Gatekeeping

[Source]

"Bruh!" indeed. I suggest you read and understand that license. I actually screenshotted your reply as I find it incredibly comical. You can edit and redistribute the code. You can even charge users for a binary. But the source codes have to be released. By making it public, it means you make it available to others and not just yourself (that includes if anyone is able to purchase it from you). You can use modified GPL 2.0 and GPL 3.0 licensed software by yourself. But if you ever(!) plan to share it with anyone, either for free or paid, the source codes has to be made available. And it's not just to the buyer of the software, but anyone who will use it as the end customer. In other words, everyone, as it can not be guaranteed it's never shared by the customer.

View attachment 84295

Forking GPL project: Do I have full rights on the new fork or still dependencies with the original owner(s)

I am considering the creation of a fork to a small project licensed under GPLv2, and I have some very specific questions I did not manage to answer in my research on various sites and forums. When I

softwareengineering.stackexchange.com

The short answer: When you fork an existing project, you generally do not have permission to change the license nor do you get copyright on the code you copied over.

You do have the copyright on any (nontrivial) modifications or additions that you make.

Couple of my own points:
1. In my case I don't use TFS, and otclient is licensed under MIT, so I'm not at all worried for myself. However,
2. If any license told me to strip naked and give away all my properties, or equally if it "just" told me to release all source code that I've chosen to distributed to some either as a binary or source code in part or as a whole for sale or for free, sorry but you can meet me in court.

 

[oen432]

Since talking to @TibiCAM is like talking to a wall, I actually emailed GNU and got response from [email protected]
Guess what, he was wrong all along (insert pikachu face).

Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

www.gnu.org

 

[highsanta]

Forking GPL project: Do I have full rights on the new fork or still dependencies with the original owner(s)

I am considering the creation of a fork to a small project licensed under GPLv2, and I have some very specific questions I did not manage to answer in my research on various sites and forums. When I

softwareengineering.stackexchange.com

Couple of my own points:
1. In my case I don't use TFS, and otclient is licensed under MIT, so I'm not at all worried for myself. However,
2. If any license told me to strip naked and give away all my properties, or equally if it "just" told me to release all source code that I've chosen to distributed to some either as a binary or source code in part or as a whole for sale or for free, sorry but you can meet me in court.

if you told me to pay you 300$ for some tooltips code and in exchange you never create any new software ever again but resell same shit im releasing it. Otherwise there be no space for innovation. also will put resellers in shutdown mode since I already heard tooltips was only 30$ for brazilian users elsewhere. so I overpaid like 4x? because forum doesnt support sale and you have to scavenge for someone with it.

Since talking to @TibiCAM is like talking to a wall, I actually emailed GNU and got response from [email protected]
Guess what, he was wrong all along (insert pikachu face).

Frequently Asked Questions about the GNU Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

www.gnu.org

still there is no copyright or owner of the lua files who knows maybe you unpacked some chomikuj ots
/shrug
its like if i buy your code I can do whatever I want with it aint that right? you dont take someones football after selling it to them and tell them you cant sell or pump it with air only use
especially when you do not provide ANY type of license with your code you just sell the code for exploitation.

 

[seto sazo]

 

[Unknown Soldier]

if you told me to pay you 300$ for some tooltips code and in exchange you never create any new software ever again but resell same shit im releasing it. Otherwise there be no space for innovation.

Alright sheriff, release it! You are the law here, bring us innovation!

And please, let's continue playing the examples game, cause I love it! Here's mine:

If you book a holiday, and you will pay for it (meaning you >bought< it), the room you will be accomodated in belongs to you, so you can sell it.

 

[highsanta]

Alright sheriff, release it! You are the law here, bring us innovation!

And please, let's continue playing the examples game, cause I love it! Here's mine:

If you book a holiday, and you will pay for it (meaning you >bought< it), the room you will be accomodated in belongs to you, so you can sell it.

well actually yes! If you rent a house you are free to rent the rooms join OTR the biggest DEVteam in community of thieves
look how long it took for his tooltips to get update and work in trade windows.

 

[oen432]

look how long it took for his tooltips to get update and work in trade windows.

Oh I'm just getting started. Crafting and game store are next. You think you can just leak my stuff and it will stop me? Hah, good one.

 

[Fjorda]

Just wanna add a few things from my experiences:

As a developer in 2024 (not 2007...), If you spend years creating unique client/server features and mechanics, or paying other people to create maps, sprites to make your server different from anyone else's. For me, I don't feel an obligation to share this with the community for free...

Does this mean that I don't contribute? Of course not. I have helped many people in the scripting section with errors, fixes, requests or custom scripts.

It is still an open community in the sense that people are free to share things if they want to. The choice is there. We are adults now, not kids.

The other thing I want to point out is, I don't think many people here realise actually how much money you can make from an OT server, it's not just a few $ here and there, it can be your full-time job...

 

[oen432]

The other thing I want to point out is, I don't think many people here realise actually how much money you can make from an OT server, it's not just a few $ here and there, it can be your full-time job...

But we have to do shit for free so these poor people can have a job! It only makes sense, right?

 

[getema27]

I believe that everyone should do whatever they want, period. If it's wrong for someone, okay, and if it's right for someone, okay too. After all, we're not affecting other people's lives. We're here in the forum because we want to be, no one is forcing us to be here.

So, guys, keep doing your private/public work as you wish. No one will force you to give away your scripts/sprites/maps, etc.

I truly hope that no one feels offended by my comment.

TFS has always been open source and always will be...

If Ramon has a private fork and makes fantastic modifications and doesn't want to share, okay, let it be, don't bother him. Go ahead and create your own fork, make fantastic modifications, and then share them with the community. If you want to make a difference, start with yourself.

I usually don't like to comment because I always get insulted, but it's been a long time since I last commented.

Greetings.

well said, put stone skin to comment more often, 80% resist against physical insults

 

[highsanta]

Meh the 7.4 engine will be released at some point this year so people would take the modules out and resell them so putting em up for free is win win for everyone
Once im done fixing the last few features it will be in distribution section and then would i still be a scammer aka idler aka matszur aka pro ogar
However valheim modders take approach where u need a key from their website to use their modules for profit
Key can be revoked along with ur module for ur server

 

[Peonso]

When you have hard times understanding things yourself, you shouldn't try to lecture people. That the most dumb thing I ever read here in OtLand. You are literally stating stuff not said anywhere in GPL 2.0 as if it was a fact.

That's a violation of GPL 2.0. If anything in your code is licensed using GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 by you or someone else, or if it's going to be used as an extension in a GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 licensed software, the source code must be available if this software is to be released to the public in some way.

False. There is nothing in the GPL 2.0 obling anyone to realese the source public if you sell it to anyone. What you need to do is to give source and keep the license if you sell only the executable. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?

If anyone in the entire world, plans to play an OT server using such code, its sources must be available.

False. This one doesn't even make sense, I have a hard time trying to figure out how you even made this up in your mind. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?

You can charge for the binary or the sources too. But the source has to be made available free to the public, as you no longer use it privately for your own needs. It is therefore optional if anyone wants to buy it.

False. The fact that the source code needs to be kept together with any distribuited executable doesn't mean it should be publicized, that is never stated in the GPL 2.0. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?

I'm not the one missing any point. I think you're the one who is confused here. First of all, if anyone is a programmer or not, or if they learn better from viewing source, it is all irellevant. Why? Due to the fact that nearly everything in the OT community is licensed under GPL 3.0 or GPL 2.0. If the code is to be made available to the public in any way, the source code must be released. I have yet to see any major tool distributed by folks in this community that is not GPL 3.0 or GPL 2.0 licensed.

False. This one is awesome, not a single major ot tool uses GPL, not a single one.

rme/LICENSE.rtf at master · hampusborgos/rme

Remere's Map Editor. Contribute to hampusborgos/rme development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

ObjectBuilder/LICENSE at master · ottools/ObjectBuilder

Contribute to ottools/ObjectBuilder development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

otclient/LICENSE at master · edubart/otclient

An alternative tibia client for otserv written in C++11 and Lua, made with a modular system that uses lua scripts for ingame interface and functionality, making otclient flexible and easy to custom...

github.com

ItemEditor/LICENSE at master · ottools/ItemEditor

Contribute to ottools/ItemEditor development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

ZnoteAAC/LICENSE at master · Znote/ZnoteAAC

Developement repository for the Znote AAC project. A website portal to represent and manage your Open Tibia server. - Znote/ZnoteAAC

github.com

Gesior2012 doesn't even have a license.

And the good thing about these licenses, is that they include software that's meant to be used as extensions with GPL 3.0 or GPL 2.0 licensed software. Meaning: if you make anything that is going to be used in a distro that is i.e. GPL 3.0 or GPL 2.0 licensed, and you plan to sell it and not keep it for yourself, its source code must be made available. There's a lot of users on this forum that fail to understand that. You can not for example make a copy of TFS and change some stuff, and charge people for it, without releasing the source code. The purchase is optional. You're free to keep it to yourself forever. But if you ever start charging for it, its source must be available.

The source need to be available TO THE BUYER, you can't sell only an executable, the source code and it's license must accompany the program distribution in any form. That doesn't mean at all that it should be made available to the rest of the world. Let's say I modify TFS and I want to sell it to @oen432, he owns a 2007 pentium with WindowsXP and will host his server on his home PC, his is totally stupid and I fear someone will hack him and get access to all my 1337 modifications, he only need the executable. Still, forced by GPL 2.0, I'm oblied to give him the source code together with the executable and keep the GPL 2.0 license. That doesn't mean at all the any of that stuff need to be made public, nowhere in the GPL 2.0 this is said. GPL 2.0 doesn't use the words "open" nor "release" anywhere. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?

 

[Glaszcz Koldre]

(...)
in the end sharing it for educational purposes is still beneficial to everyone. you never know when or how something may Inspire others to do great things. great example of that is @Glaszcz Koldre he released his map converter and I improved on it greatly. and now its on OTA to which I have no access to upload updates or provide support for.

Well, to be honest, I did this because some users on this forum wanted to charge me ~200$ for RL sized map, like it was some king of black magic.

Soo I took some resources shared on this forum, which helped me a lot, and gave something in return, and Im happy that I did. It closed a big gap between TFS and Canary users.
I think its even on otbr wiki as a go to solution for converting maps.

Even made a 100+ "RL SIZED" mappack that I took from otbr wiki and converted it to TFS.

I could take money for it, but I don't think it's appropriate considering that all the tools I use to play tibia are open source and created by the community for the community. In the end, I didn't reinvent the wheel, I just combined separate things that were available for free anyway.
I deeply appreciate people who share the hobby together to create a community and share their knowledge, tools, code, and do it for pure fun. Thats the definition of a community.

If you separate this forum and discord servers, I think the otland forum is well maintained and healthy. It's the discord that made people greedy.

 

[Peonso]

The general lack of understand of licenses and open source stuff is mind blowing. People working and making money of opensource stuff is not contraditory at all, actually many licenses are made with the purpose of allowing it. It's part of the beauty of the open source world, it allows people to make a living out of that if they want or need.

The most memorable episode for me was @edubart tantrum Some thoughts on the community openness direction (https://otland.net/threads/some-thoughts-on-the-community-openness-direction.270047/) He shares this vision that open source is land of no money, and no one should ever make a penny out of free stuff, still, when making otclient instead of going with GPL or something even more restrictive license, he picked MIT license. Then @kondra arrives and make big bucks from otclient, EXACTLY the thing MIT license was made for. MIT License, an open source license for software was specially designed for people to make money out of open source code. There is nothing wrong with it.

Well, excepting using OtLand to sell it, because it is not what OtLand is for. Moving forward (https://otland.net/threads/moving-forward.198835/)

 

[Glaszcz Koldre]

When you have hard times understanding things yourself, you shouldn't try to lecture people. That the most dumb thing I ever read here in OtLand. You are literally stating stuff not said anywhere in GPL 2.0 as if it was a fact.



False. There is nothing in the GPL 2.0 obling anyone to realese the source public if you sell it to anyone. What you need to do is to give source and keep the license if you sell only the executable. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?


False. This one doesn't even make sense, I have a hard time trying to figure out how you even made this up in your mind. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?


False. The fact that the source code needs to be kept together with any distribuited executable doesn't mean it should be publicized, that is never stated in the GPL 2.0. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?


False. This one is awesome, not a single major ot tool uses GPL, not a single one.

rme/LICENSE.rtf at master · hampusborgos/rme

Remere's Map Editor. Contribute to hampusborgos/rme development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

ObjectBuilder/LICENSE at master · ottools/ObjectBuilder

Contribute to ottools/ObjectBuilder development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

otclient/LICENSE at master · edubart/otclient

An alternative tibia client for otserv written in C++11 and Lua, made with a modular system that uses lua scripts for ingame interface and functionality, making otclient flexible and easy to custom...

github.com

ItemEditor/LICENSE at master · ottools/ItemEditor

Contribute to ottools/ItemEditor development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

ZnoteAAC/LICENSE at master · Znote/ZnoteAAC

Developement repository for the Znote AAC project. A website portal to represent and manage your Open Tibia server. - Znote/ZnoteAAC

github.com

Gesior2012 doesn't even have a license.


The source need to be available TO THE BUYER, you can't sell only an executable, the source code and it's license must accompany the program distribution in any form. That doesn't mean at all that it should be made available to the rest of the world. Let's say I modify TFS and I want to sell it to @oen432, he owns a 2007 pentium with WindowsXP and will host his server on his home PC, his is totally stupid and I fear someone will hack him and get access to all my 1337 modifications, he only need the executable. Still, forced by GPL 2.0, I'm oblied to give him the source code together with the executable and keep the GPL 2.0 license. That doesn't mean at all the any of that stuff need to be made public, nowhere in the GPL 2.0 this is said. GPL 2.0 doesn't use the words "open" nor "release" anywhere. Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?

Isn't "buyer" ie. selling to the "buyer" considered as selling to the "public"? So when you sell your private code which is based on GPL 2.0 code, to someone else, it is then considered public in license terms, as its now in a hand of a third party?

 

[Peonso]

Isn't "buyer" ie. selling to the "buyer" considered as selling to the "public"? So when you sell your private code which is based on GPL 2.0 code, to someone else, it is then considered public in license terms, as its now in a hand of a third party?

If I send you a nude, it's now public? What you even talking about?

 

[Glaszcz Koldre]

If I send you a nude, it's now public? What you even talking about?

If u send me this nude with GPL 2.0 license, sure.

"In the context of the GNU General Public License (GPL), the term "public" refers to anyone who receives a copy of a program licensed under the GPL. This includes individuals, organizations, businesses, or any other entity that obtains the software. The GPL is designed to ensure that the freedoms granted by the license extend to all recipients of the software, regardless of whether they are individuals or organizations."

One person is also public, according to the legal definition.

It doesnt matter if its 1, 2, or 300 people. Public means public in the legal terms. Simple as that I think.

 

[Peonso]

If u send me this nude with GPL 2.0 license, sure.

"In the context of the GNU General Public License (GPL), the term "public" refers to anyone who receives a copy of a program licensed under the GPL. This includes individuals, organizations, businesses, or any other entity that obtains the software. The GPL is designed to ensure that the freedoms granted by the license extend to all recipients of the software, regardless of whether they are individuals or organizations."

One person is also public, according to the legal definition.

It doesnt matter if its 1, 2, or 300 people. Public means public in the legal terms. Simple as that I think.

I still don't understand your point. You know GPL is something you can read yourself and even quote?

forgottenserver/LICENSE at master · otland/forgottenserver

A free and open-source MMORPG server emulator written in C++ - otland/forgottenserver

github.com

GNU General Public License v2.0 - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

www.gnu.org

You don't need to grab a totally unrelated paragraph from an article, cherrypick a term to tries imply something without saying.

If you are trying to say that by "public" they means anyone, sure that what it means.

Now, if you are trying to say that by "public" they mean anyone, so if you make it available to someone, you made it available to the public so you need to make it available to the entire humanity. No, they don't mean that at all, that is just dumb. It's just failing in basic aristotelian syllogism, flawed logic at it's best.

 

[JeiDi]

Over a week of quarrels about licensing code written for copyright infringement "products" on a forum, rooted in the theft of intellectual property and social engineering to steal a legally operating company's demesne.

but it's GPL code!!1 you steal and share code1!

 

[TibiCAM]

Wow, that was a lot of dog vomit from Peonso, a guy that clearly has never read any software license or have contributed to anything in the Open Tibia ecosystem. Let's first take a look at your lovely example of Remere's Map Editor, the most used map editor. Did you just say its EULA is its software license? Please tell me you did not. (...yes, you did). But there is one slight issue with that.... it's not the same thing. An EULA is a requirement to have in place for programs that get installed on a device, where the user has to explicitly agree to install it. GPL (or any of its equivalents) are licenses that can not, and will never, require a user to agree to it before using it. EULAs are used by the developer to not include any warranty of the software, should it cause errors on the end user's device.

If you had one braincell left in your tiny little head, just one, you could have actually viewed just one of the source files of RME. Pick any file you want. Just look at it before you talk like a Karen. Let me help you:

rme/source/about_window.h at master · hampusborgos/rme

Remere's Map Editor. Contribute to hampusborgos/rme development by creating an account on GitHub.

github.com

//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// This file is part of Remere's Map Editor
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////
// Remere's Map Editor is free software: you can redistribute it and/or modify
// it under the terms of the GNU General Public License as published by
// the Free Software Foundation, either version 3 of the License, or
// (at your option) any later version.
//
// Remere's Map Editor is distributed in the hope that it will be useful,
// but WITHOUT ANY WARRANTY; without even the implied warranty of
// MERCHANTABILITY or FITNESS FOR A PARTICULAR PURPOSE. See the
// GNU General Public License for more details.
//
// You should have received a copy of the GNU General Public License
// along with this program. If not, see <Licenses - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation (http://www.gnu.org/licenses/)>.
//////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

The reason they have placed the EULA as the "license" on Github, is because they kind of messed up and need to have two in place and probably couldn't pick which one to choose: One for the source and one for the installation. EULA is not the same as a license for the source code. An EULA is used to collect agreement from users that want to install/use a software on their device, typically mentioning they offer no warranty. That's what the "wizard" is for when you install software "next, next, next, agree, finish". RME source is however licensed under GPL 3.0.

Let me explain this in idiomatic terms so that your brain can process this. Let's take a chocolate bar as an example. The chocolate bar uses a very distinguished recipe and packaging that has been copyrighted. Nobody may resell it the way it is, or even modify it, without permission. That is "the license" in this case. When you buy a package of them, you can see on the package it says it includes nuts and that they can not be held responsible if you accidentally die by eating it. That's the "EULA" in this case.

Now let's see if your brain can fathom this: nearly all server distributions used in today's Open Tibia ecosystem is based on The Forgotten Server (TFS). Oh, what is that licensed under? Oh, let me have a look. forgottenserver/LICENSE at master · otland/forgottenserver (https://github.com/otland/forgottenserver/blob/master/LICENSE)

Oh, look at that. It's licensed under GPL 2.0. Scandalous! What a shocker!

So if you plan to for example create a map, add some quests, maybe change something in the database, then run that in a TFS-based server distro and want to sell it, you have to include the source code. The reason being, TFS is licensed under GPL. RME files are only to be used in RME and are thus GPL licensed as well.

The beauty of GPL is that if anything is meant to only be functioning while using a GPL licensed software, it automatically becomes GPL licensed as well, when it's in use.

Have you even read the license agreement? You clearly have not. I suggest you do. Is it really that difficult for people to understand this?