Thread: [RELEASE] RTR HooK 0.9a

Originally Posted by raise

No one asked me to release source dumbass, he simply said, Were is the source, does that sound like, "please can i have the source" ? no it doesnt, And i try to release something Fresh, new, and you go on about some shitty licence, CARE? no.!

Are you really so fucking stupid ? It isn't JUST a licence. It is there for some reason, you are violating it. I couldn't care less about your source, and I don't give a crap if you changed 2 lines, or 2000 lines in it. Licence is licence, you should obey it.

Originally Posted by BraveBeast

Say the same thing to sir3n and many other ppl.

??
The fact that sir3n and many others did the same thing doesn't make him innocent.

Originally Posted by raise

No, but you dont say anything to them!

I am talking to you, not to them. Just because someone steals and is not caught does not mean you are free from consequences of stealing.

Originally Posted by BraveBeast

So he's the only one who has to release the source?
No one said a thing to sir3n when he didn't release source for any of his Nexus edits (2nd Gen for example).

Ad hominem - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Doesn't change a single thing, it is RTR hook thread and, I am talking about RTR hook, not sir3n's hook. As I said

Just because someone steals and is not caught does not mean you are free from consequences of stealing.

Originally Posted by raise

No, but you dont say anything to them!

Originally Posted by capwnt

??
The fact that sir3n and many others did the same thing doesn't make him innocent.

Originally Posted by BraveBeast

Say the same thing to sir3n and many other ppl.

Originally Posted by capwnt

Are you really so fucking stupid ? It isn't JUST a licence. It is there for some reason, you are violating it. I couldn't care less about your source, and I don't give a crap if you changed 2 lines, or 2000 lines in it. Licence is licence, you should obey it.

Originally Posted by raise

No one asked me to release source dumbass, he simply said, Were is the source, does that sound like, "please can i have the source" ? no it doesnt, And i try to release something Fresh, new, and you go on about some shitty licence, CARE? no.!

Originally Posted by absolutioN

People scrounge off a public source (released under GPL license) then when asked to release the edited source they refuse, wankers ?

Originally Posted by capwnt

I am talking to you, not to them. Just because someone steals and is not caught does not mean you are free from consequences of stealing.

Everyone should just stop arguing.
To whom it may concern; any one who has ever used any form of eth, nexus, or any other hack that has a GPL license on it, should release their source; unless you wish to institute legal proceedings by the original authors should they decide to sue you.

Originally Posted by wikipedia.org

Terms and conditions
The terms and conditions of the GPL are available to anybody receiving a copy of the work that has a GPL applied to it ("the licensee"). Any licensee who adheres to the terms and conditions is given permission to modify the work, as well as to copy and redistribute the work or any derivative version. The licensee is allowed to charge a fee for this service, or do this free of charge. This latter point distinguishes the GPL from software licenses that prohibit commercial redistribution. The FSF argues that free software should not place restrictions on commercial use, and the GPL explicitly states that GPL works may be sold at any price. The GPL additionally states that a distributor may not impose "further restrictions on the rights granted by the GPL". This forbids activities such as distributing of the software under a non-disclosure agreement or contract. Distributors under the GPL also grant a license for any of their patents practiced by the software, to practice those patents in GPL software.
Section three of the license requires that programs distributed as pre-compiled binaries are accompanied by a copy of the source code, a written offer to distribute the source code via the same mechanism as the pre-compiled binary or the written offer to obtain the source code that you got when you received the pre-compiled binary under the GPL.

The distribution rights granted by the GPL for modified versions of the work are not unconditional. When someone distributes a GPL'd work plus their own modifications, the requirements for distributing the whole work cannot be any greater than the requirements that are in the GPL.
This requirement is known as copyleft. It earns its legal power from the use of copyright on software programs. Because a GPL work is copyrighted, a licensee has no right to redistribute it, not even in modified form (barring fair use), except under the terms of the license. One is only required to adhere to the terms of the GPL if one wishes to exercise rights normally restricted by copyright law, such as redistribution. Conversely, if one distributes copies of the work without abiding by the terms of the GPL (for instance, by keeping the source code secret), he or she can be sued by the original author under copyright law.
Copyleft thus uses copyright law to accomplish the opposite of its usual purpose: instead of imposing restrictions, it grants rights to other people, in a way that ensures the rights cannot subsequently be taken away. It also ensures that unlimited redistribution rights are not granted, should any legal flaw be found in the copyleft statement.
Many distributors of GPL'ed programs bundle the source code with the executables. An alternative method of satisfying the copyleft is to provide a written offer to provide the source code on a physical medium (such as a CD) upon request. In practice, many GPL'ed programs are distributed over the Internet, and the source code is made available over FTP or HTTP. For Internet distribution, this complies with the license.
Copyleft applies only when a person seeks to redistribute the program. One is allowed to make private modified versions, without any obligation to divulge the modifications as long as the modified software is not distributed to anyone else. Note that the copyleft applies only to the software and not to its output (unless that output is itself a derivative work of the program). For example, a public web portal running a modified derivative of a GPL'ed content management system is not required to distribute its changes to the underlying software because its output is not a derivative. A counter example is the GPL'ed GNU Bison: the parsers it outputs do contain parts of itself and are therefore derivatives which would fall under the GPL, if it were not for a special exception granted by GNU Bison.

I know it's hard for him to credit nexus creators...
oh i see you fixed it ty... now everything is cool