[FF7PC-98/Steam] Multiple mods and Modding Framework-The Reunion [R06f]

  • Thread starter Thread starter DLPB_
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
you shouldn't use fixed length names unless you've read readme and have are starting a new game and are not changing default names.  it's intended only for very specific usage
Click to expand...
That's the weird thing, I installed Reunion with American English and Series Canon. It defaulted to "Barrett" when I got him so I just left it as is. Now since I reinstalled and did Incorrect Characters/Places, I think that's maybe why his textboxes are messed up now? Maybe I can take some screens later. The extra T doesn't really bother me at all, but now there's some lines I think when it's just him speaking and a letter might get bumped down to a new line or a word awkwardly broken up.
 
Exactly... you've already changed the name and then changed option - so they are mismatched ;)
 
Exactly... you've already changed the name and then changed option - so they are mismatched ;)
Click to expand...
Oh I get you now... yep. Third reinstall's a charm haha, made sure Fixed Length was off this time!

Phew, it's all good now.  8)
 
The torrent is removed awaiting R06f and an end to this circus. I also need an edit button :)
 
Due to the current licensing issues, Reunion cannot be distributed from or linked to from Qhimm.com.

If and when the mod is brought into compliance, links will be allowed.

Discussion is still fine at this time.
 
@lizardp  It will take time to program and isn't a priority.
Click to expand...
Alright, that's cool and understandable. Just making you aware of it. Hope you can find time to look at it. Thanks for responding
 
Priority is getting the new update released - and I'll look into sound card option side of it don't worry :)
 
Also, respectfully, I believe there is ample evidence that there are no licensing issues with R06e, but a complaint was raised and I have to obey the ruling of the moderators of this forum.

Long term, I will be looking at my own website to host The Reunion as the current situation is intolerable and unjust.  The moderators have acted in what they believe to be the best interest of the forum based on the complaint raised by a member of this forum, and I have made it absolutely clear that I am complying with their ruling on it.

I thank every fan of The Reunion for their patience in this matter and I'm sorry that we find ourselves in this position.


Dan
 
You can't just modify, link or use GPL libs as plugins and not release your code that is a VIOLATION of the GPL.  This is why there is a GPL and LGPL the LGPL you allow others to link or load. With things under the GPL if you link (and you clearly do even if you think you don't the binary doesn't lie!). or use the GPL lib as a plugin. (and you do this too) You have to comply with the licensing. IMHO Part of the problem is you don't understand or wont admit you are wrong in this case. Even if not linking your still in violation as your proprietary application is loading GPL plugins. (see the link below)

https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#NFUseGPLPlugins
 
That isn't remotely the issue here.  The source code for aali.dll has always been free and open - but will now also be public.  That isn't why this mod is removed.  It's removed because a member here believes calling a function from my dll to aali.dll also breaches gpl and it doesn't - because there is wild debate online about that - AND on the wiki page about it.

I am more than happy to upload aali.dll code - which is being done.  That isn't the issue here - so please stop getting involved and causing trouble.  This does not concern you and you have absolutely no idea what you're on about.
 
Again, I want to stress this - as it keeps getting missed.  The code that QP and True Odin are using is based on a build that Luksy created from aali's original code. That code was supplied to them - with fixes from me, Luksy, and Maki - openly.  It has NEVER been closed source.

The source that is closed - and which QP is demanding / threatening all sorts that doesn't make sense - is ddraw.dll.  His argument has nothing to do with aali source - it has to do with 2 external functions from aali.dll that are called from ddraw.dll. 

Again - plainly - I have never withheld aali code.
 
ddraw.dll is 100% my code, written in Borland Delphi - it does not constitute ANY violation.  It is completely separate and can even be used separately if needed to work without aali.dll - this is why it isn't in breech of gpl.  Please understand that and learn that.
 
That isn't remotely the issue here.  The source code for aali.dll has always been free and open - but will now also be public.  That isn't why this mod is removed.  It's removed because a member here believes calling a function from my dll to aali.dll also breaches gpl and it doesn't - because there is wild debate online about that - AND on the wiki page about it.

I am more than happy to upload aali.dll code - which is being done.  That isn't the issue here - so please stop getting involved and causing trouble.  This does not concern you and you have absolutely no idea what you're on about.
Click to expand...
From all my research and understanding of this topic and context, you actually are/were in violation of the GPL. Your main defense of "its dynamically linked so it doesn't matter" is irrelevant here. You claim theres wild debate about this online, and even dispute on the GPL wiki page, and you are correct. There WAS massive debate on this topic seemingly because of ones interpretation of GPLv2. Everything you have linked is from over 10 years ago. All of the wiki citations are from even longer ago - from 1992-2006. The debate over linking in GPLv2 doesn't matter because aali.dll is licensed under GPLv3 and not GPLv2. According to the FSF, if your work links a library at all it is a derivative work and the entire work is subject to GPL. Even this is clarified on the wiki page you say is in dispute.

61e8b2f96c.png


https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic

It's been shown that you do in fact link aali.dll, and if you say you don't need to do that, then why have you been all this time and distributing it anyway? Why take the risk?

It's likely none of this would have happened in the first place if you hadn't gone out of your way to slander people.

so, maybe its you that doesn't know what you're on about. It's at the very least the complete opposite of a non-issue - and definitely not something I would want a lawyer or judge reviewing if I was in your position.
 
DLPB, stop lying to people immediately before you get yourself into more trouble than you are already in. Your DLL is not separate, and this is not debatable. There is no legal grey area here.

Import tracing reveals that DDraw.dll has a forward linked dependency on Aali.dll, nothing else you say on the matter is relevant since anyone can independently verify this and it's impossible for this to be the case if you aren't linking.

From GNU.org: https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLStaticVsDynamic

It doesn't matter if you link statically or dynamically (Also, you have admitted to linking in this thread which is admissible evidence lol), this propagates GPL and makes the entire combined work GPL in perpetuity. Even if you remove the references now DDraw.dll is still GPL'd code and you cannot distribute it unless it is open source under the terms and conditions set forth by the GPL3 license agreement.

Since it's clear you have no understanding of GPL, let me address the nonsense you have been sending people in private messages. https://cdn.discordapp.com/attachments/707501179831189505/707588532494925834/Screen_Shot_007.PNG

Wrong, the terms of the GPL do not require that both executables "communicate with each either" (This could actually be fine if the communication involves only module style data exchange and not linking, which constitutes sharing of protected material under GPL) -- and it isn't the case that the GPL'd dll needs to "communicate" back. Just think about this rationally, why would a copyright holders right to control distribution of derived works be conditional on whether or not the derived work called some other persons code?

There is no ambiguity on linking being allowed when you are distributing the binary, which is a form of the material protected by GPL. You are not linking and then running your code on a server, distributing effectively only the "output" of the combined derived work -- there is some ambiguity regarding whether this is allowed or not but since you are distributing the binary that is irrelevant in your case.

Oh, GPL contaminates so this applies to future versions of DDraw.dll even if you attempt to remove the linkage dependency. Oh and I don't want your source code, as evidenced by the peace offering made earlier in this thread (before you doubled down like an idiot and attempted to further slander me in your spreadsheet and in private messages), you would have been allowed (at least, I would not have struck you) to redistribute DDraw.dll after all linking dependencies were removed without open sourcing it, even though it would still be a violation of the terms and conditions of GPL due to license contamination.

I urge you to reflect on the seriousness of your current situation and comply with the law, one way or another.
 
Last edited:
There is no seriousness here, QP.  What there is is you - coming into this thread like a lunatic - when the mods have already asked you not to do.  This issue is closed.  I've complied with what the moderators have asked. Go get your lawyer and make all your reports - it will be a good laugh when you discover you have no legal basis for any of that diarrhoea you keep spouting.
 
I have consulted with my lawyer. If you repost the offending material, i.e opt to continue distribution of material while in violation of the terms of the licensing agreement (which you will not be permitted to do on qhimm, precisely because you are in fact in violation of GPLv3) you will be receiving a formal legal notice.
 
This debate, by the way, is why GPLv3 is a vicious and awful license that does nothing but insulate the open source community and make it less attractive for commercial investment. Even LGPL has issues, but GPLv3 is just a cudgel that vindictive people use to attack others. If anyone reading this thread aspires to be a FOSS developer, I urge you to choose a more reasonable and permissive license for your code. No one likes to have their code stolen and used without attribution, but this is not a reasonable way to prevent that.
 
Last edited:
Good - Am I now supposed to suddenly quake in my boots?  How are they arriving?  By Chinook?  You let me know, won't ya?

Look, we all know you're bluffing.  It's sad.  And if you aren't, you're mad - and set to waste a load of money. And I'm still not arsed.  There is no law being broken.  There is no material on here that you have a case with.  Your entire case is a house of cards resting on diarrhoea.  And you're wasting everyone's time and your own.  Keep sending those silly messages and posts though - it's making me laugh.
 
This debate, by the way, is why GPLv3 is a vicious and awful license that does nothing but insulate the open source community and make it less attractive for commercial investment. Even LGPL has issues, but GPLv3 is just a cudgel that vindictive people use to attack people. If anyone reading this thread aspires to be a FOSS developer, I urge you to choose a more reasonable and permissive license for your code. No one likes to have their code stolen and used without attribution, but this is not a reasonable way to prevent that.
Click to expand...
Agreed.  And it allows macho men like the guy above to suddenly think they have some power in their insignificant little lives.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top