Re: New GPLv3 and LGPLv3 discussion drafts available
"Andrew Donnellan" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message
[🔎] email@example.com">news:[🔎] firstname.lastname@example.org...
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.
Why must data not to be disclosed be sent to the client?
What if the client is nothing but an X11 server. Then it should be
very easy to not send anything that the player must not see.
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?
Yeah the TPM.
But this is getting a little offtopic.
The FSF is really not concerned about online games. That is because there is
no way to block draconian DRM restrictions
while aproviding a means to autheniticate an official game client. They
really are the same problem.