MacroQuest64

as sad as it is i believe the GPL covers allowing this, but with the loader and mq2auth being closed source its gonna get hairy

I cant see any difference between this and what Redhat does.

Honestly, I dont think many people are going to bite on that hook, there wont be mass distribution so we're ok.

isnt this what they bitched at sprite about, long before zerix?

think sprite offered a compiled version with "no kos code" etc.

This does not break any of our rules. The person running MQ still has to have a compiler and the person offering the service is not offering any additional code.

He's selling advice, not software, which is the difference. What's more he's doing it on Playerauctions where people that are cheaters go to anyway...lol.

Nothing to see here...move along :)

I cant sell my plugins on ebay ??????!!!!!

Dam!

Leezard wrote:I cant sell my plugins on ebay ??????!!!!!

Dam!

Actuly I belive you could sell your plugins this is from the release under GPL and the post about it.

Independent works:

Quote:
These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole. If identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program, and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those sections when you distribute them as separate works. But when you distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

I would consider individual scripts to be "separate works in themselves".

From what I read it says that if you make a plugin or macro you can sell them but if it is any code was not writen by yourself or another developer then you can only give away what you wrote or maybe if you have permsion from that person you can release the full code.

I might be wrong as I have no legal backround.

2am here, so I'm not gonna start digging through the GPL, but I believe I am correct in saying that if you even _link_ to code that is GPL, you have to make your own code GPL too.

I believe this was the reason they created the LGPL lisence.

GPL code can not run dependant on non GPL code. This was the whole issue with the change of the X11 liscense.

I *can* according to the GPL compile Macroquest, and sell it in that state, but I MUST provide the source, to anyone that asks. I can compile a plugin for macroquest, and sell it, and distribute it, without source, under another liscense.

You gotta admit that it's difficult for some people to make MQ work. With all the patches to EQ lately as well as the constant updates to MQ...it's downright hard if you're not a geek. For a casual EQ player that doesn't know much about coding...that auction is a great idea. It only takes a few minutes to get MQ working once the new zip is posted but back before the auths and compiles it used to take a few seconds. Make something complex and you can expect someone to sell tech support. I only wish I had thought of it first ;p

One post before I go to work.

"I only wish I had thought of it first ;p"

Well my friend. The only problem with the logic behind that is that you have to know something about it before being able to offer tech support for it. Also, it implies you have troubleshooting skills.

Anyhow...

2am here, so I'm not gonna start digging through the GPL, but I believe I am correct in saying that if you even _link_ to code that is GPL, you have to make your own code GPL too.

Isn't the linux kernel GPL? Never looked but I assume it is. But, if it is, and what you're saying was true, then no linux software could be anything but GPL. And conversely the argument about MQ is that it is GPL and we use non-GPL shit (e.g. ... kernel32.dll ... macroquest2.exe ...) and some people think that we can only use GPL shit.

GPL makes a distinction between runtime linking (read: dlls and any other loadable modules) and static (compile time) linking. Because of this, hardware companies making drivers for Linux will only make modules if they want to keep things proprietary, and if they don't care about the IP they may be more willing to provide a version that links directly into the kernel.

At one point I worked for a Linux consulting company who frequently had to address issues like this for our customers. Out attorneys spent a fair amount of time with the FSF to make sure the approach I described would be acceptable along the terms of GPL and it was decided that it worked fine.