If your releasing it as a library, wouldn't it be easy to calculate the hash? A good cipher and cryptographic function should still be just as strong even if you reveal all the code and documentation behind how it works. Otherwise, it is weak. | |
Running the server and running the game are two different things. I think running the game should have terms if the coder wants to put them in there, such as if the owner is banned, the terms of running the game have been violated, thus the game terminates. Or something.
| |
Dragonn wrote:
Running the server and running the game are two different things. I think running the game should have terms if the coder wants to put them in there, such as if the owner is banned, the terms of running the game have been violated, thus the game terminates. Or something. No, there is no "game". There are servers. They sometimes run games, but not always. A person could have a server running multiple games, one of which could be yours. If they ban you from their server, then you can't log in to the server and play any of the games, including yours. The same is true even if they are only running 1 game, which could be yours. That's the way it is, and that's the bottom line. Welcome to the internet. | |
Dragonn wrote:
Running the server and running the game are two different things. No, they are precisely the same thing--unless the server is defined as merely a chunk of a larger world as in World of Warcraft, which has a centralized distribution model that you do not. Running the server and writing the game are two different things. Writing the game and running it are also two different things. I think running the game should have terms if the coder wants to put them in there, such as if the owner is banned, the terms of running the game have been violated, thus the game terminates. Or something. As I've said elsewhere, this is like Hasbro taking away your copy of Monopoly if you don't play by the official rules. It's like an author yanking back your copies of his book if you write a paper finding metaphors in it that he doesn't agree with. This is EULA abuse, not motivated by any concern over protection of a copyright but over preservation of power at all costs. Neither commonlaw nor actual copyright law (for the most part) affords the creator of a work that kind of totalitarian control over the usage of their lawfully distributed, lawfully accepted product. The reason a company like Blizzard can control WoW's servers, on the other hand, is that they own those servers and the software to run them. That software is not distributable and its abuse would represent a legitimate financial cost to them, hence their right to control the servers and the distribution of all the software that runs them is firmly protected. What you're asking though is that even though you never set up such a system, even though you distributed your game to all, you should have the right to control how they run their servers. No law, legal or moral, agrees with you, regardless of whatever "terms" you put up before they downloaded. You are simply wrong, not just about what your rights are but about what you think they should be. If you don't like how a server is being run, you can steer people away from those servers by convincing them the servers you approve of are somehow better. Give certain hosts your seal of approval or whatever; after all, you still (rightfully) control the pulpit. Wizards of the Coast doesn't get to dictate whether you play Magic with house rules or even any rules at all. They can only enforce the rules at a tournament they host. Their rules are also respected by other official tournaments, but nothing stops you and your friends from holding an unofficial one. The NFL can't stop you from playing backyard football with a 3-down rule, the NBA can't take down your hoop if it's two feet shorter than regulation, and MLB can't shutdown the little-steroid-user-league's tee-ball game. Bottom line: If you want total control over what happens on the servers for your game, those servers need to be yours. If others are hosting on your behalf, in such a way that the servers are still considered yours (i.e., they work for you), the same thing applies. You did not do any of that. That was not your distribution model. Hence, you do not have rightful say over what happens in any server but the one you host yourself; you can however choose to grade hosts on how well they conform to your ideal, and encourage people to use the servers you approve. Any terms you set for hosting only apply if those hosts work for you. Lummox JR | |
what happens if you no longer care about the game and stop working on it and visiting
do you set that to the hosts name or what | |
Okay, this thread has turned into the same argument back and forth over and over. Nothing is coming from it and there's no point in keeping it open.
| |
The law wouldn't be on your side because you gave away the house; they did not sign some kind of contract that forces them to let you in whenever you come knocking on the door late at 3AM with your boombox.
In reality, you would get pissed off, but the law wouldn't be at your side. So you'd walk off and goto another house on the street that you've built.
-- Data