Jump to content











Photo
* * * * * 1 votes

Please ALL .script developers read here


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

#1 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 22 September 2007 - 06:07 PM

It has come to my attention that some .script developers have embedded in their .scripts non-redistributable files.

As you might know I have always been contrary to this feature of Winbuilder as I foresaw the possibility that someone could use it in the "wrong" way.

And in most cases, even when files are in the Public Domain, Freeware or however re-distributable, the Author is deprived of the small satisfaction of being cited in such a way that the "final" user of the .script may be able to perceive.

So, I had a talk with Nuno, which proposed to put any uploaded .script "on hold" until approved by him or by a selected "board of testers".

I expressed my concern that this procedure may:
1) put an additional load of work or pressure on Nuno or to the "testers"
2) could cause a delay to the actual release of a new .script
3) could be seen by the "good" .script developers, which I believe to be the vast majority, as a form of censorship or unneeded centralized control over their work

So, what I propose is an amendment to Rules as follows:

Amendment #2 to Rules Month Day, 2007 - adding of point 1.a
ADDITIONAL provisions for "warez" in .scripts
It has recently come to the attention of the Admins of the board that some .script developers embedded in their .scripts files which re-distribution is not allowed under the terms of their respective License, files found to infringe the Authors License were removed.
Effective from xx/xx/2007 :
1.a ANY .script uploaded to the Downloads section and/or announced on the board and/or attached to a post must be accompanied (in the download description or in the post) with the following information:
- List of ALL files embedded in the .script
- Reference, for each file or group of files coming from the same package, to the Source where it can be found on the Internet (if any), to the Author and to the License accompanying
the file(s), even if the Author of the .script is also the Author or Copyright Owner of the embedded file(s)
- If the .script has no files embedded, a simple statement like "This .script contains no embedded files of any kind."
1.b ANY .script uploaded to the Downloads section and/or announced on the board and/or attached to a post missing ANY of the above information will be deleted.
1.c Users found to "hide" Copyrighted or however non-redistributable files inside their .scripts will be eventually banned from the board


Nuno approved this latter idea and (reproduced from a PM by permission):

Hmm.. However the only obstacle I see is the additional work load in effectively listing all files when writing the script public post - this act itself can take a while longer that writing the script itself and a standard method should be made available so that the script presentation can have a polished and organized look.

I can add a new tool inside wb to take of this part - a small tool to create a list of all files inside a script, also adding a few customizable fields like the sort of license in wich the app is included, app author, website, etc.

This way any .script developer would only need to open up their script inside wb, and inside the edit script tools would appear a small tab saying "Publish" where all these details were automatically published.

Wouldn't be available for non .script files but at least it would set a standard for the scripts with embedded files.

......

I would like that this could be discussed and implemented over the next wb beta - which is likely the ideal time to add this new feature and polish the rough edges.


Ideas, opinions and suggestions are welcome, as well as the cooperation from everyone to single out and correct or remove .scripts already posted that may be against this amendment to Rules.

jaclaz

#2 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 01:08 AM

I think this is overkill!
Cause:
1. Almost no developer will give you a list of contained files in their apps, so why should we list their files?
2. Every program i know of, contains information about its developer and homepage.
So no need to explicitly write this down again.
3. If someone is too dumb to find those informations in a program, who are we to force him to know? :loleverybody:

If you wanna do something, keep it simple.
Include the url of the homepage in the script and also in the post, nothing more.

:w00t:

#3 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 23 September 2007 - 07:47 AM

I think this is overkill!
Cause:
1. Almost no developer will give you a list of contained files in their apps, so why should we list their files?
2. Every program i know of, contains information about its developer and homepage.
So no need to explicitly write this down again.
3. If someone is too dumb to find those informations in a program, who are we to force him to know? :loleverybody:

If you wanna do something, keep it simple.
Include the url of the homepage in the script and also in the post, nothing more.

:w00t:

To show that this is not a lonely idea by jaclaz:

I agree to the basics of his post:
Here very often license rights are violated.
And (if allowed) when somebody passes a third party file in a script, he/she must respect the license rules and add some files like EULA etc.

Peter

#4 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 23 September 2007 - 10:58 AM

1. Almost no developer will give you a list of contained files in their apps, so why should we list their files?

A developer embedding the program in a .script actually re-packages and re-distributes third party files, and does this through boot-land, that must somehow check that this activity and the resulting .script is Legal and, as much as possible, safe for the final user.

This can be done from the "base", i.e. with developers that add this info, or from the "vertex", i.e. by the Owner of the board.

Would it be better to add a very small amount of work to that of each developer or increase enormously the amount of work of the Owner?

Let me think....:loleverybody:


2. Every program i know of, contains information about its developer and homepage.
So no need to explicitly write this down again.

Yes, but often the .script is made so that the application is installed, copied or used "silently", bypassing License Agreements and/or preventing the user to read the License.
And, by the way, this actually is the same as your idea:

If you wanna do something, keep it simple.
Include the url of the homepage in the script and also in the post, nothing more.

Unfortunately, a number of programs do not have a homepage, or do not have one in which the License is viewable, as the latter is inside the download.
By embedding the app in the .script and "easying" it's install or copying prevents, in most cases, the user from actually seeing the contents of the original download, including it's license.


3. If someone is too dumb to find those informations in a program, who are we to force him to know? :w00t:

First thing, I consider calling a possible user of Winbuilder "dumb" to be unneededly unpolite. :w00t:

Maybe a user can be inexperienced, and thus needing guidance, but remember that the scope of Winbuilder is to ease some tasks (that, generally speaking, an experienced user is already able to perform) for the benefit of all users and expecially of the less experienced ones.
Following this idea of helping people, I find it a duty of boot-land, and of its more prominent members, the .script developers, to do whatever in their power to make things as simple as possible for unexperienced users and as documented as possible for everyone.
This includes making people aware of the License under which the app they are going to use is released, besides the name and homesite of the Author, where they might be able to find more informations on the use of the program, get to know about bugs and new releases, etc..

Of course there are a number of alternatives, here are a few:
1) Nuno and the "board of testers" manually reviewing, adding the needed info and approving every single .script file before allowing it's download
2) Close the Download area and lock the downloading of attachments to posts, limiting the access to them to a number of "approved" (which you may call "non-dumb" :w00t:) members
3) Prevent members to upload .scripts to the server
4) Leave everything as is, and let the board slowly become a "warez" one

Reasons against #1 have been already pointed out, in my opinion #2 and #3 would effectively prevent a number of people from using Winbuilder, vanifying the idea at the base of it, #4 is against the very spirit of the board and of most of it's members.

:w00t:

jaclaz

#5 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 11:28 AM

As you may remember I raised this issue a long time ago :loleverybody:
I also demonstrated how to use free tools (WGET and MSI2XML) to automate upload and file extraction.
Now I want to say: using embedded files is not a good idea because it creates problem with potential copyright violations.
What jacklaz proposed is a training, i.e. organizational solution.
I hope, any IT professional would agree: organizational solutions should be avoided and replaced with automation.

That's why I propose following:
1. Redistributable files should be hosted at Boot-Land Download and automatically downloaded along with corresponding scripts.
2. It would be reasonable to allow inclusion of text files (such as CMD scripts) into WB scripts as a plain text.
3. It should be additional set of scripts to download and extract non-redistributable 3rd party files at client site.
4. It's better to have converter that would extract embedded files from all scripts and place them to Download, unless it's a short text file that would be automatically embedded into the script as a plain text.

Of course, some people would say that embedded files are OK, because we set rules how to use them, but rules require some entity to inforce them, which we don't have. Even if we had it, how to deal with disputes, differences in local law, arbitration, etc.?
It's easy to say something's prohibited and will be punished, but who's willing to screen embedded files, locate their sources, locate corresponding licenses, interpret them, make decisions, execute punishment, accept appeals, etc.? In addition, questionable situations would lead to lengthy discussions and stress the community.

Everything that can be autometed should be autometed, the rest should be autometed too :w00t:

:w00t:
Alexei

PS
My posst was crossed with the one by jaclaz.
So, I'd like to add that "scripts to download and extract non-redistributable 3rd party files" may include presenting of EULA to the end-user and require user's acceptance. Such download scripts may call common script with parameters:
local path, source URL, files to extract, extraction method, EULA file name.

#6 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 12:36 PM

Would everyone please stop appologizing, before someone even feels offended!

4) Leave everything as is, and let the board slowly become a "warez" one

I really don't see how this should happen, since we don't allow commercial software as far as i know.

Now I want to say: using embedded files is not a good idea because it creates problem with potential copyright violations.

How?
Freeware and shareware can be passed on from user to user. That's what they are even invented for, if i remember right. :loleverybody:
And the only rule the developer insist on, is that all his files have to be passed on.
No problem here eighter.

And the sometime ago, put forward idea of not embedding software in a script, but instead letting the script download the program from the original developers site.
Changes absolutely nothing in regard to this discussion. Since the software would still be installed silently.
But we could look forward to many, many script stop working when the program that it downloads is updated, changed or the url is changed, goes offline.

:w00t:

PS: Would someone please explain to me how naming all files in, for instance Firefox, would stop copyright related problems?

#7 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10557 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 23 September 2007 - 01:17 PM

It's also possible to include licenses inside the scripts and the end user has a word to say wether to accept a license agreement or not for copyrighted software with restrictive licensing.

This feature has been inside wb for a long while but very rarely needed, I'm posting an example screenshot of this command displaying the EULA.TXT file from a Portuguese XP

license_agreement.JPG

.script developers only need to add something like:
If,NotLicense,E:\Sources\XP_SP2_PRO_PT\I386\EULA.txt,Exit,"License was not acepted"

I think wb itself can help by having a tool that served as a template for posting scripts online - mentioning authors, version, website, screenshot (if any), etc.. things that would give users more informations about what they are downloading and generate them in automated fashion.


:loleverybody:

#8 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 01:18 PM

Freeware and shareware can be passed on from user to user. That's what they are even invented for, if i remember right. :loleverybody:

Unfortunately, a lot of freeware and shareware is not allowed to be re-distributed, i.e. hosted on 3rd party sites.

And the sometime ago, put forward idea of not embedding software in a script, but instead letting the script download the program from the original developers site.
Changes absolutely nothing in regard to this discussion. Since the software would still be installed silently.
But we could look forward to many, many script stop working when the program that it downloads is updated, changed or the url is changed, goes offline.

- The script that makes download can show the license and ask for its acceptance.
- Even if download script downloads the license, but doesn't show it, it can hardly be considered copyright violation, especially if there is general note requiring end-user to accept related EULAs. A lot of software is distributed in zips that just contain text file with a license.
Once again, it better be separate downloading scripts that do what's required.
Regarding scripts may stop working: that's the cost of using non-redistributable software :w00t:
:w00t:
Alexei

#9 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 01:24 PM

I think wb itself can help by having a tool that served as a template for posting scripts online - mentioning authors, version, website, screenshot (if any), etc.. things that would give users more informations about what they are downloading and generate them in automated fashion.

:w00t:

:loleverybody:

#10 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 01:48 PM

Just to make sure we're all on the same level.
You guys know that we're doing here things with XP, that do not comply with the intended use of it and is therefore not allowed.
If you read the EULA you will notice that M$ grants you rights. That means unless the laws of state your living in overwrites those, you have no rights except those granted clearly in the EULA!!!

The absolute minimum would be that the user needs 1 license for the OS he runs WB on and an additional one for each existing PE he/she owns.
While still the question would have to cleared up in the court of law. If WBPE or BARTPE are true PEs.
Cause if so, M$ regulations about PE would apply to those too and that would mean....
A PE can only be legal possesed by a systembuilder or OEM.
But M$ has never tryed to inforce that, as far as i know. And has only forced Bart to remove some special files that do not exist on an everage XP.

Things look a little different with the latest PE which is released under a less restrictive license.

:loleverybody:

#11 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 23 September 2007 - 02:08 PM

.script developers only need to add something like:

If,NotLicense,E:\Sources\XP_SP2_PRO_PT\I386\EULA.txt,Exit,"License was not acepted"

I would prefer:
If,NotLicense,EncodedFile-Folder-AutoIt License.txt,Exit,"License was not acepted"

Currently I see the only way to make a close and persistent link between script and license:
To include the license in the script.

Peter

#12 Nuno Brito

Nuno Brito

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 10557 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 23 September 2007 - 02:13 PM

Yes, I also think that they've calmed a bit since 2003 - at least until something similar to autopatcher occurs.. :loleverybody:

The discussion is likely more targeted to the programs embedded inside scripts and for the PE based projects (I only used a XP eula because it was handy to find.. :w00t:)

I personally use mainly free/open source apps for my daily work - like komposer, open office, firefox, kmplayer, burnerXP and these are quite good.

Let's hope the future gives more great apps that we can use on daily basis - in the meanwhile, new script developers should be explained about these ms license restrictions (and other companies as well).. :w00t:

#13 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 23 September 2007 - 03:25 PM

@Medevil

I really don't see how this should happen, since we don't allow commercial software as far as i know.

You seem to have been missing the reason for this to start, I already found, by chance, a few, .scripts embedding COMMERCIAL or however non-redistributable software hosted on boot-land.

I made the ones I found inaccessible to users.

I couldn't care less if a user, by using Winbuilder on or with an OS in any such way to be against of the License accompanying the OS itself breaks it.

It's the user legal or moral problem.

But I do not want boot-land or myself to be thought in any way responsible or even only favouring it.

And this not only from a mere legal but also from a moral standpoint.

This is not the place nor the time to discuss about the various forms of licenses around: exception made for Public Domain apps (and however the Author statement donating it to Public Domain is itself a form of license), and a few that are accompanied by no license, the vast majority of programs are released under one form of license or another.

You may like it or not, comply to it or not, but have the right/duty to know what it contains.

You might as well have the freedom, which you apparently chose, to ignore it alltogether, Alexei is perfectly right, lots of "Freeware" have restrictions about re-distributing or re-packaging, but this must NOT be induced by third parties by omissions or mis-representations.

While you, as an individual, have the freedom to ignore it, I, as an individual, must have the freedom to respect it, but both of us need to know its contents.

The big difference between the two choices above is that the first is, if not legally, morally reprehensible and thus is not acceptable when adopted by the community, and moreover by not making everything in our power to let users make an informed choice we would vanify the "helping" spirit of the board.

In other words, the Owner of the board and Author of Winbuilder has already decided, and I am with him, to do as much as possible to stop and prevent illegal or even only morally reprehensible use of the board or of Winbuilder, the point here is not discussing whether he or his ideas are right or wrong, only which way is the best to enforce this decision causing the least problems to him, to Admins and Mods of the board, to .script developers and users.

The idea from Alexei seems to me a good alternative for non-redistributable files, Winbuilder could show a messagebox like "trying to download program from homepage".
If the download does not work, another messagebox could pop up like "Download failed, please type another Internet address to download from or local path to the program program".

jaclaz

#14 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 23 September 2007 - 03:37 PM

The idea from Alexei seems to me a good alternative for non-redistributable files, Winbuilder could show a messagebox like "trying to download program from homepage".
If the download does not work, another messagebox could pop up like "Download failed, please type another Internet address to download from or local path to the program program".

We should think about an additional choice for the user:
The user has already installed the third party software on his system.
In this case the script should give the ability to the user to copy all necessary files, registry entries, user application data (including serial numbers, license keys) etc. from his/her PC to his/her PE.

As a sample you can see what I did in the VirtualBox.Script.
(In this case there was nothing to copy, just to use)
When I wrote the script I thought about license and decided not to enclude the prog in the script, even if it is free.
I made the script working only if VirtualBox is installed on the user's PC and gave a URL where to download.

Peter

#15 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 04:09 PM

@Medevil
You seem to have been missing the reason for this to start, I already found, by chance, a few, .scripts embedding COMMERCIAL or however non-redistributable software hosted on boot-land.

I made the ones I found inaccessible to users.

Sorry, you're right, i missed that fact. And i absolutely agree to throw scripts like this out and give the developer a strong warning, on first violation.
We don't distribute hacked or pirated software here.

What scripts/software are we talking about?

:loleverybody:

#16 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 23 September 2007 - 04:28 PM

Sorry, you're right, i missed that fact. And i absolutely agree to throw scripts like this out and give the developer a strong warning, on first violation.
We don't distribute hacked or pirated software here.

What scripts/software are we talking about?

:loleverybody:

I disagree to publish corresponding script names ore developers here.
Maybe the developers are 'pirates'.
But maybe they are just programmers, forgetting in their enthusiasm, that they are doing something wrong.

So perhaps by enum here we would attack somebody who right now does not even know that he/she did something illegal.

Peter

#17 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 04:36 PM

And what i feared would happen has already started! :loleverybody:
psc posts

Before you now proudly post your script:
This is not allowed in this condition.

Foxit Reader has a License Agreement, which you had to accept before installing.
A pure distribution of the .exe, is for sure not allowed.

If you wanna release the script with the program encoded, you have to also do all the other actions, which are in the license requested

Peter


Answer

i don't wanna post the script...just use it with my VistaPE

With other words:
If you don't want it, then i use it just myself.

Or with politically uncorrect words
If you don't want it, then #$%& yourself. :w00t:

:w00t:

#18 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 04:45 PM

I disagree to publish corresponding script names ore developers here.
Maybe the developers are 'pirates'.
But maybe they are just programmers, forgetting in their enthusiasm, that they are doing something wrong.

So perhaps by enum here we would attack somebody who right now does not even know that he/she did something illegal.

Peter

First, who wants to attack anyone here?
Second, with just a fishy, i have found some evidence, but will not present it for review.
I will for sure withdraw any previously clearly stated or inplied agreement to this case.

I do not intend to go to war, over some non existing chemical weapons! :w00t:

:loleverybody:

#19 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 23 September 2007 - 05:00 PM

And what i feared would happen has already started! :loleverybody:
psc posts


Answer

With other words:
If you don't want it, then i use it just myself.

Or with politically uncorrect words
If you don't want it, then #$%& yourself. :w00t:

:w00t:

@Medevil,
thanks for your translation of the German posts into English.
The result is logically correct.
BTW you at least should have insert a 'EDIT' or 'TRANSLATED' into the quotes.

But I disagree with your extrapolation:
When user ??? copies a copyrighted file onto his/her own PE CD, that is never an issue for the WinBuilder forum, as long as he/she does not publish the script / PE build directories / PE CD ISO in the forum.

Therefore: Any comment here is unnecessary.

Peter

#20 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 23 September 2007 - 05:12 PM

And what i feared would happen has already started! :loleverybody:
psc posts
Answer

With other words:
If you don't want it, then i use it just myself.

Or with politically uncorrect words
If you don't want it, then #$%& yourself. :w00t:

:w00t:


Though I cannot appreciate the German original text, I really don't see the problem (not the one you feared, nor the one that supposedly happened), if a user wishes to share his .script,he is welcome, as long as he complies to board Rules, if he wants to share it not, he is welcome as well.

This is Freedom.

Letting a user do everything he wants, the way he wants, in violation of board Rules is Chaos.

As already said from the beginning:
http://www.boot-land...?...pic=82&st=9

....
In a "perfect" world, the above rules would be unnecessary, as all people would "naturally" behave along the same guidelines, which are nothing more than mutual respect.

But please do remember that our is not a "perfect" world, and, particularly, this is a privately owned board where the Owner/Admins/Mods have the power to do whatever they see fit to keep things going as smooth as possible.

You can dislike the idea of rules and even dislike the particular rules that have been stated, but if you do not comply with them, you can leave, there are other places to go.


Back to topic:

Sorry, you're right, i missed that fact. And i absolutely agree to throw scripts like this out and give the developer a strong warning, on first violation.

And since I happened to notice by chance those ones, do you think that the board should count on this to prevent other issues?
As far as I know there could be already some more "bad" .scripts and if, as I expect, Winbuilder and VistaPE popularity is going to increase in the future, situation could well get out of control due to the amount of new releases.

We don't distribute hacked or pirated software here.
What scripts/software are we talking about?

Sure, and we don't apply scarlet letters on anyone's vest or blouse either.

jaclaz

#21 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 06:14 PM

Ok let state my problem more clearly.
We already have the problem that lots of people have/use scripts they do not share.
I remember when joining here seeing all those beautiful screenshot whith tons of programs.
But what was avilable for download was only a small percentage.

Just have a look around we have thousands of users but the number of script devepoers are only a fistful.
And nobody try to tell me that all users out there, use only the software in their build we have created scripts for!

My very first script was so bad Nuno had to patch it up silently to do something more than copy some files into the build.

And now we start raising the bars for beginners to the point where the legal stuff is actually more complicated to implement than the program.

Where is KISS here?

We should protect this forum from warez no question, but not with such overkill of measures.
People know what a cracked/hacked software is and telling them not to use those, can be understood by everyone.
Having to go with a fine comb through the fineprint of a free- or shareware will only succeed in preventing more people from writing and posting their scripts.

:loleverybody:

#22 was_jaclaz

was_jaclaz

    Finder

  • Advanced user
  • 7100 posts
  • Location:Gone in the mist
  •  
    Italy

Posted 23 September 2007 - 06:58 PM

Medevil
the only one with a (broken) fine comb here seem to be you.:w00t:

We already have the problem that lots of people have/use scripts they do not share.

This is not a problem, people is either willing to share a .script or they are not.

Just have a look around we have thousands of users but the number of script devepoers are only a fistful.

Most people is selfish, and most people won't share their .scripts, NO MATTER whether hosting them on boot-land is easy or it is VERY SLIGHTLY more complex.

And nobody try to tell me that all users out there, use only the software in their build we have created scripts for!

I will.

Most (NOT all) users out there come here just to leech what the few .script developers did.

As soon as they need help for something they have probably not even tried to solve by themselves, they post a question on the board, and, as soon as a willing .script developer tells them how to do it, they disappear, not to be seen again on the board.

Life is like this, you'll have to live with it.

And now we start raising the bars for beginners to the point where the legal stuff is actually more complicated to implement than the program.


Let me tell you that, as an almost completely unexperienced Winbuilder user, the real problem that I see (and the one that actually prevents me from using Winbuilder and stopped me from trying to learn .script syntax) is the absolute, and almost integral lack of good documentation, and the continuously changing and adding of features.
This is perfectly normal for the Beta stage of Winbuilder, but we won't be in Beta forever.

Where is KISS here?


DO NOT EMBED third party software in .scripts, unless you are sure this is allowed, if it is, add the needed info.

Isn't that simple? :loleverybody:

jaclaz

#23 MedEvil

MedEvil

    Platinum Member

  • .script developer
  • 7771 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 08:29 PM

This is not a problem, people is either willing to share a .script or they are not.

Very computery/binary view of things. :w00t:
In reality you usually have 3 groups.
Those who will not share no matter what.
Those who will share no matter what.
Those who will swing to eighter one side.
The 3rd group is always the biggest of the 3 and can be influenced. That's what for instance election campaigns are all about.

DO NOT EMBED third party software in .scripts, unless you are sure this is allowed, if it is, add the needed info.

Isn't that simple? :loleverybody:

No it's not. Having a lawyer in the family, *Thanks for the condolences! :w00t: *
i can tell you, that noone can ever be sure about what's allowed! :w00t:

:w00t:

#24 Alexei

Alexei

    Silver Member

  • .script developer
  • 664 posts

Posted 23 September 2007 - 08:50 PM

DO NOT EMBED third party software in .scripts, unless you are sure this is allowed, if it is, add the needed info.

Isn't that simple? :cheers:

jaclaz

Unfortunately, it just looks simple :cheers:
:cheers:
Alexei

#25 pscEx

pscEx

    Platinum Member

  • Team Reboot
  • 12707 posts
  • Location:Korschenbroich, Germany
  • Interests:What somebody else cannot do.
  •  
    European Union

Posted 23 September 2007 - 09:03 PM

Unfortunately, it just looks simple :cheers:
:cheers:
Alexei

Oops, things become doable :cheers:

Peter




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users