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.
A DMCA takedown which they have successfully contested and taken further action for/against. Spigot for 1.8 is available. I'm running a 1.8 server and I am running plugins I wrote for 1.5 without issue on it. While the DMCA thing is sorted out, it needs to be patched.
However- a DMCA Takedown request is NOT "legal trouble". as I illustrated before.
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.
Rare did not own Donkey Kong Country. Microsoft does not own it now. Again- Second party developer contracts.
That said, I'm no longer even clear on what I've said that you are trying to refute; the links you provide go to wikipedia, and they only support a claim that Rare created the games- it in no way supports a claim that Rare owns the IP for those titles. Basically I'm saying Nintendo owns the IP for Donkey Kong Country and always has. And you are saying "no, Rare created Donkey Kong Country" which, again, is not a refutation.
let me condense it down to two simple facts here.
ALL new characters established in an existing Nintendo Property in a Rare title created using that property belong to Nintendo. Krystal, The Kong Family, Animal Buddies, and all Baddies in Donkey Kong Country and DK64.
Properties not related to existing Nintendo franchises belong to Rare (Now Microsoft). Blast Corps, Killer Instinct, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, Banjo-Kazooie, Conker, and a few others as I mentioned before.
This is supported by a number of interviews available online with individuals like Chris Stamper after the sale.
Well, the two properties that go back to Nintendo are Donkey Kong and Star Fox. The rest of the IP actually comes back to Rare. We have a very good relationship with Nintendo it all worked out in the end.
So Again, I repeat my assertion and request for information.
What have I said so far that was misinformation, exactly?.
A DMCA takedown which they have successfully contested and taken further action for/against. Spigot for 1.8 is available. I'm running a 1.8 server and I am running plugins I wrote for 1.5 without issue on it. While the DMCA thing is sorted out, it needs to be patched.
However- a DMCA Takedown request is NOT "legal trouble". as I illustrated before.
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.
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 Spigot it is widely known that Spigot is distributing Wolf's code makes no sense whatsoever.
Right, this is why I have no interest in Spigot whatsoever. Also, these server owners who are using it and still taking donations, or selling privileges on their forums, are technically breaking the law. I doubt any of them would ever get prosecuted, but it's definitely a possibility for some of the more popular ones that are raking in a lot of money.
Right, this is why I have no interest in Spigot whatsoever. Also, these server owners who are using it and still taking donations, or selling privileges on their forums, are technically breaking the law. I doubt any of them would ever get prosecuted, but it's definitely a possibility for some of the more popular ones that are raking in a lot of money.
I'd only be worried about being prosecuted for running a Spigot Server if Microsoft/Mojang (whoever owns that bit of Bukkit now) issued a DMCA for the code they own in Bukkit and only if I was one of the more popular servers. They could force you to take down your server if they wanted to make a point. Tho, I think it would be unlikely for them to prosecute you unless you failed to comply with the takedown.
The support for Bukkit API is gone completely and Spigot, even if the project continues for much longer is going to lose support for their Bukkit plugins because these developers are going to move on to a more stable project. Even if they manage to update Bukkit on their own after each update I highly doubt that their Bukkit plugins will continue to be updated.
There's just way too many things up in the air when it comes to Spigot. Ultimately I don't think the DMCA will bring down Spigot on it's own. I just think that it will cause them to lose support over time. People will look for something more stable.
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.
The reason I say a DMCA takedown request is not "legal" trouble is because it does not involve lawyers.
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.
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.
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.
The sever that distributes Wolf's code has been switched to Romania. Actually, I just went to look again to see if that was still the case and all of Spigot's servers are now running on anonymous proxies. Regardless given the timing of the switch it seems to me like this was a clear attempt to avoid any legal repercussions. To me that looks like Spigot knows what they are doing is illegal.
Once again, all I ever said about Donkey Kong and Star Fox was that Rare created "Donkey Kong Country" and "Star Fox Adventures," not Nintendo. I never said Rare owned the IP. That is clear from the quotes and links I provided.
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.
The sever that distributes Wolf's code has been switched to Romania. Actually, I just went to look again to see if that was still the case and all of Spigot's servers are now running on anonymous proxies. Regardless given the timing of the switch it seems to me like this was a clear attempt to avoid any legal repercussions. To me that looks like Spigot knows what they are doing is illegal.
Once again, all I ever said about Donkey Kong and Start Fox was that Rare created "Donkey Kong Country" and "Star Fox Adventures," not Nintendo. I never said Rare owned the IP. That is clear from the quotes and links I provided.
Well I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure Donkey Kong existed before Donkey Kong Country, and I'm also pretty sure that Shiguru Miyamoto was the one who created Star Fox, as I've seen photos of him standing by a statue that supposedly inspired the character, and also seen photos of his notebook where he was doing sketches and jotting down ideas for names for the characters.
Well I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure Donkey Kong existed before Donkey Kong Country, and I'm also pretty sure that Shiguru Miyamoto was the one who created Star Fox, as I've seen photos of him standing by a statue that supposedly inspired the character, and also seen photos of his notebook where he was doing sketches and jotting down ideas for names for the characters.
Yes that's true, however it was Rare that developed Donkey Kong Country and Star Fox Adventures not Nintendo.
Yes that's true, however it was Rare that developed Donkey Kong Country and Star Fox Adventures not Nintendo.
They were great games. Every Star Fox game since 64 has been great. Nintendo has managed to create plenty of great games without Rare. It is a tragedy though that Rare is no longer around. I will agree Donkey Kong hasn't really been the same since.
Peice of crap Microsoft. Probably just because they bought the game dows not mean they control all the games. I hate you Bill Gates!!!!!
IKR!!!
Jeb and Bill Gates are the worst ever! Microsoft buys Minecraft then all our games break and Bukkit dies. Coincidence? I don't think so. The Minecraft that we all used to know and love is gone thanks to Jeb and 1.8. Now we can expect micro transactions in the future and lots of bugs that never get fixed because Notch is gone and now we have Microsoft the killer of games.
Everything was perfect before Microsoft and 1.8 so how people can say Microsoft isnt bad doesnt make any sense at all.
Jeb and Bill Gates are the worst ever! Microsoft buys Minecraft then all our games break and Bukkit dies. Coincidence? I don't think so. The Minecraft that we all used to know and love is gone thanks to Jeb and 1.8. Now we can expect micro transactions in the future and lots of bugs that never get fixed because Notch is gone and now we have Microsoft the killer of games.
Everything was perfect before Microsoft and 1.8 so how people can say Microsoft isnt bad doesnt make any sense at all.
I really hope you're wrong. But I also fear you might be right.
Well, now hasn't this turned into quite the discussion?
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.
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Want to host a dedicated server yourself, easily, and for free? Click here!
Need to post a DXDiag log and don't know how? Here you go!
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
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.
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.
Also, this is a legal grey area, so I can't say for certain what Spigot is doing is illegal, but imo it is. The facts are, however that a 2nd DMCA has been issued to Spigot.
The Meaning of Life, the Universe, and Everything.
Join Date:
2/12/2012
Posts:
71
Minecraft:
physbo
Member Details
Bill Gates does not own microsoft, he is the second largest individual holder behind Balmer, but there are 9 investment firms who own a total of 2 billion shares to Balmer's and Gates 611 million, not to mention the many other investors, so no, Bill Gates does not own Microsoft, do they listen to him when he complains? sure, but he has no real control over the company.
A DMCA takedown which they have successfully contested and taken further action for/against. Spigot for 1.8 is available. I'm running a 1.8 server and I am running plugins I wrote for 1.5 without issue on it. While the DMCA thing is sorted out, it needs to be patched.
However- a DMCA Takedown request is NOT "legal trouble". as I illustrated before.
Rare did not own Donkey Kong Country. Microsoft does not own it now. Again- Second party developer contracts.
That said, I'm no longer even clear on what I've said that you are trying to refute; the links you provide go to wikipedia, and they only support a claim that Rare created the games- it in no way supports a claim that Rare owns the IP for those titles. Basically I'm saying Nintendo owns the IP for Donkey Kong Country and always has. And you are saying "no, Rare created Donkey Kong Country" which, again, is not a refutation.
let me condense it down to two simple facts here.
ALL new characters established in an existing Nintendo Property in a Rare title created using that property belong to Nintendo. Krystal, The Kong Family, Animal Buddies, and all Baddies in Donkey Kong Country and DK64.
Properties not related to existing Nintendo franchises belong to Rare (Now Microsoft). Blast Corps, Killer Instinct, Perfect Dark, Jet Force Gemini, Banjo-Kazooie, Conker, and a few others as I mentioned before.
This is supported by a number of interviews available online with individuals like Chris Stamper after the sale.
So Again, I repeat my assertion and request for information.
What have I said so far that was misinformation, exactly?.
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.
Right, this is why I have no interest in Spigot whatsoever. Also, these server owners who are using it and still taking donations, or selling privileges on their forums, are technically breaking the law. I doubt any of them would ever get prosecuted, but it's definitely a possibility for some of the more popular ones that are raking in a lot of money.
I'd only be worried about being prosecuted for running a Spigot Server if Microsoft/Mojang (whoever owns that bit of Bukkit now) issued a DMCA for the code they own in Bukkit and only if I was one of the more popular servers. They could force you to take down your server if they wanted to make a point. Tho, I think it would be unlikely for them to prosecute you unless you failed to comply with the takedown.
The support for Bukkit API is gone completely and Spigot, even if the project continues for much longer is going to lose support for their Bukkit plugins because these developers are going to move on to a more stable project. Even if they manage to update Bukkit on their own after each update I highly doubt that their Bukkit plugins will continue to be updated.
There's just way too many things up in the air when it comes to Spigot. Ultimately I don't think the DMCA will bring down Spigot on it's own. I just think that it will cause them to lose support over time. People will look for something more stable.
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.
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.
The sever that distributes Wolf's code has been switched to Romania. Actually, I just went to look again to see if that was still the case and all of Spigot's servers are now running on anonymous proxies. Regardless given the timing of the switch it seems to me like this was a clear attempt to avoid any legal repercussions. To me that looks like Spigot knows what they are doing is illegal.
Once again, all I ever said about Donkey Kong and Star Fox was that Rare created "Donkey Kong Country" and "Star Fox Adventures," not Nintendo. I never said Rare owned the IP. That is clear from the quotes and links I provided.
Well I'm no expert, but I'm pretty sure Donkey Kong existed before Donkey Kong Country, and I'm also pretty sure that Shiguru Miyamoto was the one who created Star Fox, as I've seen photos of him standing by a statue that supposedly inspired the character, and also seen photos of his notebook where he was doing sketches and jotting down ideas for names for the characters.
Yes that's true, however it was Rare that developed Donkey Kong Country and Star Fox Adventures not Nintendo.
They were great games. Every Star Fox game since 64 has been great. Nintendo has managed to create plenty of great games without Rare. It is a tragedy though that Rare is no longer around. I will agree Donkey Kong hasn't really been the same since.
IKR!!!
Jeb and Bill Gates are the worst ever! Microsoft buys Minecraft then all our games break and Bukkit dies. Coincidence? I don't think so. The Minecraft that we all used to know and love is gone thanks to Jeb and 1.8. Now we can expect micro transactions in the future and lots of bugs that never get fixed because Notch is gone and now we have Microsoft the killer of games.
Everything was perfect before Microsoft and 1.8 so how people can say Microsoft isnt bad doesnt make any sense at all.
I really hope you're wrong. But I also fear you might be right.
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.
Want to host a dedicated server yourself, easily, and for free? Click here!
Need to post a DXDiag log and don't know how? Here you go!
I make YouTube vidoes! Why not go check em out?
My specs:
R7 1700 (8c/16t) @ 3.8ghz
Cryorig H7 cooler
G1 Gaming GTX 1080 8gb @ ~2000mhz core
16gb DDR4 3200mhz ram
250gb 850 EVO SSD
240gb Sandisk SSD Plus
1tb WD Blue 7200rpm HDD
1tb Generic 2.5" 7200rpm HDD
500gb WD 7200rpm HDD
Win 10
3x 24" 1080p Monitors @75hz
Click me, and let all your dreams come true....
Well that's technically not a Bukkit server, but it does use Bukkit API.
Nice of you to offer to help him. +1
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.
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...
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.
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.
Source: https://twitter.com/wolvereness/status/507337219187548160
Straight from Wolf himself on Sept. 3rd.
Also, this is a legal grey area, so I can't say for certain what Spigot is doing is illegal, but imo it is. The facts are, however that a 2nd DMCA has been issued to Spigot.
Obviously he does own Microsoft if he OWNS the 2nd largest share in the company.... both Bill Gates and Balmer are owners.