|
|
| Author |
Message |
DjMadness-
Newbie
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 70
|
 Posted: Mar 12, 2004 7:58pm Post subject: Are you allowed to modify a modified ircd ? |
 |
|
as the subject sais, Are you allowed to modify a modified ircd ?
i am currios over modifying an already modified ircd, e.g if i get in trouble and ect. i have already started, and have made some good mods, but i dont know if i am e.g allowed to submit it to e.g sourceforge and ect.
The reason as i specified is becuase i do not want trouble. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 12, 2004 11:01pm Post subject: |
|
|
| People do that all the time. How do you think Unrealircd or even Bahamut was made? They were all based from Hybrid. As long as you keep credits in, you should be fine. It's funny how some people often remove credits and claim the copy to be their own original idea. It happens though. If you don't release your software as open source and only include the compiled binaries for download, you won't have to worry about rippers. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 12, 2004 11:34pm Post subject: |
|
|
al5001, stop making things up!
UnrealIRCd is _not_ based on Hybrid, it is based on DALnet's former Dreamforge.
Then, after you make that up, you go on to tell this poor guy to break the law! He came here asking us for advice, and you gave him the worst advice you possibly could. Giving false information is one thing, giving someone legal advice that is 100% wrong is something totally different.
| Quote: | | If you don't release your software as open source and only include the compiled binaries for download |
99% of open source IRCd's that I've ever seen (and I have a library of roughly 80 IRCds), is GPLed. That means it is illegal to do exactly what you described. If you release a binary distribution, under the law you MUST release the source code. The GPL version 2, section 3 paragraphs a-c make it quite clear that you can NOT do the exact thing you said.
This guy came here asking if he'd get in trouble for modifying an IRCd, and, all you did is instruct him of what to do to get in trouble!
-----
Now for the real answer. The first thing, it depends on the license. The majority of IRCd's are released under the GPL, but some are not. PIRCD for example, is not. If you mention the name of the IRCd in question, that would be helpful. But, if you open one of the source code files and see something talking about the "General Public License" then the below will apply.
The GPL makes it clear that anyone can modify a GPLed program. There is a restriction however, the exact one al5001 decided to ignore. If you release your program to the public, you are REQUIRED to release the source code. Meaning, you can't just put "download wircd.exe" on your website. If someone asks, you are required to give them the source. But, you are not required to release the program at all. It's simply that you can not release just the binary, if you release the binary you must release the source as well.
Now there is a catch though, for example, with UnrealIRCd, once you modify it, you void your eligability for support. You are 100% legally allowed to modify it, but then you would not get support. Reason is, we feel 1.) if you are intelligent enough to modify it, you are intelligent enough to solve your own problems, and 2.) if you experience problems, it's likely they are caused by your own modifications. I assume many others take a similar stance.
In short, if the IRCd is GPLed, you can modify it all you want. You should probably read the GPL over though to familiarize yourself with exactly what you can/can't do. I'm not a lawyer, so I'm just telling you how I read it, for a better opinion, read it yourself. You can get a copy of it at http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html Furthermore, ignore everything al5001 said as it is complete and total nonsense.
I'm sorry if the moderators deem this "a flame post" but I've seen about 10 posts now where al5001 said stuff that he was totally wrong about, but that was little nonsense, this time he's telling a guy it is perfectly OK to do something that is actually against the law. That, in my mind, requires someone to point it out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
ed
SearchIRC Staff
Joined: 25 May 2003
Posts: 367
Location: Baton Rouge, LA
|
| Posted: Mar 12, 2004 11:43pm Post subject: |
|
|
I'd like to thank codemastr for taking his time and posting here. His comments and remarks are important to the IRC community, and respected.
And no, I don't think anyone would deem your post as a flame. It's the truth. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 13, 2004 12:55pm Post subject: |
|
|
Read the file called "LICENSE" and you will know what is legal.
What I meant by not including the source is only for your own code. Include source code for the free software and don't include source for your own coded modules that you made. That way, any features you added, nobody can rip them. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
typobox43
none
Joined: 12 Feb 2004
Posts: 8
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 1:57am Post subject: |
|
|
| al5001 wrote: | Read the file called "LICENSE" and you will know what is legal.
What I meant by not including the source is only for your own code. Include source code for the free software and don't include source for your own coded modules that you made. That way, any features you added, nobody can rip them. |
Modules are one thing, modifications to the original source are another entirely. Any derivative work of a GPLed must also be released under the GPL. That means that any changes you make to the original code from an IRCd must be released in source code form.
However, modules that you create (assuming that they aren't derived from existing GPLed modules) can be released in any way you want. As far as your concerns about "ripping" go, I believe that you're the only person who has brought this up and the person who asked the question didn't say a word about it - in fact, he seemed to be asking whether he could release the source or not.
typobox43
IRC Operator - irc.chatspike.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 2:40am Post subject: |
|
|
I will make even more stuff up.
The GPL is a conglomeration of nonsense that is meant to scare you away from programming, however, if you closely decypher it, it only says you must release your source code if you copy or modify the software that is under the license.
If you create a new file of your own, let's say hello_world.c and compile it, you do not have to include the source with its binary, since it is not under GPL.
GPL version 1.
| Quote: | When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not
price. Specifically, the General Public License is designed to make
sure that you have the freedom to give away or sell copies of free
software, that you receive source code or can get it if you want it,
that you can change the software or use pieces of it in new free
programs; and that you know you can do these things. |
"Freedom, not price": Isn't this like taking warez and making it legal? Just imagine the programmers that spend time and effort making this software and selling it so they can get money to put food on the table, only to notice someone cracked their software and is distributing it everywhere for free.
This license is probably here so they can make a program, get you to modify it and fix all the bugs, and then take your source code and say it's all theirs. Personally, I believe whoever made the GPL should be shot.
| Quote: | We protect your rights with two steps: (1) copyright the software, and
(2) offer you this license which gives you legal permission to copy,
distribute and/or modify the software. |
Basically, #2 states this: Rippers come here! We are allowing you to rip our code! As long as you release the source code with the binary code and keep the credits in, you can rip all you want!
Well guess what? I'm not going to just let anyone rip a program that I spent lots of time on. I'm going to sell it so I can have money to buy food so I can live. Maybe some other people here are welfare bums and don't need money or just leech off their parents.
| Quote: | Also, for each author's protection and ours, we want to make certain
that everyone understands that there is no warranty for this free
software. If the software is modified by someone else and passed on, we
want its recipients to know that what they have is not the original, so
that any problems introduced by others will not reflect on the original
authors' reputations. |
There's no warranty. If someone rips my code and becomes a famous programmer by fixing a few bugs before I get around to fixing them, there's nothing I can do about it.
| Quote: | 1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source
code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and
appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice and
disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the notices that refer to this
General Public License and to the absence of any warranty; and give any
other recipients of the Program a copy of this General Public License
along with the Program. You may charge a fee for the physical act of
transferring a copy. |
This reminds me of chain letters I used to get all the time in my email. Keep the train rolling. This GPL crap is like a contageous fad (disease) these days, and you can hardly get away from it.
DjMadness-, the best is to thoroughly study every line of code from a bunch of IRCds, then create your own IRCd from scratch. Don't rip the code from other GPL IRCds. Don't use GPL on your software, don't include the source with your software, and lastly, sell your software so you can make money.[/b] |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
U
Eleet
Joined: 18 Jun 2003
Posts: 521
Location: IRC
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 8:16am Post subject: |
|
|
Wow, talk about going off the deep end on this one......
BTW, do you use GPL licenced software on your network? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Talrias
Lurker
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Posts: 163
Location: :noitacoL
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 8:32am Post subject: |
|
|
The RIAA (and the whole of corporate America) would be proud of you for that.
Let me just make the point clear to everyone that you may not relicense software unless you are the copyright holder.
One cannot take (for example) Bahamut, which is licensed under the GPL, and release a slightly modified version of it under a proprietary license. In fact, just about every IRCd has to be licensed under the GPL as it is based off Jarkko's original IRCd code. Unless someone wrote their own version of the IRCd software (following the RFC), they cannot change the license.
You mention in your post that "it is like taking warez and making it legal". It is nothing like this! You have quoted the GPL but it is clear that you do not understand it.
The open-source/free software movement is not about stealing credit from others. It is a community-based effort which works on improving things for the benefit of society. You give credit to those who have done work on something before you, add your own name to the credits when you make a change, and other people go on from what you have developed. The incentive behind all this is to help others, and possibly make a name for yourself as a great coder.
You have also stated that the GPL is an incentive to rip other people's code. It is against the GPL to take source code from a different program and include it within your own works without giving credit for the code (it is also unethical to do this).
If you don't like the GPL, you do not have to use it. No one is forcing you to use it. The only circumstances in which you are obliged to use the GPL is if you take a GPLed program, modify and and redistribute it.
Also, the GPL does not prevent people from charging money for the program. You could attempt to sell Bahamut or UnrealIRCd if you liked (I haven't looked to see if they have any restrictions on this in addition to the GPL). How else do companies such as Red Hat exist? They sell Linux distributions to people who wish to buy them. You could of course download the linux source from kernel.org and compile it yourself, but many people don't want to do that (or are unable to do so).
As it says very clearly in the GPL license:
| Quote: | | When we speak of free software, we are referring to freedom, not price. |
You keep on making the point that you cannot sell your product if it licensed under the GPL. This is simply incorrect, so please spend some time to read the license and do a bit of research before stepping on your soapbox.
I hope this post has enlightened you to the advantages of the GPL.
To the original poster, as long as you follow the original license and do not modify any credits (apart from adding your own name to the end saying what you have done), you should be fine.
Chris |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DjMadness-
Newbie
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 9:54am Post subject: |
|
|
| typobox43 wrote: |
he seemed to be asking whether he could release the source or not.
typobox43
|
thank you everyone
its been alot of help 
and now you have even found me a bed time story  the GPL
and BTW if anyone wants to help, that won´t put some cind of backdoor in
just join #TotalIRCd @ irc.TotalIRC.net.
and thx again for all the help |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
codemastr
Idler
Joined: 05 Feb 2004
Posts: 353
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 11:41am Post subject: |
|
|
Again, ignore al5001, he's making up stuff again.
| al5001 wrote: |
What I meant by not including the source is only for your own code. Include source code for the free software and don't include source for your own coded modules that you made.
|
Shall we look at the GPL site?
| Quote: | If I add a module to a GPL-covered program, do I have to use the GPL as the license for my module?
The GPL says that the whole combined program has to be released under the GPL. So your module has to be available for use under the GPL.
But you can give additional permission for the use of your code. You can, if you wish, release your program under a license which is more lax than the GPL but compatible with the GPL. The license list page gives a partial list of GPL-compatible licenses. |
Certainly looks like he was wrong when he said the module doesn't have to be GPLed, doesn't it?
| al5001 wrote: |
Basically, #2 states this: Rippers come here! We are allowing you to rip our code! As long as you release the source code with the binary code and keep the credits in, you can rip all you want!
|
So? Why do I care if someone takes my work? I don't! If someone thinks my software is so good that they'd like to claim it as their own so that they can brag about it, I'm not upset, I'm flattered. I'm flattered that someone thinks I'm such a good programmer, that they will never be as good as me, and therefore they'd like to just pretend they could do what I've done. Not everyone is in it for the money you know.
| al5001 wrote: | | Well guess what? I'm not going to just let anyone rip a program that I spent lots of time on. I'm going to sell it so I can have money to buy food so I can live. Maybe some other people here are welfare bums and don't need money or just leech off their parents. |
That's alright, I'd put a bullet in my head before I used a program you wrote. Ever think, maybe, people who write open-source software don't do it for money? That's not why I do it. I do it because I want to learn, I want to share the knowledge I've gained with others who want to learn, and I want to provide useful software to those who can't afford the several thousands of dollars charged by companies for similar software. If I wanted to make money, then I'd do like I do with my software that I sell, I wouldn't release the source code, I release it as proprietary software. I've gotten much more out of open-source programming than just money. I've made some great friends, I've learned tons of stuff, I was able to skip my first two computer science classes in school because I had already taught myself all of the material. I've had the ability to participate in projects that I'd never have been able to if it wasn't for open-source. In addition to my own projects (UnrealIRCd and SolarStats), I also have had the opportunity to contribute code to libtre, libcurl, libcares, and many other projects. Each of these projects has exposed me to even more learning experiences that I would not have otherwise been able to take part in. To me, all of this alone makes open-source worth it.
| al5001 wrote: | | DjMadness-, the best is to thoroughly study every line of code from a bunch of IRCds, then create your own IRCd from scratch. Don't rip the code from other GPL IRCds. Don't use GPL on your software, don't include the source with your software, and lastly, sell your software so you can make money |
YOU CAN'T DO THAT That's still copying it! Do you know nothing about the law? If you look at their code, study it, and then recreate it, that's a derivative work and still has to be GPLed! You think, if I go, listen to a song, then I compose a piece of music that sounds exactly like it, but was not an exact copy, just "inspired" by it, that is OK? NO it isn't. When someone wants to recreate someone else's song, they have to go get permission from the copyright holder. Even though the song is not an exact recreation, it is based on the "concept" of the original, and therefore is a derivative of it. It's copyright infringment. Stop giving people legal advice, you don't know what you are talking about.
My God, it really saddens me that people think the way you do. "Screw the world, my being rich is all that matters." That's the attitude everything you've said portrays. Who cares that my free software might revolutionize the world, if I'm not making money, it isn't worth it. This is, unfortunately, exactly what is wrong with the world today. You seem to think everything is about money, and that's a very poor way to look at life.
I think I've said enough on this topic now, to me at least, it is clear that al5001 doesn't know much about the GPL and shouldn't be listened to on matters concerning the GPL. And I hope that it is clear to others as well. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
al5001
Lurker
Joined: 17 Jul 2003
Posts: 181
Location: Canada
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 11:43am Post subject: |
|
|
Yes, "U" I do use a limited amount of GPL software, however, I do not modify the software; I feel it is pointless to modify the software and have everyone rip what I have enhanced. I do, however, create my own modules/add-ons for such software, and my modules don't have any modified GPL software source code in them. I often give away my modules/add-ons, but usually only in binary format so that my credits stay unchanged, as well as keeping the add-on from being modified.
It may not be legal to rip the code, but it happens. Take a look at NoLimitIRCd. 100% ripped, credits removed. How about "The RealIRCd Project"? The people make it sound like IRC has just been invented. Not only that, they also removed the credits from the original software, thus breaking the license agreement.
Wake up! You are living the 21st century, where everyone is greedy. There will always be people who take stuff from others and say they made it. This is the reason why Microsoft does not release any of its software; People would rip it, regardless of copyright laws. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
[DiMENSiON]
Eleet
Joined: 06 Sep 2003
Posts: 621
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 3:45pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Just because everyone else is breaking laws doesn't mean you should too. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DjMadness-
Newbie
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Mar 14, 2004 7:56pm Post subject: |
|
|
| [DiMENSiON] wrote: | | Just because everyone else is breaking laws doesn't mean you should too. |
yeah thats right |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
DjMadness-
Newbie
Joined: 10 Jan 2004
Posts: 70
|
| Posted: Apr 07, 2004 7:58am Post subject: Re: Are you allowed to modify a modified ircd ? |
|
|
| how much of modification is needed before you can realy say its your name of IRCd ? |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
| |
Register
Log in
