I do believe that if you have an agreement we all must accept before using runuo and this statement is included in that then yes this would be a solid fact and not just some statement I am hearing is supposed to be a fact.
Every release up till RunUO 1.0.0 required you to agree to a license. Incase your wondering, that license gave the rights to your scripts to RunUO.
evil lord kirby said:I beg to differ on this. I believe that any work I do no matter what this code I create is supposed to run on is my wark and my decision where it goes when why and at what cost and under what conditions.
If you have some type of legal proof that what I script for runuo is as you say bound to the license of runuo then fair enough but I cannot see this as a legitimate recognized legal standing of any license.
I do not say this to protest the issue or anything but this is how I view it and would like to see further proofs of this statement before I simply go believing anything I do must be bount to a license I did not choose.
I do believe that if you have an agreement we all must accept before using runuo and this statement is included in that then yes this would be a solid fact and not just some statement I am hearing is supposed to be a fact.
Well like I said I am not exactly saying I am against this or protesting but would surely like to see where this is legally outlined somewhere.
Courageous said:I don't understand the problem, if you don't want to release your scripts and thus be forced to release them under the GPL license then don't release them.
There is some disagreement that releasing a script constitutes a derived work that GPL would therefore cover. Not a derived work, not something that the GPL addresses.
C//
Courageous said:The fact is there is almost no code you can create that does not use GPL code in some fashion.
RunUO uses EA copyrighted material in "some" rather significant fashion.
The separation of the runuo code as its own thing, distributed separately, is what saves it.
I've said this thrice now.
C//
A_Li_N said:when someone takes that work and adds/changes/fixes it, technically it's not required to give credit, but as far as I know, this community runs on a good deal of respect and in the least, it's respectful to mention that the base of your release was someone else's.
Again, you don't HAVE to, but it's good practice and people will respect you more by doing so. That's just my opinion though.
I'll grant you that it may be true that scripts which inherit from RunUO classes are questionably covered under the GPL as derived works.... But honestly how many scripts do you think are written that do not contain any code from the distribution scripts? AFAIK using original RunUO scripts (which are GPL) as a base means the GPL will apply to the new script. Since those are GPL, any code based on them would also ne GPL, etc....
Courageous said:Emphatically agree with you, Zippy. Delta'ing a runuo script is without question a derivative work.
I do hope everyone reading and participating in this thread doesn't lose sight of one simple fact: everyone who's publishing scripts indeed has elected to share. That's a good thing, I think we can all agree.
Most people don't specify the manner in which they are sharing. I specify. I say that use for a shard is allowed. This is what the act of publication here on this site would imply, to any reasonable mind, but I do go to the trouble of making it clear. If someone were to delta and republish my code, however, I might get cranky. It would all depend.
Consider my LOS code. This is a significant whole work in and of itself. I have not made a decision to GPL it, and don't consider it GPL'd. I might consider it, if asked, but I don't consider myself to have been asked. I did not begin my work with the belief that what I was doing required that. And since I have not licensed it in such a fashion, there is nothing to require that it be that... not even a court.
As for the finer points of what copyright law requires, or what the GPL requires or purports to require, well, some of us "scripters" are actually professional programmers (or certainly will be some day). Examining, learning about, arguing about the particulars of intellectual property licensing is important to the all of us, know it or not.
Take Ryan for example. If it were true that the actual law and court reduction-to-practice for something like original scripts did not mean they were derived works, and Ryan intended for all such scripts to be GPL, Ryan might need to think about engaging his community differently. As would the others on the core team.
C//
In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect the larger program? Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class.
Courageous said:Ryan:
While the judgement of the courts and the law with regards to what does or doesn't constitute a derivative work is murkier, the rules with regards to remedies and license compliance are not. They are crystal clear. Any entity, even if they are ruled to be infringing, ot required to submit to a license of this sort. Choices are cease distribution, modify the work to not infringe, or submit to the license.
It's not just me that isn't GPL'd. It's everyone on this site who has yet to agree. No agreement, no GPL. In the world of intellectual property, the rule is this: "everything not expressly surrendered is entirely witheld".
What I am saying here is that you have a bit of a site wide problem. Those works that are clearly derivative copies of your work really don't apply. They're obviously GPL.
But those things where the authors may not have agreed to be GPL, and did not believe that writing code (or in my case, submitting code much rewritten from Java from 5 years ago!) constituted a GPL submission, are under no obligation to actually do that. They have other choices.
C//
Your talking about legal rights and courts, and alot of pointless bullshit, because lets face it your still posting on his property.
pex said:The scope of Ryan's post did not appear to be limited to sites owned under Ryan/RunUO.
Phantom: this is hardly about me. With so many people so repeatedly making posts about you, you should know better. Truly..... discussion regards to the rights to your work around here ...