This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Pages: 1
1
Announcements / Re: Licensing, the ultimatum
« on: June 04, 2014, 12:52:33 am »Hum, we read legalese, yes, maybe too much of it, even.
And that's why we figured out that LGPL is not enough already.
The final game code is too integrated with the engine code (i.e. not simply linked), so it would need to be LGPLed as well, so no closed source games would be possible that way.
One idea was using the MPL 2.0, which is GPL compatible but less strict (hint, it works "by file").
Old topic here.
It's not up to you to protect future programmers' works....leave that to them. If they want to have closed source, they can put their own license on their own software after compiling. As for Enigma and engine, putting LGPL is good enough to protect the enigma team from having their code be used in another software base in a compiler position (meaning no copy-cat compilers from enigma).
However, the law in most countries are behind in the times when it comes to software anyway...you can pretty much put a "Please do not copy our stuff" and it's a good-enough license as anything. Most of it cannot be held up in a court of law because software has no resource valuation on this planet, and it has to have at the very minimum of $1 in hard value in order to be an asset. Majority of the times it is held up in litigation for years, and only when a crooked judge gets paid off does someone actually get what they want.
So why bother? Free is free, the code is already fully available, and there is no way to 100% prove anyone stole it anyway, so moot. Just because there's an "if then" structure, doesn't prove anything, same code does the same thing, so the code is going to look 99% compliant anyway.
2
Announcements / Re: Licensing, the ultimatum
« on: June 03, 2014, 02:55:20 am »
Well this is easy to figure out....
LGPL
...done. "Limited" in the sense that it is GPL only for the primary piece of software, while all derivative works are owned by their individual creators. Does no one read legalease anymore?
LGPL
...done. "Limited" in the sense that it is GPL only for the primary piece of software, while all derivative works are owned by their individual creators. Does no one read legalease anymore?
3
Announcements / Re: https (Browser security)
« on: May 06, 2013, 01:49:29 am »Quote
All of this, of course, raises profound questions as to why the fuck we don't just distribute a public key to everyone, have them sign their password with it, then just decrypt the bitch before hashing it. If there is a good answer to that question, then by God, I don't know it.
The MITM (man in the middle) scenario allows for the password to be hacked upon creation.
Although most of what has been said is somewhat accurate, the reason why a 3rd party signature is better than self-signing is to cause less chance of MITM. Think of a RAID setup for your hdd...say you had 3 drives striped with no parity (no security), and one of those drive fails, you just lost all of your data. However, if you parity a drive, and a drive fails, it can be restored. An MITM may occur between a client and host, but less likely between a client and 2 simultaneous hosts.
When it comes to the cloud, nothing is 100% "safe"....but if third-party signature was 99%, then self-signing would be around 70%. Quite honestly, you don't NEED to pay some third-party site for a cert, if you have windows server, it comes with the ability to create certificates, all you have to do is host it on another IP address from the server, and have the site point to it (iirc).
*shrugs*
Pages: 1