- Zuclo
- Registered Member
-
Member for 10 years, 6 months, and 29 days
Last active Sun, Mar, 13 2022 16:49:32
- 0 Followers
- 9 Total Posts
- 0 Thanks
- To post a comment, please login.
-
Dec 26, 2014CheetahBuilder posted a message on Shaders Mod (updated by karyonix)entirely fine. Next year is really close!Posted in: Minecraft Mods
-
5
karyonix posted a message on Shaders Mod (updated by karyonix)I think I can't fix bugs in 1.8 version in this year.Posted in: Minecraft Mods
Those who are waiting for new release, you can check again next year. -
1
Skelator424 posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Posted in: Recent Updates and SnapshotsQuote from redstonevet90»
There has been a 2nd DMCA Takedown Request issued.
Spigot although they have changed they way they are distributing Wolf's code - they are still distributing it...
As I already asked, post a link to your source. I searched and wasn't able to find one.
And as I just now replied (in case you haven't read it yet), you CAN distribute his code as long as the licensing for any associated code uses the same license method. -
1
Skelator424 posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Posted in: Recent Updates and SnapshotsQuote from redstonevet90»
Regarding the DMCA Takedown Request, I would agree with you if Wolf didn't have any grounds to legally issue the request, but he does. Spigot is knowingly distributing his code. Personally, I believe that Spigot is breaking the law, but this is a legal grey area due to the way they are injecting his code into Spigot so I can't say that with certainty the same way someone can't claim they aren't violating Wolf's copyright.
I saw this response after my 1st response.
The problem is NOT that they are using Wolf's code. They ARE legally allowed to use it, under the license Wolf had setup. The problem has NEVER been about using the code, the issue is about distributing the code along side other code.
It's very complex, but put as simply as possible under the license Wolf used, the code can only be distributed as long as all the other code that goes with it uses the same license. The method of distributing the code Spigot is currently using appears to technically comply with the way Wolf's license was setup.
Spigot isn't in any legal trouble until a court case is filed. And with the complexity of the licensing (and several other factors), it's highly unlikely a judge would grant a preliminary blocking injuction against Spigot even if he does file a lawsuit. So even if Wolf took it to court, and won, it would take a good bit of time... months or even years. And hopefully by that point Microsoft will kick Mojang in the rear hard enough to finally get the official mod API finished off so that mod develops won't need to use it anymore. -
1
Skelator424 posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Posted in: Recent Updates and SnapshotsQuote from redstonevet90»
Wolf issued a DMCA Takedown Request. Spigot is using 7,000 lines of Wolf's code which is injected into their software. What you are saying is simply false.
Obviously, I was talking about Donkey Kong Country, since that was the quote and link I provided. Same for Star Fox. I specifically mentioned "Star Fox: Adventures" in my quote. You can try to twist my words around, but it's self-evident that you were wrong and failed to properly read.
Once again misinformation.
I haven't heard anything about Wolf issuing a new takedown notice against Spigot, or anything they've put together for the 1.8 release. The notice you're referring to is from back in September. They got around it by not distributing the bukkit jar, and instead requiring server owners to manually patch.
For 1.8 they have completely changed how Spigot, bukkit, etc. is distributed, and from what I can tell it's not vulnerable to another takedown claim, at least not using the same legal excuse Wolf used last time.
Put simply, Spigot is NOT in any "legal trouble" now, and they have not been in any "legal trouble" since they took the old bukkit jars off their servers back in September. I have seen nothing credible saying that Wolf has issued any new takedown claims; your information appears to be several months out of date. Provide a link to your source information if you insist on claiming otherwise.
So to answer the OP: Yes, it's possible. Go to the spigot page and the instructions are on the front page of the news. You will have to manually compile the jar (or have someone do it for you), so it's not quite as simple as it was in the past. -
1
redstonevet90 posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
Now, there's my 2 cents. Back to the OP, who probably didn't intend for all of this, and only wanted to know if it was possible, YES, YOU CAN MAKE A BUKKIT 1.8 SERVER. As to my earlier post, there is a dev build of Spigot (with CB included) that you can get. It's a little complicated to use it, as you must use git to compile it, but afterwards it is well worth it.
Well that's technically not a Bukkit server, but it does use Bukkit API.
Nice of you to offer to help him. +1 -
2
jtpetch posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Well, now hasn't this turned into quite the discussion?Posted in: Recent Updates and Snapshots
From what I heard from Microsoft and the Mojang crew, Mojang is still in full control of Minecraft and all of its development. And if Microsoft is wise, they will keep it that way. Don't add paint (or friggin bleach) to a masterpiece, right?
@IMACREEPERR What do you mean "all our games break"? 1.8 is still working fine for me, along with all the other versions, modded or not. And I have a strong feeling that Bukkit is not dead. And if it is, something bigger and better (if even possible) will takes its place almost immediately. Sponge looks promising and Spigot seems to be going strong.
Now, there's my 2 cents. Back to the OP, who probably didn't intend for all of this, and only wanted to know if it was possible, YES, YOU CAN MAKE A BUKKIT 1.8 SERVER. As to my earlier post, there is a dev build of Spigot (with CB included) that you can get. It's a little complicated to use it, as you must use git to compile it, but afterwards it is well worth it.
Like I said before, if you need any help, feel free to send me a PM. I'd love to help you. -
1
BC_Programming posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Posted in: Recent Updates and SnapshotsQuote from redstonevet90»
A DMCA Takedown Request is legal trouble especially since Spigot is still distributing Wolf's code. Wolf is enforcing his copyright on his code. He has not given Spigot permission to use it. He has sent 1 DMCA and Spigot has changed they way Wolf's code is injected into their software. Wolf still believes that Spigot is still in violation of his copyright and sent a 2nd DMCA Request a month or so ago.
Just because you are running Spigot 1.8 doesn't mean that what they are doing is legal. There is a reason why they switched their servers to Romania after the 2nd DMCA. How you can come to the conclusion that a DMCA Request is not a legal problem when it is widely known that Spigot is distributing Wolf's code makes no sense whatsoever.
I also never said anything about Donkey Kong's or Starfox's IP so I have no idea why this is an issue. Rare created both of these games, not Nintendo is all that I said. I provided a quote and a link.
Evidently this is a point of disagreement here.
The reason I say a DMCA takedown request is not "legal" trouble is because it does not involve lawyers. I can issue a DMCA takedown request against Microsoft Windows, for example, but that would hardly constitute Microsoft being in "Legal trouble". Being able to sent a takedown request does not legitimize the claim. The fact that anybody can send one could be argued as a difficult flaw to solve in regards to the DMCA. Basically what I am saying is that in order for a DMCA to actually graduate to real, legal issues is for Wolvereness to actually proceed through the further actions outlined by the DMCA. The DMCA notification is 512(g) of the Act. 512(g)(2) describes that the affected party can respond and provide a counter notice. If said counter-notice is provided, then, as listed in 512(g)(2)(C) the complainant must file a lawsuit in district court within 14 days. If the complainant does not do so, access to the listed takedown URLs must be reinstated and basically everything goes back to the way it was before the takedown. Here is the text of the DMCA On that matter.
Wolverness has not moved forward, and has not filed anything in district court. Spigot filed a counter notification, and access was restored. A second takedown notice cannot be filed- instead, actual legal action must be taken by filing a court case in district court. That court will then issue an injunction against the Service Provider to once again suspend access to the material in question.
Personally, I think that while Wolvereness thinks he is upholding free software, but all he is doing is tainting it. The violations he has outlined were all present when he first contributed code. The project being 'owned' by a corporate entity does not change the license in any way. What he did was precisely analogous to if debian contributors issued a takedown request against Ubuntu because it was owned by canonical. By framing himself as some sort of justiciar he merely lends creedence to the idea that many FOSS advocates have a loose grip on reality that conveniently conforms to their wishes. and oftentimes atrophied view of moral justice. Bukkit is GPL, and CraftBukkit is LGPL. These are listed in his complaint. the commit he lists was freely given by him to the very same project he claims as an infringer, but nothing has actually changed to suddenly represent a violation, because when Wolvereness contributed his code to the project- it was already in violation of that license. Why didn't he bring it up then? He contributed code to both bukkit and CraftBukkit, got pissed off because he didn't understand what a company "owning" an Open Source Project meant, then- and only then- took action against a perceived violation of the GPL that had existed since the inception of both projects, and a violation that he himself was guilty of through his own contributions to CraftBukkit itself.
Perhaps my main complaint about his actions is that he is trying to frame them as being "for the good of GPL/Open Source"; but if that was his goal, he would have brought this up long ago in some fashion. Instead, the fact that he only brought it forward based on his own misunderstanding of company collusions involving Open Source indicates that he is simply using it as a tool in a slapfight, and as a result he is working against the very spirit of open source by claiming a proprietorship over code that is really owned by a community. If you contribute code to an Open Source project and then dislike the direction that Open Source Project takes, or disagree with the creator, or the owner of the project (corporate or personal) you are violating the GPL by taking action via copyright law because you are acting in the interests of your own code proprietorship, not the interests of the project as a whole. By his understanding he seems to believe that Mojang owning the Bukkit Project means Mojang "owns" the Bukkit and CraftBukkit sourcecode, and if that were true I could understand his actions. However, it is not true- owning a project in that capacity does not work heirarchally- Canonical does not 'own' the Ubuntu codebase, for example- and Debian contributors would be rightly driven out of the community if they filed DMCA takedowns against Ubuntu downloads. Once a piece of code is committed, propriety is no longer personal, but community. That is my take on that entire situation.
Regarding servers, though- None of the spigot servers are in Romania? None that I checked, anyway- hub.spigotmc.org is in California. ci.md-5.net is in Arizona. To which servers do you refer?
Regarding DKC/Starfox, perhaps it was a misunderstanding on my part. you did say "You're also wrong when it comes to Donkey Kong and Star Fox" with the link to wikipedia, however, and I must admit my curiousity has piqued- Which part of the post I replied to that mentioned DK and Star Fox were incorrect? For reference, that is "Donkey Kong is owned by Nintendo, not Rare. Rare was a sublicensee to Nintendo before they were bought by Microsoft, and Microsoft did NOT get IP rights to Donkey Kong or any of those related characters. Neither Starfox, which Rare only created a single game for before that (Starfox Adventures)."
I'm uncertain what I said here regarding Starfox and Donkey Kong which are wrong. Donkey Kong is owned by Nintendo, and Starfox is owned by Nintendo, and Rare only created a single Starfox title. -
1
BC_Programming posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Posted in: Recent Updates and SnapshotsQuote from redstonevet90»
1) Craftbukkit is dead, therefore Bukkit servers are dead. People are using Spigot now with Bukkit API code injected into it. Just because you can use Bukkit plugins with the current update doesn't mean Bukkit is going to continue to be around. All of their developers quit. Bukkit was updated by the Spigot team specifically for 1.8 and Spigot is currently in legal trouble. Wolf issued a DMCA request we don't know what the outcome will be yet.
2) You need to re-read. I never said anything about Donkey Kong IP. Go back - read it again. I even provided a link. You're wrong. Same for thing for Star Fox.
3) Funny thing is that if you hold shares in a company you are an owner... so I have no idea how you could come to the conclusion that Bill Gates does not own Microsoft given the fact that he owns a huge amount of shares in it.
You need to better research these topics. Like I said you're spouting quite a lot of misinformation. The young kid that you were criticizing was more on the money than you; evidently.
1. Spigot is not in legal trouble. Wolvereness threatened legal action, but he did not actually do anything- again, since it costs money to take further steps, as spigot has successfully disputed the original takedown, so further action by the webhost will require actual lawyers, which require money- which Wolvereness doesn't have. CraftBukkit was the reference implementation of the API. Ignoring that Wolvereness understanding of subjective licensing is about on par with a kindergarten student's understanding of particle physics. Spigot forked the Bukkit API, and revised both CraftBukkit as well as Spigot to avoid the particular issues involved with Wolvereness's License trolling. Remember- "Spigot is in legal trouble" is a positive claim. It requires proof- me saying it isn't does not require such. Wolvereness's DMCA takedown is not proof of legal trouble because it is not even proof of legal action, especially after it has been successfully contested- You cannot issue a second DMCA takedown twice- if the first is contested, they have to actually get lawyers involved before they go further. Wolvereness, I doubt has the finances, even if he has the time, to do that- and the EFF isn't going to get involved, so no free lawyers, either.
If he does jump in and actually throw money at some lawyers, I'll be the first to get the popcorn ready- Love watching people crash and burn extravagantly.
2. You did mention Donkey Kong Country. You said I was wrong about Starfox and Donkey Kong, then presented a quote- which mentions Donkey Kong country from wikipedia as "evidence" that I was wrong about Donkey Kong and Star Fox, though said quote refuted nothing that I said in any way.
So some follow-up questions about my "misinformation"- for clarity's sake. What exactly did I say- provide me a quote- about things I said which were wrong?
I'll summarize some claims here for convenience.
First Claim: Rare either never owned Donkey Kong or any IP in the Donkey Kong Country Series, or when Microsoft purchased Rareware those Rights went back to Nintendo. However rights don't generally hop around like that. Given how Second party development usually takes place it is far more likely that Rare was being used as a "studio" for Nintendo IP-derived titles. Rare never owned Donkey Kong. They never owned Donkey Kong Country. All IP rights to Nintendo Franchises that Rareware worked on Were either always in Nintendo's posession (and licensed to Rare to use for the creation of 2nd Party titles).
-Microsoft does not currently have Any IP rights to anything in the Donkey Kong Country or Star Fox Series. They basically have Jet Force Gemini, Banjo Kazooie and RC Pro AM (Among a few others such as Viva Pinata). This is because Rare did not actually own rights to the IP they were working on as a second party developer, only those they created themselves. The contract in this case
-Rare created a single game in the StarFox series, and the title released afterwards was created without their involvement, due to it being created after Microsoft acquired them (I believe I commented to the contrary on that point, so I was wrong about that). This leads to the question for the OP in those terms- in what way did Microsoft's purchase of Rare wreck Starfox? Star Fox Adventures is well regarded, but as a Star Fox title it leaves a lot to be desired. As is it's really a Furry Fanservice version of Zelda. Star fox Assault- created later, after Microsoft acquisition of Rare and without either Rare or Microsoft's involvement (Nintendo+Namco) is (at least IMO) an all around better game in the sense that it is actually a Starfox title... you know, because it has actual Arwings and landmasters- It certainly didn't "wreck" Starfox, which would be the implication in blaming MS's acquisition of Rare for Starfox being "wrecked".
Arguably, they ruined Banjo Kazooie, I suppose. Though personally I thought Banjo-Tooie wasn't very good compared to the first. Too much Deus Ex Machina for my taste.
IMO Microsoft acquiring Rare helped the Donkey Kong IP by not subjecting it to awful titles like DK64. I cannot believe there are people that actually think that title is a good DK game. It's a pointless collect-a-thon of coloured objects that you can only collect by being one specific character, all but two of which are arbitrarily created for this title to suit a particular character archetype and are never seen again as playable characters (Chunky, Lanky, and Tiny). But I do digress.
(On a side note, Rareware is a trademark name, not the company name. The company has always been "Rare Ltd" the "Rareware" trademark is used to mark their software.)
One of the real pieces of misinformation in these discussions is the idea that- in Rare's contributions, they own the new content. For example, in the case of Donkey Kong Country, the claim is typically that Rare owns characters such as Diddy Kong, Dixie Kong, Kiddy Kong, the Kremlings, etc.since these were new characters and IP created. This claim is demonstrably false. it really only serves as a rationalization for why later Donkey Kong titles did not feature Kremlings as the main antagonists. But it fails to consider that those same titles contain characters that, given the claim, would belong to Rare (and subsequently, Microsoft). Such as the aforementioned Cranky, Dixie, Kiddy, etc. The same extends to the Starfox- Rare created Starfox adventures. They created the character of "krystal" (A unilaterally stupid furry fanservice character, IMO, but I digress). However- Rare did not own this character, and Microsoft does not own it now. -
1
BC_Programming posted a message on Is it possible to make a bukkit server for minecraft 1.8.1Posted in: Recent Updates and SnapshotsQuote from redstonevet90»
Most of what you posted is misinformation to be quite honest. Although IMACREEPERR didn't explain himself very well, for the most part he is right.
Bukkit servers do not exist anymore for 1.8 and on, Craftbukkit is dead, Spigot is in the middle of legal problems and could be taken down also. Microsoft owns 100% of Mojang and they can most certainly make any decision that they want to (they also own parts of Bukkit). To try and say that they can't is just foolishness.
Rare was in trouble when Microsoft purchased them, but Microsoft most certainly did finish off several very popular game titles and has held them hostage ever since. There is no denying that. You're also wrong when it comes to Donkey Kong and Star Fox:
"Rare has developed numerous video games since its founding, with sales nearing 90 million units as of 2002.[13] The company is best known for its platform games, which include the Donkey Kong Country, Banjo-Kazooie... including Star Fox Adventures"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rare_Ltd.#Games
Also Bill Gates does own Microsoft lol.
Bukkit Servers DO exist for 1.8 and on. I have a spigot server installed for testing and updating at least one bukkit plugin I made ages ago. Spigot is 100% compatible with Bukkit plugins, and it works without major issue. They are not in the middle of legal problems- the only thing that has happened since this post releasing various 1.8 components has been for Wolvereness to threaten legal action- but, since his original DMCA claim has been refuted, in order for him to do so, he would need to actually pay a lawyer to take legal action, and so far his threats have been empty. He likely went to the EFF and was promptly told where to shove it.
Regarding Donkey Kong and Star Fox, I was not wrong. Nintendo at no point gave Rare ownership of the Donkey Kong IP, and Nintendo has made numerous Donkey Kong games since, which include numerous characters created in the DKC series such as Cranky, Diddy, Dixie, etc.This is because as a 2nd Party Publisher they were working under a contract in a way that created new IP for Nintendo in the same way that an employee working for a company would. If we look at Starfox for example, Rare added "Krystal" who was featured in Assault (Assault was created AFTER the Microsoft acquisition by Nintendo and Namco). Nintendo owns the character of Krystal as well as all the characters added in Adventures. They also own the IP on all content in the Donkey Kong Country series as well as things like DK64. Rare does not own those things, so the assertion made that Microsoft "Broke" Starfox and Donkey Kong is a incredibly dubious one. (if anything, Rare nearly ruined Starfox by turning it into Zelda and adding furry fanservice).
"Also Bill Gates does own Microsoft lol."
Microsoft is a publically traded company. In terms of shares, Bill Gates was surpassed by Steve Balmer as a majority stockholder almost a year ago. Operationally speaking, he stepped down as chairman to dedicate his time to the Bill and Melinda Gates foundation earlier this year as well, though he has not acted in any extended directional capacity guiding the company's actions since before that (2008) and has not been CEO since 2002. People attributing Microsoft Actions in any way to Bill Gates may as well be blaming Paul Allen for all the accuracy in their words. - To post a comment, please login.
1