16 ms·

It looks like someone found a copy of Blizzard's copyrighted source code, returned it to Blizzard, and got a reward. Why are people upset about this? It seems l

It looks like someone found a copy of Blizzard's copyrighted source code, returned it to Blizzard, and got a reward. Why are people upset about this? It seems like the right thing to do to my mind. If someone found a copy of my own source laying in the street I'd be very happy if they returned it instead of releasing it on the net.

eridius 9y ago
I don't know. A lot of people in this thread apparently never learned to tell right from wrong.
- scrollaway 9y ago
  Did you? :) Starcraft influenced the culture and politics of an entire nation and became a national sport. It pioneered "e-sports". It's a piece of history, and this disc is standalone a piece of history as well. I think I know right from wrong, but I would still have absolutely no idea what to do if that disc landed on my doorstep. Edit: I cannot believe this is such a controversial thing to say. Shame on the people who think this is an easy decision to make, put yourself in someone else's shoes for a while.
  - jakebasile 9y ago
    But it's still owned by Blizzard. It doesn't matter how important it was, they still own it. I am 100% sure the guy did the right thing in returning it, not only legally but morally as well. If Blizzard were to MIT license it that'd be amazing but they're the only ones with the power to do so, no matter who finds a copy in a box.
    - scrollaway 9y ago
      It's unclear whether it's a legal obligation given that the disc was found, it's even less clear whether it's a moral obligation. If you didn't know anything about Blizzard, what would you speculate? Someone elsewhere in the thread for example is speculating Blizzard would destroy the copy -- if I thought that'd be a possibility, I would personally never send it their way and you could in no world convince me it's moral to send a piece of history to its demise.
      - jakebasile 9y ago
        It probably isn't strictly a legal obligation to return the physical disc barring stolen property stuff, but it would definitely be illegal to redistribute copyrighted code without a license to do so. Maybe you could claim some type of fair use but it wouldn't be transformative so I can't see how. As for morality, I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it. Edit: I'm unable to reply further, but to clarify I was referring to the maxim of reciprocity or "do unto others". If the positions were reversed I'd want my property returned. If I find someone's wallet I'd return it if possible, as I'd want someone to return mine. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is my favorite Star Trek quote, but I don't think it applies in this situation as it was intended as a motivation for a personal decision to sacrifice, not to force someone else to sacrifice. That line of thought can get pretty dark pretty fast.
        scrollaway 9y ago
        > I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it. Is that really the golden rule? What about "the good of the many"? Returning it to Blizzard directly is good for Blizzard. Returning your code is good for you. Realistically, it has little monetary value (all the "value" will be spent on lawyers arguing what the value is), so maybe it's only good for you because it's simpler for you. What if your sense of morality is not in line with everyone else's sense, and I'm returning code to someone who will not do "the moral thing" afterwards? Does that make me immoral? Point is, this is not an easy decision at all. It's not an easy answer at all. I'd be petrified and I believe anyone else who spends time to consider the implications would be too.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        > Returning it to Blizzard directly is good for Blizzard. Returning your code is good for you. To expand on this, it's good in general to return leaked code of active-development projects because that helps the social contract of turning work into something that can be sold. So if I found jakebasile's 2015 code in an alley, it would be in some sense good for everyone for me to return it. But that doesn't apply to a 20 year old master for starcraft. There is no promotion of the useful arts in returning the CD in this specific case, and it's a hugely relevant cultural artifact.
    - Majestic121 9y ago
      It's not owned by Blizzard anymore, it is a major piece of human culture and should be treated as such. To poorly translate Victor Hugo : "The principle is twofold, let us not forget it. The book, as a book, belongs to the author, but as thought, it belongs - the word is not too vast - to the human race. All intelligences are entitled to it. If one of the two rights, the right of the writer and the right of the human mind, should be sacrificed, it would certainly be the right of the writer, for the public interest is our sole preoccupation, and All, I declare, must pass before us."
    - Pica_soO 9y ago
      You seem to hold the right to property higher then anything else. It might shock you but the society has the right to disown you, if your property is needed elsewhere - for example to build a interstate. Now everyone's free to be the gremlin sitting on the sack, but if that sack literally is a masterpiece that shaped the whole of civilization, one day people will gently hoist you aside and replace the sack beneath you with a sack of similar monetary value, to put your original sack in museum. Sorry if that's inconceivable in a black and white worldview. And no - its not communism, that is civilization. A right to destroy art does not exist.
    - ue_ 9y ago
      >but morally as well. If you believe in private property rights, then sure. If not, then no. Some such as Max Stirner, 19th century philosopher, would disagree with your assertion that it is a moral issue.
    - sneak 9y ago
      Easy solution. Torrent the iso, return the lost property (the disc) to its owner. No moral or ethical issue whatsoever. Nobody's rights violated. Everybody wins.
      - jhasse 9y ago
        The iso and the disc contain a finger print -> they know it must be you -> you lose
        hd4 9y ago
        They would still have to prove you a) leaked it, b) didn't prevent someone taking the CD and creating a backup without your permission
        jhasse 9y ago
        While that is true, I still count "getting into legal trouble" as a lose, as Blizzard already has well-payed lawyers. Even if you win in the end, you won't get the time and a compensation for the stress back.
    - ant6n 9y ago
      If somebody leaked it, it wouldn't change the ownership or the copyright itself. It would still be Blizzards code. It simply wouldn't be a secret anymore.
  - Tactic 9y ago
    It's an absolutely simple decision for me to make. It is not mine, therefore I give it back. It's like I taught my children... even if you don't know whose it is, you know it isn't yours. And in this case it is even known. The amount of moral flexibility in these comments astounds me, although it probably shouldn't.
    - scrollaway 9y ago
      Being inflexible with your legal and moral codes is a sure fire way to become a completely immoral person. I would say it astounds me to find people who are as rigid as you are, but truthfully, it doesn't.
- kgu 9y ago
  Edit: never mind, silly question
  - eridius 9y ago
    Right and wrong is, roughly speaking, defined based on what is good for society as a whole, balanced against the needs of the individual. It has nothing to do with some higher or cosmic absolute truth.
- sgift 9y ago
  Or don't share your values of right and wrong. It may surprise you, but people have different opinions on this matter and it frames what they do in life.
- tripzilch 9y ago
  to be more exact, many people here seem to be incapable to tell right/wrong from legal/illegal or taking the easy/hard choice. these are all different from each other. and more importantly, orthogonal to each other. by orthogonal I mean that given a choice, deciding whether it is right, should be done independently of whether it's legal or easier/harder. think about it. even if you had the power to change law, making something legal won't make it any more right, and vice versa. it seems to me that this guy made his choice of returning the CD vs releasing the code on the basis that the former is legal and doing the latter (somewhat securely) is harder. not so much on whether preserving the code, in light of the cultural historical importance is right or wrong. (you don't need to agree with me, but I'd love to hear a solid argument why the latter would be wrong, that doesn't conflate right/wrong with legal/illegal) and even then, it's not entirely indefensible to base your actions just on what's legal or easiest. ethics is hard and especially the law provides a nice shortcut if you don't like to think for yourself too much. Just, don't go pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing. You don't get to do that. He does get a ticket and goodies from Blizzard, though. Sweet. Shouldn't taste bitter at all, at least for a while.
  - eridius 9y ago
    Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. They own that code, they created it and they have the right to control its distribution. Just because Starcraft is a culturally significant game doesn't mean it's ok to violate Blizzard's rights. The argument in favor of releasing the source code just seems to me to be a dressed-up version of "but I really waaaaaant to!". Wanting something doesn't make it right.
    - dragonwriter 9y ago
      > Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. IP rights are a creation of law and not usually (even by those adhering to a view of natural property rights) not viewed as a reflection of natural rights, so you seem to be both rejecting and endorsing legality as the basis of the wrongness here.
jpgvm 9y ago
It's not normal source code. It's not like you found the source to the latest Halo game or something. This is like finding the source to the original Halo game, of little to no commercial value but of immense cultural value. Where possible these artefacts are archived so they will be around long after the companies have folded. Unfortunately it's just not possible most of the time as companies end up taking their software to the grave. Which makes this all the more depressing. This was an incredibly rare opportunity to archive something of cultural significance to millions of people, completely wasted because it fell into the hands of someone not equipped to deal with the situation properly or contact someone that does.
- jakebasile 9y ago
  But in this case, that's Blizzard's right. They own it whether you like it or not. Just because something is important doesn't mean they should lose property rights to it. Abandonware is a thing and I remember there being some legal headway made recently in that respect, but Starcraft isn't abandoned. They just released a compatibility patch and made it free to download.
  - jpgvm 9y ago
    I'm not talking about distribution, merely archiving. I don't think it's reasonable to argue against archiving when it clearly has cultural significance.
    - corobo 9y ago
      There's absolutely no chance in hell the dude saying he sent a copy to archive.org would have stopped those reddit threads from foaming at the mouth. People want the code, not the archive.
  - unicornporn 9y ago
    It's their right now, but in "life + 70 years" it could have been an incredibly valuable cultural heritage in the hands of the public. Now the game will die when Blizzard chooses to stop adapting the game to new platforms.
gottam 9y ago
We could of had enthusiastic fans see the inner workings of such a beloved game and tons of articles around the technical details, but instead we protected the intellectual property rights of a billion dollar corporation. Strictly by law, it was "the right thing to do", but it was a real missed historic opportunity.
- spike021 9y ago
  It's still their property. IMO non-Blizzard individuals have no right to post it.
  - gottam 9y ago
    Like I said, from a black and white legal standpoint it was the right move. But so much was lost from not simply uploading it somewhere from an internet cafe. It enters the same ethical flexibility as things like wikileaks in my opinion
    - peterwwillis 9y ago
      > It enters the same ethical flexibility as things like wikileaks in my opinion I agree with you, it is completely unethical and totally self-serving.
      - la_oveja 9y ago
        Your ethic smells bad.
        peterwwillis 9y ago
        Well, at least i'm not the only one who smells this way: https://iapp.org/news/a/ethics-and-the-privacy-harms-of-wikileaks/ https://iapp.org/news/a/ethics-and-the-privacy-harms-of-wiki... http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131699467/is-wikileaks-release-brave-or-unethical http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131699467/is-wikileaks-release... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-wikileaks-dnc-emails-russia-media-ethics-zorn-perspec-0729-md-20160728-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-wikileaks... http://theconversation.com/wikileaks-journalism-ethics-and-the-digital-age-what-did-we-learn-28262 http://theconversation.com/wikileaks-journalism-ethics-and-t... https://www.seeker.com/wikileaks-the-ethics-of-revealing-secrets-1765141976.html https://www.seeker.com/wikileaks-the-ethics-of-revealing-sec... http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/02/11/february-11-2011-wikileaks-ethics/8125/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/02/11/februar...
deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
rawland 9y ago
Completely agree. Unless an owner of code decides something should run as FOOS, it's basically their own. As far as I remember, the StarCraft game is already free (which is pretty awesome) [1]. So, maybe it's a matter of time until the source code might be free, too. However, it's up to them. For the truly curious (which are arguing about the cultural value and so on), it is still possible to look into it using a decompiler. It is messy, but it is possible. [1]: https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424 https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424
acuozzo 9y ago
> Why are people upset about this? It seems like the right thing to do to my mind. Shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Fox_vault_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Fox_vault_fire Happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_MGM_vault_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_MGM_vault_fire If something is culturally significant then it should be preserved and these two hyperlinks should easily make the case that preservation requires distribution.
- jakebasile 9y ago
  You keep posting this as if it's relevant. Shit does happen, but it doesn't change the facts that Blizzard owns that code. Also, many in this thread are acting as if Starcraft itself is going to be destroyed thanks to this guy returning the code. You can download Starcraft for free from Blizzard [1] and they're releasing a remastered version soon [2]. It isn't going anywhere, so even by your own assertion there is no moral right to preserve the source, which isn't needed to enjoy the cultural artifact it creates. People make mods for tons of games without source code. People are making up excuses and flimsy reasons to get what they want. [1]: https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424 https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424 [2]: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ https://starcraft.com/en-us/
  - acuozzo 9y ago
    > Shit does happen, but it doesn't change the facts that Blizzard owns that code. This would be relevant if we were discussing US law, but myself and others in this thread are posting replies derived from reasoning beyond Kohlberg's fourth stage of moral development, so please forgive me for saying that the significance of your point here is lost on me. The preservation of culturally-significant works of art is considerably more important than any definition of ownership found in any law from any country in any time period that you can cite. > It isn't going anywhere, so even by your own assertion there is no moral right to preserve the source, which isn't needed to enjoy the cultural artifact it creates. You make an excellent point here, but I'm not convinced that there is no moral obligation to preserve the source code. Granted, it isn't the product, but I don't believe that its preservation value can be easily dismissed given that the product is well-preserved. I will have to think more on this.

eridius 9y ago

I don't know. A lot of people in this thread apparently never learned to tell right from wrong.

scrollaway 9y ago
Did you? :) Starcraft influenced the culture and politics of an entire nation and became a national sport. It pioneered "e-sports". It's a piece of history, and this disc is standalone a piece of history as well. I think I know right from wrong, but I would still have absolutely no idea what to do if that disc landed on my doorstep. Edit: I cannot believe this is such a controversial thing to say. Shame on the people who think this is an easy decision to make, put yourself in someone else's shoes for a while.
- jakebasile 9y ago
  But it's still owned by Blizzard. It doesn't matter how important it was, they still own it. I am 100% sure the guy did the right thing in returning it, not only legally but morally as well. If Blizzard were to MIT license it that'd be amazing but they're the only ones with the power to do so, no matter who finds a copy in a box.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    It's unclear whether it's a legal obligation given that the disc was found, it's even less clear whether it's a moral obligation. If you didn't know anything about Blizzard, what would you speculate? Someone elsewhere in the thread for example is speculating Blizzard would destroy the copy -- if I thought that'd be a possibility, I would personally never send it their way and you could in no world convince me it's moral to send a piece of history to its demise.
    - jakebasile 9y ago
      It probably isn't strictly a legal obligation to return the physical disc barring stolen property stuff, but it would definitely be illegal to redistribute copyrighted code without a license to do so. Maybe you could claim some type of fair use but it wouldn't be transformative so I can't see how. As for morality, I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it. Edit: I'm unable to reply further, but to clarify I was referring to the maxim of reciprocity or "do unto others". If the positions were reversed I'd want my property returned. If I find someone's wallet I'd return it if possible, as I'd want someone to return mine. "The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the few" is my favorite Star Trek quote, but I don't think it applies in this situation as it was intended as a motivation for a personal decision to sacrifice, not to force someone else to sacrifice. That line of thought can get pretty dark pretty fast.
      - scrollaway 9y ago
        > I apply the golden rule: if someone found the code I wrote for a groundbreaking piece of software, and I didn't want to open source it, I'd really like for them to respect my wishes and return it. Is that really the golden rule? What about "the good of the many"? Returning it to Blizzard directly is good for Blizzard. Returning your code is good for you. Realistically, it has little monetary value (all the "value" will be spent on lawyers arguing what the value is), so maybe it's only good for you because it's simpler for you. What if your sense of morality is not in line with everyone else's sense, and I'm returning code to someone who will not do "the moral thing" afterwards? Does that make me immoral? Point is, this is not an easy decision at all. It's not an easy answer at all. I'd be petrified and I believe anyone else who spends time to consider the implications would be too.
        Dylan16807 9y ago
        > Returning it to Blizzard directly is good for Blizzard. Returning your code is good for you. To expand on this, it's good in general to return leaked code of active-development projects because that helps the social contract of turning work into something that can be sold. So if I found jakebasile's 2015 code in an alley, it would be in some sense good for everyone for me to return it. But that doesn't apply to a 20 year old master for starcraft. There is no promotion of the useful arts in returning the CD in this specific case, and it's a hugely relevant cultural artifact.
  - Majestic121 9y ago
    It's not owned by Blizzard anymore, it is a major piece of human culture and should be treated as such. To poorly translate Victor Hugo : "The principle is twofold, let us not forget it. The book, as a book, belongs to the author, but as thought, it belongs - the word is not too vast - to the human race. All intelligences are entitled to it. If one of the two rights, the right of the writer and the right of the human mind, should be sacrificed, it would certainly be the right of the writer, for the public interest is our sole preoccupation, and All, I declare, must pass before us."
  - Pica_soO 9y ago
    You seem to hold the right to property higher then anything else. It might shock you but the society has the right to disown you, if your property is needed elsewhere - for example to build a interstate. Now everyone's free to be the gremlin sitting on the sack, but if that sack literally is a masterpiece that shaped the whole of civilization, one day people will gently hoist you aside and replace the sack beneath you with a sack of similar monetary value, to put your original sack in museum. Sorry if that's inconceivable in a black and white worldview. And no - its not communism, that is civilization. A right to destroy art does not exist.
  - ue_ 9y ago
    >but morally as well. If you believe in private property rights, then sure. If not, then no. Some such as Max Stirner, 19th century philosopher, would disagree with your assertion that it is a moral issue.
  - sneak 9y ago
    Easy solution. Torrent the iso, return the lost property (the disc) to its owner. No moral or ethical issue whatsoever. Nobody's rights violated. Everybody wins.
    - jhasse 9y ago
      The iso and the disc contain a finger print -> they know it must be you -> you lose
      - hd4 9y ago
        They would still have to prove you a) leaked it, b) didn't prevent someone taking the CD and creating a backup without your permission
        jhasse 9y ago
        While that is true, I still count "getting into legal trouble" as a lose, as Blizzard already has well-payed lawyers. Even if you win in the end, you won't get the time and a compensation for the stress back.
  - ant6n 9y ago
    If somebody leaked it, it wouldn't change the ownership or the copyright itself. It would still be Blizzards code. It simply wouldn't be a secret anymore.
- Tactic 9y ago
  It's an absolutely simple decision for me to make. It is not mine, therefore I give it back. It's like I taught my children... even if you don't know whose it is, you know it isn't yours. And in this case it is even known. The amount of moral flexibility in these comments astounds me, although it probably shouldn't.
  - scrollaway 9y ago
    Being inflexible with your legal and moral codes is a sure fire way to become a completely immoral person. I would say it astounds me to find people who are as rigid as you are, but truthfully, it doesn't.
kgu 9y ago
Edit: never mind, silly question
- eridius 9y ago
  Right and wrong is, roughly speaking, defined based on what is good for society as a whole, balanced against the needs of the individual. It has nothing to do with some higher or cosmic absolute truth.
sgift 9y ago
Or don't share your values of right and wrong. It may surprise you, but people have different opinions on this matter and it frames what they do in life.
tripzilch 9y ago
to be more exact, many people here seem to be incapable to tell right/wrong from legal/illegal or taking the easy/hard choice. these are all different from each other. and more importantly, orthogonal to each other. by orthogonal I mean that given a choice, deciding whether it is right, should be done independently of whether it's legal or easier/harder. think about it. even if you had the power to change law, making something legal won't make it any more right, and vice versa. it seems to me that this guy made his choice of returning the CD vs releasing the code on the basis that the former is legal and doing the latter (somewhat securely) is harder. not so much on whether preserving the code, in light of the cultural historical importance is right or wrong. (you don't need to agree with me, but I'd love to hear a solid argument why the latter would be wrong, that doesn't conflate right/wrong with legal/illegal) and even then, it's not entirely indefensible to base your actions just on what's legal or easiest. ethics is hard and especially the law provides a nice shortcut if you don't like to think for yourself too much. Just, don't go pat yourself on the back for doing the right thing. You don't get to do that. He does get a ticket and goodies from Blizzard, though. Sweet. Shouldn't taste bitter at all, at least for a while.
- eridius 9y ago
  Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. They own that code, they created it and they have the right to control its distribution. Just because Starcraft is a culturally significant game doesn't mean it's ok to violate Blizzard's rights. The argument in favor of releasing the source code just seems to me to be a dressed-up version of "but I really waaaaaant to!". Wanting something doesn't make it right.
  - dragonwriter 9y ago
    > Releasing the code isn't wrong because it's illegal. It's wrong because it's violating Blizzard's rights. IP rights are a creation of law and not usually (even by those adhering to a view of natural property rights) not viewed as a reflection of natural rights, so you seem to be both rejecting and endorsing legality as the basis of the wrongness here.

jpgvm 9y ago

It's not normal source code. It's not like you found the source to the latest Halo game or something. This is like finding the source to the original Halo game, of little to no commercial value but of immense cultural value. Where possible these artefacts are archived so they will be around long after the companies have folded. Unfortunately it's just not possible most of the time as companies end up taking their software to the grave. Which makes this all the more depressing. This was an incredibly rare opportunity to archive something of cultural significance to millions of people, completely wasted because it fell into the hands of someone not equipped to deal with the situation properly or contact someone that does.

jakebasile 9y ago
But in this case, that's Blizzard's right. They own it whether you like it or not. Just because something is important doesn't mean they should lose property rights to it. Abandonware is a thing and I remember there being some legal headway made recently in that respect, but Starcraft isn't abandoned. They just released a compatibility patch and made it free to download.
- jpgvm 9y ago
  I'm not talking about distribution, merely archiving. I don't think it's reasonable to argue against archiving when it clearly has cultural significance.
  - corobo 9y ago
    There's absolutely no chance in hell the dude saying he sent a copy to archive.org would have stopped those reddit threads from foaming at the mouth. People want the code, not the archive.
- unicornporn 9y ago
  It's their right now, but in "life + 70 years" it could have been an incredibly valuable cultural heritage in the hands of the public. Now the game will die when Blizzard chooses to stop adapting the game to new platforms.

gottam 9y ago

We could of had enthusiastic fans see the inner workings of such a beloved game and tons of articles around the technical details, but instead we protected the intellectual property rights of a billion dollar corporation. Strictly by law, it was "the right thing to do", but it was a real missed historic opportunity.

spike021 9y ago
It's still their property. IMO non-Blizzard individuals have no right to post it.
- gottam 9y ago
  Like I said, from a black and white legal standpoint it was the right move. But so much was lost from not simply uploading it somewhere from an internet cafe. It enters the same ethical flexibility as things like wikileaks in my opinion
  - peterwwillis 9y ago
    > It enters the same ethical flexibility as things like wikileaks in my opinion I agree with you, it is completely unethical and totally self-serving.
    - la_oveja 9y ago
      Your ethic smells bad.
      - peterwwillis 9y ago
        Well, at least i'm not the only one who smells this way: https://iapp.org/news/a/ethics-and-the-privacy-harms-of-wikileaks/ https://iapp.org/news/a/ethics-and-the-privacy-harms-of-wiki... http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131699467/is-wikileaks-release-brave-or-unethical http://www.npr.org/2010/11/30/131699467/is-wikileaks-release... http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-wikileaks-dnc-emails-russia-media-ethics-zorn-perspec-0729-md-20160728-column.html http://www.chicagotribune.com/news/opinion/zorn/ct-wikileaks... http://theconversation.com/wikileaks-journalism-ethics-and-the-digital-age-what-did-we-learn-28262 http://theconversation.com/wikileaks-journalism-ethics-and-t... https://www.seeker.com/wikileaks-the-ethics-of-revealing-secrets-1765141976.html https://www.seeker.com/wikileaks-the-ethics-of-revealing-sec... http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/02/11/february-11-2011-wikileaks-ethics/8125/ http://www.pbs.org/wnet/religionandethics/2011/02/11/februar...

deleted 9y ago

[deleted]

rawland 9y ago

Completely agree. Unless an owner of code decides something should run as FOOS, it's basically their own. As far as I remember, the StarCraft game is already free (which is pretty awesome) [1]. So, maybe it's a matter of time until the source code might be free, too. However, it's up to them. For the truly curious (which are arguing about the cultural value and so on), it is still possible to look into it using a decompiler. It is messy, but it is possible. [1]: https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424 https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424

acuozzo 9y ago

> Why are people upset about this? It seems like the right thing to do to my mind. Shit: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Fox_vault_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1937_Fox_vault_fire Happens: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_MGM_vault_fire https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1967_MGM_vault_fire If something is culturally significant then it should be preserved and these two hyperlinks should easily make the case that preservation requires distribution.

jakebasile 9y ago
You keep posting this as if it's relevant. Shit does happen, but it doesn't change the facts that Blizzard owns that code. Also, many in this thread are acting as if Starcraft itself is going to be destroyed thanks to this guy returning the code. You can download Starcraft for free from Blizzard [1] and they're releasing a remastered version soon [2]. It isn't going anywhere, so even by your own assertion there is no moral right to preserve the source, which isn't needed to enjoy the cultural artifact it creates. People make mods for tons of games without source code. People are making up excuses and flimsy reasons to get what they want. [1]: https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424 https://starcraft.com/en-us/articles/20674424 [2]: https://starcraft.com/en-us/ https://starcraft.com/en-us/
- acuozzo 9y ago
  > Shit does happen, but it doesn't change the facts that Blizzard owns that code. This would be relevant if we were discussing US law, but myself and others in this thread are posting replies derived from reasoning beyond Kohlberg's fourth stage of moral development, so please forgive me for saying that the significance of your point here is lost on me. The preservation of culturally-significant works of art is considerably more important than any definition of ownership found in any law from any country in any time period that you can cite. > It isn't going anywhere, so even by your own assertion there is no moral right to preserve the source, which isn't needed to enjoy the cultural artifact it creates. You make an excellent point here, but I'm not convinced that there is no moral obligation to preserve the source code. Granted, it isn't the product, but I don't believe that its preservation value can be easily dismissed given that the product is well-preserved. I will have to think more on this.