Uh Help?

[MyndFyre]

They did make somthing for people to stop asking the same questions its that magical topic above called Battle.net Bot Development References

but normal people (forum newbs) dont look for that and ask the same questions that are already on it...

Is that anyone's fault except for the forum newbs?

[tA-Kane]

A good precentage of bot programers get their sub functions and what not from other open source bots my evidince of this is many bots have the same subs and functions and they are written the exact same way.... so saying that 90% of the code came from here the bot developing hotspot would be an accurate statement. Woudln't it?

I badly want to flame you for the statement "a good precentage of bot programers get their sub functions and what not from other open source bots". Anyone that has to go to open source bots to make their own bot isn't really a programmer. Open source projects aren't open source so you can steal their code and slap your name on it. Open source projects are open source so you can provide your own bug fixes to it, and commit the changes back to the open source project, not to your own project.

[NetNX]

Kane i wouldnt immagine you to be one of these programers who steals others source codes, I dont bother submitting source back to the original author because i dont take source codes from alive projects for example the UserLoser Bot in this case. I have no idea where it came from theres nowhere to submit a finished source too, i planned on releasing this source publicly once i had finished but seeing how no1 wants me to program it i dont know why anyone should be allowed to see the source....

I'm very stressed out now been working on this source for 3 days  so im done asking you assheads questions on the 'Bot Development Fourm" because no matter what i ask i get a completly offtopic response and no1 wants to help me understand how something works.

[NetNX]

oh yea and kane, Nice bot.

[Soul Taker]

Wow, you've worked on a binary bot for three days?  Man that's tons of effort, if everybot took more than two days to complete, we'd be in the stone age!

[Minux]

so im done asking you assheads questions on the 'Bot Development Fourm" because no matter what i ask i get a completly offtopic response and no1 wants to help me understand how something works.

You have no intent to learn, you only want code. You remind me of Gosugaming.

[LivedKrad]

As long as someone does not claim it as their own, how can downloading public sources and modifying them make it stealing?

And uhh, "newb".

[Minux]

As long as someone does not claim it as their own, how can downloading public sources and modifying them make it stealing?

And uhh, "newb".

Might I add it says Newbie beside your name too? And this code was not meant for the public eyes. How would you feel if something you worked on for a long time was stolen and released?

And shortly after, people started asking you for help on the very code that was stolen and released.

[LivedKrad]

I'm very stressed out now been working on this source for 3 days  so im done asking you assheads questions on the 'Bot Development Fourm" because no matter what i ask i get a completly offtopic response and no1 wants to help me understand how something works.

I wonder though, you feel the need to reply Bot Development Forum in quotations, implying that no one helps you develope your bot. I'm sure the users who respond here wouldn't mind helping you with your bot, but all you complain about is source. If you want to get help with source, try the Visual Basic forum.

[NetNX]

The problem to witch this tread was drived is dead so stop repeating the same shit over and over agian...

[MyndFyre]

The problem to witch this tread was drived is dead so stop repeating the same shit over and over agian...

Go away and you won't need to see it.

[Kp]

As long as someone does not claim it as their own, how can downloading public sources and modifying them make it stealing?

With regard to the downloading and subsequent usage of public sources, the general rule that I've seen for serious projects has been that the recipient

1) May use the code with or without modification
2) May distribute the code unmodified, including retaining all terms and conditions that were attached when it was received.
3) May distribute a modified form only if it is clearly marked as modified, so as not to defame the original author if somebody else begins distributing a modified version which is far inferior to the real product.

I'm not trying to pick on LivedKrad here; his post was just the most appropriate one to quote for this response, which I think is relevant to his question (although not a direct answer for it).

Downloading the source, modifying it, and then stripping the original credits is at the very least dishonest (even if it does not violate anybody's intellectual property rights or licensing terms, which depends on exactly how the author released it).

[iago]

How you can treat the source depends on how it's released.

If it's released under "GNU", that means it can be copied, used, and modified, as long as profit isn't made, for example, gaim.  There are many variations of GNU, which aren't important right now.

If it's released under "Public Domain", it may be used, modified, and sold with no penalties.  For example, SRP and JavaOp.

If it's not released, it is considered stolen or leaked, and may not be used, modified, read, or copied.  Are we still talking about this?

[Skywing]

How you can treat the source depends on how it's released.

If it's released under "GNU", that means it can be copied, used, and modified, as long as profit isn't made, for example, gaim.  There are many variations of GNU, which aren't important right now.

If it's released under "Public Domain", it may be used, modified, and sold with no penalties.  For example, SRP and JavaOp.

If it's not released, it is considered stolen or leaked, and may not be used, modified, read, or copied.  Are we still talking about this?

I assume you're talking about the GPL when you say "released under GNU" -- and in which case, you're wrong; there is absolutely nothing that precludes you from selling GPL'd software.  You cannot, however, sell the binaries without providing access to the source code in some manner.