GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Since I have no idea how do make threads, this is a start of the Greylink DC++ discussion that ensued in another thread. I’ve copied the texts and put them in a quote block below.







(Note: attached file is the file OCTOGRAM uploaded.)

tell em we want the source and we want it now!

I’ve already told. They neither tell what prevents them from publishing the source nor publish it.

Violating GPL is not uncommon in Russia, especially with regards to DC++ mods. SharaDC, PulseTTK and many others are freeware so GPL violation is pointless. I’ve tried to focus on serious spread limitations.

SMT used to develop Apex Speed mod he if anyone should know the licensing issues sad that russia is in such an ignorant state that they think that the net and software is free to do anything with.

Yep. Not all drivers take into account prohibitive road signs. Massive border should be used sometimes instead. And now you want Russians to respect GPL. Let’s don’t care that much about this tiny violation.

tiny violation, your ignorant for some of us its a life work that you basically pissing on, for me it was 4 years dedicated so calling it tiny is just plain dumb

0 respect

I agree with OCTOGRAM about the loaning of features. Greylink is currently the most advanced client with a lot of very interesting features, it’s developing much faster than any other client.

Sure, you can continue without end to bash GreyLink for breaking GPL, but why not simply look at it to use the ideas from GreyLink in open source clients? As I understand it, that’s the only point OCTOGRAM is making, and i agree with that.

im not expecting you to actually care a bit about the work some of the developers put into the client since you haven’t been apart of it. The GPL violation is a huge deal since its basically 10 years of work for some of the developers and they stole that added a bunch of features without sharing the source and knowingly changing the license.

So this isn’t a bash as much as fair justice 95% of the code is OURS not Greylink that entitles us to the source so if you dont have anything else the feature discussion save those for other threads cause this thread is about the license and the source.

in case you missed the finer points of GPL 2

You can also ask a question why it develops faster. Who has better car? John buys new car and slowly tunes it - or - George steals already tuned car and tunes it more. :smiling_imp:

Also, even the client has tons of features, it is not advanced to me when its binary contains virus or it crashes during basic operations. So I think it is better to stay in the path which DC++ takes.

here is an interesting addition

От кого: " iceman50"
Кому: > [email protected]
Дата: 14 августа 2011, 14:25:43
Тема: Re: (Нет темы)

Iceman50:
I am requesting a copy of the greylink dc++ source code, failure to comply is in direct violation of the GNU GPL

Greylink Development Team:

  1. We are not the possessors of initial koda of greylink.

  2. To not you to teach us, that violates GNU GPL !!!

  3. With the similar form of appeal you will never get that for what sue !!!

  4. Мы не являемся обладателями исходного кода greylink.

  5. Не Вам нас учить, что нарушает GNU GPL !!!

  6. С подобной формой обращения Вы никогда не получите то, о чем просите !!!

iceman made an attempt at getting the source and they denied all of this has been documented at the wiki along with where the initial request where made.

for additional information visit the wiki page

We are not the possessors of initial koda of greylink.

This email belongs to GreyLinkDC++Mod team. They don’t have sources. They are doing well without them. I also have mod named GreyLink OpenMod, but I’m not any closer to the sources of main executable.

The only email known to me is: greyteam ~~~~ mail.ru

bullshit, I doubt they can develop any modification if they don’t have complete source.

i dont see this going any further and it was exactly as i expected Greylink seems to be developed by immature people when looking at the serious request we sent out and OCTOGRAM you are connected to development so dont lie here your just insulting all of us, action will be taken from this since its a clear affront to us you clearly dont understand that peoples free time and effort has gone into this and you simple dont seem to give a shit either so i really dont see this discussion leading anywhere

I don’t really plan to take part in this discussion, but with a quick glance it is possible that GreyLinkDC++Mod has been “developed” through the use of resource and/or hex editing and other such tools.

It seems more of something that provides pre-configured and/or customised client setup out of the box for a certain sum of money for LAN’s and the like… as I recall Flylink offers something similar for example, apparently people are willing to pay for such things.

It looks like the definition of a Mod in this case could be rather loose.

Still doesn’t make it any better its still a violation :slight_smile:

Like I said, the point of that post was something completely different, I never implied it would somehow make things better. But since I also said I would not part take in the discussion, I should not for any more than this.

I understand that someone in this thread wrote some code that I’m using more than a year, but they doesn’t seem to be happy from the fact their code makes someone happy.

I don’t understand this metaphor.

My nick is OCTAGRAM.

Making GreyLink mods is widely explored road. AvaLink, PE Link, GreyLinkDC++Mod, OpenMod (mine), CapitalDC++, FGLink…

A particular mod maker can’t say for GreyTeam (GreyTeam is very silent). They are foes in some sence. PE Link modder sad once that GreyTeam purposedly changed locations of some items though they seem to give up doing this and admit that GreyLink mods are more popular than pure GreyLink.

I don’t have sources. I’m connected no more than one can be without sources.

no matter how you twist it redistributing a client without distributing source is a violation of GPL if you dont comply to those terms your in direct violation of the license agreement.

you still distribute the executable from your site you can redistribute your script but you cant redistribute the executable so your in direct violation of GPL so consider this your formal request removal comply of face the consequences