Difference between revisions of "Talk:BetaTesters"

From NAS-Central Buffalo - The Linkstation Wiki
Jump to: navigation, search
(Reverted spam)
m
 
(2 intermediate revisions by one user not shown)
Line 36: Line 36:
  
 
Anyway, we were trying to protect new users, not limit them.  We needed a way to ensure that experienced users would only try out the "alpha" content to protect new users from destroying their boxes.  But if people are going to cry that it's their right to destroy their boxes, then let them do it.  I hope they have time and energy to fix it themselves as surely the developers will not be able to answer every support issue.
 
Anyway, we were trying to protect new users, not limit them.  We needed a way to ensure that experienced users would only try out the "alpha" content to protect new users from destroying their boxes.  But if people are going to cry that it's their right to destroy their boxes, then let them do it.  I hope they have time and energy to fix it themselves as surely the developers will not be able to answer every support issue.
 +
 +
 +
:Perhaps as a suggestion the wording could be changed to something like:
 +
 +
:* ''As a member, and while you remain a member, you agree to not redistribute any software within the developer section of linkstationwiki.net community downloads, in part or whole, to other persons unless they are a linkstationwiki.net administrator, moderator, or developer.''
 +
 +
:This way it is clearer that people are always free to leave (but they lose access) and then distribute what one has according to GPL and should someone lose membership by other means (e.g., linkstationwiki mysteriously disappears, one is ejected from the group, etc.) the same also applies. I see no copyright issues with limiting distribution to a group that has further agreed to not redistribute content covered under the GPL outside that group. It would be hard to enforce the extra group limitation short of ejecting people from the group but that seems to be the idea and this limitation is only instituted to insulate non-members from exposure to untested alpha content and reduce support tasks required by administration and development.
 +
 +
:[[User:Uzume|Uzume]] 21:54, 6 August 2007 (CEST)

Latest revision as of 19:56, 6 August 2007

The whole Terms and Conditions sections is a violation of the GPL. For example, this "rule"

  • You may not distribute any software within the developer section of linkstationwiki.net community downloads, in part or whole, to other persons unless they are a linkstationwiki.net administrator, moderator, or developer.

MASSIVELY violates the GPL under which Linux and many applications are distributed.

Paragraph 4 of the GPLv2 explicitly states:

4. You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License. Any attempt otherwise to copy, modify, sublicense or distribute the Program is void, and will automatically terminate your rights under this License. However, parties who have received copies, or rights, from you under this License will not have their licenses terminated so long as such parties remain in full compliance.

You are trying to distribute software under terms different from the GPL license. So according to the above paragraph you are no longer licensed and no longer have any rights to use or distribute the software at all!

Further:

6. Each time you redistribute the Program (or any work based on the Program), the recipient automatically receives a license from the original licensor to copy, distribute or modify the Program subject to these terms and conditions. You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' exercise of the rights granted herein. You are not responsible for enforcing compliance by third parties to this License.


What part of You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' don't you understand? You are trying to impose further restrictions (removing the right to redistribute the software) from recipients. You are massively violating the GPL!

What part of You may not impose any further restrictions on the recipients' don't you understand?

And the insults are for what?

First, the terms will be modified to restricting moving the "alpha" content to another location in downloads. Our right.

Second, Users will be prohibited from posting links in the forum of mirrored alpha content. Our right.

Third, the sources of development code would always be given to users on demand as is their right by GPL

Fourth, I am of the opinion that our intent was NOT TO DISTRIBUTE before official releases. As the releases are not public (read a law book and you'll see that password protecting material implies that the material is not public. No insult intended.

  • Therefore, the Developer Section is nothing more that electronic transmissions for developers...not distribution.
  • linkstationwiki.net is an entity. We are communicating/testing within the entity.

Finally, I and others are open for discussion. We however we will not tolerate insults in the forums or the wikis.


Anyway, we were trying to protect new users, not limit them. We needed a way to ensure that experienced users would only try out the "alpha" content to protect new users from destroying their boxes. But if people are going to cry that it's their right to destroy their boxes, then let them do it. I hope they have time and energy to fix it themselves as surely the developers will not be able to answer every support issue.


Perhaps as a suggestion the wording could be changed to something like:
  • As a member, and while you remain a member, you agree to not redistribute any software within the developer section of linkstationwiki.net community downloads, in part or whole, to other persons unless they are a linkstationwiki.net administrator, moderator, or developer.
This way it is clearer that people are always free to leave (but they lose access) and then distribute what one has according to GPL and should someone lose membership by other means (e.g., linkstationwiki mysteriously disappears, one is ejected from the group, etc.) the same also applies. I see no copyright issues with limiting distribution to a group that has further agreed to not redistribute content covered under the GPL outside that group. It would be hard to enforce the extra group limitation short of ejecting people from the group but that seems to be the idea and this limitation is only instituted to insulate non-members from exposure to untested alpha content and reduce support tasks required by administration and development.
Uzume 21:54, 6 August 2007 (CEST)