L2J Server

Zoey76 wrote:...that is what team work is about, leave own expectations in order to fulfil the project's ones.

You're kidding, right? You're saying that the dev team works solely for the project and not for themselves? I'd say that's at the very least 50% false.

Probably sounds offensive, but I'm just sayin'.

we doesn't earn anything by arguing guys...... keep sharing and if something is right i thing they will commite if not on the stable for sure on beta

Yeah, but there's a ton already shared... I bet there just HAS to be something valuable there.
In fact, I KNOW there is valuable stuff shared.

jurchiks wrote:The problem is not the community not cooperating, but the dev team refusing the offers to cooperate. Haven't you noticed how many contribs are there in the user contributions/scripts support and a few other sections?
Does anybody care of them? No (there are oh so few exceptions that I'm not even going to count them).

Nobody is going to lick ass to get cooperation.

Yes thats one of points I mentioned - maybe with less drastic language

Continuing:
If you look at some servers / forks customs that appeared last few years, you might also notice some pretty funny thing. That actually some of those features appeared on official servers AFTER they were made on customized l2j servers. Maybe not exacly in same form, cause NCZ0ft has advantage in game client area - but by me, has huge disadvantage in server side software. There's another point to my postulate to let also customs in - ofc. disabled eg. in configs by default. But the more new points of view you put in, the less work and braining on solutions, you will have in the future on making so called "retail" like result. Also customs is awesome way to test certain things before you will have to actually make something new to copy retail, but was never before (but some customs had eg. certain elements of new feature). That just simply speeds up the development process.

Also my intention is not to make l2j anything about "elite club" or anything. Just said that this is not a forum to begin learning java (or programming at all). Or basic networking stuff! You want to save the world? Give solution to world hunger! No?!

Szponiasty wrote:Just said that this is not a forum to begin learning java (or programming at all). Or basic networking stuff! You want to save the world? Give solution to world hunger! No?!

Actually is what this is about, except the saving the wolrd/hunger part

You should read about the founders of the project and their ideas

Well, I should probably say that I learned java solely because of this project (as much as I've learned; I wouldn't dare to call myself a pro though). However, I didn't ask for help much, I just didn't need it (google power lol).

I've read all that and i notice that some of you don't really understand what our (unstable / beta) branch means.
That's not really throw everything up area.
This place is designed to work faster to do not spend days for some simple changes to test in live servers and etc.. BUT
that doesnt means we can commit everything untested we doing some tests before commit it.

If a thing is commited to unstable that means in some times we'll sync beta with stable and it will be in stable too.

We periodicly sync-ing stable branch when unstable get's stable enough.
So things commited to beta are really commited.

If you did read 4 pages of extensive posts and thats the autopsy then i guess you are out of topic ... detecitve

There is by fact proven as Szponiasty mentioned, countless of shares that are not added to the code at all. Be it beta or main repository. And the reasons which you probably still dont see are multiple, here's some that i gathered from this topic but you didnt see:

1)Two-three people cant inspect and commit what 100 make. Its impossible even for Chuck Norris.
2)Some shares follow different direction than l2j wishes to go and dont get inspected at all.

So you dont allow custom commits, but when someone forks the project cause he wants to have l2j + custom on his pack, you think he is stealing your effort and you try to shut him down with mods on trac view rights etc. I know i sound offensive, but thats how i personally feel. L2J's open source spirit is like Democracy and Justice in USA. Hypocritic if i may say ...

Hope that helps you.

we dont complain about who fork us, but who leech code (since l2j is under gpl, that means take code removing credits)

Yea, but you blocked view rights back then for everone. Regardless if he gives credits or not. And come on credits my ass. Saying its a fork of L2j is far more than enough. Do people have to write names each time they sync ? When being open source, you set aside your ownership on the code. You know that better.

And i asure you, you dont lose anything if they remove your credits. Its not as if hot sexy chicks pick guys based on their open source fame ...

Sylar88 wrote:Yea, but you blocked view rights back then for everone. Regardless if he gives credits or not. And come on credits my ass. Saying its a fork of L2j is far more than enough. Do people have to write names each time they sync ? When being open source, you set aside your ownership on the code. You know that better.

And i asure you, you dont lose anything if they remove your credits. Its not as if hot sexy chicks pick guys based on their open source fame ...

as i said, l2j is licensed under gpl, and GPL forces everyone who fork us to maintain credits. (BTW, GPL is not from our invention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License )

BiggBoss wrote:

Sylar88 wrote:Yea, but you blocked view rights back then for everone. Regardless if he gives credits or not. And come on credits my ass. Saying its a fork of L2j is far more than enough. Do people have to write names each time they sync ? When being open source, you set aside your ownership on the code. You know that better.

And i asure you, you dont lose anything if they remove your credits. Its not as if hot sexy chicks pick guys based on their open source fame ...

as i said, l2j is licensed under gpl, and GPL forces everyone who fork us to maintain credits. (BTW, GPL is not from our invention http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/GNU_General_Public_License )

To which i will reply: What does this have to do with moding the trac/svn to make sync difficult ? And it was your intention to change it from GNU to GPL. A change which was imo ridiculous since noone follows ethics and legitimacy in l2j. Most people dont know whats the different between GNU and GPL. Some others dont even care. What are you going to do if they use your code without credits ? Sue them for 1 million dollars ?

xD?
1) We did not make the sync harder. For everyone who were harder to sync us after that trac re-configuration: gtfo of here
2) Change from GNU to GPL? wtf? its GNU GPL or simply GPL, GNU is not an entity different from GPL

BiggBoss wrote:xD?
1) We did not make the sync harder. For everyone who were harder to sync us after that trac re-configuration: gtfo of here
2) Change from GNU to GPL? wtf? its GNU GPL or simply GPL, GNU is not an entity different from GPL

Pardon my ignorance in terms of .. terminology. What i mean is that you did change the license. And it had no effect. And dont get that upset because im saying the truth. Everyone is forking you, and are still removing credits regardless of the license. They simply dont give a fuck about the license.

So instead of getting mad when reallizing those simple facts, try to see the bigger picture. Why licensing and the rest garbage movements wont work ...

Serously now , bring me the genious that thought changing the license would solve the problem. As if everything else is legal in the l2j world. No server pays taxes for donations especially most l2jdev's servers and yet someoen comes up with the idea : Hey lets change the license, they will respect it ...

Alelujiah. As smart some people can be in programming, they lose it all when it boils down to common sense ...

yea, maybe you are right. We work for free and all we got is shit. So, i vote to go close source, and for every1 w/o svn access: Screw you

BTW, i never notice we switched licensed. Afaik l2j always has been under GPL, what change you mean?