Complete Article UPDATE
It turns out this was not anyone trying to defend a license, but a malicious person trying to get source code from Project Zomboid for their own use. This person has attacked the developers multiple times using licensing as a sword and laughed in their face about being in Russia so their lawyers apparently can't touch them.
The developers complied with all licensing the day it was reported and all offending code was removed, you cannot ask for more. A license is NOT a contract to force people to open up their own code. I say it again, there is no issues now other than the developers getting abuse.
This has caused the developers to get multiple emails a day about the same thing. From supposedly Linux users threatening the developers giving us all a bad name.
Things like this are unacceptable.
Original Article:
It turns out this was not anyone trying to defend a license, but a malicious person trying to get source code from Project Zomboid for their own use. This person has attacked the developers multiple times using licensing as a sword and laughed in their face about being in Russia so their lawyers apparently can't touch them.
The developers complied with all licensing the day it was reported and all offending code was removed, you cannot ask for more. A license is NOT a contract to force people to open up their own code. I say it again, there is no issues now other than the developers getting abuse.
This has caused the developers to get multiple emails a day about the same thing. From supposedly Linux users threatening the developers giving us all a bad name.
Things like this are unacceptable.
Original Article:
QuoteSomething I would like to highlight to you all today is the annoyance of licensing zealots that causes unneeded grief for people.Article taken from GamingOnLinux.com.
Project Zomboid is the game in question today and for a really stupid reason. The developers left something laying around unused from when they first started with Java. This was a single file that wasn't actually used.
This person decompiled their code to find this out. The developers actually said this person could continue to look for today only, but after that they would be breaking their license to which the accuser suddenly started saying they didn't decompile the code.
The person also threatened to put their code up on the internet and threatened to contact Steam and the FSF about it and saying they can "be quiet" about it for now while they make their demands.
This is before the developers even had a chance to reply.
Demanding things like seeing the rest of their code, then arguing that they should still be open-sourcing their code and generally annoying the developers.
The developers quickly removed the "offending" code to prove their point when this all came up.
People like this are not good for the community, they are a nuisance and this kind of behaviour has to stop. It makes people steer clear of the LGPL and not think highly of it.
Yes sticking to licenses is very important, but attacking a developer and threatening them before they get a chance to explain is downright horrible.
All of this on a Sunday when most developers will be having at least one day off, come on "Defender Of The GNU" take a break once in a while. The LGPL isn't a bad license, but zealots like this ruin it for me.
Personally I much prefer the more open MIT license which stops issues like this.
Edit: As it turns out the guy wasn't trying to defend anyone, he had his own agenda and was trying to force the developers to give him their code. Not cool.
0 Likes
Some you may have missed, popular articles from the last month:
The comments on this article are closed.
java... erk! We all agree on that...
But anyway, that story does not make sense.
If a part of the game is actually a component protected with the GNU Lesser GPL, they don't need to open source the whole game. They just need to publish the additional code they added in that component.
That's it.
This news seems to be a filthy lie. My best guess would be that this piece of news was engineered to push MIT/BSD like license, which are, as a matter of facts, a real danger for open source software.
But anyway, that story does not make sense.
If a part of the game is actually a component protected with the GNU Lesser GPL, they don't need to open source the whole game. They just need to publish the additional code they added in that component.
That's it.
This news seems to be a filthy lie. My best guess would be that this piece of news was engineered to push MIT/BSD like license, which are, as a matter of facts, a real danger for open source software.
0 Likes
Quoting: under cover agentThis news seems to be a filthy lie. My best guess would be that this piece of news was engineered to push MIT/BSD like license, which are, as a matter of facts, a real danger for open source software.Yes, that's it exactly *puts hands up*. I hate the GPL and want to push the MIT license to everyone and GOL is my foothold on the internet to do that.
Sarcasm aside, you are spreading complete FUD. I have my own personal preference for licensing as does everyone.
I actually state in the article:
Quoting: liamdaweThe LGPL isn't a bad licenseI haven't told anyone not to use it, nor have I spoken bad about the license itself.
This article was "engineered" directly from the source (the PZ forums) where the person was making their claims, they are not my claims they are theirs.
Also, the comments on this article are now closed before more idiots come along to spread more FUD. If you have a problem with this feel free to register an account and post in the forum.
0 Likes
Patreon
PayPal
See more from me