GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Discussion and questions about clients
Pretorian
Site Admin
Posts: 214
Joined: 21 Jul 2009, 10:21

GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Pretorian » 14 Aug 2011, 11:37

Since I have no idea how do make threads, this is a start of the Greylink DC++ discussion that ensued in another thread. I've copied the texts and put them in a quote block below.
Toast wrote:think its disrespectful to the open source community to promote Greylink since Greylink stands for everything Direct Connect doesn't and as the creator of ADCPortal i here by request that you OCTOGRAM remove your banner for Greylink this is not a place to promote Greylink and the reason why is simple all the time we (the open source developers) put into Direct Connect making it better and putting time and effort into everything Greylink just stole and redistribute so respect our wishes and remove the banner..

for me it was 4 years of dedicated work and for others its been more then 10 years so its not really nice to shove that banner along with hyping a client that basically ripped off our project
OCTOGRAM wrote:
I think its disrespectful to the open source community to promote Greylink
I wish there would be an open sourced replacement so I could make it even better, but unfortunatelly I haven't met it yet. GL is miles ahead.
time and effort into everything Greylink just stole and redistribute
With regards to open source developers, if you have enough spare time, it would be helpful to start using GL and loaning its best features. At least, there must be clear understanding that GreyLink features must be ripped off. It's better than denying a progress that GreyLink has brought.

I don't know about other countries, but in Russia there is a plague called torrents. In order to fight with them, we need something that matters. We can't fight with a dead fish against a sword. Client application must be fully featured, and most foreign (I mean, foreign from the point of view of Russians) DC++ mods stuck in 2005. Denying GreyLink equals to promoting torrents. I hate torrents so I'd better be with GreyLink until replacement will arise.

There should be no problem to restore a damaged file given a damaged file and a magnet link to a proper one. Sublists must be supported in a way compatible to GreyLink because GreyLink popularized them first. I have personally contributed to dcls design by proposing a recursive sublist idea. GreyLink has a gender setting and displays gender to left of the nick. In many ways, GL is attractive to both advanced and normal users.
ripped off our project
I don't know what to say. I want progress to happen even faster, and instead I hear some ownage claims that I don't want to be involved into. I didn't want to hurt anybody's feelings. After all, everybody rips your project. Nobody uses vanilla DC++. I've been in DC++ since 2005 and I haven't seen people using vanilla DC++ with only a few exclusions that were unaware of something other.

With regards to ontopic, I've failed to make a traffic rip using CDM debugger. An application hangs probably due to very long string operation (155Kb). So I've dumped the traffic using the tcpdump. The traffic is in the tcpdump format, with Level 3 headers interleaved with TCP data. However, using FAR Manager it is possible to inspect most details.
Big Muscle wrote:I have only one comment to GreyLink. I tried it only twice in my life - in the first case, antivirus complained about some virus in its exe file; in the second case, it crashed after I downloaded one filelist.

Also, your comment:
With regards to ontopic, I've failed to make a traffic rip using CDM debugger. An application hangs probably due to very long string operation (155Kb)

I don't think that it's an evidence of perfect client.
Toast wrote:funny that you say that your not apart of development when you appear in the greylink changelog

Code: Select all

Added option "Show icon in front of nick sex chat" (OCTAGRAM)

tell em we want the source and we want it now!

they are violating apexdc++ strongdc++ and dc++ and the time and effort that BM, Crise and the DC++ Crew should be acknowledged in proper to the licensing terms of the sourcecode
(Note: attached file is the file OCTOGRAM uploaded.)
Attachments
MediaInfo.bin.zip
(113.01 KiB) Downloaded 181 times

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

Re: GreyLink DC++ discussion

Post by OCTAGRAM » 14 Aug 2011, 13:47

tell em we want the source and we want it now!
I've already told. They neither tell what prevents them from publishing the source nor publish it.

Violating GPL is not uncommon in Russia, especially with regards to DC++ mods. SharaDC, PulseTTK and many others are freeware so GPL violation is pointless. I've tried to focus on serious spread limitations.

Toast

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Toast » 14 Aug 2011, 15:34

SMT used to develop Apex Speed mod he if anyone should know the licensing issues sad that russia is in such an ignorant state that they think that the net and software is free to do anything with.

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

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by OCTAGRAM » 14 Aug 2011, 15:50

Yep. Not all drivers take into account prohibitive road signs. Massive border should be used sometimes instead. And now you want Russians to respect GPL. Let's don't care that much about this tiny violation.

Toast

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Toast » 14 Aug 2011, 15:55

tiny violation, your ignorant for some of us its a life work that you basically pissing on, for me it was 4 years dedicated so calling it tiny is just plain dumb

0 respect

FlipFlop™
Junior Member
Posts: 23
Joined: 17 Apr 2009, 08:29

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by FlipFlop™ » 15 Aug 2011, 07:29

I agree with OCTOGRAM about the loaning of features. Greylink is currently the most advanced client with a lot of very interesting features, it's developing much faster than any other client.

Sure, you can continue without end to bash GreyLink for breaking GPL, but why not simply look at it to use the ideas from GreyLink in open source clients? As I understand it, that's the only point OCTOGRAM is making, and i agree with that.

Toast

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Toast » 15 Aug 2011, 11:08

FlipFlop™ wrote:Sure, you can continue without end to bash GreyLink for breaking GPL, but why not simply look at it to use the ideas from GreyLink in open source clients? As I understand it, that's the only point OCTOGRAM is making, and i agree with that.
im not expecting you to actually care a bit about the work some of the developers put into the client since you haven't been apart of it. The GPL violation is a huge deal since its basically 10 years of work for some of the developers and they stole that added a bunch of features without sharing the source and knowingly changing the license.

So this isn't a bash as much as fair justice 95% of the code is OURS not Greylink that entitles us to the source so if you dont have anything else the feature discussion save those for other threads cause this thread is about the license and the source.

in case you missed the finer points of GPL 2

Big Muscle
Junior Member
Posts: 39
Joined: 01 Jul 2008, 19:27

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Big Muscle » 15 Aug 2011, 12:33

FlipFlop™ wrote:I agree with OCTOGRAM about the loaning of features. Greylink is currently the most advanced client with a lot of very interesting features, it's developing much faster than any other client.
You can also ask a question why it develops faster. Who has better car? John buys new car and slowly tunes it - or - George steals already tuned car and tunes it more. :twisted:

Also, even the client has tons of features, it is not advanced to me when its binary contains virus or it crashes during basic operations. So I think it is better to stay in the path which DC++ takes.

Toast

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by Toast » 15 Aug 2011, 12:44

here is an interesting addition

От кого: " iceman50" <removed>
Кому: [email protected]
Дата: 14 августа 2011, 14:25:43
Тема: Re: (Нет темы)

Iceman50:
I am requesting a copy of the greylink dc++ source code, failure to comply is in direct violation of the GNU GPL

Greylink Development Team:
1. We are not the possessors of initial koda of greylink.
2. To not you to teach us, that violates GNU GPL !!!
3. With the similar form of appeal you will never get that for what sue !!!

1. Мы не являемся обладателями исходного кода greylink.
2. Не Вам нас учить, что нарушает GNU GPL !!!
3. С подобной формой обращения Вы никогда не получите то, о чем просите !!!
iceman made an attempt at getting the source and they denied all of this has been documented at the wiki along with where the initial request where made.

for additional information visit the wiki page

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

Re: GreyLink DC++ dicsussion

Post by OCTAGRAM » 16 Aug 2011, 00:04

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

Post Reply