88 replies to this topic

[littlesat]

@dr best and @uchkun, what are your licenses?

Edited by littlesat, 12 August 2013 - 07:04.

[reichi]

The original Source says
 

+# ServiceList - this is a part of Merlin3-Image
+#
+# Coded by Dr.Best © 2012
+# Support: www.dreambox-tools.info
+# E-Mail: dr.best@dreambox-tools.info
+#
+# This plugin is open source but it is NOT free software.
+#
+# This plugin may only be distributed to and executed on hardware which
+# is licensed by Dream Multimedia GmbH.
+# In other words:
+# It's NOT allowed to distribute any parts of this plugin or its source code in ANY way
+# to hardware which is NOT licensed by Dream Multimedia GmbH.
+# It's NOT allowed to execute this plugin and its source code or even parts of it in ANY way
+# on hardware which is NOT licensed by Dream Multimedia GmbH.
+#
+# If you want to use or modify the code or parts of it,
+# you have to keep MY license and inform me about the modifications by mail.
+#

by removing the copyright and replacing it with his own the author already clearly stated what he gives about licenses or copyright.

Edited by reichi, 12 August 2013 - 10:18.

[MiLo]

Ok, I give you same examples...
...

Are you aware that by voluntarily posting parts of your code on a public forum, you thereby may have waved any copyright you had?

[MiLo]

..
+# This plugin is open source but it is NOT free software.
..

This license describes something that is definitely NOT open source. Please change your license text, and do not use the term "open source". Open source doesn't just mean access to the source code.

This will probably help prevent many misunderstandings about your license.

[WilliamG]

I usually do not participate in futile discussions like this, but sometimes one can't help oneself..
So the issue of actual copyright aside, let's talk about coder ethics. Ever heard of "credit where credit is due"?

 

I am as much for the Open Source Movement and the freeing of information as the next guy.

For me the affront lies within copying and pasting 95+% of the original code without ever asking/mentioning/thanking the original author. In what strange world is that acceptable to anyone?

@a.k.a. Uchkun
It's people like you who will be the ultimate downfall of the E2 scene.
Your shenanigans have been found out and instead of coming clean and apologizing for your wicked ways, you embarrass yourself even further by insisting that you worked out the code all by yourself.. over the course of 6 months..
Instead of countering the original authors claims (e.g. that you even magically [pun intended] came up with the same magic number and all your methods are in the same order) with actual facts, you reply with empty phrases ("you are not the only one who can calculate") that contain no information whatsoever to exonerate you.

You do not provide proof for your claims, because there is none. You cannot contradict Dr.Bests statements, because they are true. So you are reduced to mindless flaming.
 

In the short run some people might applaud you for freeing information and "contributing" to the E2 scene as a whole.

In the long run your actions will cause good coders like Dr.Best to lose interest in developing for E2 and/or stop releasing their projects to the public. Which will be far more detrimental to the scene than you are able to fathom.

[m0rphU]

With all due respect MiLo but you're statements make no sense at all!

1st: If stating/saying/posting anything in public would wave ones copyright, nobody could sell any licenses on anything (no software, no pictures, no texts/books,...). The internet and this forum are not different than any other publication. Ok, he stated no license or anything, but from the context it is totally clear that he does not wish

2nd: No it's the other way round You are mixing up free software and open source! Open source simply means, what the word means: The source is open (in your words accessible) for everyone. Nothing less, nothing more!
However, free software is only software you can use/change/distribute/... for free (or with very small restrictions). If you say Dr.Best's software is not free, then you're right. But the license does say this, too
I think these statements are more than clear:

+# It's NOT allowed to distribute any parts of this plugin or its source code in ANY way
+# to hardware which is NOT licensed by Dream Multimedia GmbH.
+# It's NOT allowed to execute this plugin and its source code or even parts of it in ANY way
+# on hardware which is NOT licensed by Dream Multimedia GmbH.
+#
+# If you want to use or modify the code or parts of it,
+# you have to keep MY license and inform me about the modifications by mail.

[Dr.Best]

Come on MiLo, you know that is not true I wish you would have posted something like: "I can understand you"... Anyway, what I can see is that the thread-starter is still saying that he did all by his own...and that he did not take my code...I don't know what else to say... @PLI: I am really sorry that I have only negativ postings here at your board. I know you don't deserve this. Some of you guys are so long (longer than me) in the enigma-scene, still developing enigma2-stuff today, you have your own ideas and good solutions, I always liked that...

[MiLo]

Open source definition: http://opensource.org/osd

"Your" license goes against everything that open source stands for. That is what my negative feedback is all about.

I most definitely do not understand you. That's okay, though, everyone's entitled to his own opinions.

As PLi team, we try to respect the rights of others. We removed the infringing package from our feed, now what more do you want?

Edited by MiLo, 12 August 2013 - 12:44.

[littlesat]

This plugin is open source but it is NOT free software.

In English this means...

 

The plugin is open source, but you NEED to pay for it.. ...

 

Next time I would recommend to ask a lawyer to define good license definitions 

 

If you meant "you are not free to use and modify it", why is it open source at all? This is contra-indicated... and leads exactly that others are still using (parts of) your code.... and then you're protesting??

 

And take notice about the link Milo gives you... Your license includes some contra-indications.

Edited by WanWizard, 12 August 2013 - 14:55.

[reichi]

same shit as everytime, let's go and find some cheap excuse to accept the a cheap copy anyways.
Let's put it totally different:

The License of the Plugin is not GPL compatible and therefore the code may not be used in any way with GPLed code.

The Open Source Definition behind the link, has to my knowledge, NO Legal meaning at all. It's no more than an idealistic definition of a general term done by some "random" people.

Why is it so hard for you to accept obvious wishes of others?
Shall we go and copy all your code now and remove all copyrights? What would you say about that?

Stop being pathetic PLEASE.

Edited by reichi, 12 August 2013 - 12:40.

[littlesat]

Who is being pathetic???

 

But I was tipped by Dr. Best and remove it instantly.... So it is not available from PLi's feeds anymore - so please stop arguing...

 

This does not mean that still everyone can use it easily.... that is something we cannot stop - because the code was open source...

 

When going opensource I would recommend to go GPL.... this followed simply all open source ideas!

Edited by littlesat, 12 August 2013 - 12:46.

[reichi]

Someone is stealing other peoples property and "selling" it as his own, and you're defending him, how is that not pathetic?

And BTW: code posted publicy without a License attached is NOT! free. Anything without License has to be considered proprietary and may not be used without explicit acknowkledgment of the copyright holder(s).
There have been quite some statements about thats in terms of e.g. LICENSE-Less code on github.

here's an example: http://www.infoworld...eriously-208046

Edited by reichi, 12 August 2013 - 12:47.

[littlesat]

Someone is stealing other peoples property and "selling" it as his own, and you're defending him, how is that not pathetic?

I'm not defending him.... I simply understand you do not get the basic clue.... so I can better close this discussion....

Edited by littlesat, 12 August 2013 - 12:51.

[MiLo]

Shall we go and copy all your code now and remove all copyrights? What would you say about that?

We'd say the same as we'd say to the folks who are already doing so. Nothing.

[littlesat]

We'd say the same as we'd say to the folks who are already doing so. Nothing. 

    

 

[reichi]

I'm not defending him.... I simply understand you do not get the basic clue.... so I can better close this discussion....

As i said, the link posted has, to my knowledge, no legal meaning. If you have any evidence I'm wrong there feel free show me. I'd gladly accept that.

EIDIT: and btw, do you really think, after reading the full License, anyone may have not understood what the author wants and what not?
I think is very clear.

Edited by reichi, 12 August 2013 - 12:57.

[Dr.Best]

I most definitely do not understand you. That's okay, though, everyone's entitled to his own opinions.
 

 

Just to be clear: Do you really think the thread-starter did not use my code?

Edited by Dr.Best, 12 August 2013 - 13:24.

[littlesat]

It is indeed most likely he did use a big part of your code. That is why I removed this code from our feeds. In between I request also the forum administrator to remove the ipk at the beginnin of this thread (sorry I forgot). Sorry Uchkun as Dr. Best is not happy!

 

However I cannot guarantee that it isn't used anywhere at all. That is your own responsibility! I hope for you when you discover it on another place they will also remove it for you. Hopefully you do not only agrue here!

 

However this is not in discussion right now... I suggest this is now about the meaning of "open source"....

Edited by littlesat, 12 August 2013 - 14:10.

[theparasol]

@Dr. Best:

 

I think its wrong to just copy / paste code and take credits for it.

 

I believe the guy that took your code had good intensions and had some serious work with it to make the plugin working better.

All coding attemps starts small, not every one is a great coder that can do things from a to z on their own.

So perhaps be a bit more forgiving to a newbee coder and dont blow up the whole issue.

 

On the other hand, be glad your code is duplicated. (It means you did something very good)

I'm not fond of any license that restricts usage.

I even wont put my nick nor realname into the source itself.

If someone thinks it can be used or reused or whatever just do so. I know my own (bad) coding style and just smile.

 

However keep up the good e2 work and I hope you will some day change your "unique" licenses for GPL.

That would make your code even more usefull!

[MiLo]

I most definitely do not understand you. That's okay, though, everyone's entitled to his own opinions.

 
Just to be clear: Do you really think the thread-starter did not use my code?

Okay, since you ask, I'll try to be absolutely clear this time:

I am fully convinced that the thread starter copied your code.
Littlesat too, he removed the plugin from the feed long before you posted your examples.

I do not understand: Why you release your plugin(s) under such a restrictive license.
I do not understand: Why you use the phrase "open source" in your license.
I do not understand: Why you make such a big fuss every time some kiddy modifies your work and posts it
I do not understand: Why you are angry with OpenPLi, while they've complied with your demands each and every time you complained about a license violation
I do not understand: Why you don't seem to understand that releasing your code under a more user friendly license would allow people like me to help you make more and better plugins.
I do not understand: Quite a lot of other things about you, your code and your license, but the list is long enough already.

I hope this helps you understand what I meant when I said that I don't understand you.