Re:Somewhat Original BnetAuth.dll Source

[Skywing]

Alot of people have been PM'ing me asking about the source to BnetAuth.dll, so im going to post a link to it here.

This version has an added LODHash function, im almost sure it doesn't work, so please use/edit with caution.

Remember, Open Source is a priveledge, don't abuse it, give thanks where thanks are proper and so on and so forth.

Download URL: http://mickey.atomic-inc.net:78/files/BnetAuthSource.zip

Enjoy! Please post comments/feedback on this thread.

Note that open sourcing something is something only the copyright holder can do...

[Mesiah / haiseM]

well ive already established that Stu made the dll and released the source to the public, and of course he doesn't have a copyright on it, do you copyright your work?



Copyright:

Create a federal copyright application: $119.00

U.S. government application fee: $30.00

File copyright application with U.S. Copyright Office: Free


*A lawyer would charge you approximately $710.00 to create and file a copyright application.*

[Skywing]

You implicitly have a copyright on intellectual property (or more generally, a "creative work") that you produce (e.g. source code) unless you explicitly waive that right for a particular work.  Registering a copyright is what may cost money, and all that gives you is a certificate that you can show (in court).  However, you do not need to register a copyright for it to be legally enforceable.

Take a look at this.  Specifically, "registration is not a condition of copyright protection".

[Mesiah / haiseM]

I especially like the part that says:

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.

So if you clam a copyright for it, somebody steals your code, and you have public records of copyrighting your material, and you try to take it to court, i wonder how far one would get without having registered the copyright?

[Skywing]

I especially like the part that says:

Before an infringement suit may be filed in court, registration is necessary for works of U. S. origin.

So if you clam a copyright for it, somebody steals your code, and you have public records of copyrighting your material, and you try to take it to court, i wonder how far one would get without having registered the copyright?

According to you, then, it's OK to do something wrong as long as you don't get caught and/or punished?

[Mesiah / haiseM]

Now if that were the case, would i have mentioned anything about open source being a priveledge?

I think we both know thats infact what we don't want to happen, but i was just pointing out that not everybody copyrights there work.

[Skywing]

Now if that were the case, would i have mentioned anything about open source being a priveledge?

I think we both know thats infact what we don't want to happen, but i was just pointing out that not everybody copyrights there work.

Open source is a choice made by the copyright holder and not something like a privilege at all.  In any case, this discussion is getting off-topic for this forum.  If you want to continue it, do so somewhere besides in this thread.

[Adron]

So if you clam a copyright for it, somebody steals your code, and you have public records of copyrighting your material, and you try to take it to court, i wonder how far one would get without having registered the copyright?

I'd just like to point out that there's nothing to stop him from registering his copyright later, and then taking you to court over it.

[MyndFyre]

All creative works, as Skywing pointed out, are implicitly (or tacitly) copyrighted.  Releasing source code under the GNU General Public License does not signify that the work is copyrighted, nor that the implicit copyright has been waived; in fact, the GNU license indicates that the creator of the source wants to have credit given where it's due.  The GNU License, like any other license agreement, grants you limited rights to use that software, and depending on what the author specifically included in his license, potentially the ability to sell or market that product for commercial use.

Of course, it would be difficult for someone who did not have a registered copyright to enforce that copyright in court, as it is with all tacit or verbal agreements.  Just understand that just because software is open-source doesn't mean it's freely distributed by anybody.  Linux is a perfect example; Linus Torvald owns the copright to the Linux kernel, and yet it is still open-source.  Whenever Red Hat or SuSE or those other companies want to sell it, though, they have to get his OK (and probably give him some money).

Cheers
--Rob

[Zorm]

* Zorm points out that BnetAuth has pretty much always been open source

Agreement I had with Stu was that if anyone asks I send it. Of course no one ever asked lol

[wut]

All creative works, as Skywing pointed out, are implicitly (or tacitly) copyrighted.  Releasing source code under the GNU General Public License does not signify that the work is copyrighted, nor that the implicit copyright has been waived; in fact, the GNU license indicates that the creator of the source wants to have credit given where it's due.  The GNU License, like any other license agreement, grants you limited rights to use that software, and depending on what the author specifically included in his license, potentially the ability to sell or market that product for commercial use.

Of course, it would be difficult for someone who did not have a registered copyright to enforce that copyright in court, as it is with all tacit or verbal agreements.  Just understand that just because software is open-source doesn't mean it's freely distributed by anybody.  Linux is a perfect example; Linus Torvald owns the copright to the Linux kernel, and yet it is still open-source.  Whenever Red Hat or SuSE or those other companies want to sell it, though, they have to get his OK (and probably give him some money).

Cheers
--Rob

Linux is actually licensed under the GNU GPL, which *is* freely distributed.

[MyndFyre]

All creative works, as Skywing pointed out, are implicitly (or tacitly) copyrighted.  Releasing source code under the GNU General Public License does not signify that the work is copyrighted, nor that the implicit copyright has been waived; in fact, the GNU license indicates that the creator of the source wants to have credit given where it's due.  The GNU License, like any other license agreement, grants you limited rights to use that software, and depending on what the author specifically included in his license, potentially the ability to sell or market that product for commercial use.

Of course, it would be difficult for someone who did not have a registered copyright to enforce that copyright in court, as it is with all tacit or verbal agreements.  Just understand that just because software is open-source doesn't mean it's freely distributed by anybody.  Linux is a perfect example; Linus Torvald owns the copright to the Linux kernel, and yet it is still open-source.  Whenever Red Hat or SuSE or those other companies want to sell it, though, they have to get his OK (and probably give him some money).

Cheers
--Rob

Linux is actually licensed under the GNU GPL, which *is* freely distributed.

Of course, it is still licensed.  

[wut]

Right, but I wouldn't need Torvalds' permission if I wanted to throw together some packages with his kernel and call it a Linux distribution

[MyndFyre]

Right, but I wouldn't need Torvalds' permission if I wanted to throw together some packages with his kernel and call it a Linux distribution

No, but your use would be tacit agreement to his license.

[wut]

His license agreement is the GPL -- it may be arbitrarily distributed (even for profit, like Red Hat or SuSe) as long as the source code remains available.