Website Hosting Free Version of MySEQ

[slartibartfast]

Now that the "Official MySEQ Website" has moved to a subscription based system, without giving any credit or renumeration to the original author CavemanBob I have decided to offer support for version 1.x of MySEQ + will endeavor to keep up to date offset files freely available.

Visit my crap website (http://www.geocities.com/slartibartfast1232000/index.html)

[Ratt]

Do you want some space on here?

I can set you up with whatever you need.

I hate to see what's happened with MySEQ .. but it's pretty much turning out like I suspected it would. Greed always seems to win in the end, which is why I've tried to keep SEQ as free as possible. I will shut down the whole site before I'd let it get perverted into something like MySEQ has.

Let me know what you need and I'll get you taken care of.

[PappaSmurf]

Just a quick heads-up. You are missing a few files as part of the source distro.
1) app.config - missing.

Also, could you possibly add links to the libraries that are needed in order to build.

Some of the namespaces being referrenced are not present in source distro and as such the solution fails during build.

namespace - SpeechLib ( SpeechLib is a Reference )
namespace - Crownwood ( MagicLibrary is a Reference )
namespace - DockingManager
namespace - CP ( FolderBrowser is a Reference )

Links to where these can be downloaded would be great.


Thanks,
PappaSmurf

[slartibartfast]

Opps - I just posted the latest zip on my machine - forgot it didnt include the referenced dll's

I have Added a Support Files Zip, that contains the 3 referenced external dll's:
SpeechLib.dll
FolderBrowser.dll
MagicLibrary.DLL

Let me know if I have missed anything else :)

The Missing "App.Config" does not appear to do anything (I dont have a copy of this file either) - just delete it from the project and you should be ok.

[slartibartfast]

Bah I dont have Developer Access to the MySEQ web site anymore - Lucky I downloaded all 10000 registered users email addresses yesterday so I can tell them all about the free version.

[Ratt]

Since the original code of MySEQ was developed under the GPL, ALL SUBSEQUENT work based off of it is also subject to the GPL. If the source code is not made available, MQSEQ2 is in violation of the license.

He must release the source code to the latest version, and it MUST be publically available. Any further work he does on that branch also must be made available. Unless he rewrites EVERYTHING from the ground up, he's not allowed to distribute MySEQ without making the source pubically available.

Since he's charging money for it, he can really be sued into oblivion. I doubt he's doing it under a corporate name, and thus his personal ass(ets) will be in a major sling. Cavemanbob has an open and shut case here if he'd like to pursue it.

Even if he were to incorporate tomorrow, it's too late, as he's already started charging and there is public record of it. If someone decides to pursue... you know, maybe even a certain large corporation like say... Sony... thing will get real, real ugly for him real fast.

I almost have pity for him... but greedy people piss me off.

[Ratt]

Seeing as MQSEQ2 has decided to be an asshat and delete some of the posts on the MySEQ forums, I've taken the liberty to remove his moderator access and restore the posts.

Did he really think I don't keep backups of the forums? WTF?

[elf]

I went over to myseq.net, registered on the forums, and have no problem getting access to the programs, but search after search showed no source code. So, I dug this up.

http://www.rexpage.com/myseq/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2037&KW=source

Which is them complaining that Lax at Macroquest was charging access for a private, flame free forum and complaining about MQSEQ claiming code as his own. Funny, how the hint of money turns everyone into ogres. Hope no one minds if I go over there and fan the flames a little bit.

[PappaSmurf]

Okay, got the support files off your site. Everything built fine. Got Server and Client both built and running.

HOWEVER, not getting any skittles. Tried running client locally and remotely, nadda. Been a while since I have ran MySEQ, so I dont remember which ini file the offsets should be in. I have the following 3 ini files in my server directory:

1) myseqserver.ini
2) myseqserverc.ini
3) Offsets.ini

Do i need to merge one or more of these? 2 of them look like config files, while the Offsets.ini looks like the offsets. Just don't know what changed code wise since the last time I ran MySEQ.

Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
PappaSmurf

[purple]

This is off topic, but actually charging money for GPL software is perfectly fine as long as the person who buys it gets access to the source, has the right to redistribute it, and can modify it and redistribute it as long as it remains GPL and changes are contributed back to the source. It's a lot more complex than that, but the GPL is free as in speech, not free as in beer.

Now, if you do pay for it, you then have the right to redistribute it. And if you do pay for it you better get the source. If that isn't true, then they are violating the GPL I believe.

Of course everything I've learned about the GPL is from reading /. so your mileage may vary!

[BlueAdept]

Some GPL Faqs

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLRequireSourcePostedPublic

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.

Does the GPL allow me to sell copies of the program for money?
Yes, the GPL allows everyone to do this. The right to sell copies is part of the definition of free software. Except in one special situation, there is no limit on what price you can charge. (The one exception is the required written offer to provide source code that must accompany binary-only release.)

Does the GPL allow me to require that anyone who receives the software must pay me a fee and/or notify me?
No. In fact, a requirement like that would make the program non-free. If people have to pay when they get a copy of a program, or if they have to notify anyone in particular, then the program is not free. See the definition of free software.
The GPL is a free software license, and therefore it permits people to use and even redistribute the software without being required to pay anyone a fee for doing so.

If I distribute GPL'd software for a fee, am I required to also make it available to the public without a charge?
No. However, if someone pays your fee and gets a copy, the GPL gives them the freedom to release it to the public, with or without a fee. For example, someone could pay your fee, and then put her copy on a web site for the general public.

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.

Consider this situation: 1. X releases V1 of a project under the GPL. 2. Y contributes to the development of V2 with changes and new code based on V1. 3. X wants to convert V2 to a non-GPL license. Does X need Y's permission?
Yes. Y was required to release its version under the GNU GPL, as a consequence of basing it on X's version V1. Nothing required Y to agree to any other license for its code. Therefore, X must get Y's permission before releasing that code under another license.

So yes, they are in violation of the GPL.

[monster69]

You know, it's funny, I can no longer find mention of the MySeq "subscription service" on their website. I think they are starting to get the picture, however, I still can't find the source code.

Ah, one of the many reasons I enjoy the FOSS community so much.

*Edit*

My mistake, they have "changed their mind" about MySEQ being subscription based and set it back to donation based, but will still make their other "new and exciting" products subscription based.

Still can't find the source code though.

Monster

[slartibartfast]

Papasmurf - You need to download the latest offsets file for the server - I uploaded the latest offsets files to my website.

Unzip the offset file into the same directory as the server and you should be gtg.

[cavemanbob]

Yes they appear to have changed their minds, for the moment anyway.

http://www.rexpage.com/myseq/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2179&PN=1

[BlueAdept]

It doesnt matter if it goes subscription or not. The problem is that they arent giving access to the source code which sill is a violation of the gpl

[slartibartfast]

Looks like they are going to totally rewrite the code from scratch, almost certainly with the hope of charging for it in the end...

http://www.rexpage.com/myseq/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2185

I was a bit busy this weekend, but I plan on implementing a couple of the version 2 features:
- Autoupdating Ini File
- Ability to select which character to monitor when running 2 chars on the same computer.

[Choofer]

3 Cheer's for your attitude RATT come downunder for a while and ill buy you some beers.

Choof

[weatherwax]

It's up to whoever owns the copyright - whoever released the code under the GPL in the first place, I guess - to enforce it. FSF will only get involved if the copyright was assigned to them. So I guess that in the absence of enforcement, what they're doing is illegal and wrong, but there's not much can be done about it... except what Slartibartfast is doing, and potentially continuing development from that old branch.

[BlueAdept]

Cavemanbob is the GPL licence holder. He is the one who originally made the program.

He should contact them, get the current source and re-release it since they dont want to release the current source.

If they do "redesign" it and start making it pay only, he should request that they provide him (and only him) the source code to make sure they arent infringing on his code. Not only that, he should make sure they change the name of the program. MySEQ name belonged to cavemanbob and I belive it is also be covered under the GPL.

[gawker]

Want the most recent source?

Go to http://www.aisto.com/roeder/dotnet/ and download Reflector (and whatever add-ins you want).

Install the latest MySEQ.exe and point the tool to the exe.

Reverse Engineering has never been made so easy.

[LordCrush]

Reverse Engineering has never been made so easy.

/cheer M$$$$ :eek:

[Iwannasee]

I tried using Reflector, and it does a pretty good job of it. But, it doesn't seem to get everything. I spent hours going through the resulting code and never found the time-out routines for MySEQ 2.1.2.9... :(

It seems they've decided to release *part* of the source code. Apparently they believe they aren't subject to the GPL and don't have to release complete source. :rolleyes: Check the link, towards the bottom.

http://www.rexpage.com/myseq/forum/forum_posts.asp?TID=2255&PN=1

[skorli]

Would anyone happen to have the offsets from around mid June? I would like to use Myseq on my eqemu server. Any help would be appreciated.

[CybMax]

How can a project having the same name but with just added functionality of a GPL source no longer be subject to GPL?

I thought that as long as you used a GPL source of something you had to continue to release the source as long as it is based on the GPL source?

[Ratt]

If any part, even one line of GPL code is used in a project and it's a part of the resulting binary, then it's subject to the GPL. (Obviously, proving one line of code would be impossible... but as a matter of technicallity) - regardless - I fully believe MQSEQ is in direct violation of the GPL. However, since I have zero code of my own in MySEQ, there's not much recourse I have to do anything. The people with code contributed to the original MySEQ tree would need to come forward and push for it.

[magictiger]

2.x is derived from later version of 1.x
1.x, at least since version 1.4 (that's the earliest we have an archive of) is in violation of the GPL. A program that is in violation of the GPL is not protected by the GPL, so MySEQ 2.x is not required to be GPL as the code it was derived from was never GPL in the first case. Just saying you're GPL isn't enough.

Unlike some people, we don't steal information from other projects to get our stuff up and running. Taking information from MacroQuest is not something that we're willing to do. We find our own offsets and structures.

Cybmax, your post was moved because it was incorrect and the last headache we needed was trying to support people having problems because of your incorrect offsets and structures. We move ALL offset posts for this same reason. It's too much headache for too little return.

[purple]

A program that is in violation of the GPL is not protected by the GPL, so MySEQ 2.x is not required to be GPL as the code it was derived from was never GPL in the first case. Just saying you're GPL isn't enough.

That's a bunch of hooey. Programs CANNOT violate the GPL. People violate the GPL by distributing code that they are not allowed to distribute because of the license granted by the original copyright holders of the work.

If 1.4 was based on 1.3 and was distributed under the GPL then it is either GPL, relicensed with consent of the copyright holders, or in violation of the GPL and illegal to distribute. If 1.4 was based on 1.3 and was distributed under another license without express transfer of copyrights from the contributing authors, then the person distributing the code is in violation of the GPL and is trouncing upon the wishes of the people who worked hard to create the original product, which is a shitty thing to do.

If 2.0 was based on 1.4 and is being distributed, the same applies. No matter what you tell yourself to make it right, you are in violation of the GPL if you take a GPLed program, change it, and redistribute under a non-GPL license without being explicitly assigned copyright by the authors. The end. No questions.

I don't know if you're the distributor in question here, magictiger, but if you are, you should abide by the GPL. Your two choices are finding all copyright holders and having them agree to a license change, or rewriting without using any code that you do not hold copyright over. Any other path is in violation of the license of the original code in question and your derivative work cannot be distributed lawfully.

[magictiger]

If someone could show me where 1.x prior to 1.15 contains a copy of the GPL, I'd appreciate it.
Just saying that it's GPL isn't enough. You do have to abide by the terms of the license to consider the software to be covered by that license.

[purple]

If it isn't GPL then it's covered by normal copyright. Normal copyright is more restrictive than the GPL. The GPL is actually waiving some rights granted under normal copyright. You'd need to contact each of the original copyright holders if you want to redistribute under a different license. If something isn't properly licensed, it doesn't fall into public domain. Sorry.

Feel free to keep trying to technicality away your assholishness if you want, though.

[magictiger]

Ah, my mistake then.
So any continuation on 1.x that uses any of MQSEQ's code is going to be done with his permission, right?

[purple]

Unless he has already given permission by licensing under a license that grants that permission like GPL or BSD, then I'd hope not.

[BlueAdept]

Ah, my mistake then.
So any continuation on 1.x that uses any of MQSEQ's code is going to be done with his permission, right?

I thought this would be cut and paste/black and white, but as I dug into it, I found myself being buried.

Ok here goes.

If there isnt a copyright notice or license agreement in the source, it does not mean that it is freeware. The original person still holds copyright on the source and program.

I reviewed several of the original threads, I did not find cavemanbob saying under what license it was, but it was release from a SF project which was under a GPL agreement. As far as I can find in the SF documents, any files released from a project falls under the license agreement of that project.

This is cavemanbobs original thread: http://www.showeq.net/forums/showthread.php?t=3159

Ok, if you dont like that answer, then this one is going to make your head spin. If source code is released without a copyright notice or license agreement, the original person still holds the copyright on the source, but every person who makes a change or addition in subsequent releases also have a copyright claim on the snipets (over 10 lines of code) of their contribution.

From what I had read, if MySEQ was not released under the GPL or one of the other similar licenses cavemanbob could still distribute MySEQ with the code contibutions intact (since they were given to him to include) up to the point at which time the project changed hands. From that point on, people have been violating his (and other developers) copyrights since no one got cavemanbobs (and all the other developers) specific approval to start a branch. That means the current version on www.myseq.net and, unfortuantely, slartibartfast's version are both illegal since neither of them have permission from cavemanbob and all the developers to distribute the source code or program.

I was going to go over what can and cant be done under the GPL but you can just go read it at http://www.opensource.org/licenses/gpl-license.php

[BlueAdept]

Ive been thinking about this a little more. I havent found the answers to it though.

If it isnt GPLed and if cavemanbob gave up all his copyright holdings on MySEQ to slartibartfast, could slartibartfast re-distribute the source and program without the permission of the other code contributors? Then the next question is if slartibartfast could distribute it, could he then change the license of the program to say GPL?

Any copyright lawyers here?

So, in conclusion, your best hope is that it was distributed under the GPL since it was released under a GPLed project here on sourceforge.

[magictiger]

Actually, I remember MQSEQ and CMB speaking when 2.0 was started and left the sourceforge site. I'm not certain exactly what was said within that, but when I heard about it, I got the feeling that what we were doing was cool by CMB.

The thing is, even if it was distributed on the site of a GPL release, the MySEQ release was stand-alone and never mentioned the GPL and certainly didn't include the text of the license which is to be included. Distributing it on SourceForge was (or so I've heard) violating the SourceForge terms of service as it did not include the things necessary to be considered GPL.

Honestly, I don't care who releases which under what. I just want the 1.x guys to leave the 2.x guys alone. You guys stay out of our business, and we'll stay out of yours. That's all I want.

[BlueAdept]

I dont even use MySEQ, I just thought it was interesting so I looked into it.

Really this all lays in lap of cavemanbob. Only he can say what his intent was with the code.

The way copyright seems to work, is that it defaults to the most restrictive form without clear intent of the author. Since there is no clear deliniation of an OPL, it would then remain a copyrighted work of cavemanbob since he created it. It doesnt matter what changes were made to it, you are still using HIS copyrighted code along with HIS copyrighted name. Even if cavemanbob withdrew all his rights to MySEQ, anyone who contributed code to the subsequent releases would still possess a copyright lean on the code.

Look at what SCO is doing to Linux. SCO has been suing people/companies for using one of the many flavors of linux because it claims that it has a core approximately 10,000 lines of code from a very early SCO release that goes back 20 years ago.

My suggestion to both of you (slartibartfast and who ever runs the 2.0 site) is to stop distributing the code and/or the program unless you want to open yourselves up to lawsuits by either cavemanbob or one of the other copyright holders.


The thing is, even if it was distributed on the site of a GPL release, the MySEQ release was stand-alone and never mentioned the GPL and certainly didn't include the text of the license which is to be included. Distributing it on SourceForge was (or so I've heard) violating the SourceForge terms of service as it did not include the things necessary to be considered GPL.


Use, reproduction, modification, and other intellectual property rights to data stored in CVS or as a file release and posted by any user on SourceForge.net ("Source Code") shall be subject to the OSI-approved license applicable to such Source Code, or to such other licensing arrangements that may be approved by OSTG as applicable to such Source Code.

Full text here:
http://sourceforge.net/docman/display_doc.php?docid=6048&group_id=1

Definition of OSI here:
http://www.opensource.org/licenses/

After reading this, I dont think the original MySEQ violated SF's TOS. Basically as long as source code is released and the software isnt directly infringing on any copyrights, it can be released on SF. OSI covers ALMOST every license out there. I am not sure which model MySEQ would fall under...maybe the Fair Use license? Since copyright falls back to the most restrictive, Im not sure what model it would be.

[slartibartfast]

I have had several communications with cavemanbob since the site move, we were both concerned about the increasing comercialisation of the project. What made me snap was an attempt to start charging for the program, without giving any credit to cavemanbob. Whilst MySeq stayed free and open source I had no problems with the new administrators earning hundreds or thousands of dollars in donations and sponsarships/adverts, because of the site costs and support you were providing, but forcing people to pay for a product that someone else wrote and released as open source seems to me wrong.

[purple]

Seems wrong and is wrong, unless the software was released under a license that allows it, like various BSD-style licenses.

More or less, I think the myseq2 people are just thinking "get off our backs so we can make $$$ selling this stuff, d00d. People pay so much for plat and accounts, that it's natural they'd pay for an easy to use myseq." That bothers me only because they are trying to profit on the work of people who thought they were releasing an open product. If they wrote everything themselves, they have every right to try to do what they think is best.

If cavemanbob wrote most of myseq and what they are trying to close source and sell, then they need cavemanbob's consent to do it legally. If you're not cavemanbob or someone else who was a contributor to myseq, then your best course of action is to take the latest open source version and make it better than the illegal version they are trying to sell. Do your best to publicize your version and just beat them at their own game. You may want to contact people you know who did contribute and get them to harrass the myseq2 people because they are the ones whose rights are being trampled on and whose wishes are being ignored.

I'm sure most people just think no one is going to be up in arms over this since myseq is against the EULA and creating a big stink may get some folks in trouble. They probably think they can walk away with all this either because they feel entitled because they've been the ones continuing the project and making sure it stays alive or because they don't think people will make a lot of noise because by nature this type of project is under the radar so as to not inspire the wrath of SoE.

That's just my opinion of course. I think what they are trying to do is pretty heinous. Slart, I think what you are trying to do is noble, but still on shaky ground if mqseq contributed to the version you want to release as GPL but doesn't believe his contributions were licensed as GPL. Though that begs the question what license he does think he contributed under. He probably doesn't know and was just going with whatever because he wanted a better myseq. The only reason it comes up now is because they wanna close the source and make.money.fast and they can't close the source and still distribute it if it were licensed under the GPL.

[cavemanbob]

Actually, I remember MQSEQ and CMB speaking when 2.0 was started and left the sourceforge site. I'm not certain exactly what was said within that, but when I heard about it, I got the feeling that what we were doing was cool by CMB.

The thing is, even if it was distributed on the site of a GPL release, the MySEQ release was stand-alone and never mentioned the GPL and certainly didn't include the text of the license which is to be included. Distributing it on SourceForge was (or so I've heard) violating the SourceForge terms of service as it did not include the things necessary to be considered GPL.

Honestly, I don't care who releases which under what. I just want the 1.x guys to leave the 2.x guys alone. You guys stay out of our business, and we'll stay out of yours. That's all I want.

Eh? You base a product off of MY code and now say fuck off we don't care what you did? If you want to do a commercial closed source venture based on this I better get a cut and I assure you it will be an unreasonably high price.

BTW It should have (and stil should be IMO) been under a GPL due to the modification of code caluse in the first place, so any litigation regarding the orginal license would likely just require a change to the good old GPL anyway (Assuming any judge would waste their time with this crap in the first place...)