Under the GNU License that came with RSBot v1.9 & RSBot v2.0, and being used as a base for v4.0; its only right to keep it open-sourced.
4.0 being closed source was a violation of the original license, and as you look through the source, you will see it still uses parts of previous revisions not owned or developed by any of the current head staff at powerbot. The GNU stating that even if the source is modified or not, (v4 being a modified v2, is still covered by the GNU license), that anyone can redistribute as they please.
The GNU also states that users must have the same rights as the person who released (as in, Timer/Paris took v2 which was open source and covered by the GNU, therefore every powerbot member must also have the same rights and usage with v4 if released; meaning source and rights to also modify). There also is no licensing or copyright with the client.
Paris obviously refused to obey the GNU, failed to properly copyright it, and is now pissed.
You shouldve made the client from scratch, then you couldve copyrighted it properly.
I did warn you powerbot - dont fuck with me.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html
-Marneus901
Enjoy.
http://www4.zippyshare.com/v/28234691/file.html
4.0 being closed source was a violation of the original license, and as you look through the source, you will see it still uses parts of previous revisions not owned or developed by any of the current head staff at powerbot. The GNU stating that even if the source is modified or not, (v4 being a modified v2, is still covered by the GNU license), that anyone can redistribute as they please.
The GNU also states that users must have the same rights as the person who released (as in, Timer/Paris took v2 which was open source and covered by the GNU, therefore every powerbot member must also have the same rights and usage with v4 if released; meaning source and rights to also modify). There also is no licensing or copyright with the client.
Paris obviously refused to obey the GNU, failed to properly copyright it, and is now pissed.
You shouldve made the client from scratch, then you couldve copyrighted it properly.
I did warn you powerbot - dont fuck with me.
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0-faq.html
Code:
In an object-oriented language such as Java, if I use a class that is GPL'ed without modifying, and subclass it, in what way does the GPL affect the larger program?
Subclassing is creating a derivative work. Therefore, the terms of the GPL affect the whole program where you create a subclass of a GPL'ed class.
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.
But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.
If you commercially distribute binaries not accompanied with source code, the GPL says you must provide a written offer to distribute the source code later.
Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)
The GPL says that anyone who receives a copy from you has the right to redistribute copies, modified or not. You are not allowed to distribute the work on any more restrictive basis.
The GPL says that your modified versions must carry all the freedoms stated in the GPL. Thus, anyone who receives a copy of your version from you has the right to redistribute copies (modified or not) of that version. You may not distribute any version of the work on a more restrictive basis.
Do I have “fair use” rights in using the source code of a GPL-covered program?
Yes, you do. “Fair use” is use that is allowed without any special permission. Since you don't need the developers' permission for such use, you can do it regardless of what the developers said about it—in the license or elsewhere, whether that license be the GNU GPL or any other free software license.
If I use a piece of software that has been obtained under the GNU GPL, am I allowed to modify the original code into a new program, then distribute and sell that new program commercially?
You are allowed to sell copies of the modified program commercially, but only under the terms of the GNU GPL. Thus, for instance, you must make the source code available to the users of the program as described in the GPL, and they must be allowed to redistribute and modify it as described in the GPL.
Consider this situation: 1. X releases V1 of a project under the GPL. 2. Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1. 3. X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's permission?
Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license.-Marneus901
Enjoy.
http://www4.zippyshare.com/v/28234691/file.html
DAMN how you get it.
