Anybody here to continue E[POD]bot?

[Whistler]

the "free" in "non-free" is as in "freedom" not price.

"free software" is more or less similar to "open source", then "non-free" means (more or less) "closed-source". See http://www.gnu.org for more about 'free software'. I just prefer this term to "open source".

also the software which you can get for no money (but NO source code is provided) is "freeware", not "free software".

Hmm, seriously? so if I wanna make E[POD]bot a metamod plugin, I'd have to give out the source code?

Yes, that's required in the GNU GPL, which is the license for Metamod.

PS, I think I can try to port it to CS 1.6 (and Metamod if you wish). If you don't mind please send me a copy of source code. It's only half an hour's work

[sPlOrYgOn]

I don't think a metamod plugin requires you give the source to it..
on the metamod.org's list of plugins it actually tells you which ones give out source code and which don't..
this probably means that you don't have to give the source code out..

[MarD]

Heyyo,

Well, Whistler, I'm sure I can trust ya, cause you're a good coder, so ok, I'll send you the source code, just tell me an e-mail where I can send it to ya ok?also If it's not too hard for ya, can you make a little side file to show me what you changed so I can learn how you did it? if not then it's ok, I'll read over this code until it makes sence... took me 25+ hrs for GTA modding... but hey, at least I got it... right?

BTW, Lol, go sPlOrYgOn with the sig! lol... I also noticed a few days back you added the firefox symbol to your sig as well, cool. But I'm dumb n' ignorant, so I still use IE.

[Whistler]

this is my e-mail:
yapb_cs(at)yahoo(dot)co(dot)kr

sorry for being late but I wasn't on the internet these days...

@splorygon: there are actually 2 things which can make MM plugins fall under GNU GPL:
1) the plugin have to link against the metamod source
2) also look at this page at the free software foundation site:
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLAndPlugins

however there is anexception: that the author of Metamod can make exception on this. So you can ask Will Day for it.

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

The "plugin must be GPL" case is highly debatable (I thought this question was solved already ?) If you "work out" the metamod API yourself - read: in practice, use the metamod source code, strip away all that you don't need and rename stuff here and there so that nobody can prove that you've actually used it - you won't be linking against the metamod source code, but just against the HL SDK. And as the GNU people say themselves, a plugin of a GPL program doesn't need to be GPL unless the author of the main module explicitly wants it so.

And knowing Will Day I can bet that he has chosen to develop metamod under the GPL in order to give freedom to the coders to look at the source code, and certainly not to take away from the coders the freedom to disclose theirs or not. But Whistler is a die-hard GPLer, one of those who could turn a license designed for freedom in one of the most restrictive licenses ever. I bet Will Day would have put metamod under the BSD license, if he'd known

[MarD]

Heyyo,

Lol, well, Whistler, if I send it to you, can you promise to not release it to the public? cause it's LN's wish that he wants E[POD]bot to be a traditional Bot mod: it's 1 coder, no source code.

Also, I probably won't be the one to continue E[POD]bot, cause I've got too much to do myself, it's going to be someother dude who LN has been talking to a bit, so now I'm thinking of getting it CS v1.6 compatible for that guy, and now he, and I, can see the differences in the code.

[EDIT]
BTW, Whistler, I'm not that CS-AI guy, I won't take all the credit, heck, technically the only credit for E[POD]bot I deserve is for the waypoints, so just throw your name in the readme somewhere and write something like "the dude who made E[POD]bot CS v1.6 compatible." or something like that.

[Whistler]

I just want to help you. I won't release it even if I'm a "die-hard GPL guy" (as PMB said ) because that is NOT mine

[Whistler]

have to going OT for yet another time:

"strip away all that you don't need and rename stuff here and there so that nobody can prove that you've actually used it - you won't be linking against the metamod source code, but just against the HL SDK"
...then is it legal if I use a exe resource editor to change all the texts and graphics in a PROPRIETARY software and release it for free ?

"And as the GNU people say themselves, a plugin of a GPL program doesn't need to be GPL unless the author of the main module explicitly wants it so."
Yes, it doesn't need to be GPLed *at all*. You can use BSD License for plugins if you want to. That is to say, you just need to grant all the permissions in the GNU GPL.
And if plugins is only called and does NOT make dynamic link to the main module you can even make it non-free.
Also Will Day DOES "explicitly wanted" it, just take a look at the Metamod faq file.

"...and certainly not to take away from the coders the freedom to disclose theirs or not."
that is to say, "and certainly not to take away from the coders the freedom to take away users' freedom to share and change the programs or not".

"But Whistler is a die-hard GPLer, one of those who could turn a license designed for freedom in one of the most restrictive licenses ever."
GPL IS "the most restrictive license" for non-free software developers; it's only good for users and free software developers who don't want others to use their code in non-free software.
Remember it is NOT designed for non-free software developers' freedom at all. So if you don't think non-free software is bad, just don't use GPL. No one has forced you to use GPL for all of your code; the point of GPL is to make sure all copies of the ORIGINAL software is always free software.

[Pierre-Marie Baty]

darn, he's right again

If I create a Metamod plugin, does it have to be open source?

Generally speaking, yes. The way the GPL is interpreted, plugins of a GPL program need to be also GPL. See also the FAQ entry on the GNU site about plugins of a GPL program.

oh well, fuck this. Can't they just let people decide for themselves And moreover, Will's wrong here.

btw, about the resource editor, I was joking Funny how you take all this legal stuff to the letter, always My point was just that it is technically possible to write a metamod plugin without linking against the metamod source code. But if I would be to go this way, I'd certainly go the way I told (which is NOT legal, granted, but nobody's supposed to know, eh ?)

[MarD]

Originally Posted by Pierre-Marie Baty

oh well, fuck this. Can't they just let people decide for themselves And moreover, Will's wrong here.

Heyyo,

I learnt taking a course called "Thought Patterns to a Successful Carrer," that we never "have to" do anything, we choose to do what we want.

So you could choose to disobey the GPL licence, or obey it. In the end, it's a small matter of morals and tradition. In the GPL licence case? open source.

heh, good to see I can put my learning's into use so soon.