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

81–90 of 117 posts

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#81

Post by dgellow »

ogurechny wrote: post #77
dgellow wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anyone who cares about open source by definition cares about copyright. That’s what the concepts of free software and open source software are built upon.

Wow. Free software movement abuses the copyright system to prevent anyone from “owning” the software and putting a fence around others' work when greed tells it's suitable to do so. It has no intention to support its existence. As people only have that mediocre system today, and believe in it, it is used as a tool to partially formalize something from a different sphere of values.

I think you misread my comment, at no point did I express that free software intents to support the existence of copyright. But free software and open source are obviously built on top of the copyright system, as you said (they are a kind of hack). So you obviously care about copyright frameworks and their various implementations if you care about open source/free software.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#82

Post by [deleted] »

PrimeMcFly wrote: post #53
BasedAnon wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#83

Post by piperswe »

saratogacx wrote: post #75
jablala wrote: post #3

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably a good thing as from my understanding there is an uncertainty whether a version of CSGO will exist. For example there are some old patch versions available from circa ~2013 which are still playable. Not sure if that will be possible after the move to CS2. You would think so, but at the very least, "Kisak-Strike: Gentoo Offensive" will exist.

I'm not sure I understand this point. Can't you still play CS:Source and CS 1.6? Why wouldn't CS:Go keep operating. It may not get as many content updates but the core game should be able to keep going as long as Valve keeps the game servers running.

Considering that Counter-Strike 2's beta is being distributed as a private DLC for CS:GO [1], it's possible that CS 2 will entirely replace CS:GO.

[1]: https://steamdb.info/app/2279720/

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#84

Post by ogurechny »

dgellow wrote: post #81
ogurechny wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wow. Free software movement abuses the copyright system to prevent anyone from “owning” the software and putting a fence around others' work when greed tells it's suitable to do so. It has no intention to support its existence. As people only have that mediocre system today, and believe in it, it is used as a tool to partially formalize something from a different sphere of values.

I think you misread my comment, at no point did I express that free software intents to support the existence of copyright. But free software and open source are obviously built on top of the copyright system, as you said (they are a kind of hack). So you obviously care about copyright frameworks and their various implementations if you care about open source/free software.

One can totally care about an illness, but not CARE about it much.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#85

Post by 93po »

dgellow wrote: post #80
arboles wrote: post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I will continue to release my code without a license, glad that it makes corporations and their drones seethe.

That just means you have full and complete ownership, so you’re sharing non-open source, non-free software code, also known as proprietary code. That has literally no impact on corporations or their drones, whatever that means.

> That has literally no impact on corporations or their drones, whatever that means.

It does if they want to use his code for anything. The parent commenter is also clearly making the point that his efforts are to be used by people who share the same sentiment of "fuck copyright". Which I think is a noble perspective, since IP laws in the US are much more bad than good.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#86

Post by 93po »

FileSorter wrote: post #32
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…

Checking his github account was no surprise to me. Of course it was loaded with cheats for multiplayer games.

Open source cheats for multiplayer games are a benefit to everyone who doesn't want cheaters.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#88

Post by SgtBastard »

fullspectrumdev wrote: post #78
packetlost wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Then a lot of people are objectively wrong. The license is an incredibly important and central part of what makes code open source or not. What you're describing is "source available". Failure to pay attention to the licensing can end you up in very big and expensive legal trouble. I strongly encourage you to update your terminology for you and anyone you communicate with's own safety.

Again: most people I know don’t care. Many used to. Hell, I used to. If they use a licence, they just throw WTFPL on it and call it a day like me. What’s the worst risk? Someone in America sues me? Big deal.

Valve has two EU-based subsidiaries who can sue you on the parents behalf.

Re: Leaked source – CS:GO

#90

Post by orra »

dgellow wrote: post #65
orra wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

General point: Clean room reverse engineering is a common approach, from corporations keen to minimise their liability. Nonetheless, clean room RE is not a legal requirement: certainly not in the EU, nor AIUI in the US. The EU allows reverse engineering for interoperability. The EU allows reimplementations of APIs (as does the US). The EU also explicitly allows decompilation, where necessary.

Wait, there are EU regulations on this topic? I understood there wasn’t a common framework, and instead each countries in the EU have their own approach. Edit: I was wrong, I found the following: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Programs_Directive > (Art. 5). The legal owner of a program is assumed to have a licence to create any copies necessary to use the program and to alter the program within its intended p…

It's actually really old, in that this bit goes back to the 1991 Directive, not just the replacement 2009 Directive.
Post reply on HN