NOT Open Source
Reading flowtron's comments on Open Source in this thread really made me flip.

Quote:People seem to think "open source" means "free as in speech", it just means "free as in beer"

I'm sorry, but does that mean that the five years of me advocating OSS has been wrong all along? While I play AC and review some of the code, I consider it Freeware based on how the project handles in relation to the community.

While having totalitarian control over the default Master-server (and documentation on changing it is obscure) is on the outer fringes of Open Source, the fact that providing closed off anti-cheat server code, the usage of restrictive media (which I have been trying to replace starting with the playermodel) and programmers discouraging of the usage of client / server mods on servers they don't manage does not make it Open Source.

Open Source means that someone could easily fork the AC project and not deal with all the legal mess that modders here constantly face.

Open Source means that server operators have no difference in using pre-compiled binaries and the self-compiled source code.

Open Source means that server operators could decide for themselves whether a certain mod is allowed or not, and that the forum is not a hostile ground for such beliefs.

Yes, every-time I see the word Open Source on the main page I cringe. Actually, there are many things that I cringe at regarding Open Source, Sun, Google and Apple products are included, where they use the word Open Source like a hollow marketing term. Java isn't true open source, neither is Virtual Box, and Android being open source is a big f***ing joke.

That was just me venting off steam building up from the past one and a half years of playing AC, as well as five years of dealing with similar stuff. I am not trying to say that AC is bad, it is just that there are so many things in AC that is hypocritical and should be addressed.

EDIT: Oh, and you can go either ways, by changing how you handle the community, or by stopping the idea that it is Open Source. I don't really mind. I still play Urban Terror even though it clearly isn't OSS.

2nd EDIT: Also, I respect Brahma's anti-cheat work, but I also believe that security by obscurity gets nowhere. There are ways to view the code stacks for the anti-cheat code, and while it may take time, it is still possible. Instead it is better to have a solid design that is tough to break even though the code is out in the open.

Thanks given by:
A debate about philosophy shall begin.

The only thing open source about this project is the engine. What is wrong with that? You should re-read the license and tell us about it.
Quote: AssaultCube is FREEWARE, you may freely distribute the AssaultCube installer/archive unmodified on any media. You may re-compress using different archival formats (i.e. zip/tgz/rpm/deb/dmg), any changes beyond that require explicit permission.

AssaultCube is distributed WITHOUT WARRANTY, you may use it for any purpose as long as you do not blame us for any damages incurred.

This game consists of many different packages with different licenses. The ENTIRE AssaultCube package MAY be redistributed as mentioned above. But if you wish to redistribute/use/modify it in a different way you will need to adhere to the licenses for the packages that you are using.
There's no harm in us saying "Open Source" on the home page, is there? (Not rhetorical)
Thanks given by:
Tun dun dun i shall not contribute to this discussion in any useful manner.

Cpt. Obvious to the rescue !
Thanks given by:
Gibstick your quote is about distribution of AC. OS is also about including contributions. The strategy of including such contributions show how much software is opened. If you close other ways of contributions, you must be very sure by current contributors.
Thanks given by:
Oh yes, by referring it as open source (and not making the distinction that it is only the engine) it implies that the entire package is open source. Heck, it even managed to convince to add the OSI logo on the app page there.

What you are doing is misleading advertising. Ever wondered that the earlier Quake series never trumpets around that it is open source, even though the engine is?
Thanks given by:
You are correct. We are very much like Quake.
Thanks given by:
(30 Jun 10, 01:17PM)Gibstick Wrote: We are very much like Quake.

Oh, yes I thoroughly agree, in fact I realised that back in 0.93, with the exception that Quake actually draws a clear line between what is open source (referring to it as idTech) and what is not (referring to it as Quake media files). Also, when referring to the game as a whole, id Software has absolutely no mention of it being open source.

I think you should also do the same if you want to continue as how you currently are without causing confusion.

EDIT: Plus an official statement clarifying those who are already confused.
Thanks given by:
Thanks, Ki113R.
Thanks given by:
(30 Jun 10, 07:40AM)LeeZH Wrote: Also, I respect Brahma's anti-cheat work, but I also believe that security by obscurity gets nowhere. There are ways to view the code stacks for the anti-cheat code, and while it may take time, it is still possible. Instead it is better to have a solid design that is tough to break even though the code is out in the open.

I never found a hacker in this game.

The reason is very simple: until now, the sources are open (i will not use the "open source" term because you have your own meanings for this). Until now, anyone can go to sourceforge, get the sources, change it at will and play the game. There is no "hacking skill" in doing this. Only the "noobs" think the opposite.

So, unfortunately any *noob* (I include myself in this row) can change the sources. And I say "unfortunately" because it produces a lot of "cheaters". But at the same time it is a great thing, and modding is one of the pillars that sustain this game.

So producing cheats in a game where you have access to the sources is work of *noobs*... and we tried to deal in different levels with them.

The blacklist was created to this, also a lot of "politics" was made... and now we will try "closed source server bins". This will not make the sources less open... there is (and will be) a lot of modified servers, with different features to deal with the different problems. The "anti-cheat server" will be just one more of them. The clients will not see difference (with the exception of the cheaters, because they will play "worse" in these servers).

After all, the "anti-cheat sources" could be easily "opened".
The anti-cheat checks are not perfect, and they have a big tolerance to errors (so some cheats will not be blocked), but you cannot avoid these checks. If your client do something that other clients are not able to do (I am not talking about player skill), this anti-cheat code will be prepared to block it. There is no coding tricks, nor secret bytes, nor hacking skills in it.

So, if the anti-cheat code is so "good", why not make it public?

The answer is: This game has no hackers... so why to make the cheating work of the *noobs* more easy?
Studying the sources, a smart cheater can tune his client to the thresholds of the detection.
This will not be of great advantage, since only part of the game success is skill (the major part is intelligence, experience and knowledge over the map)... but "why to make the cheating work of the *noobs* more easy?" (x2).

So, let the real hackers revert the code, study it, create a cheating client in the threshold limits and take its 2 cents of advantage.
Thanks given by:
Brahma all you need is a hex editor and some time and someone will eventually crack it. You might delay them by maybe a week.
Thanks given by: