quest::collectitems

[Secrets]

I would also like to present further proof of stealing from a GPL Project.

http://egov.sos.state.or.us/br/pkg_w...&p_print=FALSE

He is a registered business that profits off of a GPL project.

Nice.

[Yeormom]

There are a lot of businesses that resell GPL software. As long as he maintains the proper rights and distributes the GPL license, it's fair use.

However, the scope of the source shared is very small and would not be difficult for any competent coder to write so it's not worth arguing once it's been released to public domain.

[Secrets]

Originally Posted by Yeormom

There are a lot of businesses that resell GPL software. As long as he maintains the proper rights and distributes the GPL license, it's fair use.

However, the scope of the source shared is very small and would not be difficult for any competent coder to write so it's not worth arguing once it's been released to public domain.

true. however, i've yet to see any proof that this custom work his KingMort's actual work.

also, since he is using GPL v2,

Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.

KingMort did not select a licence for his code, thus the code is public domain.

[Andrew80k]

I'm pretty sure the GPL version < 3 only requires the source to be "made available" only if the binaries are distributed or sold. Google does this a lot. While you use their stuff they don't actually distribute it so they are not required to make the source available. If the binaries of the RA server have ever been distributed or sold to ANYONE though, that makes them subject to the that section of the GPL and the source would be required to be made available. It's a pretty crappy thing to do too. Profit from an open source project and then not contribute anything back to it is reprehensible.

[Rogean]

Mort.. You're retarded.

Government Registered Business? Get the fuck outta here kid.

[demonstar55]

I don't really know the GPL all that well, but judging by the basic idea and my personal beliefs what he is doing should be against the license and therefore what he is doing is illegal and if he is complaining and causing problems I think we should possibly try to see if what he is doing is against the GPL and I know that there should be people able to help us and make him stop committing a crime and give us the code back, since it's what the GPL should dictate him to do

[Kobaz]

I do know the GPL very well, and Andrew80k is spot on - if there is no distribution of the binaries there is no obligation to make the source available.

There is another issue though, in that if a commercial entity makes a profit using the commercial secrets of another entity's trade secrets, and does it by circumventing that 2nd entity's endeavours to protect its' trade secrets, and it can be shown that this was done in bad faith, then there *may* be a case for the 2nd entity to take action against the 1st entity. Attempting to make money from something that relies on SOEs property being used outside the license (unlike say alla, which doesn't require you to have EQ to use it) is bold and legally a grey area.

I would think that any attempt to claim damages for distribution of emu source would result in a claim by SOE for a share in those damages. It's what I'd do.