Fix for disconnect showing 1 too many users online.

[jjarmis]

NO, no matter how you try to sidestep it, it is still redistrabution. If someone edits the core, then gives it to someone else in any way shape or form, that is redistrabution.

 

[sidphoenix]

Technically hes not distributing it to me though. If a guy comes to my house and edits it on my computer, its not redistribution. Its helping! Ok ok ok, how about this, I get someone to come over, and tell me exactly what to put on what line, pointing me the whole way though. Would that be distribution too?

 

[jjarmis]

Well, what do you think I did in the very first post of this thread?

Make the mods yourself, recompile yourself. That is the point of posting here.

 

[sidphoenix]

Sigh...You should brush up on your legal work man.

 

[sidphoenix]

Sigh...

Would it be "illegal" if I had a chimp do it for me? Or does the EULA apply to other species as well...

 

[jjarmis]

Man, just stop being a wise guy, it is really annoying. If you want any more info about what is legal, call a lawyer.

 

[sidphoenix]

I have 2 lawyers to be exact. To tell you the truth, its legal to have someone do it for me. And I am sorry for being a wise guy, but I would rather be a smartass than a dumbass any day.

 

[sidphoenix]

Before I finish, I want to add. In the source code distribution file, it plainly states:

"When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Our General Public Licenses are designed to make sure that you
have the freedom to distribute copies of free software (and charge for
this service if you wish), that you receive source code or can get it
if you want it, that you can change the software or use pieces of it
in new free programs; and that you know you can do these things."

Technically according to the GNU Pub release, as long as I give credit to the RunUO owner/developers, I can edit and distribute all I want, if I dont sell it for a profit.

 

[Codeus]

Does someone have a link to the EULA, cause I can't seem to find it.
Maybe I'm wrong, but isn't the current version (1.0.0) released under the GPL?

 

[sidphoenix]

Yes it is, and according to the license, I can edit and distribute at my will.

 

[sidphoenix]

And just to make it more clear, OSI (Opensource.org) says:

"3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications."

Saying that we can edit and redistribute the edited copy.

 

[ASayre]

You can redistribute the edited copy AS LONG AS you include the original source with it too, and the GPL Notice itself with it.

 

[sidphoenix]

I know GPL like the back of my hand, and from the start jjarmis was wrong. Also I would like to see a copy of this "EULA" if you dont mind.

 

[jjarmis]

I was just reinforcing what Quantos, a MODERATOR said, so dont try to blow this up in my face.

 

[ASayre]

Quantos was right: You CAN'T distribute JUST the exe.
sidphoenix was right.. partially...: You can redistribute the exe AS LONG AS you also distribute ALL of the exe's code with it, and the GPL along with it.
jjarmis was right: Read what Quantos said.

Thread locked. jjarmis, thanks for the bug report/fix.