[C#] 0x51 Packet (Format?) Issue

[Newby]

It also doesn't use a restrictive license like GPL, so you don't even need to give the author credit.  Who knew?

Sounds like a true badass wrote this library.

[MyndFyre]

It also doesn't use a restrictive license like GPL, so you don't even need to give the author credit.  Who knew?

Sounds like a true badass wrote this library.

LOL

[Kp]

It also doesn't use a restrictive license like GPL, so you don't even need to give the author credit.

Where in the GPL does it say that you must include a statement giving credit to the author of the GPL-covered work?  The closest I can find is that you can't remove the copyright statement on the copy of the covered work.  Perhaps you were thinking of a restrictive license like BSD-with-attribution, which requires a statement of attribution to the Berkeley regents.

Also, which GPL did you mean?

[Smarter]

I had the same problem I had to have it call the next packet at the end of sending the next, So like

public void 0x0aSend()
{
    //Stuff
    0x0bSend();
}
public void 0x0bSend()...etc.

[MyndFyre]

It also doesn't use a restrictive license like GPL, so you don't even need to give the author credit.

Where in the GPL does it say that you must include a statement giving credit to the author of the GPL-covered work?  The closest I can find is that you can't remove the copyright statement on the copy of the covered work.  Perhaps you were thinking of a restrictive license like BSD-with-attribution, which requires a statement of attribution to the Berkeley regents.

Also, which GPL did you mean?

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;

GPL requires that the source code be made available, and source code must include verbatim copyright notices and disclaimers of warranty.

When I refer to restrictive copyleft I am almost always referring to the GPL, not variants like LGPL.  That is true in this case.

[Kp]

Where in the GPL does it say that you must include a statement giving credit to the author of the GPL-covered work?  The closest I can find is that you can't remove the copyright statement on the copy of the covered work.  Perhaps you were thinking of a restrictive license like BSD-with-attribution, which requires a statement of attribution to the Berkeley regents.

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;

GPL requires that the source code be made available, and source code must include verbatim copyright notices and disclaimers of warranty.

To me, "giving credit" implies a requirement to actively advertise that you're using their work.  That part of the GPL is the one I mentioned, and it only requires that the covered works bear the relevant copyright and warranty disclaimer.  In contrast, the BSD-with-attribution requires that that your documentation actively advertise that you have included software covered by that license.

Also, which GPL did you mean?

When I refer to restrictive copyleft I am almost always referring to the GPL, not variants like LGPL.  That is true in this case.

You missed the point of my question.  I didn't mean LGPL vs. GPL, but which version of GPL.