Ziracle.com updated

Zerix · Post by **Zerix** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 2:51 am

As someone messed with the link on the other thread and made it link to a a naked guy, I have been foreced to post this link, on this thread, under my name.

(Hey, I dont mind if you all disagree with what Im doing, or if you flame me, but when you do childish stuff like slandering my site, you cross the line).

I have updated www.ziracle.com/MQ with the latest source and binary of MQ and MQ2Beta.

Comments are welcome, but anything along the lines of "get rid of this" will be ignored.

Lax · Post by **Lax** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:02 am

In print it's libel.

Btw, your download doesnt work.. and if it did I would be offended.

Zerix · Post by **Zerix** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 3:58 am

Sorry, you were tryint o downlad wile I was updating.

All downloads work (tested with an externial comp)

dont_know_at_all · Post by **dont_know_at_all** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:22 am

Brian, here's a threat. Take down the binary or MQ will stop working when the next patch comes. The developers here do not want the binaries posted or we would do it ourselves.

You think I'm gonna bust my ass to fix the memory checker after the next patch when I know some asshole is going to use against my wishes?

Lax · Post by **Lax** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 4:59 am

Is there an OSI approved license that disallows distribution of binaries?

Zerix · Post by **Zerix** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:22 am

Is there an OSI approved license that disallows distribution of binaries?

Nope, once source is released the author looses all rights to the code and how it should be distrubted (at least from a legal point of view) no license can give that right back.

Its like saying that a famous chef can release his receipe but them limit people from baking his cookies and giving them away.

Or like saying an architect can give his blueprints out to anyone but then sue when someone builds a house from them and gives it away.

Or like saying an author can freely release his source material, then get mad when someone else goes to the source and writes an article on it, and publishes it. (hehe this one is perfect, as thats exactaly what happening)

Lax · Post by **Lax** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:26 am

I'm pretty sure I wanted a response from someone else and not you, but the correct answer would have been here: http://www.opensource.org/docs/definition.html. "The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form."

However.. that doesnt mean we have to let you on our boards advertising your web site...

Zerix · Post by **Zerix** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:42 am

From your link

First, thank you for helping me prove my point

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form.

Thank you, Thank you, Thank You!!! Right there it says that the license MUST ALLOW FOR DUSTRIBUTION IN COMPILED FORM

Wow Lax, keep it up, I think your really on my side but just dont know it.

Every time you post, you strenghten my position

he license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources. The license shall not require a royalty or other fee for such sale.

Rationale: By constraining the license to require free redistribution, we eliminate the temptation to throw away many long-term gains in order to make a few short-term sales dollars. If we didn't do this, there would be lots of pressure for cooperators to defect.
2. Source Code

The program must include source code, and must allow distribution in source code as well as compiled form. Where some form of a product is not distributed with source code, there must be a well-publicized means of obtaining the source code for no more than a reasonable reproduction cost?preferably, downloading via the Internet without charge. The source code must be the preferred form in which a programmer would modify the program. Deliberately obfuscated source code is not allowed. Intermediate forms such as the output of a preprocessor or translator are not allowed.

Rationale: We require access to un-obfuscated source code because you can't evolve programs without modifying them. Since our purpose is to make evolution easy, we require that modification be made easy.
3. Derived Works

The license must allow modifications and derived works, and must allow them to be distributed under the same terms as the license of the original software.

Rationale: The mere ability to read source isn't enough to support independent peer review and rapid evolutionary selection. For rapid evolution to happen, people need to be able to experiment with and redistribute modifications.
4. Integrity of The Author's Source Code

The license may restrict source-code from being distributed in modified form only if the license allows the distribution of "patch files" with the source code for the purpose of modifying the program at build time. The license must explicitly permit distribution of software built from modified source code. The license may require derived works to carry a different name or version number from the original software.

Rationale: Encouraging lots of improvement is a good thing, but users have a right to know who is responsible for the software they are using. Authors and maintainers have reciprocal right to know what they're being asked to support and protect their reputations.

Accordingly, an open-source license must guarantee that source be readily available, but may require that it be distributed as pristine base sources plus patches. In this way, "unofficial" changes can be made available but readily distinguished from the base source.
5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.
6. No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor

The license must not restrict anyone from making use of the program in a specific field of endeavor. For example, it may not restrict the program from being used in a business, or from being used for genetic research.

Rationale: The major intention of this clause is to prohibit license traps that prevent open source from being used commercially. We want commercial users to join our community, not feel excluded from it.

Furthur more...

The license shall not restrict any party from selling or giving away the software as a component of an aggregate software distribution containing programs from several different sources.

That part says that I can distrupate the binary or source any way I want, or even selling it (which I would never do)

Finally, this is a basic template for how an open source license should be. There is no single open source license.

MQ uses the GPA

And section 3 of the GPA states

3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

For thoes that dont like reading big words, all you need out of it is YOU MAY DISTRIBUTE THE PROGRAM IN EXCUTABLE FROM

So before any of you get pissed at me for releasing it, go get your devs to change the license.

TomServo · Post by **TomServo** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:49 am

Zerix,

On behalf of almost everybody here, I am asking you to please stop doing this. The developers here work very hard and we all want to respect their wishes.

Your post and your hosting service are not welcome here. The devs have clearly stated how they want this distributed, and we all going to respect that, regardless of the OSI says.

That said, I'm not trying to start a flame war, in fact I'm not even trying to be rude. I'm just trying to express to you the mood of the community. I hope you respect our wishes and move on.

Thank you.

Zerix · Post by **Zerix** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 5:56 am

hmm so the devs dont want it released in binary, yet they include a license that allows it to be distrbuted in execuatable from??

Wow, either someone didnt bother reading what they put in their software, or they just dont care.

wassup · Post by **wassup** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 6:35 am

MQ2 is not on sourceforge.. or is it?

Even so... if I were the devs... I wouldn't resent them at all if they never again updated sourceforge. There could be alternate means which prevents jackasses like you from having access to the most current source.

Regardless... I for one hope the devs react to your ignorance by removing it from the public, and keeping it private. Your actions just makes it easier for the devs to make the decision to remove MQ from the public.

All you are is a knucklehead who is deliberately trying to be a non-cooperative, self serving asshole.

Look at me mom! I'm pissing off the MQ devs!

Scrime · Post by **Scrime** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 8:21 am

Seems like there is always at least one knucklehead who decides that he is going to be some sort of savior to the masses in a situation like this. Someone who feels the need to keep the ignorant masses ignorant.

I vote that the devs discontinue any public releases of MQ (or MQ2) until Zerix takes down his binary distribution. I know that I, for one, have enough brains to try to fix MQ should it break. If not, then I would be willing to give up MQ for a period if thats what its takes.

Yes, the project is open source. Yes, techniclly that gives any one the right to distribute the program in binary form. However, I think that there should be a measure of respect afforded to those that activly maintain the program. And as far as I can tell, the majority of the community and the devs ask that the program be distributed only in source form.

Always, always remember that its distributed in source form for your benefit. It would be far, far too easy for someone to insert a keylogger or other malevolent bit of code into the binary. Considering the zeal with which Zerix seems to be defending his right to distribute the program in binary form, even against the wishes of the devs and the majority of the community, it would not suprise me one bit if thats just what hes done.

Clone39 · Post by **Clone39** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:18 am

Zerix wrote:hmm so the devs dont want it released in binary, yet they include a license that allows it to be distrbuted in execuatable from?

You once said that if a dev asked you to remove it you would. DKAA did that in this thread and still you won't complie with is demand. Wich brings me to think, you are not a man of your word, you're a selfish little f*cker, you have no skills whatsoever in programming and got pissed off after your 10th try at compiling MQ and when you got it right you decided to have the devs pissed off too.

Let me be clearer on the "no programming skills" parts. Auth quoted one of your post on FH, Saying that you had no trouble with one thing but one of your friend did and you was asking for help. If you have skills.. why didn't you help him? BECAUSE ITS ALWAYS A FRIEND.. never you.

Anyway.. just to make it clearer.. YES THIS IS A FLAME YOU MORON.

Sorry if i offended anyone.. i know flaming is not tolerated on the boards and i won't disagree if a moderator decide to remove this post.

Clone39

Clone39 · Post by **Clone39** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:24 am

Scrime wrote:I vote that the devs discontinue any public releases of MQ (or MQ2) until Zerix takes down his binary distribution. I know that I, for one, have enough brains to try to fix MQ should it break. If not, then I would be willing to give up MQ for a period if thats what its takes.

I have no programming skills at all. If MQ isn't updated i won't be able to fix it myself..

One thing though, I also vote that the devs stops updating MQ, or distribute it only amongst certain person. I really love MQ but i can't stand a little brat like Zerix trying to be cool against other people wishes.

Devs: If you discontinue MQ i will be sad.. but i am 400% behind your decision and i hope you will continue your very good work even if its not publicly.

bob_the_builder · Post by **bob_the_builder** » Wed Nov 19, 2003 9:54 am

There are a couple other projects types for EQ that people distribute a pre compiled EXE for use and host on their web/ftp sites. They still contain the full source code though.

I don't much care for Zerix's attitude on these boards, he was quiet abrasive in the "warp hack" post also.

Well, hope everything works out for the best. Maybe Zerix should just drop the "holier than tho" attitude and maybe hed get some respect.... NAH !!!!

Bob