Gatekeeping

[Glaszcz Koldre]

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.

Well, arent u the one that cherrypicked term "public" and made an assumption that it means "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."?

I mean, its your choice to do so. It doesnt mean that if u share it with 1 person, you have to share it with entire humanity.

Quoting from this thread

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.

Why do you think thats flawed btw?

For example, If you base your code on code that is licensed under the GPL 2.0, your code will be considered a derivative work.
As a result, Your code must also be licensed under the GPL 2.0 or a compatible license. This means that anyone who receives your code will have the same rights to access and modify the source code as they would for the original GPL code. And just like with the original GPL code, you must make the corresponding source code available to anyone who receives your code, whether you distribute it for free or for a fee.

So if you do this for 1 person, it applies to 1 person. If you do this for entire humanity, you do this for entire humanity. Isn't what this kind of licenses are for?

I think there is some kind of misunderstanding, and the way how you angrily response, it's just bizzare.

 

[TibiCAM]

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!

Tell me you have never programmed parts of any OT server distribution, without telling me you have never programmed parts of any OT server distribution.

So you're saying that TFS and RME, is stolen? From who, if I may ask? Last time I checked, nobody has copyrighted any of the code in that software. Certainly not CipSoft. Can you point which lines of code is stolen?

We even have completely custom made game clients today that use no code from the original Tibia client.

Oh, you seem to know a lot about copyright. Can you point me to CipSoft's copyright documents? I've had a look at EUIPO and WIPO. Couldn't find any patents or copyrights for anything used in the OT community. Are you talking about graphics? Well, I'd love to see them try that. Considering the fact that a lot of graphics they use is made by Tibia players, and CipSoft is not able to copyright that.

EUIPO: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/owners/338647

Not even the official Tibia logo is copyrighted, which is unusual to say the least.

Very nice picture of you in your post. Is that your new bicycle?

Also, Open Tibia was not created to "steal the game". It was created by the very same hundreds of creative players that loved modding the game. CipSoft is an incompetent game developer and if we're going to talk about "intellectual property" (that isn't even IP-protected), CipSoft has "stolen" far more from the OT community than vice-versa. If you even played the game back in the day, you'd know customization of Tibia has always been a thing. Even in the 90's. A lot of such contributions were later even implemented in the game.

And let's not get into the whole topic about how Tibia as a game was created, based on Ultima's engine. Stephan Vogler is a modder himself and he understands the laws surrounding free and open source software very well. He's even studied law. So before you start talking about stealing from CIP, you should perhaps check out CIP's story or even Vogler's website. He's one of the few in this world to have even created a real license himself, for his own work, it's called the LICTIP10 license. If he had any plans on copyrighting everything in Tibia, he would have done so a long time ago and got rid of everything they can't copyright. He has extremely good knowledge about patents and copyright. You should even see his work where he copyrighted nothing (0 bytes) of data, here: Nothing - Stephan Vogler - Digital Art (https://www.stephanvogler.com/en/2015/03/01/nothing/)

CIP embraces OT servers. It keeps the game going. Had they any plans to take legal action, they would have copyrighted their stuff by now.

 

[Me again]

Actually you only have to mention you use tfs and put a link to the sources. Anything you change can be placed under another license btw .

 

[Tofame]

womp womp tibicam. make your thread where you point fingers at those actually selling engines and otclients (about 3 people in total probably).
There is no one and nothing else that is sold in this community that would fall under those licences. No tools are sold like RME. Nothing.

You see the small picture anyway. The problem is scamms that happen here more and more often as well as talented programmers being excluded/discouraged from visiting here.
Also big servers that took from community and nowadays won't even mention they came from this community. Like Knighter being taught how2script on otland, today removed his account and removed any mention of TFS/OTC.
However, at the same time, community would leak his sprites, client and make bots for his OT.

Regarding the open sourceness, what should even be open sourced right now? Everything needed to create tibia-like ot is already public. Engine, tools and a client. Canary&Mehah are also working on otclient modules so it can look like newest tibia.

Btw, you have a problem to random otland members, but you know otland itself has "premium" badges that if Im not wrong gives access to some premium content like datapacks etc.

 

[Peonso]

Well, arent u the one that cherrypicked term "public" and made an assumption that it means "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."?

I mean, its your choice to do so. It doesnt mean that if u share it with 1 person, you have to share it with entire humanity.

Quoting from this thread

You said it. Ellipsis is the term for what you did, it's the name given to omission on language when you imply something regardless of not being clear. Context gave it. The way you try to twist, quoting me, show your bad faith and why my reply was angry.

You quote me replying to a totally retard guy that had no fucking clue what he was talking about. For me it was clear what you going for, I argued about this stuff with other clueless people here in the past, but for the sake of being fair, I asked you to make yourself clear, to properly address your point, yet you stick do being dodgy.

I did not cherrypicked "public", you did, what you even talking about? As if the meaning of "plublic" somehow made GPL 2.0 enforce people to make any source changes publicized. To make it even more confusing you refered to whatever you quoted a legal definition of "public", as if what you were quoting where law somewhere (we still don't know what you quoted, because no source was presented, to add up to how dodgy that answer was).

Why do you think thats flawed btw?

Now you are saying I said that is flawed, which I never did. Also, next time you gonna quote something, quote the proper source, not this thread, this thread is not a reliable source of anything. Imagine me quoting Mr. TibiCAM, and stating stuff like "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."

For example, If you base your code on code that is licensed under the GPL 2.0, your code will be considered a derivative work.
As a result, Your code must also be licensed under the GPL 2.0 or a compatible license. This means that anyone who receives your code will have the same rights to access and modify the source code as they would for the original GPL code. And just like with the original GPL code, you must make the corresponding source code available to anyone who receives your code, whether you distribute it for free or for a fee.

Exactly, but somehow, Mr. TibiCAM, and many others here think somehow anyone that touch GLP 2.0 code is obliged to share it with the rest of the world. And that's not the case, and that's what I was addressing.

 

[Xikini]

I don't know what I expected by following this thread and reading this far.. lmao
I knew from the get go this was a waste of time.. yet I still had to see it through.

Everyone who made it this far, let's crash and burn together.
Our time certainly has.

 

[Peonso]

Tell me you have never programmed parts of any OT server distribution, without telling me you have never programmed parts of any OT server distribution.

So you're saying that TFS and RME, is stolen? From who, if I may ask? Last time I checked, nobody has copyrighted any of the code in that software. Certainly not CipSoft. Can you point which lines of code is stolen?

We even have completely custom made game clients today that use no code from the original Tibia client.

Oh, you seem to know a lot about copyright. Can you point me to CipSoft's copyright documents? I've had a look at EUIPO and WIPO. Couldn't find any patents or copyrights for anything used in the OT community. Are you talking about graphics? Well, I'd love to see them try that. Considering the fact that a lot of graphics they use is made by Tibia players, and CipSoft is not able to copyright that.

EUIPO: https://euipo.europa.eu/eSearch/#details/owners/338647

Not even the official Tibia logo is copyrighted, which is unusual to say the least.

Very nice picture of you in your post. Is that your new bicycle?

Also, Open Tibia was not created to "steal the game". It was created by the very same hundreds of creative players that loved modding the game. CipSoft is an incompetent game developer and if we're going to talk about "intellectual property" (that isn't even IP-protected), CipSoft has "stolen" far more from the OT community than vice-versa. If you even played the game back in the day, you'd know customization of Tibia has always been a thing. Even in the 90's. A lot of such contributions were later even implemented in the game.

And let's not get into the whole topic about how Tibia as a game was created, based on Ultima's engine. Stephan Vogler is a modder himself and he understands the laws surrounding free and open source software very well. He's even studied law. So before you start talking about stealing from CIP, you should perhaps check out CIP's story or even Vogler's website. He's one of the few in this world to have even created a real license himself, for his own work, it's called the LICTIP10 license. If he had any plans on copyrighting everything in Tibia, he would have done so a long time ago and got rid of everything they can't copyright. He has extremely good knowledge about patents and copyright. You should even see his work where he copyrighted nothing (0 bytes) of data, here: Nothing - Stephan Vogler - Digital Art (https://www.stephanvogler.com/en/2015/03/01/nothing/)

CIP embraces OT servers. It keeps the game going. Had they any plans to take legal action, they would have copyrighted their stuff by now.

Why can't you stop to state non-facts? Copyright is assingned as soon as the work is created, copyright in the work belongs to the person or persons who created it. At least in of the signataries countries of the Berne Convention (almost the entire World). You can apply or registry a copyright, but that is not necessary at all.

Earth is flat?

 

[TibiCAM]

Why can't you stop to state non-facts? Copyright is assingned as soon as the work is created, copyright in the work belongs to the person or persons who created it. At least in of the signataries countries of the Berne Convention (almost the entire World). You can apply or registry a copyright, but that is not necessary at all.

Earth is flat?

I'd love to see you tell that to the board of directors at Coca Cola, or Facebook, or Microsoft, or Google, or Amazon, who has spent many millions to protect their work with copyright, patents and licenses, that it is completely optional if they want to copyright things. According to you, copyright is not mandatory. You have yet again failed to grasp basic concepts. Can you please stop posting absolute dog vomit? So according to you, what is the point of copyright, copyleft, trademarks and licenses?

If a software is GPL licensed, any future variants of the program will automatically become GPL licensed as well, regardless of what you created and put into it. And anyone who run or interact with that code in any way must have access to the source code. It is the definition of free software. If you do not provide people with the source code, they can not know what the software does. Anyone means anyone. If you sell a modified version of The Forgotten Server, you have to provide the buyer with the source code. If you plan to host it publicly (meaning, not privately) you have to provide access to the source code to all players.

Public is the opposite of private. As soon as you either sell it, or have code that is run or interacted with from another person's computer, it is considered public use. And if it is GPL licensed, that person must be provided with access to the source code. Especially with GPL 3.0 licensed code, but also GPL 2.0.

What is Free Software? - GNU Project - Free Software Foundation

Since 1983, developing the free Unix style operating system GNU, so that computer users can have the freedom to share and improve the software they use.

www.gnu.org

I can not make things clearer for you. If a computer program is GPL 2.0/3.0 licensed, it must conform to the free software guidelines. Any and all future copies of it will remain with the same license. Because it is free software, it must include the "four essential freedoms" listed in the image above. If it does not do that, then it is a violation of the license.

 

[oen432]

@TibiCAM why are you still on about this fucking licensing?!
I already told you that you are wrong and proved it by emailing GNU and getting response from their licensing team. Jesus christ....

 

[frida22]

If you plan to host it publicly (meaning, not privately) you have to provide access to the source code to all players.

Do you mean that Every ots in existence should be open-source ? You would have to be on drugs to consider it a reality

 

[oen432]

Do you mean that Every ots in existence should be open-source ? You would have to be on drugs to consider it a reality

With TFS you are not distributing any binaries so no. OTC is MIT so it doesn't apply.

 

[TibiCAM]

@TibiCAM why are you still on about this fucking licensing?!
I already told you that you are wrong and proved it by emailing GNU and getting response from their licensing team. Jesus christ....

I'd love to see the email you sent and the email you received, in its entirety. Also, I'm not wrong. I'm quoting their website. And you must be a high priority user for them if they send you that reply on a weekend. Typically they take 3 business days at minimum to reply, and that's even regarding GNU made programs. I find it hilarious you say they are responding to an OtLand discussion on a Friday/Saturday, within hours, but okay! Just make sure to include the entire email headers so we can validate the integrity of the sender. I'm eagerly waiting for that.

Do you mean that Every ots in existence should be open-source ? You would have to be on drugs to consider it a reality

Not sure if you're joking or not, but no. But any GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 licensed OT must be made open source, if it has players playing on it. Please learn about free software and how the GPL licenses work.

Here is a great video by Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation. You don't even have to go more than 1½ minute into the video to realize what free software is.

At 1 minute 15 seconds in the video: "With software there are two possibilities: either the users control the program, or the program controls the users. It's inevitably one or the other.".

It's not just a buyer of a GPL licensed software that must be granted with the source code. It's anyone who plays on a such server. If the program (the server code) controls the users, then it's by definition not free software. If the code is GPL licensed and the software is not free software, then it's a violation of the GPL license.

I will say it three more times.

It's not just a buyer of a GPL licensed software that must be granted with the source code. It's anyone who plays on a such server. If the program (the server code) controls the users, then it's by definition not free software. If the code is GPL licensed and the software is not free software, then it's a violation of the GPL license.

---

It's not just a buyer of a GPL licensed software that must be granted with the source code. It's anyone who plays on a such server. If the program (the server code) controls the users, then it's by definition not free software. If the code is GPL licensed and the software is not free software, then it's a violation of the GPL license.

---

It's not just a buyer of a GPL licensed software that must be granted with the source code. It's anyone who plays on a such server. If the program (the server code) controls the users, then it's by definition not free software. If the code is GPL licensed and the software is not free software, then it's a violation of the GPL license.

 

[oen432]

if they send you that reply on a weekend.

That was yesterday.

 

[Evil Hero]

I don't know what I expected by following this thread and reading this far.. lmao
I knew from the get go this was a waste of time.. yet I still had to see it through.

Everyone who made it this far, let's crash and burn together.
Our time certainly has.

I can't agree with that, I've a doctorate in law now after reading through all of this, was definitely worth the time...

In all honesty, if people would spend half the effort and time to contribute something useful to the community instead of writing entire essays here, then this community wouldn't have a single problem.
Shitting on eachother wont help anyone, it'll just get worse and worser at this point.

We all have different reasons to be here and we have to accept that not everyone shares the same mentality.
I miss those times where money wasn't even a thing and the pure excitement and fun to create something others and myself will enjoy was the ultimate goal.
I don't care if you want to make money, feel free to do that it's your business not mine but atleast think about how much work from other people was involved to get you to the point which let you be able to make money here.

There's so much people complaining about the state of the forum or TFS but guess what? I don't see much people willing to change anything on that, don't expect others to change, start with yourself instead, we all can contribute something doesn't matter how small or big it is.
We are slowling sailing this ship to the abyss, it's on us to steer the wheel and turn the tides, this is not a matter of "can we do this?" it's a matter of "do we want to" because we have seen often enough over the years that this community can achieve everything if we are working together and are willing to do the stuff.

I know that most people will not even read it past the first sentence, if you're one of the few reading it to the end you got my gratitudes.

 

[frida22]

Not sure if you're joking or not, but no. But any GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0 licensed OT must be made open source, if it has players playing on it. Please learn about free software and how the GPL licenses work.

And how are you going to enforce that law please enlighten me because i believe it's closer to communism than a real law that could be executed on anyone. By that i mean if you can't execute that law on for example oen to give away revolutionots otclient or server then it is not a law, its a joke.

 

[Glaszcz Koldre]

You said it. Ellipsis is the term for what you did, it's the name given to omission on language when you imply something regardless of not being clear. Context gave it. The way you try to twist, quoting me, show your bad faith and why my reply was angry.

Damn dude, your whole schizophrenic agenda started here Gatekeeping (https://otland.net/threads/gatekeeping.288805/post-2751960) because god know why you assume that when TibiCAM used word "public" it translates to the entire humanity, regardless of the situation.

You quote me replying to a totally retard guy that had no fucking clue what he was talking about.

Ad personam, thats your strategy. This makes what you write taken seriously for sure.

For me it was clear what you going for, I argued about this stuff with other clueless people here in the past, but for the sake of being fair, I asked you to make yourself clear, to properly address your point, yet you stick do being dodgy.

Another schizophrenic episode. You said "qoute" If I send you a nude, it's now public? What you even talking about?
In which I replied in the scope of the license itself. It wouldn't make you angryif you read that license by yourself, right?

I did not cherrypicked "public", you did, what you even talking about?

Cringe gaslighting. Here, reread whats your problem here Gatekeeping (https://otland.net/threads/gatekeeping.288805/post-2751960)

As if the meaning of "plublic" somehow made GPL 2.0 enforce people to make any source changes publicized.

It is within the scope of the license. If you are using it for your own - you dont have to. If you are selling it, sharing it, even to 1 person - that one person is what you, and license, know as "the public", so you must share your source code.

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

www.gnu.org

To make it even more confusing you refered to whatever you quoted a legal definition of "public", as if what you were quoting where law somewhere (we still don't know what you quoted, because no source was presented, to add up to how dodgy that answer was).

Oh Im so sorry. My bad. That quote marks misguided you, as if I was suggesting that it was legal definition in GPL license. I meant "legal definition of public" as "One person is also public, according to the legal definition.". Do you really want a source to definition what "the public" means? I mean, there are lot of it.

Now you are saying I said that is flawed, which I never did. Also, next time you gonna quote something, quote the proper source, not this thread, this thread is not a reliable source of anything. Imagine me quoting Mr. TibiCAM, and stating stuff like "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."

Another cringe gaslighting. Here, reread what your problem was. Sorry I quoted more than you did. Gatekeeping (https://otland.net/threads/gatekeeping.288805/post-2751960)

Exactly, but somehow, Mr. TibiCAM, and many others here think somehow anyone that touch GLP 2.0 code is obliged to share it with the rest of the world. And that's not the case, and that's what I was addressing.

No one even stated that if anyone touch GLP 2.0 code, is obliged to share it with the rest of the world. At this point, you just made a whole shitshow based on your ignorance and hasty conclusions.


Im sorry, but your unhinged attitude is beyond my interests and it started to bore me.

 

[TibiCAM]

And how are you going to enforce that law please enlighten me because i believe it's closer to communism than a real law that could be executed on anyone. By that i mean if you can't execute that law on for example oen to give away revolutionots otclient or server then it is not a law, its a joke.

That is the entire point of the GPL licenses, to ensure the one with the software complies with the free software guidelines. If someone can figure out a certain OT server is running on TFS, or some other GPL licensed server, whether in whole or in part, they can be sued for violating the GPL license if they don't provide users with the source code. It's essentially the job of the Free Software Foundation (known as FSF). They have spent decades fighting for user's freedom on the internet.

https://www.fsf.org/licensing/compliance

It's not communism. Everyone has a choice what software license to put on their piece of software. If the developers of TFS decided it is GPL 2.0 or GPL 3.0, then that is what it will be. If someone else wants to make their own server from scratch, or use non-GPL licensed server, they are free to do so. But if someone decides to fork TFS, edit it and sell it without providing any source code, or host it publicly without providing source code, then they are violating the license terms.

This is why software licenses exists. There are dozens of different licenses. GPL are the best when it comes to free software. Free as in free speech.

 

[oen432]

That is the entire point of the GPL licenses, to ensure the one with the software complies with the free software guidelines. If someone can figure out a certain OT server is running on TFS, or some other GPL licensed server, whether in whole or in part, they can be sued for violating the GPL license. It's essentially the job of the Free Software Foundation (known as FSF). They have spent decades fighting for user's freedom on the internet.

 

[TibiCAM]

View attachment 84379

You are again not understanding what they are saying. Read that sentence 100 times and maybe you get it.

Just because you have GPL licensed code, doesn't mean you need to provide sources for it.

But if that code is going to run on anyone else's device, or interact with other users in any way, then you must provide them with the source code.

I now understand why you do not want to publish your email. You've probably asked them "Do I need to give sources to everyone if I have a GPL licensed software?". The answer is of course no to that. But if that code runs on other people's devices, you have to provide them with the sources. You're either misinterpreting this on purpose, or you just cannot grasp what it is they are saying.

 

[oen432]

But if that code is going to run on anyone else's device, or interact with other users in any way, then you must provide them with the source code.

Oh, I didn't know we run TFS on players devices.