RunUO Community
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
The low down on RunUO Scripts.
- Thread starter Ryan
- Start date
- Status
evil lord kirby
Wanderer
I am sorry ryan but the last post where you quote me did not help me. I see it said the person who controlls the GPL but that did not show any actual legal outline regarding derived works. Again I would just like to see the actual legal outline. I do not share anything here and this is one more reason I simply dont want a headache from a mess such as this.
There is one major flaw with the RunUO package (Not the Core Source).
It doesnt include the GPL licence text.
So, How is anyone new who hasnt read any of this meant to know both the scripts and core is covered by the GPL.
I think in future packaging the GPL document needs to be included to make people aware that, Yes, it is all covered by GPL.
Infact I thought for GPL'ed software it was actually required to have a copy of the licence with it. (Please note, the source IS sufficiently covered with code headers, but the scripts and main distro package has no reference to it at all).
***Edit***
Infact, reading the GNU GPL website, RunUO is actually in violation of the GPL according to what they say.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
^ Number 1 on that page.
Same here... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I'm not trying to piss anyone off, or throw gasoline on the situation. I am merely stating the facts of what the GPL requires. And currently the RunUO Distribution (Not Source) does NOT include the GPL, and is therefore in violation.
It doesnt include the GPL licence text.
So, How is anyone new who hasnt read any of this meant to know both the scripts and core is covered by the GPL.
I think in future packaging the GPL document needs to be included to make people aware that, Yes, it is all covered by GPL.
Infact I thought for GPL'ed software it was actually required to have a copy of the licence with it. (Please note, the source IS sufficiently covered with code headers, but the scripts and main distro package has no reference to it at all).
***Edit***
Infact, reading the GNU GPL website, RunUO is actually in violation of the GPL according to what they say.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-violation.html
^ Number 1 on that page.
Same here... http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
I'm not trying to piss anyone off, or throw gasoline on the situation. I am merely stating the facts of what the GPL requires. And currently the RunUO Distribution (Not Source) does NOT include the GPL, and is therefore in violation.
I don't see what the big deal is.
I have to agree with Phantom on this one, if you don't want your stuff to be GPL, don't release it, keep it private.
This argument/thread can really only lead to one logical conclusion if people don't just forget it and either keep stuff private, or give it to the community as GPL. . .and it won't be a nice one, I fear.
As a software developer, I am not ignoring or forgetting the value of IP, or the hard work that often goes into coding.
But this is supposed to be a COMMUNITY, where everyone shares pretty much everything, for people to do as they like with. At least, that's what I gather.
Who more than Ryan and the rest of the dev team has contributed more to this community? RunUO is a pretty big project IMHO, it runs well, has lots of features, and they've GIVEN it to us, source and all.
Why argue with how they want to license it, and derived works?
What if they were to take RunUO away? Close the source? Compile all the scripts into it and 'Too bad, no more customization, use what's there'?
That would just plain suck.
I have to agree with Phantom on this one, if you don't want your stuff to be GPL, don't release it, keep it private.
This argument/thread can really only lead to one logical conclusion if people don't just forget it and either keep stuff private, or give it to the community as GPL. . .and it won't be a nice one, I fear.
As a software developer, I am not ignoring or forgetting the value of IP, or the hard work that often goes into coding.
But this is supposed to be a COMMUNITY, where everyone shares pretty much everything, for people to do as they like with. At least, that's what I gather.
Who more than Ryan and the rest of the dev team has contributed more to this community? RunUO is a pretty big project IMHO, it runs well, has lots of features, and they've GIVEN it to us, source and all.
Why argue with how they want to license it, and derived works?
What if they were to take RunUO away? Close the source? Compile all the scripts into it and 'Too bad, no more customization, use what's there'?
That would just plain suck.
shrundowr
Lord
WTF are you talking about...they're arguing with him not kissing his ass....colette said:everyone knows..what an awesome job Ryan and runuo team have done.. but.the rest of it is....butt kissing so quit already.....If you really want to contribute. to new release...do something!! after u say ty!! dont waste readers time by....
- Status