The low down on RunUO Scripts.

[Ryan]

The scripts of RunUO are GPL. Not just the scripts we write, but the ones you write also.

These scripts are derivative works of the RunUO Distribution Core and Scripts thus are governed by the GPL. When you post a script here it is automatically licensed under the GPL. You are bound to the terms of the GPL.

If you do not like that, if you choose to not to support our licensing (GPL) then you are welcome to find another project that is not GPL based.

The entire point of the GPL is to ensure that the works are free to be distributed. That's why we chose it.

Learn it, live it and love it. Or get out of it.

The choice is yours.

[Khaz]

Thanks for ending that debate, Ryan. Long live the community

[crackrat]

I'm loving it and the SVN. kudos.

i remember back to 1.0 when we went to the GPL and all that wanted the core. i thought at that time most understood that thier work was also under that licence, and that the GPL also pertains to other sites releasing scripts for RUNUO server use.

[Rift]

Woot!! The devs finally backed up what I said about the scripts long ago when the issue of GPL first popped up Gotta Love Object-Oriented programming

[joantinet]

Finally...

I hope everyone on this community took you as an example.

Many people do 1 and don't share even 0.5.

You have done KKKKKKK and share it all.

People should really think about it, to share their scripts based in a hole system which has taken thousand times more effort to the Developers of RunUO, and which you share free of charge and freely to everyone.

I hope everything could go back to the place where it was, back in 2003 when I joined this community (and before when I wasnt an user but followed it).

Enough said. I hope this words don't end up in an empty bucket...

[archiep]

Originally Posted by Ryan

The scripts of RunUO are GPL. Not just the scripts we write, but the ones you write also.

These scripts are derivative works of the RunUO Distribution Core and Scripts thus are governed by the GPL. When you post a script here it is automatically licensed under the GPL. You are bound to the terms of the GPL.

If you do not like that, if you choose to not to support our licensing (GPL) then you are welcome to find another project that is not GPL based.

The entire point of the GPL is to ensure that the works are free to be distributed. That's why we chose it.

Learn it, live it and love it. Or get out of it.

The choice is yours.

Great! Glad that argument is settled. With that said is it possible that some of us could stop putting those irritating headers in scripts. It just takes up space.
Oh btw Im lovin 2.0 lots of nice stuff in there if I can just figure it out.
Thanks.

[NiteStar]

I can't script YET, even if they stuck a Kantra up my nose I couldn't make a script but am/was glad that many updates were posted of old original scripts by people that could.

I noticed in almost every post/offer the original credit was given to the people that had originally created the script or the it was stated that they did not originally write it and that should have been good enough.

I was really sad to see a couple of people become angry and I can understand that but at least we now have a much better understanding of the GPL and I just hope it all settles down so we can be a stronger community.

RunUO is the very best and has many talented people, it is such a great place because so many help each other with issues, I want to always see it work this way.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by NiteStar

I can't script YET, even if they stuck a Kantra up my nose I couldn't make a script but am/was glad that many updates were posted of old original scripts by people that could.

I noticed in almost every post/offer the original credit was given to the people that had originally created the script or the it was stated that they did not originally write it and that should have been good enough.

I was really sad to see a couple of people become angry and I can understand that but at least we now have a much better understanding of the GPL and I just hope it all settles down so we can be a stronger community.

RunUO is the very best and has many talented people, it is such a great place because so many help each other with issues, I want to always see it work this way.

I am not exactly sure who your talking about when you say people got angry...

[silverwolfe]

Yesss!!!!! Finally, maybe now we stop worrying about who wrote what when....

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by silverwolfe

Yesss!!!!! Finally, maybe now we stop worrying about who wrote what when....

I hope people will at least respect other people, thats my only hope.

[silverwolfe]

Originally Posted by Phantom

I hope people will at least respect other people, thats my only hope.

always have, to the point of asking permission to post a rework of someone elses work even though technically didn't have to.

[Cerberus]

Nicely cleared up... i should think about submitting the only 2 scripts i ever wrote.. er i mean edited as i cant script ( only edit )...

On a side note

Would it be possible to set up a new section for 2.0 scripts to save any confusion from members downloading 1.0 version then adding false bug reports in based on this.

[darkstorm]

Yep this is absolutly true.

Read the GPL FAQ about this issue:

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#TOCOOPLang

Question:
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?
Answer: 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.

By subclassing or using ANY of RunUOs classes in your script, you automatically create a derivate work although you do not include the code itself.

cu,
Storm

[TMSTKSBK]

Ok. I'm over it. I shall remove any thought of licenses.

[pex]

Originally Posted by darkstorm

By subclassing or using ANY of RunUOs classes in your script, you automatically create a derivate work although you do not include the code itself.

Does that require a binary be made from the script as the script is otherwise 'just data' and not part of RunUO until it is compiled? (I find it really odd that the GPL FAQ never addresses whether a binary must be created in order to render a script a derivative work - If my trained monkey writes the same script without knowledge of RunUO, it couldn't possibly be a derivate work until it gets turned into one by compilation.)

(I'm reading the actual GPL right now to see if it's answered.)

[silverwolfe]

Originally Posted by pex

Does that require a binary be made from the script as the script is otherwise 'just data' and not part of RunUO until it is compiled? (I find it really odd that the FAQ never addresses whether a binary must be created in order to render a script a derivative work - If my trained monkey writes the same script without knowledge of RunUO, it couldn't possibly be a derivate work until it gets turned into one by compilation.)

(I'm reading the actual GPL right now to see if it's answered.)

Originally Posted by Ryan

When you post a script here it is automatically licensed under the GPL. You are bound to the terms of the GPL.

Since its Ryan's site and he made that statement I think that answers the question you ask...

[pex]

We're talking about the GPL, and terms under which both he and we could be bound, and under which RunUO is bound.

Ryan did not write the GPL, and no, nothing he said in any post on this thread answered my question, which is why I put forth the question.

One cannot just pick and choose parts of the GPL to support.

[Sotho Tal Ker]

You do not have to provide a binary.

On the other hand you do not need to publish your scripts as long as you keep them for yourself. But if you give them to the public, you have to deal with what the GPL says.

[pex]

On the other hand you do not need to publish your scripts as long as you keep them for yourself. But if you give them to the public, you have to deal with what the GPL says.

Not necessarily, and that is the question I'm asking: does a script need to be compiled once (regardless of distribution) for it to be considered derivative work -- that is, although subclassing is covered under the GPL and creates a derivative work, isn't it actually not truely a subclass until compiled as one? Is it not just text until it is made executable, retroactively causing it to be 'source code' and then a derivative work?

[Rift]

Umm pex to use the script you are compiling otherwise it wouldn't work Runuo compiles them on start the script as a standalone is nothing without the Core server to compile it

Originally Posted by pex

Is it not just text until it is made executable

LOL sounds like the classic excuse of a filesharer...........isn't it but 1's and 0's till the pces are put together.......

[pex]

Umm pex to use the script you are compiling otherwise it wouldn't work Runuo compiles them on start the script as a standalone is nothing without the Core server to compile it

Yeah, to use it. I'm saying that once its 'used' in any manner, it's a derivative work; up until that point, it is not. And what that would mean is I could code a script, and without testing it through RunUO (as testing would cause it to become GPL'd as a derivative work), and it would not be GPL'd itself...

and that relies on answering the question I put forth.

[swtrse]

Well every rule as an workaraound...

For example:
Class A is under GPL.
You write an class B that are a childclass of A.
Well it's true that this class has to be under GPL too but...
From that class B you can make calls to a class C that you write and this class C (that is a standalone class, that does not make use of any codes or objects that are under GPL) can be published without having to be under GPL. Class C can contain for example high academic algorithm you created.
Many companies use that method so it's not uncommon. The only thing that is to do to confom with the GPL is an informationtextfile that lists the parts that are GPL and the parts that are not.

So I don't understand why people are so upset about Ryans statement. However his statement is only half of the truth.

PS: Since RunUO scripts are compiled at runtime it would be a lot of work to change the behavier so that the given example can be realized with RunUO (class C has to be included in the linkprocess so core changes are nessesary).

PPS: And don't misunderstand me I am a great fan of free sourcecode and sharing my sorces (that are worth of sharing), but I don't like that gaging parts fo the GPL, however the main idea was good but there are better licences out there (my point of view).

[Rift]

Originally Posted by pex

Yeah, to use it. I'm saying that once its 'used' in any manner, it's a derivative work; up until that point, it is not. And what that would mean is I could code a script, and without testing it through RunUO (as testing would cause it to become GPL'd as a derivative work), and it would not be GPL'd itself...

and that relies on answering the question I put forth.

if ya not going to use it then why write it there no point and Ryan is stating that the scripts that uses the classes or any the base classes are included in the GPL..... as long as ya not distributing it it really don't matter or compiling in in to a new object that includes GPL'd code and distributing it

Originally Posted by swtrse

Well every rule as an workaraound...

For example:
Class A is under GPL.
You write an class B that are a childclass of A.
Well it's true that this class has to be under GPL too but...
From that class B you can make calls to a class C that you write and this class C (that is a standalone class, that does not make use of any codes or objects that are under GPL) can be published without having to be under GPL. Class C can contain for example high academic algorithm you created.
Many companies use that method so it's not uncommon. The only thing that is to do to confom with the GPL is an informationtextfile that lists the parts that are GPL and the parts that are not.

So I don't understand why people are so upset about Ryans statement. However his statement is only half of the truth.

PS: Since RunUO scripts are compiled at runtime it would be a lot of work to change the behavier so that the given example can be realized with RunUO (class C has to be included in the linkprocess so core changes are nessesary).

PPS: And don't misunderstand me I am a great fan of free sourcecode and sharing my sorces (that are worth of sharing), but I don't like that gaging parts fo the GPL, however the main idea was good but there are better licences out there (my point of view).

if ya planning on making a class C that B can interact with why bother with a script turn the Class C to a dll as long as it nots using code from any the other classes a dll would be fine I would think and not needed to be opensource......
if ya leaving class C in script form for the compiler its already in source form might not be GPL'd but its open anyhow so no biggie

[swtrse]

Well for RunUO scripts it realy don't make much sence to make a construct like that.
I'm just pointing out the posibillity to do it.

[noobie]

I have been a developer of an open source product(GPL licensed) about 2,5 years. It is unquestionable that all of the scripts you have written are licensed under GPL.

It doesnt matter that it calls the base classes indirectly. (Class b,c,d,e,f whatever)

If it would be that easy, some open-source products wouldnt have been using double licenses. (one is GPL, the other is kind of commercial to allow others to make their derivative works closed source)

Do not keep this nonsense discussion anymore please.