GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Discussion and questions about clients
Big Muscle
Junior Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 19:27

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Big Muscle » 16 Aug 2011, 07:27

OCTAGRAM wrote:
We are not the possessors of initial koda of greylink.
This email belongs to GreyLinkDC++Mod team. They don't have sources. They are doing well without them. I also have mod named GreyLink OpenMod, but I'm not any closer to the sources of main executable.

The only email known to me is: greyteam ~~~~ mail.ru
bullshit, I doubt they can develop any modification if they don't have complete source.

Toast

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Toast » 16 Aug 2011, 09:30

i dont see this going any further and it was exactly as i expected Greylink seems to be developed by immature people when looking at the serious request we sent out and OCTOGRAM you are connected to development so dont lie here your just insulting all of us, action will be taken from this since its a clear affront to us you clearly dont understand that peoples free time and effort has gone into this and you simple dont seem to give a shit either so i really dont see this discussion leading anywhere

Crise
Senior Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Nov 2007, 21:34

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Crise » 16 Aug 2011, 14:51

Big Muscle wrote: bullshit, I doubt they can develop any modification if they don't have complete source.
I don't really plan to take part in this discussion, but with a quick glance it is possible that GreyLinkDC++Mod has been "developed" through the use of resource and/or hex editing and other such tools.

It seems more of something that provides pre-configured and/or customised client setup out of the box for a certain sum of money for LAN's and the like... as I recall Flylink offers something similar for example, apparently people are willing to pay for such things.

It looks like the definition of a Mod in this case could be rather loose.

Toast

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Toast » 16 Aug 2011, 15:06

Still doesn't make it any better its still a violation :)

Crise
Senior Member
Posts: 139
Joined: 10 Nov 2007, 21:34

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Crise » 16 Aug 2011, 21:35

Toast wrote:Still doesn't make it any better its still a violation :)
Like I said, the point of that post was something completely different, I never implied it would somehow make things better. But since I also said I would not part take in the discussion, I should not for any more than this.

OCTAGRAM
Junior Member
Posts: 10
Joined: 31 Jul 2011, 07:25
Location: Barnaul, Russia
Contact:

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by OCTAGRAM » 17 Aug 2011, 07:00

Toast wrote:you clearly dont understand that peoples free time and effort has gone into this
I understand that someone in this thread wrote some code that I'm using more than a year, but they doesn't seem to be happy from the fact their code makes someone happy.
Toast wrote:and you simple dont seem to give a shit either so i really dont see this discussion leading anywhere
I don't understand this metaphor.
Toast wrote:as i expected Greylink seems to be developed by immature people when looking at the serious request we sent out and OCTOGRAM you are connected to development
My nick is OCTAGRAM.

Making GreyLink mods is widely explored road. AvaLink, PE Link, GreyLinkDC++Mod, OpenMod (mine), CapitalDC++, FGLink...

A particular mod maker can't say for GreyTeam (GreyTeam is very silent). They are foes in some sence. PE Link modder sad once that GreyTeam purposedly changed locations of some items though they seem to give up doing this and admit that GreyLink mods are more popular than pure GreyLink.

I don't have sources. I'm connected no more than one can be without sources.

Toast

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Toast » 17 Aug 2011, 07:23

no matter how you twist it redistributing a client without distributing source is a violation of GPL if you dont comply to those terms your in direct violation of the license agreement.

you still distribute the executable from your site you can redistribute your script but you cant redistribute the executable so your in direct violation of GPL so consider this your formal request removal comply of face the consequences

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest