Nos cracking down on anti-blizzard threads..

[Keldan]

So, you make a tool publicly available but you are too lazy to improve on it. I work on it, dedicate whole months to improving it, and suddenly I am the bad guy for choosing not to disclose my work?

You do not understand how big projects (especially open source ones) work, do you ?
They are not lazy. It's not how this works, at all. Let me explain :
- Project is launched. It's open source. You can at any time get the code, study it, do a couple fixes and share them with the community. With time it improves.
- One day Nostalrius (but other servers did that too, they're not the only people) come with a non-open source mentality (but a standard "I want the credit" one, not fundamentally bad, it's just different). They take the code source, do a couple fixes (because yes, on the scale of such a task, Nostalrius is actually just a very minor patch) and.. don't publish them. They launch a server, everybody say "whoaw this is the best server, you're really the only guys really working, I can't believe you did so much !".
Who gets the credit in such a situation ? Only the guys who kept their part of the work private.
But that's not the main problem, good devs are used to work in the shadows.
The big problem is, when all servers does that, the main project moves forward very slowly.
Imagine bugs (labelled here with number 1,2,3,4,5)
server A fixes bugs 1, 2, 3
server B fixes bugs 1, 2
At the same time the open source people fixes other bugs. A and B both copy the shared fixes.
If A had been sharing its fixes, maybe B would have fixed the bugs 4 and 5.

[theluda]

Why do you care now and not before Blizzard was watching? Why aren't you taking legal proceedings against other vanilla servers? I mean really... maybe i don't understand but your actions seem pretty lame.

Pretty simple thing. I usually just do not give further development support to people if I notice they have public servers. In this case Nostalrius may be using code copyrighted by us in making a contract for themselves. And this I find to be very lame, because they ride upon a century of our work without even asking for permission.

Just ask yourself, how would you feel if someone would take a century of your work, and probably sell it as theirs?

[theluda]

So, you make a tool publicly available but you are too lazy to improve on it. I work on it, dedicate whole months to improving it, and suddenly I am the bad guy for choosing not to disclose my work?

So wait... we work on this for a century, and if you sum up code, databases and documentation made available for free, we are talking about literally thousands of hours of dedicated work, and the commits made are not just a few hundreds, but thousands and over all projects ten thousands too.

How is that lazy, and considering every server is very willing to take our work all the time (and yes, we added things to the core to verify you are using it...), how is that fair to make 20 to 100 changes and then claim you did more and sell your work?

I find this view on the world very disturbing.

[Mryul]

So, you make a tool publicly available but you are too lazy to improve on it. I work on it, dedicate whole months to improving it, and suddenly I am the bad guy for choosing not to disclose my work?

So wait... we work on this for a century, and if you sum up code, databases and documentation made available for free, we are talking about literally thousands of hours of dedicated work, and the commits made are not just a few hundreds, but thousands and over all projects ten thousands too.

How is that lazy, and considering every server is very willing to take our work all the time (and yes, we added things to the core to verify you are using it...), how is that fair to make 20 to 100 changes and then claim you did more and sell your work?

I find this view on the world very disturbing.

Their plan was to make their source code public. They have decided to wait with doing that because of the meeting. Our end-game is to make legacy servers available. They haven't 'sold' any code.

What exactly is your problem?

Credit should be given where credit is due. I appreciate the work other people have done for the emulation world but Nostalrius is non-profit and was going to go open source.

[kovenant]

they will never release the code if I think about it.
in the announcement they also made clear there are people in the emulation business that will not accept a partial release and will take legal action to acquire it.

[Syleynna]

I wan't to preface this post by saying I know nothing about open source code. So this analogy could be incorrect, and I am sure someone will correct me if it is.

So Henry Ford invents the car. People drive this car and other inventors look at it and say "hey this can be improved"

So they improve it .. give it some crash protection, a round steering wheel. Then they go and sell this new and improved car because someone is interested in it now that it is improved.

Should all the people who have improved on "The Car" and made it better tell any future sellers interested in their version that they won't meet with them unless Henry Ford can also be in on the discussions?

Or what about Apple or Microsoft .. have they ever used any open source code? Or is that off limits to them since they have to go back and give everyone who contributed credit whenever they meet with potential buyers/investors?

*please forgive any ignorance in this post, I'm just trying to understand what technology is allowed to be improved by a person and at what point can they taken credit without any previous incarnations of said technology getting in the way of their taking credit*

[theluda]

they will never release the code if I think about it.
in the announcement they also made clear there are people in the emulation business that will not accept a partial release and will take legal action to acquire it.

And I can assure you, MaNGOS did not do that. The whole team agreed to just kindly request the work to be shared. We have not taken any legal action and not even threatened to do so.

Which effectively means, nobody having rights to MaNGOS has made any legal threat. So this note in the announcement is not true.

[theluda]

Should all the people who have improved on "The Car" and made it better tell any future sellers interested in their version that they won't meet with them unless Henry Ford can also be in on the discussions?

Well, your analogy is not quite fitting because to take it further in this case Ford built a car and then General Motors took full cars from Ford, added a few parts and sold them as their own work. That is the key difference here.

In reality General Motors builds cars from their own parts and not from 90% parts bought of Ford.

[kovenant]

they will never release the code if I think about it.
in the announcement they also made clear there are people in the emulation business that will not accept a partial release and will take legal action to acquire it.

And I can assure you, MaNGOS did not do that. The whole team agreed to just kindly request the work to be shared. We have not taken any legal action and not even threatened to do so.

Which effectively means, nobody having rights to MaNGOS has made any legal threat. So this note in the announcement is not true.

and I really believe you
and also I support your vision on the matter.
apparently there are people who think they have "rights" to do so, or believe they can take legal action in order to obtain code(s) either way they shot themselves in the foot and the whole community gets nuked.
only for profit.

[Syleynna]

Ahh so the "code" is considered the "parts" I get it.

So Open-source is off limits to Microsoft/Apple and the likes of them I assume, yes?