Where do I get the source

[blakel]

Too many prepositions.

I can't tell if Para thinks that 1) Blakel is suggesting AutoIt is stealing source from other projects OR 2) Blakel is suggesting other projects are stealing from AutoIt.

I presume the latter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

From what I gather, the other project is stealing. That isn't cool. Who is going to protect GPL code? I believe the FSF or SF have ways of enforcing it, but ultimately it is GPL users and Authors that have to protect it. Because if we don't, authors like the one here get POed and take their code off GPL, which is bad (but he has to do what he has to do).

I admit that I want the source, and to "leech" it, but I want it from directly from the author, so I know that the copyright information is correct, and therefore properly licensed.

It sucks that one bad apple, or several, can f*** that up for everybody.

Frankly it POes me too, I want it stopped just like everyone here does.

On top of this, I have a big problem with competing open source projects; who does that help? No one. It's just a bunch of redundancy that usually ends up being a waste time when there is actually something useful to be done.

I think it was Newton that said "...standing on the shoulders of giants..."

That is what the GPL is about. Giving credit, respect, and properly honoring the copyrights involved. That is why most OSS software is so good. And that is what it is going to take to continue it.

I am sorry for the rant, but this really gets me. I want this to stop, so this and many other projects can stay GPL and then maybe others, including myself, can stand on the shoulders of a giant like this one.

[Angel]

I said it before, but I really think that Jon and the other contributors should seek the help of the FSF on this matter...

Angel

[blakel]

I said it before, but I really think that Jon and the other contributors should seek the help of the FSF on this matter...

Angel

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Only the cpoyright holder can take action.

http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl-violation.html

[Jon]

Yeah, I have 95% and like 75 hours into San Andreas.  Everybody in the game has bad language, though, not just the British guys.  However, nobody else seems to have a "problem" like Maccer...

LOL. I was going to hold out for the PC version as with Vice City I bought the PS2 one and then the xbox one years later which had nicer gfx. I was going to try and hold out this time rather than buying the game twice, but I foolishly had a go at a friends house and just had to get it.

It's soo much better than VC. The voice acting is great too. I'm surprised they've not tried to ban it yet as the language and content is about 1000 times worse than VC. But I like that

[Valik]

LOL.  I was going to hold out for the PC version as with Vice City I bought the PS2 one and then the xbox one years later which had nicer gfx.  I was going to try and hold out this time rather than buying the game twice, but I foolishly had a go at a friends house and just had to get it. 

It's soo much better than VC.  The voice acting is great too.  I'm surprised they've not tried to ban it yet as the language and content is about 1000 times worse than VC.  But I like that

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Banning is silly, a Tarantino movie has just as much sex/violence/f-bombs as SA does.

I agree, though, despite some technical issues and a few annoying glitches, its leagues better than Vice City. I haven't put 70 hours into a game in years. If it wasn't for SA, I might of beat Half-Life 2, BloodRayne 2 (Another adults-only game), and Metal Gear Solid 3.

[Guest Brian Smith]

Gee, I wonder why its "not that far behind AutoIt 3".

Edit: blakel, the source for 3.0.102 should be on the download page or findable will little effort.  Only the beta code is kept private for now.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It looks as if the source code for 3.0.102 has removed from the web site. I understand that it is possible to make future versions closed source, but if 3.0.102 was released under the GPL, how can the source no longer be available?

[Jos]

It looks as if the source code for 3.0.102 has removed from the web site.  I understand that it is possible to make future versions closed source, but if 3.0.102 was released under the GPL, how can the source no longer be available?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

What made you conclude that is has been removed from the website ?

I guess that you mean that you can't find it.

Edited January 15, 2005 by JdeB

[Guest Brian Smith]

What made you conclude that is has been removed from the website ?

I guess that you mean that you can't find it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

It isn't where it used to be at.. Did it just move to somewhere else?