Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
There is NO official Otland's Discord server and NO official Otland's server list. The Otland's Staff does not manage any Discord server or server list. Moderators or administrator of any Discord server or server lists have NO connection to the Otland's Staff. Do not get scammed!
People needs to understand the differences between open source and licenses, specially GPL and MIT..
All the work based on TFS is automatically under GPL license ONLY IF it's intended to be distributed. If not, the copyright holder can sue whoever stole or is using the work.
I highly doubt it will happen in this case, but be aware that it can be done and the use of stolen code can have legal implications.
One thing is clear here, there was a data leak from a 'guy', that was hired by skelot staff to do some service. The 'guy' downloaded the entire server, then "donated" it to OtservBR staff. The fact is:
The OtservBR staff member(s) accepted the "donation" knowing it came from a very shady source.
I do not see this as a "theft" or "stealing" itself, but it sure is at least a "receiving of stolen goods" and completely unfair with the owner of the stolen server, since he invested money in the development of those systems.
@gpedro the argument that "dudantas" and his repo has no relation with the project is kinda lame, isn't it?
Sorry mate, again, let me explain one more time. If you have a source with GNU/MTI license and share it to someone you allow this person to do whatever he want with it. If you need to blame someone, blame 'the guy'. He is not related to otbr project at all, he just donate that to Eduardo.
Post automatically merged:
unless someone invaded his server, its not stealing. Lol
He cant steal something someone gave/shared with him.
You know it's not that simple, right? MIT license allows parts of the code to be private and closed source.
Apart from that, bending the "truth" based on an already faulty ethics from an open source project, from a copyrighted game doesn't change the fact that the "guy" who was hired and leaked the sources knew that what he was doing would inflict damage to his contractor, let's not be kids.
Again, let's not be kids, dudantas is an admin of otservbr-global, and the main contributor. That's is like be used as a stooge, staw-man, laranja on some shady activity.
this is something debatable, if the "shady" source as you meant have opened pull requests or just put it available to download everywhere. Eduardo pushing it to otservbr would still be "receiving stolen goods"? From the point there were people interested in making the repository public, there's no going back.
Where do we draw a line to consider leaked sources into theft? From what I could understand it was one of people from the team that released the source, wouldn't be him being part of the crew actually making him one of the rightful owners?
There's a misconception here (and a lot of broken rules as well).
I think the line is crossed when the leaker guy choose to use an excuse of "donation" to remain in the shadows, and dudantas choose to made the received code public.
I would agree with you if there wasn't the possibility to the guy literally use a fake account to hide himself.
The guy that "donated" to dudantes isn't even the original leaker, he bought the base from someone else that was selling and that probably isn't also the leaker.
You see how it's impossible at this point to identify the true source?
I would agree with you if there wasn't the possibility to the guy literally use a fake account to hide himself.
The guy that "donated" to dudantes isn't even the original leaker, he bought the base from someone else that was selling and that probably isn't also the leaker.
You see how it's impossible at this point to identify the true source?
Yeah, I see, but the public leakage, from now on, will always be the choice otservbr staff made to turn it public. I'm not saying it wouldn't leak anyway, but the fact is that THIS was the public leak. As you mentioned, this base was already circulating via selling, but those who bought, didn't leaked, right, afterall they payed for them (therefore receiving stolen goods btw), am I wrong?
I would agree with you if there wasn't the possibility to the guy literally use a fake account to hide himself.
The guy that "donated" to dudantes isn't even the original leaker, he bought the base from someone else that was selling and that probably isn't also the leaker.
You see how it's impossible at this point to identify the true source?
I don't really know if this is the case here, but stolen code is stolen code doesn't matter from where it came, and cannot be used or distributed without permission of the copyright holder.
Yeah, I see, but the public leakage, from now on, will always be the choice otservbr staff made to turn it public. I'm not saying it wouldn't leak anyway, but the fact is that THIS was the public leak. As you mentioned, this base was already circulating via selling, but those who bought, didn't leaked, right, afterall they payed for them (therefore receiving stolen goods btw), am I wrong?
Definitely wrong. The base itself had written all over the files that it was under 'MIT License'. Even comming from a private repository, with the license being MIT it could be used anyway. Also you can't say it was allowed to be selled amoung other people without the owner's consent and being released publicly isn't.
Also whoever bought it, had the right to re-sell or donate to edudantas (as it happened).
I don't really know if this is the case here, but stolen code is stolen code doesn't matter from where it came, and cannot be used or distributed without permission of the copyright holder.
In that case is up to them if they want to do anything against gesior or people who are making improperly usage of their artwork.
Please note that I'm not judging what happened, I'm just trying to clarify people about some misconceptions that are being made about GPL code, such as TFS. Modifications made in GPL code aren't automatically under GPL, unless they are distributed somehow, and it doesn't include theft or distribution from someone who has no permission to do so.
Definitely wrong. The base itself had written all over the files that it was under 'MIT License'. Even comming from a private repository, with the license being MIT it could be used anyway. Also you can't say it was allowed to be selled amoung other people without the owner's consent and being released publicly isn't.
Also whoever bought it, had the right to re-sell or donate to edudantas (as it happened).
Let's send a letter to cipsoft then... we'll ask about gesior layout built upon tibia layout...
You are sticking with the license text, I'm sticking with the act per se. Let's make a quick thinking here.
You are telling me, that if I hire you, and let you into my company, and then you see some of my files, and they are IN MY PRIVATE SERVERS, and at the very moment you see a LICENSE file with an MIT notice on it, you will copy them all to a flash drive and distribute it online without my consent? And think that this behaviour is not shady at all?
You are sticking with the license text, I'm sticking with the act per se. Let's make a quick thinking here.
You are telling me, that if I hire you, and let you into my company, and then you see some of my files, and they are IN MY PRIVATE SERVERS, and at the very moment you see a LICENSE file with an MIT notice on it, you will copy them all to a flash drive and distribute it online without my consent? And think that this behaviour is not shady at all?
But there are other ways to see it: you have a base that's basically a downloaded version of otservbr repo with a few quests added and other edits (5% of commits are actually new, the rest is gpedro's and edudantas. People was selling this database over work of otservbr and they just happen to receive it from one of the buyers and released for free.
That's illegal? No, it's immoral? No.
It's definitely illegal even if the source is intended to be redistributed in the future.
The fact that the file has a license written in my private repository doesn't mean I'm licensing it to you or licensing it at all.
If I'm paying you to work for me all the work produced by you is mine, and only I can license it to someone else.
So, yes you can do as you want, change, sell etc. As stated above. However, if you keep the MIT license in your server, what is the case, then whoever has your code can also do whatever they want with it or modifications of it. Doesnt matter if its private or not. If you dont want that to happen you should license it differently.
Show where the OpenTibiaBR organization stole something from someone?
I feel ashamed of others when I see certain attitudes. I don't imagine that the community can be so selfish as to think that sharing an open tibia base is a crime. Unacceptable ... Nor does it link a serious repository that has been doing a great job for over a year, without ever involving the name with anything wrong, like open source code sales.
Let us be more rational. Today, a good part of the BRAZILIAN community is a leech, wanting to live off the open tibia as if it were a job, a way to earn easy money, with content that hundreds of people have developed over the years.
Anyone who has not read my initial topic, which I posted on May 27, 2019, I'm write as follows:
"First, a quick introduction:
Our idea is to rescue the old Open Tibia community (free of charge as far as we can)
Putting an end to the sale of sources and datapacks that are in the hands of some people who call themselves developers.
People who are making thousands of reais or dollars a month on top of a project (OpenTibia) that was developed from the 0 for free, by developers who were in fact in favor of the community.
We will initiate what we hope to be the revolution of the current (shameful) Open Tibia community (unfortunately I believe it is only in the Brazilian community, this situation) ... We apologize to all who worked on OpenTibia for years to see the situation arrive at this critical point. We will do our best to reverse this situation (or at least soften it), even though many of these malicious people will get their hands on content even though they do not deserve it (those who deserve it should not pay for the error of somes )
PS: We apologize to the entire Open Tibia community for bugged repositories and malicious OTXBR people who have turned OTServer into a market. "
So, please, don't flood a serious topic, you already spoiled the open tibia community too much, don't you think that is enough of that?
I kindly and humbly ask that the staff do not let this matter go any further, we have a good objective and I do not think it should be spoiled in such a way, by people who have a bad way of acting.
I also affirm that I am nobody's orange, the content reached me as a donation by a member of the project who asked me to remain anonymous. I, like any good Tibian, would post everything publicly, after all, isn't that open source? Isn't it the job of TFS, OTBR, OTX and other people and repositories on top of an open source base?
Douglas, I always respected you... Can you prove it? I, in your place, would be careful with words. This is a International forum, but you still live in Brazil and as such it is governed by our laws.
What I see are just frivolous and irresponsible accusations. A member of the project itself sold the base to someone else, who sent it to me, and what do they want to charge me for? Morality?
And more, do you want to charge morality while accusing someone of theft, hacking and other things that are CRIME? There is no connection in your logic. Who should be banned from here, following the forum's own rules and national and international laws, are you.
Don't be hypocritical. Open the base, it has a code of at least 100 people from open tibia. Why do you feel entitled to claim the authorship of the base? It was not stolen, it was not hacked, it was sold by one of you.
Do you believe what you say? If so, it was much more useful for the person who donated to make a fake account on forums and etc and post it. Wouldn't have to "use me". Nor did anyone put a gun to my head. I did it because I wanted to. And I didn't do it wrong, I posted an open source base to the public, what's wrong with that?
I do not regret it and would do it again, what saddens me is to see all this "mi-mi-mi" and "chororô" of you, who should be happy for the community to have a diversified and better content to use, not to come here to accuse me falsely and erroneously of things that you practice so much.
Guys, let's be honest, you guys completely knew the server owner would be damaged and have his "investment" in enhancements thrown into the toilet. I'll not be an hypocrite and say that I'm not beneficiary with the leak, because I am using the leaked code to know how the systems work.
I'm particularly one of the guys that defend the open source community, just see the huge systems I spent MONTHS doing to release it for free on the servers. I even bothered porting some of them between different repositories that had incompatible bases. But I think this kind of leak is WRONG.
If you guys, deeply in your hearts, think that what you did was ABSOLUTELY CLEAN, LICIT and HONEST it says much more about you than anyone else.
As you rightly said, this is an international community.
Thank you very much for showing how Brazilian projects really work, be it otx, otbr and otg.
In the end you are all the same, you survive by sucking the work of others, you have the courage to call a lot of free content something that you would not have the ability to recreate.
You are purebred Brazilians, this is the truth hugs Eduardo.
And in the end who loses is the community, since most of the updated ots use Lucas and Davi systems.
Again, be smart with people from OTBR, otg or otx, some members of these groups offer service and steal content and will use it as if they were the creators.
Guys, let's be honest, you guys completely knew the server owner would be damaged and have his "investment" in enhancements thrown into the toilet. I'll not be an hypocrite and say that I'm not beneficiary with the leak, because I am using the leaked code to know how the systems work.
I'm particularly one of the guys that defend the open source community, just see the huge systems I spent MONTHS doing to release it for free on the servers. I even bothered porting some of them between different repositories that had incompatible bases. But I think this kind of leak is WRONG.
If you guys, deeply in your hearts, think that what you did was ABSOLUTELY CLEAN, LICIT and HONEST it says much more about you than anyone else.
Well, as wolf said before, maybe its not ethical but its not illegal or a theft as people pointed out. So Im sorry if you're not happy, I wish you coulf feel better about that. You have you conscience clean using leacked content and pointing fingers to the who provided you the content, that absolutely says more about you than any other person.
As you rightly said, this is an international community.
Thank you very much for showing how Brazilian projects really work, be it otx, otbr and otg.
In the end you are all the same, you survive by sucking the work of others, you have the courage to call a lot of free content something that you would not have the ability to recreate.
You are purebred Brazilians, this is the truth hugs Eduardo.
And in the end who loses is the community, since most of the updated ots use Lucas and Davi systems.
Again, be smart with people from OTBR, otg or otx, some members of these groups offer service and steal content and will use it as if they were the creators.
given the evidence, Eduardo says he received the stolen content and released it.
the funniest thing you talk about is laws, but reception and crime in Brazil, i believe that in a process you may need to explain how you got third party content.
So, yes you can do as you want, change, sell etc. As stated above. However, if you keep the MIT license in your server, what is the case, then whoever has your code can also do whatever they want with it or modifications of it. Doesnt matter if its private or not. If you dont want that to happen you should license it differently.
No man, if someone has access to my code to work for me, it doesn't mean that I'm licensing it, not even if the source has any text saying so.
Licenses are only valid when publishing or distributing software, or, in the case of AGPL, allowing someone to use your services remotely.
Well, as wolf said before, maybe its not ethical but its not illegal or a theft as people pointed out. So Im sorry if you're not happy, I wish you coulf feel better about that. You have you conscience clean using leacked content and pointing fingers to the who provided you the content, that absolutely says more about you than any other person.
You missed the point, not mentioning some fallacies in your speech. I'm totally happy, I'm a happy person.
I'm the only one here pointing fingers to the ACT per se, not the people. The ACT of leaking was wrong imho,and you guys clearly know that another guy suffered financial damage over that act.
by the way, as @Pragkhan mentioned, it is quite illegal. I believe judges in brazil doesn't give a damn about open source licenses, do they?
