I was talking about Sony taking "ideas", not EQC.

Hi. I am still relatively new to this forum. I am an independent programmer who has recently gotten into EqEmu. I loved the classic game and its content. When a friend of mine came to me with the idea of running a server, I decided to give it a whirl.

Well, this particular discussion, in my opinion, is very important. Security is a big issue. But I have to agree pyfon on there being a time and place for closed source, as opposed to open source. In my experience a a programmer, I think that first stages of a project should remain closed. But only until you get the ground work finished and have working code. It is very true that if someone wants to get into your code, they will. Believe me, I know from experience, it is impossible to 100% guarantee the security of your source code. Unless you want to use some pretty strong encryptions and lock out the rest of your developers. Sure, if you are a solo coder, encrypt it out the wazoo. But when you have a team, you just can't do that.

SoD, being closed source, has worked for them, that much is true. But they are one of the rare exceptions of closed source success for so long. And by the way, just as a side note, their people are not as insanely loyal as some might think. (Again, I can speak from experience.) Their cookie is crumbling.

In the end, I think each individual team must decide if open or closed is the best choice for them. Not an easy decision to make. Especially in a community of developers. You just can't share with some and exclude others and you can't just hand your source out to the world either without it getting muddled or stepped on and others trying to take credit for work that isn't theirs.

I wish this community the best of luck in their endeavors. And as for those crack pots that tried to steal other people's work....they're lucky they didn't try that on me. I hope you guys stick it to them good. I hate thieves and liars.

Good luck and best wishes to you all.
EQ isn't dead!

Back when they put out Luclin engine they SPECIFICALLY stated that new engine in so many ways superior, specially cause how textures of armor now overlays the model, rather than replaces its texture, that they can now EASILY produce many more new armors looks, as easy as 1-2-3.
Of course those those greedy bastards never did...

SoE wanting EQC?
 

Yeahlight, my friend. I think the paranoia has finally made you crack. SoE wanting or using GPL code is as outlandish as a derivative work of a GPL project withholding source code. No, actually it's far less, but still crazy.

Edit: Sony definitely has the tools to modify zone files client side. There are tools floating around online that will unpack and (supposedly) repack. Secondly, it took little more than a weekend to create new tools to do it. Unfortunately, I get the impression that they put a ton of code into the server side that people over look. I recall reading that the new bump code in SoL was saving the servers 14% cpu time. That makes me wonder. Maybe they really did "lose" something that would have made it all come together at a cost that was likely to return a profit. Who knows.

Uh, the GPL doesn't require EQC or anyone to distribute their work. It only describes what will happen if they do.

That's not entirely true, if you distribute object code(ie compiled program) from the work you're subject to distribute both verbatim and modified source copies of the code if someone requests it. So in a sense it would require someone to release the code in that situation, in this situation they clearly didn't do that however.

Of course the GPL also allows anyone who receives the source code to also distribute the source code, and bars further limitations being placed on that distribution. So anyone who in this case: 'EQC's Dev Team with source access' was completely within their rights to further distribute the entire source with or without the permission of the other people in the team. It may "suck" but it's the tradeoff you make when using GPL code, it's only closed source as long as everyone in your team wants it to be.

Well since this is already a pretty silly thread I'll respond. What I said was:
That statement is entirely true. You've mentally replace "work" with "source code". The word "work" is even specifically used in the license in the way same way that I used it in my statement. I'm not aware of anyone who uses the word "work" to refer specifically to source code.

Quoted from: I was using your own implied definition of work based off what you were quoting from. Sorry if there was any confusion but it's not that difficult an assumption to make based on the way you worded it.

Also, I'm going to lock this thread because I don't think it's going anywhere up from here. It has been devolving into nothing but pointless arguing even if it's relatively civil for some time.