Originally posted by Coby

---

So what if the code is copyrighted? Not like anyone's going to know once you compile the program anyway. If you don't want people to use your code, don't release it.

---

Originally posted by BGNG

---

Gavin:

Your intent was provocative (malicious intent is just as "flaming" as you can get) and with your most recent post, you are clearly unwilling to reasonably consider the things that I have to say. Your most recent post bears no significance to the subject at hand (Krugle) and therefore qualifies as spam.

If you have a bone to pick with me, do it in a PM. Don't clutter up the board with insults.

---

Originally posted by BGNG

---

Parasyte:
I fully support GNU and the Free Software Foundation. What I do not like is the means by which GNU is ensuring its vision: the GPL. Change the means but keep the cause the same, and I'd like everything about it.

Because of the GPL, which, in my experience, is one of the more popular ways to distribute source code, and because of my distain for the license, something like Krugle wouldn't be as effective as it could be for someone like me. I understand "free source code" to be open for use, public or private, without any legal encumbrances or restrictions.

Since the GPL requires source code to be made available for any distributed work "based on the program" borrowed from, Krugle would end up as more of a display case than something I would feel comfortable using.

---

From Richard Mother-Fucking Stallman (creator of the GNU project)

---

The goal was to bring a wholly free software operating system into existence. Stallman wanted computer users to be free, as most were in the 1960s and 1970s; free to study the source code of the software they use, free to modify the behaviour of the software, and free to publish their modified versions of the software.

---

Originally posted by Coby

---

So what if the code is copyrighted? Not like anyone's going to know once you compile the program anyway. If you don't want people to use your code, don't release it.

---

Originally posted by Dan

---

Originally posted by BGNG

---

Your most recent post bears no significance to the subject at hand (Krugle) and therefore qualifies as spam.

---

Off topic posts are what make threads interesting. In real life, discussions can move on from one topic to another. This board seems to have a very off definition of what spam actually is. Off-topic posts != spam.

---

Originally posted by BGNG

---

But products of hacking something, as I mentioned before, I will release documentation instead of source code. That's my call; you don't have to agree with it.

---

Originally posted by BGNG

---

Your most recent post bears no significance to the subject at hand (Krugle) and therefore qualifies as spam.

---

Originally posted by Gavin

---

I was simply curious considering most of the posts I've seen you make appear to be veiled attempts at selling some message or addressing a percieved impropriety or misconception with the world of software developement at large. And I was like, you know, wondering what that was all about.

---

Originally posted by BGNG

---

That falls just short of flaming, Gavin. When hacking games, the point is to learn how it works. Source code is irrelevant in that regard, as I release documentation for my hacking projects in place of source code. GNU stands for free software specifically, and open-source is simply an added bonus (except with the GPL, as stated above, it's not really "open," per s� ). Anything that I create will still be released for free, which is exactly what GNU stands for.

Regardless, this is a thread about Krugle, not the approperiateness of open-source.

---

Originally posted by BGNG

---

That falls just short of flaming, Gavin. When hacking games, the point is to learn how it works. Source code is irrelevant in that regard, as I release documentation for my hacking projects in place of source code. GNU stands for free software specifically, and open-source is simply an added bonus (except with the GPL, as stated above, it's not really "open," per sé ). Anything that I create will still be released for free, which is exactly what GNU stands for.

---

  1. You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's
source code as you receive it, in any medium, provided that you
conspicuously and appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate
copyright notice and disclaimer of warranty; keep intact all the
notices that refer to this License and to the absence of any warranty;
and give any other recipients of the Program a copy of this License
along with the Program.

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.

  2. You may modify your copy or copies of the Program or any portion
of it, thus forming a work based on the Program, and copy and
distribute such modifications or work under the terms of Section 1
above, provided that you also meet all of these conditions:

    a) You must cause the modified files to carry prominent notices
    stating that you changed the files and the date of any change.

    b) You must cause any work that you distribute or publish, that in
    whole or in part contains or is derived from the Program or any
    part thereof, to be licensed as a whole at no charge to all third
    parties under the terms of this License.

    c) If the modified program normally reads commands interactively
    when run, you must cause it, when started running for such
    interactive use in the most ordinary way, to print or display an
    announcement including an appropriate copyright notice and a
    notice that there is no warranty (or else, saying that you provide
    a warranty) and that users may redistribute the program under
    these conditions, and telling the user how to view a copy of this
    License.  (Exception: if the Program itself is interactive but
    does not normally print such an announcement, your work based on
    the Program is not required to print an announcement.)

These requirements apply to the modified work as a whole.  If
identifiable sections of that work are not derived from the Program,
and can be reasonably considered independent and separate works in
themselves, then this License, and its terms, do not apply to those
sections when you distribute them as separate works.  But when you
distribute the same sections as part of a whole which is a work based
on the Program, the distribution of the whole must be on the terms of
this License, whose permissions for other licensees extend to the
entire whole, and thus to each and every part regardless of who wrote it.

Thus, it is not the intent of this section to claim rights or contest
your rights to work written entirely by you; rather, the intent is to
exercise the right to control the distribution of derivative or
collective works based on the Program.

In addition, mere aggregation of another work not based on the Program
with the Program (or with a work based on the Program) on a volume of
a storage or distribution medium does not bring the other work under
the scope of this License.

Originally posted by BGNG

---

Something like this will only be particularly helpful if the code being indexed is truly public domain. I like what GNU stands for, but I absolutely despise their Public Licence, which basically says "You're vulnerable to lawsuit if you use code protected under this license and don't release your code and do it under this license."

---