Open Source application GPL legality
shd at rootnode.net
Wed Oct 14 22:01:06 UTC 2009
On 2009-10-14 02:34, Seth David Schoen wrote:
> This was previously done by Netrek
After short view on Netrek I believe that form of security isn't
sufficient for me, but still worth seeing.
> But if you are the sole copyright holder, or you receive copyright
> assignments or explicit permission from the other developers to make
> obfuscated official client binaries, you should be able to do that.
> One way of doing that would be to require people who contribute
> code to your project to explicitly agree that, apart from licensing
> their code under the GPL, they are also authorizing you to make
> and distribute obfuscated official client binaries. If they didn't
> agree to that, they could still fork the project, but you wouldn't
> have to accept their contributions into your source tree.
It looks reasonable in more generic way of letting obfuscate binaries
for anyone who wants to set-up his own server (in his way). It would
require concrete definition of obfuscation of course. Not really good
solution but the best i have (in my point of view).
> I'm not sure how effective obfuscation can be for preventing cheating
> in multiplayer online games. Several game clients that are distributed
> binary-only have still been successfully reverse-engineered in order
> to add cheats. Although obfuscation might deter reverse engineering,
> I don't know any reason to believe it could totally prevent it.
If you are interested about my solution you can check my next e-mail.
More information about the License-discuss