&sortby=lastpost&sortorder=descending Thinkhost

It could of been part of the agreement for Thinkhost to host the site for free.

It was part of the agreement. I'm just surprised that a site would need free hosting so bad that they'd do that. I mean, that site doesn't even have that much on it besides forums, and only 5 users online at one time usually, sometimes six.

I don't see how this is unethical. They could always pay the $5/month and get a real hosting account...

I guess it's really just unfortunate that it stifles the php-fusion fans who would like to offer hosting to the community.

I think its a slap in the face to the host that is giving you free hosting, to mention any other host on the site that they are hosting for free. If you don't agree, shell out some money and pay for your hosting account.

--Tina

Uh.

I don't run the website. I don't receive any free hosting.

Thanks anyway.

The common practice ( at least for my own organisation ) is that you promote the host that is providing the package for you free. And it would not be ethical ( not to mention sometimes legal ) of you to promote some other host when this host provides for you at no charge.

BUT, if you are already paying for the site, I see no reason why you can not promote something else.

Here is another good reason why we see so many of those "free hosting providers" caving in within a few months. The fact that you cannot provide or will be able to provide commercial styled services at no cost.

Where "no cost" means nothing or no catch at all. Just good old commercial hosting for free with no hidden policy what-so-ever. Many would at least want you to place a banner, link or something on your site, either willingly or forced.

Right. Absolutely. But where do you draw the line at what the users can and can't say?

Originally posted by Muzzleflash
Right. Absolutely. But where do you draw the line at what the users can and can't say?

That will be up to the hosting company's TOS.
And when a user usees the service he is binded by the TOS of the company and by using it, he agrees to the terms and conditions of that TOS and must not violate it, or else face the liability of the penalty involved.

For example, ( in my own case ) GalacNet restricts the placement of warez on the service or promotion of warez. When a site is found in violation, we will lock access to the FTP and SQL, then replace the index.html with a violation note, keep the data stored for X number of weeks before removing the files and the user completely if there is no reply.

Others like for the company you mentioned in the above, limits them to not displaying hosting packages of other web hosting companies. If the user does not accept these terms they should not have used their site or service.
And an excuse of igornance or the "I did not know" statement does not fully cover the user's claims.

Also, even if you are paying for the hosting, you can be liable to certain TOS as well, like "no hosting of pornographic materials" are commonly seen for many hosting companies and they can suspend or terminate your service without refund if seen in violation.

Hope that clears things up.