Banning of all Forked plugins (IHCF, Para, Janitor, Sloth, ETC)

[Caicy]

I dont think its fair that these "Skid Developers" can make profit off someone elses work. They change one or two things and they call it a "CUSTOM PLUGIN" or a "CUSTOM FORK" well in reality its not fucking custom at all, you took someone elses work and are going to profit off of it because you cant code something like that because you are a shit developer.

Yup thats my view.
https://strawpoll.com/g7fg3xg

 

[Ivain]

In theory, I agree. Now we need to define on where to draw a line between a fork and a plugin based on similar code.

 

[Hannes]

In theory, I agree. Now we need to define on where to draw a line between a fork and a plugin based on similar code.

I was to comment this but yeah, totally agree!

 

[Justis]

Some forks actually have a lot of work put into them. However, in most cases, I tend to agree, that these 'forks' change only a few things before the editor attempts to resell/redistribute it.

If the original plugin is one that's open-source and free, then users are free to make forks of them, and distribute it, as long as they accredit the original author. That's the license granted by open-source content and by us.
If it's not open source, if it's not free to distribute, then users may not distribute those forks at all on the forums, whatsoever; unless they have permission from the original owner.

Now, we can't take a look at the source of every fork that is offered on site, just like we can't verify every other product that's offered. However, we can with resources, since the product is uploaded, and we do.
If a fork is uploaded that does not contain significant original work, it is denied and the user is told to either put more effort into it, or go offer it on the forums. That's just our resource quality standards. It needs to contain significant original work. Same for setups and other products.
Our resource standards are higher than our forum standards for products.
Otherwise everyone would be uploading their 20 line plugins that change a few cosmetic things, but could be easily reproduced by anyone else in five minutes.
Still, that shouldn't prevent them from offering their low effort work on the forums. They just can't upload it as a resource.

 

[Ivain]

What exactly is fork?

Its when you take someone else's code, and start making modifications to suit your needs/desires.
say, you have a plugin that allows players to teleport. Just /tp to another player. Then someone could fork that, then add on the feature that you can block players from teleporting, or to write the /tpaccept type of thing.
However, as others have said, a lot of people make 'forks' that, in the above example, would change the color of the text.

 

[Ivain]

Close modifications are just.. why isn't it banned already?

Justis explained that when it comes to resources, it already is.
However, the problem with code is that unlike builds and/or graphics, not just anyone can identify that something is, in fact, a copy of something else.
With builds and graphics, you could reverse image search, or just recall it from somewhere and do some searching.
With plugins and other code, you have to know the exact plugin its copied from then identify each difference and see its significance.
And since the code itself is the product, people selling code outside the resource section will at no point show the entire code. Usually just a snippet of it. So it's not practical to enforce it in the forums itself in 90% of cases.
However, since people on this site are often either stupid or obstinate, it might be interesting to make an explicit rule that forbids forks of cosmetic mods in general, so that people selling forks will at least consider.

 

[Aries]

Some forks actually have a lot of work put into them. However, in most cases, I tend to agree, that these 'forks' change only a few things before the editor attempts to resell/redistribute it.

If the original plugin is one that's open-source and free, then users are free to make forks of them, and distribute it, as long as they accredit the original author. That's the license granted by open-source content and by us.
If it's not open source, if it's not free to distribute, then users may not distribute those forks at all on the forums, whatsoever; unless they have permission from the original owner.

Now, we can't take a look at the source of every fork that is offered on site, just like we can't verify every other product that's offered. However, we can with resources, since the product is uploaded, and we do.
If a fork is uploaded that does not contain significant original work, it is denied and the user is told to either put more effort into it, or go offer it on the forums. That's just our resource quality standards. It needs to contain significant original work. Same for setups and other products.
Our resource standards are higher than our forum standards for products.
Otherwise everyone would be uploading their 20 line plugins that change a few cosmetic things, but could be easily reproduced by anyone else in five minutes.
Still, that shouldn't prevent them from offering their low effort work on the forums. They just can't upload it as a resource.

I'd have to agree, Although I have forked plugins before and used bits.... I've never sold a fully forked plugin even after modification. For example I've used a open sources config system in many of my plugins.

 

[Caicy]

If you disagree you are a skid developer that edited forks and resells them

 

[Cal]

I disagree, why limit people from selling things they work hard on? Yes it can be annoying to some but, many new servers owners can't afford a full custom core. Forks can be a useful tool for new developers to get in the development game too. However, I do see the other sides argument for the "stealing code". If possible maybe a rule for disclosing a plugin is a fork is a better idea than alt-right banning them.

 

[Kuzni]

If you disagree you are a skid developer that edited forks and resells them

That's solid logic

 

[subbotted]

Personally I wouldn't completely remove forks, I think its alright if the developer selling the fork has permission to sell it from the original developer and has done a lot of work to the original plugin.

If you change the colours in messages in a fork and add a shitty feature to it thats simple to make and takes five minutes, then yeah, remove the thread/resource and give warning points and or suspend them. If its clearly had a lot of work added to it that taken more than just a few hours and the developer has permission to sell it (that is provided in the thread and/or vouched for by the original developer) then I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to sell it.

However, I understand why you would want to ban forks as they are very controversial but if they work as described, you have permission and added lots of features/it is a 'good'/'decent' fork then I personally wouldn't see a problem with it.

Example:

Good Fork Shit Fork

Good Fork = Should be allowed
Shit Fork = Should be banned

Original Plugin:
/teleport
Non-configurable
No MySQL support
No /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle etc

Forked Plugin:
/teleport, /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle
Fully configurable (all messages, settings, etc)
MySQL support
Other good features

Original Plugin:
/teleport
Non-configurable
No MySQL support
No /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle etc

Forked Plugin:
/teleport, /tphere
Added features configurable, no old/original features configurable
No MySQL support
No /tpo, /tptoggle, /tpaccept etc


I know a teleport plugin is a rather shitty excuse as they aren't hard to make anyway but what I'm getting at is if you evidently work hard on it and shit then you should be allowed to sell it.

Thanks,
subbotted.

 

[Cal]

Personally I wouldn't completely remove forks, I think its alright if the developer selling the fork has permission to sell it from the original developer and has done a lot of work to the original plugin.

If you change the colours in messages in a fork and add a shitty feature to it thats simple to make and takes five minutes, then yeah, remove the thread/resource and give warning points and or suspend them. If its clearly had a lot of work added to it that taken more than just a few hours and the developer has permission to sell it (that is provided in the thread and/or vouched for by the original developer) then I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to sell it.

However, I understand why you would want to ban forks as they are very controversial but if they work as described, you have permission and added lots of features/it is a 'good'/'decent' fork then I personally wouldn't see a problem with it.

Example:

Good Fork Shit Fork

Good Fork = Should be allowed
Shit Fork = Should be banned

Original Plugin:
/teleport
Non-configurable
No MySQL support
No /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle etc

Forked Plugin:
/teleport, /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle
Fully configurable (all messages, settings, etc)
MySQL support
Other good features

Original Plugin:
/teleport
Non-configurable
No MySQL support
No /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle etc

Forked Plugin:
/teleport, /tphere
Added features configurable, no old/original features configurable
No MySQL support
No /tpo, /tptoggle, /tpaccept etc


I know a teleport plugin is a rather shitty excuse as they aren't hard to make anyway but what I'm getting at is if you evidently work hard on it and shit then you should be allowed to sell it.

Thanks,
subbotted.

This would be way to difficult to enforce and set guidelines for as what people could fork a plugin into is virtually limitless meaning it is almost impossible to control.

 

[Aries]

My solution is just give some goddamn fucking credit.... The end.

 

[mcparadip]

My solution is just give some goddamn fucking credit.... The end.

100% BOOM MIND BLOWN

 

[Kuzni]

Personally I wouldn't completely remove forks, I think its alright if the developer selling the fork has permission to sell it from the original developer and has done a lot of work to the original plugin.

If you change the colours in messages in a fork and add a shitty feature to it thats simple to make and takes five minutes, then yeah, remove the thread/resource and give warning points and or suspend them. If its clearly had a lot of work added to it that taken more than just a few hours and the developer has permission to sell it (that is provided in the thread and/or vouched for by the original developer) then I don't see why you shouldn't be allowed to sell it.

However, I understand why you would want to ban forks as they are very controversial but if they work as described, you have permission and added lots of features/it is a 'good'/'decent' fork then I personally wouldn't see a problem with it.

Example:

Good Fork Shit Fork

Good Fork = Should be allowed
Shit Fork = Should be banned

Original Plugin:
/teleport
Non-configurable
No MySQL support
No /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle etc

Forked Plugin:
/teleport, /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle
Fully configurable (all messages, settings, etc)
MySQL support
Other good features

Original Plugin:
/teleport
Non-configurable
No MySQL support
No /tphere, /tpaccept, /tpo, /tptoggle etc

Forked Plugin:
/teleport, /tphere
Added features configurable, no old/original features configurable
No MySQL support
No /tpo, /tptoggle, /tpaccept etc


I know a teleport plugin is a rather shitty excuse as they aren't hard to make anyway but what I'm getting at is if you evidently work hard on it and shit then you should be allowed to sell it.

Thanks,
subbotted.

Mick or the staff team don't want to waste their time managing who can post what fork