Jump to content











Photo
- - - - -

Serva

wds ris pxe dhcp tftp

  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
24 replies to this topic

#1 patpat

patpat

    Member

  • Banned
  • 48 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 May 2012 - 10:29 AM

*
POPULAR

Nuno,
I just got another aggressive answer, about licensing issues this time, from an user that was registered the same day I’ve published my first post announcing Serva here. Off-course he/she is some very well known member writing behind a bogus account.
I’m a grown up person that I’m not going to get engaged on discussions of why or why not there are not license infringements within Serva, I’m also not going to ask absolutely anything about the “brave” poster like IP, e-mail or whatever; I just do not care.

Considering this kind of attitudes are very difficult for you to control I have unfortunately to ask you if you are so kind of erasing absolutely all my participations on this forum and references to my website. Please do not take this personal; I know that this surely has absolutely nothing to do with you but please understand I have no time for this kind of games.

Making Serva was a titanic effort, I think I deserve better than a hidden user lecturing me about licensing or some other one complaining because I use my code on my application only; or someone that says that Serva's "edge" is its nicer GUI...
Sorry it's just too much.

Best to all of you
  • Nuno Brito, enderst, Chaudhry and 2 others like this

#2 Krzys

Krzys
  • Members
  • 1 posts
  •  
    Poland

Posted 14 May 2012 - 02:56 PM

it is nice little tool, but it's EULA violates at least GPLv2, EUPL and probably other licenses, that applies to code included in Serva.

#3 homes32

homes32

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1021 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  •  
    United States

Posted 14 May 2012 - 04:09 PM

tftp32 clone with the addition of HTTP server and nag screen for non paid version (paid version is $30 USD)
credit is given for code used from other projects but no source is available and has restrictive EULA which violates a bunch of licenses of products the serva uses code from. (GPLv2/EURL and possibly others, I didn't take time to check them all)

does have some nice additional features such as the HTTP server and a cleaned up GUI (pref UI is very nice), but I will be sticking with the open source nag screen free tftp32 for now.

#4 indigo5

indigo5

    Member

  • Members
  • 30 posts
  • Location:uk
  •  
    United Kingdom

Posted 14 May 2012 - 08:07 PM

I think it looks really good, im always looking for easy alternatives to the MS suite of deployment products.
Great effort!

#5 Michele13

Michele13

    Frequent Member

  • Tutorial Writer
  • 167 posts
  •  
    Italy

Posted 14 May 2012 - 09:31 PM

What? Do you want Nuno delete your account and your software? what a shame! that's bad. Please stay here! :(
what are this problems of eula anyway? I don't care so much of EULAS with all that bla bla bla...I'd rather to read a short license file that says: do not do this, do not do that, if you want to share please do that etc... I don't know if you guys understand what I am saying. Have you ever read the Microsoft Eula of Windows XP? it is unfair because it restrects the user :)

#6 Lewis

Lewis

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 14 May 2012 - 11:36 PM

*
POPULAR

I seriously can't believe what I'm reading here.

I love it how the second any developer comes to this forum they get cut down with any amount of issues. There was a problem like this a while ago with a piece of software that supported booting from Hirens. People got caught up in how Hirens was an illegal assortment of software and how the developer was somehow encouraging piracy.

People need to lay down their arms on this forum. If a piece of software has a licenscing problem, or you don't like the way the author has embraced other technologies, then DON'T USE IT. It is NOT YOUR PLACE to tell a developer who spends his time and money making software for YOU for FREE what he can and cannot do with his software.

Above all else, it makes reboot.pro look childish when I get an email telling me about serva, and I go to this thread and its about how the dev is getting heckled. What are we all, twelve year olds?
  • Nuno Brito, RoyM, Taupezen and 6 others like this

#7 TheHive

TheHive

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 4138 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 06:38 AM

GUI is easy to navigate. And i think it mentions portability. Not bad.
The only downer is the time thing at first launch before being able to use. The sponsor thing at the bottom doesnt seem relevent at time. That is since there is no sponsor yet. Other then that. Seems simple to use. Thanks!

#8 Michele13

Michele13

    Frequent Member

  • Tutorial Writer
  • 167 posts
  •  
    Italy

Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:35 AM

GUI is easy to navigate. And i think it mentions portability. Not bad.
The only downer is the time thing at first launch before being able to use. The sponsor thing at the bottom doesnt seem relevent at time. That is since there is no sponsor yet. Other then that. Seems simple to use. Thanks!


this is a little limitation for the free version. if you want to remove this countdown you have to buy the supporter version :)

#9 Michele13

Michele13

    Frequent Member

  • Tutorial Writer
  • 167 posts
  •  
    Italy

Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:38 AM

I seriously can't believe what I'm reading here.

I love it how the second any developer comes to this forum they get cut down with any amount of issues. There was a problem like this a while ago with a piece of software that supported booting from Hirens. People got caught up in how Hirens was an illegal assortment of software and how the developer was somehow encouraging piracy.

People need to lay down their arms on this forum. If a piece of software has a licenscing problem, or you don't like the way the author has embraced other technologies, then DON'T USE IT. It is NOT YOUR PLACE to tell a developer who spends his time and money making software for YOU for FREE what he can and cannot do with his software.

Above all else, it makes reboot.pro look childish when I get an email telling me about serva, and I go to this thread and its about how the dev is getting heckled. What are we all, twelve year olds?


That's too bad that I can't click on the I like button of this post to say how I appreciate what Lewis said. I am 17 Years old and I don't care about eulas. :)
Again please don't delete this software! this can be usefoul!
Hiren's boot CD is not illegal. If you try to open a commercial software you recive an allert that says that you must not open that software if you do not own a legal copy of that software! All commercial softwares are signed by a "$" on this site. I Wonder how the MiniXP is done...I'll ask about that in another topic

#10 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:36 AM

I love it how the second any developer comes to this forum they get cut down with any amount of issues. There was a problem like this a while ago with a piece of software that supported booting from Hirens. People got caught up in how Hirens was an illegal assortment of software and how the developer was somehow encouraging piracy.

The founder of this board has set the rule, a long time ago, that warez should neighter be distributed nor supported nor discussed here.
If you don't like this rule, find yourself a nice little warez board or strike a deal with Nuno, that you will cover all legal expenses out of your own pocket.

People need to lay down their arms on this forum. If a piece of software has a licenscing problem, or you don't like the way the author has embraced other technologies, then DON'T USE IT. It is NOT YOUR PLACE to tell a developer who spends his time and money making software for YOU for FREE what he can and cannot do with his software.

I'm sure your very popular on other boards too, with your f#§$ the mods attitude.

Maybe we should really start, simply to delete posts, which violates any of the boards rules, without trying to educate people about, what they did wrong.

Above all else, it makes reboot.pro look childish when I get an email telling me about serva, and I go to this thread and its about how the dev is getting heckled.

Have to agree on this one. Was rather surprised, being notified in the newsletter about this thread and then reading that the author wants all his posts deleted.
But then, i'm getting informed on a regular basis about my own threads.

:cheers:

#11 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10448 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 15 May 2012 - 12:19 PM

I must admit that this is a first time situation for me as well. Nowhere pleasant as all the readers will not find info about Serva.

If the code was implemented by the author, where is the licensing from other products being broken at all? Seems that we just witnessed an awfully rushed decision by some members and the author himself.

If a product gives credits to other products that were used as inspiration, it does not automatically inherit their license restrictions. What matters here is that we have a good tool that can be used to ease the life of many people, legally.

Furthermore, the EULA for Serva is just defending the author rights. We live with Windows EULA's since the dinosaur age and yet we use Windows every day.

From an end-user/consumer perspective, some times it seems that everything would be perfect if the world was GPL.

As a developer, I can say that for me it is a very disappointing way of developing software, while for others it is the best thing in life.

#12 homes32

homes32

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1021 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  •  
    United States

Posted 15 May 2012 - 02:40 PM

*
POPULAR

If the code was implemented by the author, where is the licensing from other products being broken at all? Seems that we just witnessed an awfully rushed decision by some members and the author himself.

here are a few obvious violations

tftp32
from the European Union Public Licence
full text available here

3. Communication of the Source Code

The Licensor may provide the Work either in its Source Code form, or as Executable Code. If the Work is provided as Executable Code, the Licensor provides in addition a machine-readable copy of the Source Code of the Work along with each copy of the Work that the Licensor distributes or indicates, in a notice following the copyright notice attached to the Work, a repository where the Source Code is easily and freely accessible for as long as the Licensor continues to distribute and/or communicate the Work.

4. Limitations on copyright

Nothing in this Licence is intended to deprive the Licensee of the benefits from any exception or limitation to the exclusive rights of the rights owners in the Original Work or Software, of the exhaustion of those rights or of other applicable limitations thereto.

5. Obligations of the Licensee

The grant of the rights mentioned above is subject to some restrictions and obligations imposed on the Licensee. Those obligations are the following:

Attribution right: the Licensee shall keep intact all copyright, patent or trademarks notices and all notices that refer to the Licence and to the disclaimer of warranties. The Licensee must include a copy of such notices and a copy of the Licence with every copy of the Work he/she distributes and/or communicates. The Licensee must cause any Derivative Work to carry prominent notices stating that the Work has been modified and the date of modification.

Copyleft clause: If the Licensee distributes and/or communicates copies of the Original Works or Derivative Works based upon the Original Work, this Distribution and/or Communication will be done under the terms of this Licence or of a later version of this Licence unless the Original Work is expressly distributed only under this version of the Licence. The Licensee (becoming Licensor) cannot offer or impose any additional terms or conditions on the Work or Derivative Work that alter or restrict the terms of the Licence.

Compatibility clause: If the Licensee Distributes and/or Communicates Derivative Works or copies thereof based upon both the Original Work and another work licensed under a Compatible Licence, this Distribution and/or Communication can be done under the terms of this Compatible Licence. For the sake of this clause, "Compatible Licence" refers to the licences listed in the appendix attached to this Licence. Should the Licensee's obligations under the Compatible Licence conflict with his/her obligations under this Licence, the obligations of the Compatible Licence shall prevail.

Provision of Source Code: When distributing and/or communicating copies of the Work, the Licensee will provide a machine-readable copy of the Source Code or indicate a repository where this Source will be easily and freely available for as long as the Licensee continues to distribute and/or communicate the Work.

Legal Protection: This Licence does not grant permission to use the trade names, trademarks, service marks, or names of the Licensor, except as required f



HFS HTTP Server and PXELINUX
both use the GPL v2
which clearly state that all modification and diverted works are bound by the GPL v2

hivex and 7zip functions are LGPL specifying that any part of the code that uses those functions must be released as LGPL and source code available. other parts of the code may remain private. there may be some provisions/exclusions depending on how the binaries are linked.



If a product gives credits to other products that were used as inspiration, it does not automatically inherit their license restrictions. What matters here is that we have a good tool that can be used to ease the life of many people, legally.

according to the GPL v2it clearly does inherit the other licenses restrictions.

a few quotes from the GPL v2 FAQ

Can I release a modified version of a GPL-covered program in binary form only?
No. The whole point of the GPL is that all modified versions must be free software—which means, in particular, that the source code of the modified version is available to the users.

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
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.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

The GPL says that modified versions, if released, must be “licensed … to all third parties.” Who are these third parties?

Section 2 says that modified versions you distribute must be licensed to all third parties under the GPL. “All third parties” means absolutely everyone—but this does not require you to do anything physically for them. It only means they have a license from you, under the GPL, for your version.
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.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

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.

These requirements are the condition for including the GPL-covered code you received in a program of your own.

I'd like to incorporate GPL-covered software in my proprietary system. Can I do this by putting a “wrapper” module, under a GPL-compatible lax permissive license (such as the X11 license) in between the GPL-covered part and the proprietary part?

No. The X11 license is compatible with the GPL, so you can add a module to the GPL-covered program and put it under the X11 license. But if you were to incorporate them both in a larger program, that whole would include the GPL-covered part, so it would have to be licensed as a whole under the GNU GPL.

The fact that proprietary module A communicates with GPL-covered module C only through X11-licensed module B is legally irrelevant; what matters is the fact that module C is included in the whole.

I want to distribute an extended version of a GPL-covered program in binary form. Is it enough to distribute the source for the original version?
No, you must supply the source code that corresponds to the binary. Corresponding source means the source from which users can rebuild the same binary.

Part of the idea of free software is that users should have access to the source code for the programs they use. Those using your version should have access to the source code for your version.

A major goal of the GPL is to build up the Free World by making sure that improvement to a free program are themselves free. If you release an improved version of a GPL-covered program, you must release the improved source code under the GPL.




Furthermore, the EULA for Serva is just defending the author rights. We live with Windows EULA's since the dinosaur age and yet we use Windows every day.

and what about the rights of the software developers/authors of the code he/she used? in this case the Author's EULA is "defending" rights he is not entitled to.


Nobody is saying that Serva isn't a nice piece of code, I for one thought it was a bunch very nice improvements to tftp32 aside from the points I mentioned above. It is our duty to inform authors of license violations. perhaps they were not even aware that they were violating any licenses at all, and they then have the opportunity to make things right. However I have no respect for an author that does not respect the authors he used code from.

As a dev myself I understand an author wanting to keep his code and hard work private for some very good reasons. I do so myself on a select few apps for quality assurance and support reasons, but in that case don't use code from other project/libraries that explicitly forbid it. develop your own, use commercial libraries or obtain permission from the authors under a different (properly documented) agreement.
  • Nuno Brito, pscEx and MedEvil like this

#13 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12688 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 15 May 2012 - 02:50 PM

Nobody is saying that Serva isn't a nice piece of code, I for one thought it was a bunch very nice improvements to tftp32 aside from the points I mentioned above. It is our duty to inform authors of license violations. perhaps they were not even aware that they were violating any licenses at all, and they then have the opportunity to make things right. However I have no respect for an author that does not respect the authors he used code from.

As a dev myself I understand an author wanting to keep his code and hard work private for various reasons. I do so myself on a select few apps for quality assurance and support reasons, but in that case don't use code from other project/libraries that explicitly forbid it. develop your own, use commercial libraries or obtain permission from the authors under a different (properly documented) agreement.

:1st:
Peter

#14 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10448 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 15 May 2012 - 02:51 PM

The author got under fire because he gives honest credit to other authors. Would have been easier to skip these thanks/credits and avoid criticism, right now we'd be cheering up for a great new tool to be used.. :(

Maybe this is good opportunity to help Pat solve the licensing issues. What do you guys think?
:cheers:
  • pscEx and Libertarian like this

#15 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12688 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 15 May 2012 - 02:58 PM

Maybe this is good opportunity to help Pat solve the licensing issues. What do you guys think?

That's what homes32 suggested and I fully agee!

Peter
  • Libertarian likes this

#16 homes32

homes32

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1021 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  •  
    United States

Posted 15 May 2012 - 03:03 PM

The author got under fire because he gives honest credit to other authors. Would have been easier to skip these thanks/credits and avoid criticism, right now we'd be cheering up for a great new tool to be used.. :(

Maybe this is good opportunity to help Pat solve the licensing issues. What do you guys think?
:cheers:

the author got under fire for violating the European Union Public License and the GPL license.
not for giving credit. which was very good of him to do, just not enough in this case.

as for helping solve the issue, that was my intention to bring the violations to light; not to flame the author and imply that he/she is a terrible person. I would very much like to see this project further developed.
  • pscEx likes this

#17 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 10448 posts
  • Location:boot.wim
  • Interests:I'm just a quiet simple person with a very quiet simple life living one day at a time..
  •  
    European Union

Posted 15 May 2012 - 03:10 PM

I just to make it perfectly clear for both the author and other readers that our comments are not intended to flame or otherwise attack anyone.

I am also in favor of homes32 writings. If code used on this tool is subject to incompatible licensing, it is not the end of the world and the author can of course use this opportunity to clarify and solve reported issues.

Can we please get restored the first topic of this talk with a presentation about Serva?

#18 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 15 May 2012 - 03:44 PM

Can we please get restored the first topic of this talk with a presentation about Serva?

Please tell me, you don't still allow people to delete all their posts!
I mean, we only had this happening a couple of times before. :frusty:

:cheers:

#19 patpat

patpat

    Member

  • Banned
  • 48 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 15 May 2012 - 04:26 PM

here are a few obvious violations
HFS HTTP Server and PXELINUX
both use the GPL v2
which clearly state that all modification and diverted works are bound by the GPL v2


@homes32
just an example about your analysis;

HFS HTTP Server is coded in "Turbo Delphi" (similar to Pascal)
how can I derive code from something written in Pascal and use it on my C/C++ app?

PXELINUX;
can you really point out if I'm using a customized version of pxelinux for other reason that having the menu background image loaded from internal memory instead of an external file?

TFTPD32:
Are you really sure there are enough code within Serva for consider it a derivative work of TFTPD32 or you just say so because of my about box and the GUI that you like so much?

Serva is just only 1 Meg but it's a very complex application, I think you are rushing into conclusions that deserve a deeper analysis mostly when there’s somebody’s reputation involved.
You are casting serious accusations from a nick name, I’m a serious coder using my own name that I says thank you on my about box even to the ones that only gave me ideas about the colors of the HTML file browsing screen that you love so much. (BTW Thanks HFS)


@ Nuno,
Unfortunatelly things are escalating and I do not really feel comfortable on this forum, I think probably stepping out is the best.
Please leave this post for a couple of days and after that I ask you again to remove all my participations on this forum and links to my web site. After that you guys can say whatever you want about Serva and myself. This is final.

PS: I just want to say sorry to all the honest users from this comunity that really treated me with consideration and respect, they are welcome to download a free working copy of all my software from my website, just put "Serva" on Google.
  • Libertarian likes this

#20 homes32

homes32

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1021 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  •  
    United States

Posted 15 May 2012 - 06:48 PM

HFS HTTP Server is coded in "Turbo Delphi" (similar to Pascal)
how can I derive code from something written in Pascal and use it on my C/C++ app?

sorry. HFS was probably a bad example, although if you were to port the code to C++ it could be considered a derived work.

PXELINUX;
can you really point out if I'm using a customized version of pxelinux for other reason that having the menu background image loaded from internal memory instead of an external file?

doesn't matter. you modified the boot-loader. customized is customized is modified/derived. It makes no difference how large or small the changes are.

TFTPD32:
Are you really sure there are enough code within Serva for consider it a derivative work of TFTPD32 or you just say so because of my about box and the GUI that you like so much?.

any code is enough code. The fact that the GUI alone is nearly identical down to the options, layout and the wording is grounds enough for justify questioning. even without binary comparisons its quite clear that you started with tftp32 and worked from there. It doesn't matter how many changes you made, bugs you fixed, code you rewrote, and features you added. you still modified an original work and are bound by that works license.


no one is doubting your dedication to developing this tool or your coding skills, they are just asking that you honor the licenses of projects you derived code from.

I am done with this argument. I have made my point known. Do what you will.

#21 patpat

patpat

    Member

  • Banned
  • 48 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 15 May 2012 - 08:33 PM

> HFS was probably a bad example
When people’s reputation depends on your examples those must not by any means be “bad examples”

>although if you were to port the code (Pascal) to C++ it could be considered a derived work
besides that I have said I took the HTML look&feel from HFS; have you ever coded Pascal and C++?
Have you ever "ported" anything from Pascal to C++? let say Thread management, Synchronization, Memory management?

>...The fact that the GUI alone is nearly identical down to the options,...
Well.. probably you should read my about box more carefully;
I thanks Tftpd32 v3.35, now you try to run that version of Ttftpd32 and tell me if Serva’s GUI looks like Tftpd32 or if it is the other way around


A derivative work is "derivative" if your final piece of code can be traced back to the original source.
If you change your work so much that it cannot be traced to the source that's not a derivative work or
at least you will have a very hard time proving it is.
Serva has replaced TFTP protocol, DHCP, DNS, SNTP, and scheduled the future SYSLOG change including TCP SYSLOG
Serva has added a completely new GUI (Setting, messages, etc)
Serva has added HTTP, FTP, proxyDHCP, and now a "whole" RIS/WDS BINL module.
and you call Serva a Tftpd32 clone? I think you are wrong...

You are a developer right? then probably you can guess the kind of work that involves
making a software like Serva. Then, don’t you think if I would’ve needed to hide anything I would’ve been able to do it??
Tftpd32 is an amazing program and I always want to thank Philippe Jounin but that does not give you the right to say certain things you have said here.

I do not know why you do this to me, but what I really know it's that if you ever need to net install any MS OS you will use Serva.

Best
See you guys

PS: this has been my last post here.
  • Libertarian likes this

#22 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12688 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:01 PM

@patpat

I personally do not agree what happens here.
I wrote a PM to some engaged users.

I understand your feelings to be misinterpeted / misunderstood. But may I ask yo, to stay active inspit of that.

I personally several times decided to give up her. But there has been allways a friend asking me to revide my decision. As you see the result, I stayed.

Peter

#23 krillin6

krillin6
  • Members
  • 3 posts
  •  
    United States

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:10 PM

PatPat,

I am on your side on this. Inspiration is not a component of any GPL I know of, and is definitely not a part of GPL rev2. If you make a modification of a GPL2 licensed product, of course you must adhere to the License, but there are always exceptions when asking for money; those expemptions are:

"You may charge a fee for the physical act of transferring a copy, and you may at your option offer warranty protection in exchange for a fee." (http://www.gnu.org/l...es/gpl-2.0.html)

I would agree that porting code (starting with the Licensed code and modifying to work in another language) is definitely a modification as well. If that happened, then I'm sure it was an honest mistake. If that isn't the case, then simply ignore anyone who talks about it.

Don't let haters get you down, but you should at least take their comments into consideration, and simply ignore them if you know they're wrong or making pointless assumptions. Basically, pick your battles. At the end of the day, I really think you had no ill intentions and there are a lot of over-reactions on all forums. I have issues like this all the time, and if someone is flaming (even if they don't realize they are), I ignore them, as that is the best response to pointless posts.

Also, if anyone wants to respond to me other than PatPat, let it be know I will ignore you. This post was for him, and I don't care if you disagree with me.

#24 Lewis

Lewis

    Newbie

  • Members
  • 18 posts
  •  
    Australia

Posted 15 May 2012 - 09:57 PM

The founder of this board has set the rule, a long time ago, that warez should neighter be distributed nor supported nor discussed here.
If you don't like this rule, find yourself a nice little warez board or strike a deal with Nuno, that you will cover all legal expenses out of your own pocket.


I'm sure your very popular on other boards too, with your f#§$ the mods attitude.

Maybe we should really start, simply to delete posts, which violates any of the boards rules, without trying to educate people about, what they did wrong.


Have to agree on this one. Was rather surprised, being notified in the newsletter about this thread and then reading that the author wants all his posts deleted.
But then, i'm getting informed on a regular basis about my own threads.

:cheers:


Warez = Illegal duplication of software, essentially copyright infringement

This...this isn't warez.

But throwing that word around for scare tactics doesn't help anyone, or the discussion. Become familiar with what is happening in this thread before saying that the author is promoting warez. You are essentially saying that the author is a pirate and/or is engaged in piracy. Which isn't the case. So the whole "no warez on this board" thing is void. Adding into the mix that reboot.pro isn't hosting the software, what was your argument? Even if it was warez, its not illegal to discuss it (only illegal to discuss copy protection etc). We have free speech, and you cannot impede the right to free speech (nor can any reasonable mod).

I don't have a f**k the mods attitude. I have an attitude aligned with the fact that an author can put hours into a project only to have it thrown back in his face. I have an attitude that tells me that that is wrong, and that he should be stood up for. If me standing up for that means I get banned as a byproduct or that I'm not "popular with the mods" then so be it. I don't care about popularity. I care about doing whats right.

Also yeah people, the GUI does look the same (or same-ish) but what does this mean? MIUI "looks like" iOS, does it share the same code base? No.

We are not the license police. So please people, stop acting like it.

Patpat, your software is revolutunairy. The ProxyDHCP functionality is awesome. Keep up the good work and ignore the haters. You don't have to justify yourself to anyone else. You know whats in your code and if you, in clear conscience, can say that its your own code then thats good enough for me. And it should be good enough for everyone else here.

#25 homes32

homes32

    Gold Member

  • .script developer
  • 1021 posts
  • Location:Minnesota
  •  
    United States

Posted 15 May 2012 - 10:21 PM

This discussion is getting out of hand and proportion.


Several forum members have expressed well meaning concern about the program in question violating various open source licensing agreements.

The author insists that his program does not use any code from any open source projects who's license agreements require source code to be released.
As this is his Word we here at reboot shall hold him to it, and if anyone has any further discussion on the matter they should take it up privately with the author, reboot.pro administration (Nuno), or the authors of the software alleged to be infringed on. Nothing more is to be gained by further discussion in this topic.

Nobody here thinks the author is a bad person, or is deliberately "stealing code"

Nobody here is attacking the authors character.

Everybody that has posted thinks that Serva is a nice piece of software with good features and that the author should stick around.

Patpat as long as you and your software are in good standing you are welcome here at reboot.pro.
I look forward to you posting future work.

This topic is closed.





Also tagged with one or more of these keywords: wds, ris, pxe, dhcp, tftp

0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users