As of today, Sylverant will be licensed under the GNU Affero GPL v3, rather than the normal GNU GPL v3. This change is to protect the rights of all users of Sylverant servers, no matter where they happen to be hosted. Basically, the AGPL differs from the GPL in one simple area: the AGPL ensures that users that use the server software hosted on any machine can get access to the source code of the software. The standard GPL does not compel people who host networked software (like Sylverant) to provide an offer for the source to clients using the source, the AGPL does. Thus, the AGPL is actually a much more sane choice for network server software than is the normal GPL.
This is actually something I had been planning to do for a long while, and finally got around to doing today…
Just have to say lol at your previous entry, nothing new about the fag’s at dc-talk stealing software. They have been using a stolen version of schthacks software for some time and claiming it as their own -_-
The version dc-talk used was avaiable because someone at schthack decided to give it away, obviosly after this there was more then 1 person in charge of the software, this 2nd person decided to release the software to public, maybe not all ppl liked this move.
The only person that complained about this was one of the admins at schthack, no one else ever complained (altough this admin says schthack himself didn’t want dc-talk to use the software)
Regarding the software itself, has a few backdoors that can be used by hackers such as OPT or lee (aka one of the admins at schthack) and so i do not recomend the software unless it’s patched like the previous software at dc-talk.
Regarding what happened in the topic with blue crab and dc-talk, the user above didn’t bother reading as usual the topic, so he doesn’t understand why the previous entry of the blog cannot be commented.
Regarding the user above, it’s funny when he is trying to represent schtserv server, when he’s the only one who cares about a buggy software that is no longer used by dc-talk
When trying to represent a server, atleast try to spell it right…….scht….erv
It wasn’t given away, it was leaked without permision from the author, which is stealing, and I know dc-talk where contacted and requested to cease using it. They did not. This shows blatently that they have no respect for the programmers who bother to code stuff, and i this case for christian himself.
Further more they basically acted as if it was their own software never once bothering to credit the original author, christian, again stealing, which in a way is probably far worse.
As pointed out, nothing new about the fgt’s at dc-talk stealing software etc, using without permision etc, going against the original authors wishs etc….
Leaked without permission? there was permission, that’s why leaked isn’t aplicable, i recomend asking schthack or long lost GMs for answers.
Assuming only 1 person had the software, how do you think several ppl got it?
DC-talk never used the software without giving credits (wich are visible in the lobby guild counter in the section “credits”)
Yes nugz spamming the server software to the public because he was buthurt = permision from christian right?
It was stolen by val, it’s never been publically released and has never had permision to be in use by anyone from christian, only idiots who want to justify it’s use pretend this didn’t happen. I suggest you get your facts straight.
I don’t know the motives that lead nugz to release it, but he had it and as one of the owners of the software he decided to release it, maybe not everyone liked it.
I do recomend bluecrab to make sure the software is secure, otherwise some hackers could use the exploits just like they did with the schthack software
nugz is not and never was an owner in any sence of the word of christians software. It was never released it was spitefully leaked against the actual owners wishs. only public release was the private local shipgate software. Keep trying to justify using stolen software, it’s amusing.
About the lack of actual credit on the dc-fag site for the original author of the software I could just quote Lawrence on the exact same things:
“So, I’m just wondering how long you all have been using My PSO server software, without even giving me the least bit of credit for it?”
“I’d appreciate you all at least giving me credit for writing the Server software that you’re using”
“You’ve already disrespected my stated wishes enough, please at least grant me the dignity to at least tell people who wrote the software that you’re using. Man up”
You do realise that the dc-talk admin fixed it right? we knew wich software was in use, we just didn’t say it anywhere exept in the server lobby counter.
It’s a situation that got resolved, to an extent you don’t know, this is why comments became disabled afterwards, why would we comment on a problem that no longer exists?
By owner i mean he had it, i’m not saying he made it.
Considering dc-talk no longer uses schthack software then problems associated with them are also gone, this means that we don’t need to hear you whining, we don’t receive autobans, DDOS attacks and many other things.
Bringing a problem that maybe existed (since many ppl have they’re own view) to serve as an example to another problem that doesn’t exist is just a waste of time.
Now, go write a letter to dc-talk host saying that they have a pso server against sonic team concent………………..again.
I would like to request you all stop arguing via the comments here. I asked dc-talk to credit me for the server software, they did that (and apparently had been doing so before that via the guild counter information option).
I don’t know the history of them using the Schtserv software, nor the history of how they got a hold of it. It doesn’t matter here however, as it is irrelevant to this project. This is not to disrespect in any way the immense amount of work that I’m sure went into developing it. I know how much work I’ve put into Sylverant, and I’m sure more work was put into (and is still being put into) Schtserv than what I’ve put into Sylverant.
As has been said in the comments already, there’s a reason why the comments for the post before this one have been turned off. The situation was remedied to my satisfaction.