[Lee]

Exceptions are not allowed?

http://www.gnu.org/software/classpath/license.html

You'll see them all over the GNU site.

[SweatyBanana]

And no, it wouldn't be stealing, but it is just common courtesy to credit somebody for work they have done.

[{NM}Jason]

Originally Posted by Live Its not stealing, its an open source community. Thats the whole point of it.

The Open Source Definition is used by the Open Source Initiative to determine whether or not a software license can be considered open source.

Under the Open Source Definition, licenses must meet ten conditions in order to be considered open source licenses (Note: this version contains unauthorized additions. There is a link to the original unmodified text below. It was taken under fair use).

Free Redistribution: the software can be freely given away or sold. (This was intended to expand sharing and use of the software on a legal basis.)
Source Code: the source code must either be included or freely obtainable. (Without source code, making changes or modifications can be impossible.)
Derived Works: redistribution of modifications must be allowed. (To allow legal sharing and to permit new features or repairs.)
Integrity of The Author's Source Code: licenses may require that modifications are redistributed only as patches.
No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups: no-one can be locked out.
No Discrimination Against Fields of Endeavor: commercial users cannot be excluded. (Back in the 1980s, some software which was given away had license terms that specifically prohibited the police or military of the Government of South Africa from using the program because of objections to apartheid. While this is a laudable goal, it's not relevant to include it in a software license. Beyond which, such organizations might simply ignore the restrictions anyway.)
Distribution of License: The rights attached to the program must apply to all to whom the program is redistributed without the need for execution of an additional license by those parties.
License Must Not Be Specific to a Product: the program cannot be licensed only as part of a larger distribution.
License Must Not Restrict Other Software: the license cannot insist that any other software it is distributed with must also be open source.
License Must Be Technology-Neutral: no click-wrap licenses or other medium-specific ways of accepting the license must be required.


and Dose not mean Riping off the code with out giving proper Credit where credit is due. OPEN SOURCE is NOT STEALING other PPLS code

[commonbullet]

Live, the only reason you've not distributed source code was to keep your lies about 'your' plugin being better.

Your desperate attempt to cover it by arguing about licenses only attest you can't even read what has already been posted in this thread.

[Live]

I like this, you post a thread about bashing me and everyone comes out of the woodwork. Most of the people replying to this thread arent even part of AMXX. They are just forum users.

[vvg125]

Right....... that's the idea. A community is made up of users.

[Freecode]

I think we had enough of this. Live you got what you had coming. Every single point in your argument was proven wrong. Not only that but i must say that it takes some guts to take someone else's work and call it your own.

I hope this is a lesson learned not only for you but for future people that think stealing is okay. If you have any other questions you are free to pm me or BAILOPAN.

[Twilight Suzuka]

HAHAHHAH you said everything made for linux is open source!!!!1

Edit: Oh shit, sorry, I didn't realize this thread was closed

[BAILOPAN]

sawce, I have begun the paperwork to make you a god

[Twilight Suzuka]

Are you a god BAILOPAN?