API tools faq
paste
Timtower

bukkitdev log

Timtower
Nov 28th, 2014
332
0
Never
Add comment
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
text 13.27 KB | None | 0 0
raw download clone embed print report
  1. [02:18:18] <KoenigsKind> Where can I find a jar of bukkit (not craftbukkit) or is it included in the DMCA?
  2. [02:19:18] <BillyGalbreath> check the repo
  3. [02:19:34] <Lord_Ralex> KoenigsKind, http://dl.bukkit.org/downloads/bukkit/
  4. [02:19:52] <Lord_Ralex> anything after latest beta was taken down though, but beta and older should still be good
  5. [02:20:37] <KoenigsKind> thanks
  6. [02:21:46] <BillyGalbreath> all those dev builds were taken down, even the ones before the latest beta
  7. [02:21:47] <BillyGalbreath> http://repo.bukkit.org/content/groups/public/org/bukkit/bukkit/
  8. [02:22:28] <BillyGalbreath> ^ only the releases remain
  9. [02:23:13] <KoenigsKind> Well, the newest one there still uses Bukkit.getOnlinePlayers():Player[] do you have an idea how I can solve the problem with getting the other function Bukkit.getOnlinePlayers():Collection<Player>
  10. [02:23:29] <BillyGalbreath> thats in 1.7.10 only
  11. [02:23:33] <Lord_Ralex> build bukkit yourself?
  12. [02:24:28] <KoenigsKind> well actualy its spigot, I just realised should I ask it in the spigot channel?
  13. [02:24:59] <Jesika> yes.
  14. [02:24:59] * BillyGalbreath slaps KoenigsKind
  15. [02:25:09] <KoenigsKind> :$
  16. [04:25:09] <@mbaxter> BillyGalbreath: Holy shit are you serious? Now? http://i.imgur.com/ceMFLq4.png
  17. [04:25:55] <BillyGalbreath> lol
  18. [04:26:02] <BillyGalbreath> i didnt even notice it until today
  19. [04:26:59] <@mbaxter> And your first reaction isn't to examine further or even just test it? Your first reaction is to label the change as a dick move? ._o
  20. [04:27:04] <BillyGalbreath> someone was asking some questions about it here earlier and i saw that commit after investigating it
  21. [04:27:45] <BillyGalbreath> later i found out he was using spigot, which is probably why the old method was throwing errors for him
  22. [04:29:17] <@mbaxter> Without bothering to read the backlog, I suspect the reverse was the problem. Building code using the new method and being unable to run it on older server binaries.
  23. [04:30:01] <BillyGalbreath> backlog is still on my screen, hasnt scrolled out of view just yet ;)
  24. [04:32:16] <BillyGalbreath> http://imgur.com/aqTNgnx mbaxter
  25. [04:32:58] <@mbaxter> Things I can also do: scroll up. I just didn't feel like it
  26. [04:33:15] <BillyGalbreath> :p
  27. [10:45:04] <Ribesg> wat...
  28. [10:45:22] <Ribesg> Did md_5 just like released an updated CB like nothing happened or something
  29. [10:46:35] <King_Hual> huh Ribesg?
  30. [10:47:00] <Ribesg> Check the fork-you-shall-not-name website
  31. [10:47:21] <Ribesg> They released the full CB source on a Stash instance
  32. [10:49:14] <Ribesg> "As of today, all **Bukkit** / Spig*t development will be centered around the “SpigotMC Development Hub”, as opposed to GitHub."
  33. [10:51:16] <Ribesg> "instead of licensing your code under [L]GPL, BSD, or whatever other licenses our projects may use, it licenses your code to us instead. This is a good thing"
  34. [10:51:32] <Ribesg> yay for non-free license
  35. [10:52:09] <BillyGalbreath> well with what happened a few months ago, what would you expect?
  36. [10:52:23] <BillyGalbreath> everyone is going to cover their butts in the future now
  37. [10:56:08] <Ribesg> BillyGalbreath, all of this is illegal already
  38. [10:56:08] <Ribesg> The problem isn't the CLA
  39. [10:56:36] <Ribesg> The problem is that they just take a codebase they have no right on, decide to work on it with a CLA. Like if they own anything
  40. [10:56:47] <BillyGalbreath> not according to lawyers, its not illegal
  41. [10:56:51] <fullwall> yeah it looks like future contributions are covered without covering past contributions
  42. [10:57:03] <Ribesg> BillyGalbreath, it is
  43. [10:57:10] <Ribesg> CraftBukkit has no license
  44. [10:57:22] <Ribesg> So every single character in the codebase is owned by the one who wrote it
  45. [10:57:25] <Ribesg> It's dead simple
  46. [10:57:42] <BillyGalbreath> idk what is or isnt. not for me to decide either. i'm just saying thats what their team of lawyers have said
  47. [10:57:43] <fullwall> Ribesg: wolv is contesting under the GPL
  48. [10:58:16] <Ribesg> Isn't the GPL invalid the exact moment you put non-GPL code in the codebase
  49. [10:58:46] <BillyGalbreath> only a lawyer/judge can give a proper answer to that
  50. [10:58:52] <Ribesg> fullwall, the GPL doesn't count
  51. [10:59:00] <fullwall> https://twitter.com/wolvereness/status/538256923552792576
  52. [10:59:11] <Ribesg> If it's valid, then they have no right to relicense. If it isn't, then they have no right to do anything
  53. [10:59:42] <Ribesg> fullwall, I fav'd that tweet 10 minutes ago :P
  54. [11:00:12] <fullwall> bukkit is valid GPL
  55. [11:00:19] <fullwall> at the very least
  56. [11:00:21] <Ribesg> Not the point
  57. [11:00:31] <fullwall> how is it not the point
  58. [11:00:39] <Ribesg> CraftBukkit is
  59. [11:00:45] <fullwall> ...
  60. [11:02:08] <Ribesg> The only gray area is whever the modified-partly-deobfuscated-decompiled-compiled-obfuscated Mojang code can be licensed under GPL or not
  61. [11:02:42] <Ribesg> I'm pretty sure Mojang could do that, but nobody else can. While it's not done, the GPL isn't valid imho
  62. [11:04:10] <fullwall> GPL Bukkit is being modified now as well, which may violate its license
  63. [11:04:13] <BillyGalbreath> i wish that was the case, because then the dmca on cb would not be valid
  64. [11:05:08] <fullwall> obviously the DMCA may not necessarily be possible with Bukkit but the license might still be violated
  65. [11:05:20] <BillyGalbreath> you cant violate an invalid license
  66. [11:05:34] <Ribesg> It's not invalid for Bukkit
  67. [11:05:36] <fullwall> ^
  68. [11:05:44] <BillyGalbreath> bukkit isnt in question. cb is..
  69. [11:05:48] <Ribesg> They both violate Bukkit's license and the DMCA
  70. [11:05:50] <Ribesg> At the same time
  71. [11:06:00] <Ribesg> BillyGalbreath, they relicense Bukkit
  72. [11:06:13] <BillyGalbreath> from what i see, its still gpl
  73. [11:06:39] <BillyGalbreath> the cla is just lawyer speak
  74. [11:06:45] <BillyGalbreath> as long as bukkit remains gpl, then there is no violation there
  75. [11:07:24] <fullwall> I think new code is contributed under the CLA right?
  76. [11:07:35] <fullwall> which may lead to violation of section 8
  77. [11:09:14] <King_Hual> too bad wolfe is the only one trying to take it down and his code's been stripped from the source
  78. [11:09:20] <Ribesg> If they had rewritten wolv's code
  79. [11:09:27] <Ribesg> Why isn't it written in that pile of text
  80. [11:09:29] <fullwall> Ribesg: apparently they might have
  81. [11:09:34] <fullwall> but it's not clear in the post
  82. [11:09:39] <Ribesg> Well
  83. [11:09:44] <Ribesg> Every single contributor could do the same
  84. [11:09:47] <fullwall> I think they're trying to avoid saying anything
  85. [11:10:00] <King_Hual> they could but they aren't
  86. [11:10:06] <Ribesg> I could file a DMCA but I don't think it would hurt lel
  87. [11:10:21] <Ribesg> I think I've got 1 line of Javadoc in the Bukkit repo
  88. [11:10:36] <Ribesg> So yeah no nothing in CB
  89. [11:10:42] <King_Hual> they'll just remove that line then
  90. [11:10:58] <BillyGalbreath> iirc the entire reason wolv's dmca was valid was because his code was distributed within a jar containing non gpl code. with this new distribution method that is no longer a concern
  91. [11:11:22] <fullwall> new distribution method is basically pushing it onto the users of the code
  92. [11:11:42] <Ribesg> Bukkit is still dead anyway, I don't trust his work and I'm not the only one
  93. [11:11:48] <Ribesg> Definitly not using that
  94. [11:11:56] <Ribesg> I'll wait for Glowstone
  95. [11:12:04] <fullwall> sponge?
  96. [11:12:19] <Ribesg> Sponge is overhyped
  97. [11:12:41] <Ribesg> I just want to keep my plugins
  98. [11:12:54] <Ribesg> My NPlugins suite
  99. [11:18:41] <@Wolvereness> BillyGalbreath: not quite...
  100. [11:19:57] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: Reasonable notice of the violation was provided prior to the 60-day limitation. I do not recognize any party currently with the rights to create a derivative work.
  101. [11:20:18] <fullwall> ah
  102. [11:20:30] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: In other words, md5 thinks that Australia wont extradite him for hosting his server in Romania
  103. [11:21:01] <fullwall> heh
  104. [11:21:51] <fullwall> but he's in Australia already?
  105. [11:22:25] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: Australia does the extraditing, Romania is the location of his new server, and the money changes hands on US soil.
  106. [11:24:06] <fullwall> oh, extraditing his server
  107. [11:24:55] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: No, I mean just him. If Australia recognizes his actions to violate international treaties, he's going to be in trouble.
  108. [11:24:55] <Ribesg> Mojang owns Bukkit, md_5 plays with Bukkit's license
  109. [11:25:22] <Ribesg> Mojang should do something right
  110. [11:25:22] <@Wolvereness> Ribesg: Mojang does NOT own my contributions.
  111. [11:25:22] <Ribesg> Well Microjangsoft
  112. [11:25:27] <Ribesg> Wolvereness, nobody owns them in the Bukkit repo
  113. [11:25:28] <fullwall> Wolvereness: doesn't extradition mean physically moving him from a different country?
  114. [11:25:35] <Ribesg> Was talking about Bukkit not CB
  115. [11:25:46] <BillyGalbreath> well guys. its been a fun and eventful night. i have my 1.8 build before the servers go down. so i'm happy. i'm finally going to get some sleep :p
  116. [11:26:23] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: yes - He's likely under the impression subpeonas wont reveal his identity and Australia wont extradite him.
  117. [11:26:35] <fullwall> he lives in Australia though
  118. [11:27:01] <Ribesg> Send him some kangaroos
  119. [11:28:38] <angal> The other question. If i use software (build CraftBukkit), provided by md_5, will i violate the GPL?
  120. [11:29:18] <Ribesg> You would support the wrong guys at least
  121. [11:29:29] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: Australia extradites to both Romania and United States. I'd argue criminal fraud on US territory, and copyright on Romanian territory.
  122. [11:29:45] <angal> In this case i produse a program, whish includes GPL and non-GPL parts. So i assumes, it's illegal to hosters use Spigot. Am i right?
  123. [11:30:03] <@Wolvereness> angal: md_5 HAS NO LICENSE to distribute anything relating to Bukkit/CraftBukkit
  124. [11:30:16] <Ribesg> I'm not sure angal, but I think that you can't redistribute it
  125. [11:30:27] <Ribesg> So md_5 is the guy doing illegal stuff
  126. [11:31:01] <@Wolvereness> Ribesg, angal: Do you break the law when you download software from soneone who stole it?
  127. [11:31:10] <Ribesg> I don't think so
  128. [11:31:20] <angal> Hm...
  129. [11:31:25] <fullwall> can't he redistribute under the GPL?
  130. [11:31:34] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: No, as per section 8
  131. [11:31:58] <@Wolvereness> fullwall: his license was completely revoked as of me informing him of his violation (along with everyone else who had CB on their github repo)
  132. [11:33:09] <Ribesg> Wolvereness, you should check for Github repos
  133. [11:33:15] <Ribesg> They failed at removing every fork of CB
  134. [11:34:25] <angal> I'll try to simplify question. I have CB source. Am i allowed to build it to jar and use it personally, if i willn't distribute it?
  135. [11:34:26] <fullwall> makes sense, I thought that more effort would have been made to check that they're compliant
  136. [11:34:35] <Ribesg> angal, yes.
  137. [11:34:38] <angal> ((
  138. [11:35:15] <@Wolvereness> angal, Ribesg: No, you are not. It was stolen, and no one can grant you a license to convey the work at all, nor can you create derivative works (source->binary)
  139. [11:35:23] <fullwall> ^
  140. [11:35:39] <fullwall> new CB just transfers the violation to you
  141. [11:35:46] <fullwall> in a way
  142. [11:36:04] <angal> Hm... That's good/
  143. [11:36:18] <@Wolvereness> angal: I'll also point out that "convey" can easily mean "from memory to hard drive", and it'd be COMPLETELY up to a jury to decide if the 150,000$ fine applies.
  144. [11:37:15] <Ribesg> I saw some court jury do stupid things, it could totally happen
  145. [11:37:57] <angal> But if i have a compiled CB server am i allowed to continue using it?
  146. [11:38:02] <Ribesg> Some guy was writting a software in its spare time at home on weekends and his rights were given to his company by a court
  147. [11:38:18] <@Wolvereness> angal: "from hard drive to memory" - does that sound like conveying?
  148. [11:38:27] <angal> ((
  149. [11:38:30] <Ribesg> WAT IF RAMDISK
  150. [11:38:54] <@Wolvereness> Ribesg: "from memory to CPU registers"
  151. [11:39:08] <BillyGalbreath> under that logic all the existing 1.7 and older servers are in violation as well, Wolvereness
  152. [11:39:26] <@Wolvereness> BillyGalbreath: They are, and I haven't gotten around to beginning proceedings
  153. [11:39:38] <Ribesg> Starting from commit #1 by wolv
  154. [11:40:38] <BillyGalbreath> i originally thought this whole charade was some backlash at mojang. now i'm beginning to feel otherwise. whats your motive, wolv?
  155. [11:40:44] <fullwall> as a plugin author am I at risk?
  156. [11:40:50] <BillyGalbreath> you are attacking the community personally, now
  157. [11:40:51] <BillyGalbreath> not mojang
  158. [11:41:14] <Ribesg> BillyGalbreath, and he has full rights to do so
  159. [11:41:26] <Ribesg> Not sure for resources, but rights for sure
  160. [11:42:51] <angal> Ok. Thank you very much. Wolv, good luck in what you doing. Hope you will reach your goals.
  161. [11:43:04] <@Wolvereness> BillyGalbreath: I intend to enforce my copyright.
  162. [11:43:13] <BillyGalbreath> good luck with that, then
  163. [11:44:02] <@Wolvereness> BillyGalbreath: If a community relies on what's essentially stolen, I find any justification far-fetched.
  164. [11:44:37] <BillyGalbreath> i just hope, for the community's sake, that they indeed removed all your code
  165. [11:44:50] <@Wolvereness> BillyGalbreath: they did nothing of the sort, FYI
  166. [11:45:29] <@Wolvereness> BillyGalbreath: they moved the servers to Romania instead
  167. [11:46:35] <timtower> .log
  168. [11:46:46] <BillyGalbreath> i havent checked it out in depth, but i know your commit i commented on earlier tonight was indeed modified
Advertisement
Add Comment
Please, Sign In to add comment
Public Pastes
We use cookies for various purposes including analytics. By continuing to use Pastebin, you agree to our use of cookies as described in the Cookies Policy.  OK, I Understand
Not a member of Pastebin yet?
Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!