MacroQuest Gold?

Jaerin · Post by **Jaerin** » Wed May 14, 2003 1:54 pm

I'm not touching this one.

But I've said it in the past and I'll say it again. SOE already have thier guns trained on the offset hackers, ShowEQ type apps, and us alike. If they are going to break us, then they are going to do it. Nothing we do is going to change that.

So I still think it's foolish to think that we can hide by keeping our numbers low.

Yeah, yeah, yeah...blah blah blah...remember the old days...

I doubt the reason they stopped doing regular updates was because we went underground. They still know we are here.

Jaerin

grimjack · Post by **grimjack** » Thu May 15, 2003 6:45 am

I don't know if you all understand, but if a user buys a copy of this binary and requests the source, he has to provide it to them under GPL. If not they have a legal case against him (I'm not saying anyone would find it worth while). The FSF, however, does take on cases like this. That is what all the FSF contributions pay for. The EULA that is broken while using MQ has nothing to do with the validity of the copy write/license. I could write a book that tells you how to j-walk without getting caught. The fact that j-walking is illegal does not nullify my copy write. On top of that EULA's are very very shaky. Shrink-wrapped click through EULA's are more of a deterrent than anything. If I write an EULA on my software that states "you must give me your first born son", and you click it, you are not breaking the law by not giving me your first born son. The EULA on everquest is for Sony's protection from people suing them when they get banned, can't connect, ect. It is there to say "Hey, we can ban you for any of these reasons and stop your service at any time without a refund."

With that said, I don't really care that this guy is selling MQ or that he's not providing the source to those that he sells it to. I would only care if I bought the damn app and could not get the source (which would be my right under the license it was released under), or I was a large contributor to the source. I'm just tired of hearing people here say GPL doesn't mean anything. If this is the case, stating this is an open source project under the GPL is misleading at best. I know many coders that only use their free time to contribute to GPL based projects because they know that their time will not be spent making a ton of money for someone else without the community benefiting also(I.E. If someone modifies the code to improve it and sells a binary, anyone who receives the binary can request the source which can be merged with the project and/or given away/sold freely).

Get to know your GPL
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html

Get to know the FSF
http://www.fsf.org/

Get to know the EFF
http://www.eff.org

Thanks

Wishbringer · Post by **Wishbringer** » Thu May 15, 2003 7:33 am

So, in other words, only one person has to buy this "gold thingy", has to request source, can sue eqplat when not giving him the source, and can put it in CVS if he wants...?!

Am not sure about putting source in CVS...

stigmatine · Post by **stigmatine** » Thu May 15, 2003 8:28 am

I have personally purchased this MQ gold, and it has zero virus's and tons of really cool stuff, i love the /nonkos funtion, which does work, I can walk right up to any dragon of my choice and have a little chat lol , before raping it. And yes the /click does work on it. So in my opinion 50 bucks for a program like this is worth it 100%.

Valerian · Post by **Valerian** » Thu May 15, 2003 8:44 am

personally, I'd find it much more gratifying to work on /click myself here than to pay someone for it... nothing against buying it, but I personally wouldn't pay for it. I like to add my own little tweaks to the source (e.g. /info, /speed) and wouldn't much care for a precompiled binary with no clue about what other possible backdoors are included. (no offense to sprite, I'm not saying you'd put any in there, but there's always that off chance that you would.. I don't know you.)

grimjack · Post by **grimjack** » Thu May 15, 2003 9:01 am

Wishbringer wrote:So, in other words, only one person has to buy this "gold thingy", has to request source, can sue eqplat when not giving him the source, and can put it in CVS if he wants...?!

Am not sure about putting source in CVS...

Thats the whole point of the GPL. Yes you could add it to the CVS in part or full. They say you can sell copies but you can't put restrictions with what people do with the source once they get it. That keeps a big company from sucking up some code and adding a little functionality then selling it for major profit. They could sell copies but they would also have to make the source (which still falls under GPL) avalible.

From the GPL faq.

The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

And

Does the GPL allow me to distribute a modified or beta version under a nondisclosure agreement?
No. The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. It does not give you permission to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.

On your second question I don't think you could sue. The person who holds the copywrite could and should be notified. If the originator of this project was smart he has left the copywrite with the EFF to handle since they take up these types of things for people. They would sue for the source of the application.

Also from the GPL faq.

What should I do if I discover a possible violation of the GPL?
You should report it. First, check the facts as best you can. Then tell the publisher or copyright holder of the specific GPL-covered program. If that is the Free Software Foundation, write to <license-violation@gnu.org>. Otherwise, the program's maintainer may be the copyright holder, or else could tell you how to contact the copyright holder, so report it to the maintainer.

Who has the power to enforce the GPL?
Since the GPL is a copyright license, the copyright holders of the software are the ones who have the power to enforce the GPL. If you see a violation of the GPL, you should inform the developers of the GPL-covered software involved. They either are the copyright holders, or are connected with the copyright holders.

Why does the FSF require that contributors to FSF-copyrighted programs assign copyright to the FSF? If I hold copyright on a GPL'ed program, should I do this, too? If so, how?
Our lawyers have told us that to be in the best position to enforce the GPL in court against violators, we should keep the copyright status of the program as simple as possible. We do this by asking each contributor to either assign the copyright on his contribution to the FSF, or disclaim copyright on it and thus put it in the public domain.

We also ask individual contributors to get copyright disclaimers from their employers (if any) so that we can be sure those employers won't claim to own the contributions.

Of course, if all the contributors put their code in the public domain, there is no copyright with which to enforce the GPL. So we encourage people to assign copyright on large code contributions, and only put small changes in the public domain.

If you want to make an effort to enforce the GPL on your program, it is probably a good idea for you to follow a similar policy. Please contact <licensing@gnu.org> if you want more information.

This brings me to another issue. Who exactly is the copy write holder? I'm not sure at the moment if SF requires you to use the EFF or not. If not the EFF then the person who started the project is most likely the copy write holder.
Thanks

sprite · Post by **sprite** » Thu May 15, 2003 9:46 am

Terms & Conditions are availible on my site for a reason. Take your time to read through them.

Non M$ Coder · Post by **Non M$ Coder** » Thu May 15, 2003 10:03 am

From your terms and conditions:

GENERAL PUBLIC LICENSE (GPL)
By visiting this site you agree that you will not take the Company to court over any issues related to the GPL (General Public License).

This is not legally binding on several levels, here are two: First, to have a valid contract, you must have bargain, consideration and agreement. Second, it violates pre existing duty (on your part, if you are indeed using GPL'd code).

I really don't understand why you didn't just write a separate dll with all the improved functiallity and call it from the macroquest code, realease the code but sell the dll, since it WOULD NOT be covered by the GPL (if you wrote it from scratch) the same way that all the microsoft stuff that is linked in is not covered by the GPL. I take more offense at your completely inept attempt at legal manoevering than I would if you just said "if you don't like it take me to court".

sprite · Post by **sprite** » Thu May 15, 2003 10:47 am

Take me to court then =)

Plazmic is the copyright owner, so he is needed. Plazmic is not around anymore. If it was taken to court the verdict would most likely be that the source had to be released.

Do you really think the devs want /click to be public? If you do think again.

EqMule · Post by **EqMule** » Thu May 15, 2003 10:59 am

im kinda an inofficial dev, I submit code from time to time... I spend time on this because I enjoy programming and the challenge, and kinda know what im doing as well as being proficient enough to make click work.

However for me its just a matter of time and interest, I never used click, and dont care much for it, but I guess I could fix it if I really wanted to.

Do you really think the devs want /click to be public?

yes I think so and that really gives me a reason to fix it.

I think im gonna fix click just to prove that it can be done and I think it will be added to the cvs as well...

Mckorr · Post by **Mckorr** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:00 am

Wrong Sprite. It WILL be public, probably very soon.

The delay in releasing /mouseto and /click has to do with parsing mouse locations.

Code has been developed for /mouseto, where the command takes the format of "/mouseto X Y abs|rel". Currently "abs" or "rel" must be specified (haven't gotten around to fixing the line or two that will make "abs" the default.)

Code has been developed for /click, where the command takes the format of "/click left|right".

What you can NOT do currently: "/mouseto auto", "click left destroy", etc.

This means that to use the existing code you would have to find the button/slot/whatever coordinates, edit your macro to "/mouseto X Y abs", then execute "/click left" or "/click right". Move one window and you have to find the new coordinates, edit the macro, and start again.

I'm currently working on fixing that, by rewriting ParseMouseLoc with the help of a number of people, both dev and non-dev. The basic consensus amongst the developers is that releasing a partial solution would just generate problems, and so they are waiting on a completed, functional parser. Once that is finished MouseTo, Click, and ParseMouseLoc will be updated in the CVS.

So, for those of you who want click back, go to the EQLib board and help with the parser code. You can wait on me to finish it, but I work slow....

TheColonel · Post by **TheColonel** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:01 am

I can personally think of one company that might have large issues with you reaping benefits from such a venture... It's the same company that provides us grounds for everything that's on this website... You guessed it, Sony. You remember EQMacros, which turned into Xylobot? [link]http://www.xylobot.com[/link] I dunno if you remember what Ben got in the mail for that but it was a nicely prepared letter by Sony's laywers... I'm pretty sure that with their resources they'll find something in "your" program that's equally disgruntling... IIRC the reason VI used for Ben was it clicking "Accept" automatically, but there's no doubt they'll find something similiar to bone you in the proverbial smurf with.

**EDIT Went hunting and found
[link]http://www.uorobot.com/eqm_cease_and_desist.htm[/link]

There you have it. As much as I hate it, this will probably seep back to MQ as a whole. /cry

Wishbringer · Post by **Wishbringer** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:17 am

sprite wrote:Take me to court then =)
Plazmic is the copyright owner, so he is needed. Plazmic is not around anymore. If it was taken to court the verdict would most likely be that the source had to be released.

Not fully true...
IMHO Plazmic introduced code and put it under GPL, but all others who added even one line of code have their own copyright (under GPL) for even that line of code.
One time a project is under GPL and further developed noone can make it private (non-source) again, except ALL developers (PAST, CURRENT) agree.

So if current devs here want to take you to court... they have the right to do so (if they can show court that you used GPL'ed source)... but to take one to courd and win (and what to win) are two different pair of shoes. And maybe not worth the effort and time.

Non M$ Coder · Post by **Non M$ Coder** » Thu May 15, 2003 11:50 am

sprite wrote:Take me to court then =)

Plazmic is the copyright owner, so he is needed. Plazmic is not around anymore. If it was taken to court the verdict would most likely be that the source had to be released.

Do you really think the devs want /click to be public? If you do think again.

No I dont think anyone wants to spend the time filing, as i stated early in the thread. btw I think anyone could file, since the GPL basically puts the code in the public domain. (The whole point of it is that ther is no copyright holder, it's like an anti-copyright, or copyleft as they like to call it).

Pragma · Post by **Pragma** » Thu May 15, 2003 3:44 pm

I find it disgusting what Sprite is doing. Though I personally cant say I have contributed much to macroquest, I do acknowledge the time many have spend working on it. I am a frequenter of forever-hacking, where I go by the name Deathfile, and can honestly say that all the respect I had for sprite is gone. There he has the highest level access, a title which in theory should be given to people worthy of trust and whom have shown themselves to be be mature. The act of selling a public source program for personal gain proves he is not trustworthy. It is my opinion that such an act violates the entire spirit of what both forever hacking and macroquest stand for, and I do not think Sprite's actions should be tolerated. It seem that Tuxracer is an admin for both sites, and I believe it is in everyone's best interest to reconsider the o.O status given to him. What everguide (i think that was his name) did was far less severe than this, and he has lost his membership to forever hacking. Whatever contributions sprite may have made or wil make, the fact that he intends to profit form them make it not worth the risk.