Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Leaked source – CS:GO

lwss.github.io

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 117 posts

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#41

Post by asddubs »

antris wrote: post #19
opan wrote: post #7

The title says "open source" but then goes on to talk about leaked source. Unless a clean room RE was done, I don't think this can be called "open source". I want the thing in the title to exist, of course, but at best this seems like the sort of thing that won't be legal and free until we're all dead. If anyone was interested in making a properly free CS:GO, they probably should avoid reading this post as it seems t…

Well that's the difference between "open source" and "free software", no? "Open source", meaning that anyone can see/copy the source code, and "free software" meaning code that is licensed accordingly. I always thought that "open source" has nothing to do with what's legal and what isn't, it just means that anyone can materially access the code.

no, that would be something like "source available" or "source visible". both open source and free software imply specific licenses, though they are not synonymous

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#42

Post by scott_w »

amelius wrote: post #25
wyldfire wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No. Both of these terms are well described by the relevant organizations [1][2]. And "source the happens to be public" or "leaked source" does not imply any particular license. [1] https://opensource.org/ [2] https://www.fsf.org/

Anyone can start an organisation and define "open source" the way they want. The common way it is understood should probably be named "libre source" or something, because it means more than that the source is just out in the open.

That’s no different to saying “You can define black as white.” That’s true but nobody is going to pay attention to you if you do.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#43

Post by asddubs »

Jack5500 wrote: post #13

This world view is quite perplexing, to be frank. On one hand, he urges potential users to switch to Linux, emphasizing its cost-free nature and the freedom it offers in terms of code and game direction. However, on the other hand, the code being used is stolen and leaked, thus infringing on the original creator's copyright. Additionally, the repository's license claims that all contributions are considered public do…

they're a bit confused about their terminology, but i think they are just coming at it from an archivist perspective. they wanted something that is self contained and can be used to compile the game for any platform

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#45

Post by RektBoy »

opan wrote: post #7

The title says "open source" but then goes on to talk about leaked source. Unless a clean room RE was done, I don't think this can be called "open source". I want the thing in the title to exist, of course, but at best this seems like the sort of thing that won't be legal and free until we're all dead. If anyone was interested in making a properly free CS:GO, they probably should avoid reading this post as it seems t…

what the fk cares about copyright, this is coming from community of game hackers. They don't care.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#47

Post by xwdv »

I think we will begin to see more projects like this as it becomes trivial to take some leaked source code, and hand it off to an AI and tell it to make it non-copyright infringing.

Eventually the next natural progression is to hand over an entire program’s binary, and have the AI produce an equivalent code base in whatever language you wish.

In response, this will usher in a new era of very thin clients, or perhaps server based rendering of programs.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#48

Post by version_five »

wyldfire wrote: post #20
antris wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well that's the difference between "open source" and "free software", no? "Open source", meaning that anyone can see/copy the source code, and "free software" meaning code that is licensed accordingly. I always thought that "open source" has nothing to do with what's legal and what isn't, it just means that anyone can materially access the code.

No. Both of these terms are well described by the relevant organizations [1][2]. And "source the happens to be public" or "leaked source" does not imply any particular license. [1] https://opensource.org/ [2] https://www.fsf.org/

I feel like there is a consensus that open source is defined as you say. But there seems to be a vocal group, that I suspect are mostly just being pedantic about the literal definition of the two words separately that seem to keep coming up with alternate definitions. There was a long discussion about it on here the other day with tons of people "confusing" the availability of source code with open source.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#49

Post by BasedAnon »

dizhn wrote: post #11
opan wrote: post #7

The title says "open source" but then goes on to talk about leaked source. Unless a clean room RE was done, I don't think this can be called "open source". I want the thing in the title to exist, of course, but at best this seems like the sort of thing that won't be legal and free until we're all dead. If anyone was interested in making a properly free CS:GO, they probably should avoid reading this post as it seems t…

This person is really confused about licenses and copyright. > Please note that this code is property of Valve-Software and any contributions that you make are considered a donation into the public domain.

This is a common 'copyright infringement NOT intended ALL rights belong to X' type of widespread misunderstanding of how copyright actually works, and it's why I'm convinced that if most people understood copyright they would think it was absurd.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#50

Post by DizzyDoo »

ethanbond wrote: post #31
dizhn wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This person is really confused about licenses and copyright. > Please note that this code is property of Valve-Software and any contributions that you make are considered a donation into the public domain.

Legitimately seems like a GPT-tier confusion. Just put all the somewhat-relevant words in a syntactically correct configuration and call it done.

Heh, it's like all those YouTube videos where someone uploads a song and the uploader puts "No copyright infringement intended" in the text description, sometimes with five or six exclamation marks just to really make sure they avoid the takedown.
Post reply on HN