4 ms·

It would at least be reasonable to expect this for future games, just treat the server binary the same way as the client in terms of what code you include (ther

It would at least be reasonable to expect this for future games, just treat the server binary the same way as the client in terms of what code you include (there way be some more involved if they have to migrate off a reusable codebase but I think it’s worth it)

duskwuff 4mo ago
I don't think it's reasonable for a law to dictate how software must be developed. If a developer wants to create some software by taking some licensed code and modifying it, that's their prerogative - it seems rather overreaching for the law to mandate that any licensed code must be structured as a library. (And in practice it'd be rather limiting for that to be the case.)
- circuit10 4mo ago
  It is of course reasonable to restrict what you can do with a product you’re selling for money. There are plenty of laws and regulations that already do this. Without these kinds of laws intellectual property wouldn’t even exist - copyright was only created to benefit society by providing an incentive for people to create and invent things It’s no different from mandating that the software can’t be malware that puts a ransom on your data, contain other people’s copyrighted content without permission, or just not work despite you claiming that it does when you sold it And it’s not mandating that anything is structured in a particular way, just that the game works as the buyer would expect and how they achieve that is up to them
- Maxatar 4mo ago
  Almost every law that exists about software exists to dictate what a consumer is or isn't allowed to do with software on their own computer using their own hardware. For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certain narrow circumstances; somehow this is what you find to be unreasonable?
  - duskwuff 4mo ago
    I think you may have misunderstood the situation I'm outlining: 1. Developer A writes some software. 2. Developer B licenses that software from Developer A, under the terms that (for instance) it only be used internally by Developer B and not disclosed. 3. Developer B makes modifications to that software and uses it as part of the implementation of a video game server. 4. Developer B goes bankrupt. Under this proposed law, Developer B would be obligated to release the modified software, breaching their agreement with Developer A and potentially causing them financial harm.
    - circuit10 4mo ago
      For new games, they would know from the beginning that they’ll need to release the server software eventually, so they wouldn’t be able to agree with those terms
    - db48x 4mo ago
      If the this law or something similar had been passed before step 2, then Developer B made a mistake. If the law passed after the game was released, then it doesn’t apply.
maccard 4mo ago
There is lots of software not specific to games out there that comes with very murky licensing when it comes to redistribution. That’s fine because it’s predominantly used for backend, but now we’re talking about distributing binaries (or source code if you’re python). Here [0] is the license for a closed source python module - what do I do if I’m using this? SQL server is widely used and not redistributable, and has lots of proprietary features as a more common one [0] https://github.com/Azure/MachineLearningNotebooks/blob/master/Licenses/sdk-license/LICENSE https://github.com/Azure/MachineLearningNotebooks/blob/maste...

duskwuff 4mo ago

I don't think it's reasonable for a law to dictate how software must be developed. If a developer wants to create some software by taking some licensed code and modifying it, that's their prerogative - it seems rather overreaching for the law to mandate that any licensed code must be structured as a library. (And in practice it'd be rather limiting for that to be the case.)

circuit10 4mo ago
It is of course reasonable to restrict what you can do with a product you’re selling for money. There are plenty of laws and regulations that already do this. Without these kinds of laws intellectual property wouldn’t even exist - copyright was only created to benefit society by providing an incentive for people to create and invent things It’s no different from mandating that the software can’t be malware that puts a ransom on your data, contain other people’s copyrighted content without permission, or just not work despite you claiming that it does when you sold it And it’s not mandating that anything is structured in a particular way, just that the game works as the buyer would expect and how they achieve that is up to them
Maxatar 4mo ago
Almost every law that exists about software exists to dictate what a consumer is or isn't allowed to do with software on their own computer using their own hardware. For once, there is a law that actually dictates the responsibilities that a developer has to the customer, and all that responsibility states is that the developer can not revoke the use of software that a customer has already fully paid for under certain narrow circumstances; somehow this is what you find to be unreasonable?
- duskwuff 4mo ago
  I think you may have misunderstood the situation I'm outlining: 1. Developer A writes some software. 2. Developer B licenses that software from Developer A, under the terms that (for instance) it only be used internally by Developer B and not disclosed. 3. Developer B makes modifications to that software and uses it as part of the implementation of a video game server. 4. Developer B goes bankrupt. Under this proposed law, Developer B would be obligated to release the modified software, breaching their agreement with Developer A and potentially causing them financial harm.
  - circuit10 4mo ago
    For new games, they would know from the beginning that they’ll need to release the server software eventually, so they wouldn’t be able to agree with those terms
  - db48x 4mo ago
    If the this law or something similar had been passed before step 2, then Developer B made a mistake. If the law passed after the game was released, then it doesn’t apply.

maccard 4mo ago

There is lots of software not specific to games out there that comes with very murky licensing when it comes to redistribution. That’s fine because it’s predominantly used for backend, but now we’re talking about distributing binaries (or source code if you’re python). Here [0] is the license for a closed source python module - what do I do if I’m using this? SQL server is widely used and not redistributable, and has lots of proprietary features as a more common one [0] https://github.com/Azure/MachineLearningNotebooks/blob/master/Licenses/sdk-license/LICENSE https://github.com/Azure/MachineLearningNotebooks/blob/maste...