That won't help. Blizzard's beef is with the very existence of bnetd, not the fact that it's open source.
The problem is that bnetd doesn't (in fact, can't) check the authenticity of the CD keys in use by the clients that connect to it - that allows people to pirate the games, hack out the CD key stuff (or use a distributed key), and then use bnetd to play multiplayer. It can't check the CD keys because Blizzard, understandably, won't give out their list of keys.
Supporting Transgaming won't help either, as this is the Battle.net server that has ben reverse engineered, not the client. The server isn't available to the general public, it's what Blizzard use to allow online multiplayer gaming. It's doubtful that Blizzard will make it available, either, as that would allow people to hack around or spoof the CD key authentication routines (if it dialled home) or extract the list of CD keys (if it shipped with them). Besides, there's no point, right? Blizzard already provide the service, for free. Never mind that battle.net is notoriously slow and buggy...
This is my solution, I'm sure my Open Source Supporting Community may end up flaming me,
So be it, I want games in linux.
Don't take my post as a flame; I want games under Linux too, but this issue has nothing to do with them.
There won't be a release with kernel 2.5, that's the development branch. The next stable kernel, ie the one targetted at the not quite so bleeding edge users amongst us, will be 2.6.
It's not about prizes and awards, it's about furthering our understanding of the universe.
One of the most commonly repeated "geek tenets" is that coding scratches an itch. People write code because they enjoy it, it's a challenge, and hey, even if no one else ever finds the resulting code useful, it was fun, right?
Same thing here. People want to know stuff, they want to understand how the universe works. That's why people study things like this. Knowing how the sun is powered, and the details of the nuclear reactions that take place, may never lead to any practical application, but that doesn't matter. Humanity is enriched merely by possesing the knowledge. It's a bit like solving puzzles - you gain nothing by doing so but the satisfaction of doing it.
Besides, who knows what applications this sort of research could lead to? The laser was sat around in reasearch labs for years before anyone thought of anything to do with it. Now it's a central part of the entertainment and computing industries.
Still, I guess I'm biased - my degree is in Physics, and I've always been fascinated by astronomy.
Don't forget that if a company succesfully challenges the GPL in court, then it sets a precedent (at least in people's minds) that such EULAs are not legally binding.
A lot of companies (think that they) have too much to lose if that happens. I think that that, too, is part of the reason why it hasn't been challenged. It would be very hard for a company's lawyer to stand up in court and effectively say "well, our licence is fine, but this one should be declared void". There's a PR nightmare waiting to happen there, too.
When I met my current girlfriend a little over 4 years ago, she had had her Compaq Pressario for half a year or so. She bought it because
a) it had "cool" sun and moon buttons (power and sleep, iirc) b) it was black
I have to admit, it did look kind of cool (monitor, keyboard and mouse were black too), but as a machine it sucked (16meg of RAM, 14" monitor, 2 meg graphics card)
The only way in which this requirement could possibly be a legal one is if it is a conditon of the licence agreement under which either the PC or the OS (or both) was purchased.
Now, I'm not aware of (commodity) hardware coming with a licence agreement, so I'm assuming that it's the copy of Windows that is licenced. Somewhere in that licence agreement will be a clause that says that that copy of Windows can only be used on the machine that it came with.
I realise that that is not exactly what Microsoft are saying; they've dumbed it down and left out the details, specifically (and most damningly) the fact that it is the donator that is potentially breaking the terms of the licence agreement. That could easily be rectified by including a sentence or two explaining the situation.
The fact that they have neglected to do so, or even to provide a link to another page that goes into more detail (remember why the web was invented, anyone?), makes their motives clear. They are attempting to intimidate schools (specifically, but in general anyone that accepts donations of this sort) to refuse any machine that is donated in such a way as to enable the donator to reuse any (Windows) OS that came with it. That, in turn, will reduce the number of people who can do so, thus forcing them to buy machines that come with Windows pre-installed (or else, a "naked" PC and a seperate copy of Windows)
Incidently, I believe that MS would probably have a very hard time making such a licence agreement stand up in court, but that doesn't really matter. Do you have the time and money to fight it out with them? No, nor do I, and nor does anyone else I know.
It'll be in the licence agreement that accompanied the pre-installed copy of Windows. That's what they mean by "legal requirement" - the licence will say something to the effect that it can only be used on that PC, and no other.
Therefore, by disposing of the PC, but keeping the copy of Windows, you are technically in violation of the licence (you'd only actually be in violation if you then installed it on another machine, but if you weren't going to do that, you wouldn't have kept the copy of Windows, right?).
No, but the licence agreement with the copy of Windows that was installed on the PC almost certainly specifies that it can only be used with that PC.
What MS is saying is that it is illegal to buy a PC with, say, Windows 2000 pre-installed, then later give the PC away but keep the copy of Windows 2000. That would be in violation of the terms of the licence.
Now, personally I feel that that's a crock, but that's a discussion for another thread...
Slashdot Mirror
That won't help. Blizzard's beef is with the very existence of bnetd, not the fact that it's open source.
The problem is that bnetd doesn't (in fact, can't) check the authenticity of the CD keys in use by the clients that connect to it - that allows people to pirate the games, hack out the CD key stuff (or use a distributed key), and then use bnetd to play multiplayer. It can't check the CD keys because Blizzard, understandably, won't give out their list of keys.
Supporting Transgaming won't help either, as this is the Battle.net server that has ben reverse engineered, not the client. The server isn't available to the general public, it's what Blizzard use to allow online multiplayer gaming. It's doubtful that Blizzard will make it available, either, as that would allow people to hack around or spoof the CD key authentication routines (if it dialled home) or extract the list of CD keys (if it shipped with them). Besides, there's no point, right? Blizzard already provide the service, for free. Never mind that battle.net is notoriously slow and buggy...
This is my solution, I'm sure my Open Source Supporting Community may end up flaming me,
So be it, I want games in linux.
Don't take my post as a flame; I want games under Linux too, but this issue has nothing to do with them.
Fie JohnKatz. You have offended my honor, and I challenge you to a duel.
;-)
Tell me where and when, and I'll sell tickets - we could make a killing!
There won't be a release with kernel 2.5, that's the development branch. The next stable kernel, ie the one targetted at the not quite so bleeding edge users amongst us, will be 2.6.
It's not about prizes and awards, it's about furthering our understanding of the universe.
One of the most commonly repeated "geek tenets" is that coding scratches an itch. People write code because they enjoy it, it's a challenge, and hey, even if no one else ever finds the resulting code useful, it was fun, right?
Same thing here. People want to know stuff, they want to understand how the universe works. That's why people study things like this. Knowing how the sun is powered, and the details of the nuclear reactions that take place, may never lead to any practical application, but that doesn't matter. Humanity is enriched merely by possesing the knowledge. It's a bit like solving puzzles - you gain nothing by doing so but the satisfaction of doing it.
Besides, who knows what applications this sort of research could lead to? The laser was sat around in reasearch labs for years before anyone thought of anything to do with it. Now it's a central part of the entertainment and computing industries.
Still, I guess I'm biased - my degree is in Physics, and I've always been fascinated by astronomy.
Don't forget that if a company succesfully challenges the GPL in court, then it sets a precedent (at least in people's minds) that such EULAs are not legally binding.
A lot of companies (think that they) have too much to lose if that happens. I think that that, too, is part of the reason why it hasn't been challenged. It would be very hard for a company's lawyer to stand up in court and effectively say "well, our licence is fine, but this one should be declared void". There's a PR nightmare waiting to happen there, too.
Finding Jesus is the only way out of the cycle of poverty
Really? How so?
Do all True Believers automatically qualify for well paid jobs and/or green cards?
It's not new.
When I met my current girlfriend a little over 4 years ago, she had had her Compaq Pressario for half a year or so. She bought it because
a) it had "cool" sun and moon buttons (power and sleep, iirc)
b) it was black
I have to admit, it did look kind of cool (monitor, keyboard and mouse were black too), but as a machine it sucked (16meg of RAM, 14" monitor, 2 meg graphics card)
The only way in which this requirement could possibly be a legal one is if it is a conditon of the licence agreement under which either the PC or the OS (or both) was purchased.
Now, I'm not aware of (commodity) hardware coming with a licence agreement, so I'm assuming that it's the copy of Windows that is licenced. Somewhere in that licence agreement will be a clause that says that that copy of Windows can only be used on the machine that it came with.
I realise that that is not exactly what Microsoft are saying; they've dumbed it down and left out the details, specifically (and most damningly) the fact that it is the donator that is potentially breaking the terms of the licence agreement. That could easily be rectified by including a sentence or two explaining the situation.
The fact that they have neglected to do so, or even to provide a link to another page that goes into more detail (remember why the web was invented, anyone?), makes their motives clear. They are attempting to intimidate schools (specifically, but in general anyone that accepts donations of this sort) to refuse any machine that is donated in such a way as to enable the donator to reuse any (Windows) OS that came with it. That, in turn, will reduce the number of people who can do so, thus forcing them to buy machines that come with Windows pre-installed (or else, a "naked" PC and a seperate copy of Windows)
Incidently, I believe that MS would probably have a very hard time making such a licence agreement stand up in court, but that doesn't really matter. Do you have the time and money to fight it out with them? No, nor do I, and nor does anyone else I know.
It'll be in the licence agreement that accompanied the pre-installed copy of Windows. That's what they mean by "legal requirement" - the licence will say something to the effect that it can only be used on that PC, and no other.
Therefore, by disposing of the PC, but keeping the copy of Windows, you are technically in violation of the licence (you'd only actually be in violation if you then installed it on another machine, but if you weren't going to do that, you wouldn't have kept the copy of Windows, right?).
No, but the licence agreement with the copy of Windows that was installed on the PC almost certainly specifies that it can only be used with that PC.
What MS is saying is that it is illegal to buy a PC with, say, Windows 2000 pre-installed, then later give the PC away but keep the copy of Windows 2000. That would be in violation of the terms of the licence.
Now, personally I feel that that's a crock, but that's a discussion for another thread...