9 Commits (5d8dce0ed25a0e72964aeaeac6c017584745e4ff)

Author	SHA1	Message	Date
Graham	70ae010e5a	Fix modewhat/where mix up in the first client parameters paragraph ... Signed-off-by: Graham <gpe@openrs2.dev>	5 years ago
Graham	1d29aa8c50	Make the native libraries FAQ section make sense again ... Starting with 'Again,' didn't make since since the removal of the GPL section.	5 years ago
Graham	bb6bd3861e	Switch to the ISC license ... I've been considering this for a long time, and have decided to switch to it at the last minute before opening the repository up publicly. My reasons include: * It's a much simpler license. GPL's complexity adds some risk - for example, it might be incompatible with future open-source licenses (like the well-known GPLv2/Apache v2 incompatibility problem). The "or any later version" clause requires placing some trust in the Free Software Foundation. * The simplicity makes it easier for people to understand and comply with the license. * Dishonest users who disobey the GPL would have an advantage over honest users who refuse to do so. The ISC license provides a much more even playing field. * OpenRS2 will primarily be server software accessible over a network. As such, the GPL can do little to prevent use of the code in a proprietary system, as the code is never distributed. (While the AGPL would fix this, I have already discounted it. Enforcement would be too difficult and dishonest users would have an unfair advantage.) * It's much easier to switch to a stricter license in future versions, if it turns out that is desirable (as the ISC license allows users to sublicense the code). However, switching from the GPL to the ISC license requires all copyright holders to grant permission. * Other open-source projects in the community, such as Apollo, use the ISC license and will be able to make use of OpenRS2 code if they so desire. I've removed the FAQ entry about the reasons for using the GPL license, as I think the ISC license is less controversial and therefore does not require an entry. I've discussed this with Desetude, and he's okay with his commit being relicensed.	5 years ago
Graham	a57b6dcc9b	Add FAQ item explaining why we run our own dev infrastructure	5 years ago
Graham	1b1bb7dc5b	Change 'user interface' to 'game frame' in the FAQ ... I think this makes the meaning slightly clearer.	5 years ago
Graham	ccbbf873af	Switch from Maven to Gradle	5 years ago
Graham	b611854dbc	Document client parameters	5 years ago
Graham	56c4dfe3c2	Add netscape.javascript.JSObject stubs ... This is the bare minimum required to build the client. Returning null in getWindow() makes this class appropriate for use at runtime too, as the function is documented as returning null if the application is not connected to a browser.	5 years ago
Graham	7585d96b37	Add initial FAQ ... Not really 'frequently' yet, as the project is still private, but these are questions I predict will be asked when it is made public.	6 years ago