[Date Prev][Date Next] [Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index] [Thread Index]

Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available



On 7/29/06, Joe Smith <unknown_kev_cat@hotmail.com> wrote:

"Andrew Donnellan" <ajdlinux@gmail.com> wrote in message
1007a32a0607281624j5efe57cbp69207b9512f6b2ed@mail.gmail.com">news:1007a32a0607281624j5efe57cbp69207b9512f6b2ed@mail.gmail.com...
> >versions to play those DVDs.  If the work communicates with an online
>>service, it must be possible for modified versions to communicate with
>>the same online service in the same way such that the service cannot
>>distinguish.)  A key need not be included in cases where use of the
>
> This is bad for services where use of a modified client is disallowed
> or detrimental to other users, e.g. let's say there is a GPL3 game
> that uses a centralised server to play against other players. Under
> this section any modified clients have the keys needed to connect to
> the server in a way that is indistinguishable, so I could modify it
> and add cheat codes and other controversial things and under this
> section they would not be able to distinguish me and ban me.
>

But on the other hand, I need the key to run my modified version that runs
on a computer with two moniters. See how this can go both ways?

Yes.

The only way to prevent cheating in online games is to move virtually all
game logic to the server side. If anything important is running on the
client side,
the client CAN cheat. The alternative is to use something like the TPM.

Even moving all logic to the server side can't stop it. Online games
especially need to be able to distinguish the 'official' client from a
modified one. Even if all logic is on the server side, the client
still receives data that must not be disclosed to the player, e.g. map
data. A modified client could easily defeat that.

A clause like this needs to allow for 'legitimate' modifications, e.g.
your two screens example, but also allow an online service to block
users that are dishonestly using their modification powers.

I really don't think that is a good idea.

What isn't? The TPM idea?


--
Andrew Donnellan
http://andrewdonnellan.com
http://ajdlinux.blogspot.com
Jabber - ajdlinux@jabber.org.au
GPG - hkp://subkeys.pgp.net 0x5D4C0C58
-------------------------------
Member of Linux Australia - http://linux.org.au
Debian user - http://debian.org
Get free rewards - http://ezyrewards.com/?id=23484
OpenNIC user - http://www.opennic.unrated.net



Reply to: