Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

The FSF web site has this:


If a program released under the GPL uses plug-ins, what are the requirements for the licenses of a plug-in.

It depends on how the program invokes its plug-ins. If the program uses fork and exec to invoke plug-ins, then the plug-ins are separate programs, so the license for the main program makes no requirements for them. If the program dynamically links plug-ins, and they make function calls to each other and share data structures, we believe they form a single program, so plug-ins must be treated as extensions to the main program. This means they must be released under the GPL or a GPL-compatible free software license, and that the terms of the GPL must be followed when those plug-ins are distributed.

If the program dynamically links plug-ins, but the communication between them is limited to invoking the `main' function of the plug-in with some options and waiting for it to return, that is a borderline case.



Original location:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins


Metamod is GPL, and MM plugins, obviously, are "dynamic link" plugins...

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

WIP only uses wip as its transport perm, in other words it uses under 1% of MM's base code, so it doesnt fall under the GPL, if WIP was to go full version and then use more than 5% it would fall under the GPL and as such have to be OS.

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

In theory, i should release source of every WIP. But i won't, and you can't make me ;) I will however think very hard about releasing the source for any official version. As WIP is not an official version, i don't have to officially release the source imo.

Besides that, the source changes so often, i am not going to support a source that changes so much.

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

uhh.. development versions in general dont have to be supported at all, so this isnt really a reason not to release the source ;)

btw did you read my rant thread in the off-topic forum? it was about the rb homepage ;)

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

The HL SDK 2.3 license ("EULA") is not based on the GPL license. According to its contents any source code created out of the SDK does not have to be released as OS. However if released in object form it must be free of charge.

Extract from the SDK 2.3 EULA

"Whereas, Licensee wishes to develop a modified game running only on the Half-Life engine (a "Mod") for free distribution in object code form only to licensed end users of Half-Life;"

I saw nothing in the EULA stating that the source code must also be released.

If I can remember correctly, previous SDK's did require that the source code had to be released, but I'm not sure anymore.

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

erm, you missed the point.. they were talking about the metamod license, which seems to be GPL... and RB is a metamod plugin now...

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

Ah! ur right :D

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

...But according to that piece of text in GNU web page, any MM plugins should "fall under the GPL" :)

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

I have had long talks with PMB about this, as he suggested to convert RB into MM much longer ago. This is one of the things that kept me from doing it. So i take the mid-way. It runs in MM, but i won't release the source until i find its ready to. People have to be satisfied with that for the time being.

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

Okay, I'll stop this....
Actually your change log does help me a little ...... ;D

P.S. You keep saying "learned" in your web pages. That should be "learnt". "learned" means "know everything".

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

ow, i see. So it is
to learn
he learnt
he has learned

meaning, learned is the 'completed' stage? learnt is "he just has learnt not/to do that"... right?

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

no you are wrong, if a make the binary public i have
a) plenty of time to make the source avail("reasonable amount of time")
b) making source avail does not mean hosting it to the public [i can enforce an nda (like Realtime Linux), i can make you ask me for it, you must pay the shipping]
c) non release versions do not need to make the source avail at all (only "products" are entiteled for protection at all), and for me it's in question if realbot is based on metamod.

just imagine windows network stack would be O.S. *rofl*

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

according to things ive found, you can use both 'learned' and 'learnt' so it doesnt really matter.. (eg he learned/learnt and he has learned/learnt)

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

sorry but i dont understand what you want to tell me, and im not sure if you understood what i said.. cause i dont see any relation between your post and the text you quoted... i dont care about hosting something and about time, i just said you dont have to support development versions...!?! lol..

Re: Does RealBot "WIP" version have to be open source?
 

No Stefan. In fact you can say "He has learnt English", which means that he has taken lessons and eventually passed and exam. And you can say "He is learned in English", and that means that he has a complete -or at least, if not complete, vast-knowlege in English.

So "he learnt" means that someone taught him and he accquired some of the lessons (enough to i.e pass an exam) while "he is learned" involves a profound knowledge in some field.

At least that's how I understand it. Just a subtle and probably useless difference and maybe it isn't worth the explanation :o