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

51–60 of 117 posts

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#51

Post by awestroke »

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.

What are you talking about? GPT4 would not do that kind of mistake. I must say, reading comments like this, that GPT4 actually comes across as more intelligent than many hn commenters

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#52

Post by amelius »

scott_w wrote: post #42
amelius wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The analogy falls flat because the words that make "open source" both already have meanings that make the OSI definition confusing to say the least.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#53

Post by PrimeMcFly »

BasedAnon wrote: post #49
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.

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.

The sheer amount of YouTube videos where people put that as a disclaimer so think it's fine is kind of shocking.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#54

Post by ZoomZoomZoom »

mrob wrote: post #36
antris wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, you're not saying that this project is "closed source" either, right? So what is it if not "open source" on the scale between closed and open? "Half-open source"? "Leaked source" only refers to the way the source has initially began to be distributed, not whether it's open/closed right now.

The middle ground is "source available", although that usually means source made available by the copyright holder under terms that don't meet the Open Source/Free Software definitions. I think just "leaked source" is the best terminology here.

Source Available is the worst of both, unless there's a way to reproducibly build the source and check the results against the shipped product. False sense of security and no legal ways to use the code.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#56

Post by scott_w »

amelius wrote: post #52
scott_w wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The analogy falls flat because the words that make "open source" both already have meanings that make the OSI definition confusing to say the least.

That’s not how human languages work at all. A term picks up common or agreed use. When you try to push against that, you see the exact reaction you’re observing here.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#57

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#59

Post by fullspectrumdev »

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…

For a lot of people, “the source code being available” is what “open source” means.

Licences, to many people, are the domain of really fucking boring crusty nerds.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#60

Post by plorkyeran »

DizzyDoo wrote: post #50
ethanbond wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Often they drop the "infringement" and just have "no copyright intended" because they don't actually know what copyright is beyond it being a word in the emails they get from youtube.
Post reply on HN