the forefront of many of our concerns. I want to see Mystic continue
grow in security and give attention to privacy. The best way forward in this regard is allowing for peer review on the source code to Mystic and
I actually (in this case) support Mystic being closed source. It allows g00r00 to control the versioning and the direction of the software
without there being a bunch of potential additionally buggy versions of Mystic and Mystic clones being around.
I would be willing to contribute financially to Mystic development if it means we can have access to Mystic source, or some other
Mystic-exclusive.
Anyway, the conversation is open. Even if it doesn't result in any
change, I do believe I saw g00r00 hinting that revisiting the issue is
I actually (in this case) support Mystic being closed source. It allo g00r00 to control the versioning and the direction of the software without there being a bunch of potential additionally buggy versions Mystic and Mystic clones being around.
I can sincerely appreciate this. There would be a lot of noise generated around Mystic. But shouldn't that be the descretion of the SysOp? As I said before, development doesn't have to change.
Nah. g00r00 is actually pretty responsive when he gets into "Mystic
his own ideas. It should totally be at g00r00's discretion in what direction he wants Mystic to take. The fact that he takes advisement and
Anyway, the conversation is open. Even if it doesn't result in any
change, I do believe I saw g00r00 hinting that revisiting the issue is
on the table for him. Either way, I enjoy Mystic and want to continue supporting it and g00r00. :) I also hope others in the discussion share
my approach to the conversation. This is not one to create discord over.
I actually (in this case) support Mystic being closed source. It allows g00r00 to control the versioning and the direction of the software without there being a bunch of potential additionally buggy versions of Mystic and Mystic clones being around.
Hi Richard... just a bit of feedback from me... from my point of view I thought the way you raised this topic and the responses you have given
so far have been measured and are written in such a way not to create discord but rather just ask the open questions and gauge feedback from those about. So well done from me :)
It's a subject that comes up from time to time. From my point of view any future status of Mystic development rests solely with its author to determine. Perhaps in time it may become open or semi-open or whatnot,
but that's up to g00r00 :)
My hope is that should a day arise when g00r00 is no longer involved in developing Mystic, that the source code is not lost to the wider world forever and with it any options to further develop the software. That I think would be a real loss given Mystic has come so far since its creation, and had so much love and effort spent on it over the years.
Anywhoo I digress. Thanks for starting the thread and taking part in fsxNet.
What you are looking for is open access to the source code for being
able to make modifications to customize your BBS the way we were able to do with WWIV and VBBS back in the day? If that is the case, then source code access is no longer required as all that can be done with the implementation of the various scripting languages that Mystic supports (Java, Python, MPL). ---
I can sincerely appreciate this. There would be a lot of noise generated around Mystic. But shouldn't that be the descretion of the SysOp? As I said before, development doesn't have to change.
Anyway, the conversation is open. Even if it doesn't result in any
change, I do believe I saw g00r00 hinting that revisiting the issue is
on the table for him. Either way, I enjoy Mystic and want to continue
My hope is that should a day arise when g00r00 is no longer involved in developing Mystic, that the source code is not lost to the wider world forever and with it any options to further develop the software. That I think would be a real loss given Mystic has come so far since its creation, and had so much love and effort spent on it over the years.
do with WWIV and VBBS back in the day? If that is the case, then source code access is no longer required as all that can be done with the implementation of the various scripting languages that Mystic supports (Java, Python, MPL). ---
There were instances of people flat out stealing the code, changing
the name of the software and slapping their name on it as if it was
their work.
Just to add to that, WWIV doesn't have any way to modify menus and the prompts either back then. With Mystic everything that is sent to the
user can be changed using the theme system without any programing.
Seeing folks fork your code can also be positive - they may add features/functions or improve routines that werent thought of previously
- and nothing wrong with pulling that stuff back into master.
I do understand the guy who forked Guardian didn't really understand the GPL and ownership in that he claimed you violated the GPL by going back
to closed source.
You don't have to understand why some people think thats a problem
or unethical to do that to an active project. But I think its
worth understanding that people DO feel that way. And at the very
least it caused plenty of confusion.
Let's apply the same to something not Mystic BBS! Gather around
kids!
Imagine spending 25 years working on a novel and you're finally
nearly done! You spent most of your life working on this novel, and
you decide its time to share it with your neighbor so he can help
you proof read. You're excited to see what he comes back with,
until one day you see your novel in the bookstore.
Instead of helping you, your neighbor took the novel that you spent
your entire life working on and published it with his name on it.
That's a shitty thing to do in my opinion.
I put Mystic out there for people to help, and instead they took it
and slapped their name on it without contributing.
Unfortunately that never happened even once when it was opened sourced. :(
The source was instead flat out stolen and the BBS software name was changed and so on though.
I would say, if you just want help with mystic, don't go opensource, but rather take offers from volunteers who are willing to agree not to share the code.
Many eyes are better than one pair - and many hands are faster than one pair.
If it was software that was being updated year 'round on a daily, or almost daily basis, and was something system critical, and at least used by thousands, or hundreds of thousands of people, I could see it being open.
This is good, in theory. But in practice not always. Particularly not always with regards to a niche computing environment like BBSing.
For a while, I maintained Daydream. A lot of people forked Daydream and tried to integrate some Warez/scene FTP daemons directly into Daydream. The codebase became disgusting, full of bugs, and the community simply wanted the FTP integration so they took the changes before anyone else had a chance to look at it. I advised against taking these changes since they
I think this would be tragic too.
The system I have in place is a little weird, but I copy the source code to a USB key every time I release a new alpha (and usually off and on in-between). I have instructions for what to do with that USB drive
should something happen.
I have every intention of releasing the source code the day I decide I no longer want to work on it, or can't for whatever reason. That is, if I don't decide to return to open source before that day comes (if it ever does).
The source was instead flat out stolen and the BBS software name
was changed and so on though.
On 01-30-20 08:36, Oli wrote to g00r00 <=-
The source was instead flat out stolen and the BBS software name
was changed and so on though.
How does one steal Open Source code? Is that legally possible?
Was it a GPL violation or not? Removing the author's name and replacing
it with
someone elses would be a GPL or copyright violation. Releasing
modified binaries without the sources too. Forking and changing the
name of the software
is not.
If I compile the old sources on Gitlab and distribute binaries, should
I still call the software Mystic BBS? Would that be better?
The noise generated was almost universally very bad, so that was why I chose to go closed source. Things have been much better since returning to closed. But as you mentioned it is still on the table and something I regularly reconsider!
Seeing people literally steal my code and life's work to slap their name on it was pretty shitty. :(
Its always on the table. There are some benefits too of course, but I just felt the negatives were far outweighing the positives and I was spending too much time dealing with nonsense and too little time writing code.
I do understand the guy who forked Guardian didn't really understand the GPL and ownership in that he claimed you violated the GPL by going back
to closed source.
This reminds me of stuff like when the Queen dies and stuff automatically kicks in.. and plan 987137 is executed. We certainly don't need 'if I should...' plans to roll out anytime soon! Just saying.. :)
How does one steal Open Source code? Is that legally possible?
I'd say it actually is possible - by not obeying licence conditions (a
big one with GPL), or by simply not acknowledging the original author
of the code, making it look like your own, when it isn't.
If I compile the old sources on Gitlab and distribute binaries,
should I still call the software Mystic BBS? Would that be
better?
It would be good to at least acknowledge what your fork is derived
from, and give the original author (g00r00) credit. And if the old
source is unmodified, then it is still Mystic and definitely not your work, but releasing binaries of such an old version really doesn't
make sense now.
Seeing people literally steal my code and life's work to slap
their name on it was pretty shitty. :(
Have any of those projects survived? I'm curious.
Let's apply the same to something not Mystic BBS! Gather around kids!
Imagine spending 25 years working on a novel and you're finally nearly done! You spent most of your life working on this novel, and you decide its time to share it with your neighbor so he can help you proof read. You're excited to see what he comes back with, until one day you see
your novel in the bookstore.
Instead of helping you, your neighbor took the novel that you spent your entire life working on and published it with his name on it. That's a shitty thing to do in my opinion.
Forking repositories doesnt mean you have to accept other peoples
commits into master. Let those who fork it butcher it if they want - cherry pick the good parts and make your master even better...
That said, if the "users" take on the forks over your code base, then
the tribe has spoken...
Was it a GPL violation or not? Removing the author's name and replacing
Just to add to that, WWIV doesn't have any way to modify menus and th prompts either back then. With Mystic everything that is sent to the user can be changed using the theme system without any programing.
Are you sure? Because I remember just about every WWIV board here in Huntsville having custom menus on it. And if I remember correctly (I HAVE slept a few times since then) we were even able to customize the prompts in the source code.
At the end of the day, there are pro's and con's, there are people with good intentions and people with bad - but I've used my fair share of
The source was instead flat out stolen and the BBS software name
was changed and so on though.
How does one steal Open Source code? Is that legally possible?
If I compile the old sources on Gitlab and distribute binaries, should I still call the software Mystic BBS? Would that be better?
Seeing people literally steal my code and life's work to slap their n on it was pretty shitty. :(
Have any of those projects survived? I'm curious.
Then the comments started happening. "Hey, your board looks EXACTLY like this other board!" When I asked what the name and number of the BBS was,
I called in, and 'lo and fucking behold, this scumbag motherfucker had
put my BBS online, changed the name, and replaced the doors menu header,
The non-personal one was Iniquity BBS. For those that don't
know, Mike Fricker was the original author of Iniquity. It was
awesome. Buggy, but awesome. I loved the hell out of it, and
spent hours in the mid 90s playing with it, setting it up,
configging the hell out of it. Was a total labor of love, as I'm
sure you all know with your BBSes. And the software was free.
He eventually sold it to another dude, Michael Pike. This guy
put his name all over it, changed it into a 2 licensed node, but
didn't do anything else. And that was the end of Iniquity.
Was it a GPL violation or not? Removing the author's name and
replacing
Hey Oli, I haven't spoken with you before, but frankly your tone
is very condescending and your posts are rather pedantic and
unhelpful. Are you aware of how you come off?
Then the comments started happening. "Hey, your board looks EXACTLY l this other board!" When I asked what the name and number of the BBS w I called in, and 'lo and fucking behold, this scumbag motherfucker ha put my BBS online, changed the name, and replaced the doors menu head
That really sucks. :(
I think sometimes people can't empathize with what its like when
something like that happens, unless it actually happens to them.
I've always had a little hesitant about putting Sector 7 up because it
was Grymmjack's BBS even though he sent me all of his art and I was co-SysOp lol.
The non-personal one was Iniquity BBS. For those that don't
know, Mike Fricker was the original author of Iniquity. It was awesome. Buggy, but awesome. I loved the hell out of it, and
spent hours in the mid 90s playing with it, setting it up,
configging the hell out of it. Was a total labor of love, as I'm
sure you all know with your BBSes. And the software was free.
He eventually sold it to another dude, Michael Pike. This guy
put his name all over it, changed it into a 2 licensed node, but didn't do anything else. And that was the end of Iniquity.
You just made a convincing argument against closed source software..
Finding bugs and reporting them is unhelpful?
Defending open source culture is unhelpful?
What I read from others were insults and personal attacks (not only directed to me). Nobody ever complained about that. This seems to be
more acceptable than being pedantic ... But being partisan over
Defending open source culture is unhelpful?
Was it a GPL violation or not? Removing the author's name and
replacing
You just made a convincing argument against closed source
software..
To a point, I agree. But that's a worse case scenario. I get
that closed source can lead to frustration if the author decides
to either shut things down permanently or sell it off to someone
else; look at all the door games that are crippled that nobody
can register.
My hope for Mystic, and g00r00 confirmed, is that if/when he
decides he doesn't want to work on it anymore, he releases the
code before then. That's a scenario I can get behind in this
instance.
When will this be? In 30 years? ;)
My hope for Mystic, and g00r00 confirmed, is that if/when he
decides he doesn't want to work on it anymore, he releases the
code before then. That's a scenario I can get behind in this instance.
When will this be? In 30 years? ;)
--- Penis Flattener v1.12 A44
* Origin: 🦄 🌈 (21:1/151)
--- Penis Flattener v1.12 A44
* Origin: 🦄 🌈 (21:1/151)
Oli, if you want to make a constructive points about something I
(and I'm sure others here) are totally fine with that, but when
I see this kind of thing, it's really unnecessary and not in the
spirit of the goals of this network. Please cease that kind of
thing.
Now references to popular TV shows are forbidden?*
Insulting people and other software is fine as long as it is done by the author of mystic bbs or against unpopular people, but silliness is not?
I'll stop when I don't have to read garbled mails anymore that have been changed in-transit or someone cuts my feed. Whatever comes first.
Btw, what is the goal of the network? Excluding users with mobile
clients and making fun of them? Shooting the messenger? Well done!
I do understand the guy who forked Guardian didn't really
understand the GPL and ownership in that he claimed you
violated the GPL by going back to closed source.
Forking is not a misclick or an oops. The guy knew.
As far as g00r00 going back to closed source ... if the GPL wasn't
being honored elsewhere ... what does it matter if he reverts his
own code to closed source?
Quoting G00r00 to Alter Ego <=-
At the end of the day, there are pro's and con's, there are people with good intentions and people with bad - but I've used my fair share of
There weren't really any(?) pros though. I wanted there to be, but it didn't work out that way. In theory its a good idea, but in execution
it wasn't.
No one contributed. And the amount of bullshit I had to deal with increased significantly, in addition to people releasing conflicting versions. Mystic wasn't gaining anything, it was losing because it
caused me to have less time and desire to work on it.
I do understand the guy who forked Guardian didn't really
understand the GPL and ownership in that he claimed you
violated the GPL by going back to closed source.
Forking is not a misclick or an oops. The guy knew.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. Of course he knew he was making a fork.
Language and accuracy are important, but it's good to be flexible and
not leap into lawyer-mode whenever somebody uses a term a little too loosely. It gets very tiresome.
I do understand the guy who forked Guardian didn't really
understand the GPL and ownership in that he claimed you
violated the GPL by going back to closed source.
Forking is not a misclick or an oops. The guy knew.
I think you misunderstand what I was saying. Of course he knew
he was making a fork.
I meant forking was not trivial. If he had enough know how to fork
a project, he had enough know how to read the GPL and understand
it. The fault was mine for not making this clearer. Apologies.
- From what i have seen the last years, Mystic BBS has a "weird type" of
support, from the community. What i mean is that, a lot of people
using it, a lot of people are eager to help others to use it, but not a lot are willing to make stuff for it, like themes, mods, tools etc. For me, this is a sign, that even if the project goes 100% OS, there will be no contribution or just a minimum amount of it.
I dunno about that. There're a lot of Mystic-specific mods out there.
I've even written a few. Gryphon is another off the top of my head.
Dream master wrote a ton back in the day, and is occasionally updating them to work with current Mystic versions.
How many are using Mystic BBS? How many do they actually write about it? even as a theme, tutorial, script, help file etc?
Also many scripts/mods out there, even mine, are outdated, which means that the "supporters" (modders) don't catch up with the development of
echicken, you are consistently my favorite communicator.
1. Shitty themes exported but at least it gives folks ideas.
2. Folks that do a superb job modding their boards but don't want to
share because it's, well, "my theme" and don't want your BBS to resemble it. 3. A few really good ones.
FWIW, I appreciate that you and others around here actually *discuss* things in the fine middle ground between twitteresque oneliners and overlong diatribes. It's nice to see paragraphs, but not too many of
them, in other words.
You mean like, me. ;)
FWIW, I appreciate that you and others around here actually *discuss* things in the fine middle ground between twitteresque oneliners and overlong diatribes. It's nice to see paragraphs, but not too many of them, in other words.
You mean like, me. ;)
Re: Re: Open sourcing Mystic
By: maskreet to echicken on Sat Feb 01 2020 15:27:26
You mean like, me. ;)
Sometimes a one line message is all that's needed.
I'm just talking about the difference between "Thing is bad" and "Thing
is bad because ...". Lots of people like to share their opinion in
twenty words or less; fewer people back it up with a solid argument.
(This has nothing at all to do with the topic at hand, BTW. I'm just rambling.)
FWIW, I appreciate that you and others around here actually *dis things in the fine middle ground between twitteresque oneliners overlong diatribes. It's nice to see paragraphs, but not too man them, in other words.
You mean like, me. ;)
Yes, even you. Your opinion was valuable in that discussion, though we
do not ultimately agree. Thanks for your input in this thread, and your participation in the community as a whole.
I have a theme I was working on which basically turned the Mystic into a Image BBS for the Commodore 64, it's not great, but it's not bad. Once I
Would love to see what it takes to make a theme. If you don't mind
sending the scripts with fake names of files & such...should be able to find out how to do something I've had an idea about.
Would love to see what it takes to make a theme. If you don't mind sending the scripts with fake names of files & such...should be able find out how to do something I've had an idea about.Once I get a few things done here today I will try to finish the message base area of it, if I do I will send it along to you. It's very easy,
the menu editing is actually very powerful..
Thank you! Been looking for the steps to be able to do this...but have found little to nothing on how to set it up.
Looking forward to looking on the items which do this.
even a dope like me can understand it.. Before anyone says I am not, it just took me 2 hours to set up a Sunrise Door! So no comments.. LOL Phoo
netmail me your email address and I will send you off what I have I
won't be getting ot finish it today but you can see what I have done
with the rest..
| Sysop: | Eric Oulashin |
|---|---|
| Location: | Beaverton, Oregon, USA |
| Users: | 128 |
| Nodes: | 16 (0 / 16) |
| Uptime: | 10:39:58 |
| Calls: | 1,549 |
| Files: | 2,153 |
| Messages: | 313,636 |