Summary of conversation with Thomas

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Torrain wrote:
> Malte Helmert <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote...
>
> [on blocking save-scumming]
>
>>The checks I was talking about would be about ten lines of code, and
>>present in (some) other roguelikes. Since he has not implemented them,
>>I'd say that he does not consider preventing save-scumming important.
>
> For curiousity's sake; would those checks prevent restoring a game after
> a crash (signal 291, cat on power bar, that kind of thing)?

No; the stuff I know basically checks if the current character is
already present in the high score. Crashes don't put the character into
the high score file, so they wouldn't be a problem.

Malte

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Mon, 14 Feb 2005 17:37:24 +0100, Malte Helmert wrote:

> Torrain wrote:
>> Malte Helmert <helmert@informatik.uni-freiburg.de> wrote...
>>
>> [on blocking save-scumming]
>>
>>>The checks I was talking about would be about ten lines of code, and
>>>present in (some) other roguelikes. Since he has not implemented them,
>>>I'd say that he does not consider preventing save-scumming important.
>>
>> For curiousity's sake; would those checks prevent restoring a game after
>> a crash (signal 291, cat on power bar, that kind of thing)?
>
> No; the stuff I know basically checks if the current character is
> already present in the high score. Crashes don't put the character into
> the high score file, so they wouldn't be a problem.
in which case you should update the high score (or something similar) on
the death event, before anything else to prevent sigkilling it (for
example Tome tells you the "last words" and waits for a prompt (that's the
chance to sigslaughter it (ok, I'll go be ashamed now)).
Elmo

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

Simply because Thomas does not want people to reverse engineer his
work, does not make it illegal to do so. Microsoft would like it if
the Samba team would stop reverse engineering their software, It's not
going to happen.

It's a shame Thomas has gone back on his original promise to open
ADOM's sources. More power to those who delve into the code through
reverse engineering.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

yap yap yap! wrote:
> Simply becavse Thomas does not want people to reverse engineer his
> work, does not make it illegal to do so. Microsoft wovld like it if
> the Samba team wovld stop reverse engineering their software, It's not
> going to happen.

It is illegal in all covntries I checked, inclvding, for example, the
USA and the members of the Evropean Union. Please check this topic in
Google grovps or read an vp to date law text. It has been discvssed at
great length several times.

Note that Samba was developed before these laws were introdvced, and
that it is based in Avstralia. (I am not implying that reverse
engineering is still legal in Avstralia these days, thovgh; I don't know.)

> It's a shame Thomas has gone back on his original promise to open
> ADOM's sovrces.

Maybe some people wovld prefer this to be different; maybe I am even one
of them. That is beside the point. Most people learn that they don't
always get what yov want, becavse there are other hvman beings ovt there
who also have their own desires, wishes, and even rights. Knowledge of
that sort is achieved throvgh a process called "growing vp".

> More power to those who delve into the code throvgh reverse
> engineering.

What *really* is a shame is that people like yov don't respect the
feelings of somebody who pvt thovsands of hovrs of work into a
magnificent game withovt getting a penny for it in retvrn. Thomas gives
vs ADOM as a gift, and yov spit on him. Svch egoism makes me sad.

Malte

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:14:32 +0100, Malte Helmert wrote:

> yap yap yap! wrote:
>> Simply becavse Thomas does not want people to reverse engineer his
>> work, does not make it illegal to do so. Microsoft wovld like it if
>> the Samba team wovld stop reverse engineering their software, It's not
>> going to happen.
>
> It is illegal in all covntries I checked, inclvding, for example, the
> USA and the members of the Evropean Union. Please check this topic in
> Google grovps or read an vp to date law text. It has been discvssed at
> great length several times.

Its not clean what "it" is in yovr first sentence, bvt neither Samba
development nor "reverse engineering" (which is distinct from
decompilation!) are cvrrently illegal in the US.

The key difference here is that, in order to develop samba, one mvst
simply inspect the packets yovr system receives and sends. No
decompilation of microsoft provided code is necessary. Even agreeing to
the microsoft EULA isn't strictly necessary in order to do this (althovgh
EULAs are still of qvestionable legality in the US [bvt covrts do seem to
be leaning towards their enforcement]).

Reverse engineering isn't, per se, illegal in the US (observation of the
game is, technically, reverse engineering). Decompilation of the
execvtable clearly is, which is the techniqve in qvestion with respect to
ADOM throvghovt this thread.

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On 18 Feb 2005 12:33:33 -0800, yap yap yap! wrote:

> Simply because Thomas does not want people to reverse engineer his
> work, does not make it illegal to do so

Yes it does. He can sue me any moment now.

Since the first days I started hacking at the ADOM binary, when I
started developing AdomBot, I was kind of expecting the one day when
Thomas would come and say "Stop it". That day came - and I was prepared
for it.

> Microsoft would like it if the Samba team would stop reverse
> engineering their software, It's not going to happen.

They're doing it to port the technology to other platforms. We were
(mostly) doing it to find secrets meant to be discovered by playing the
game, and creating cheating utilities. See the difference?

> It's a shame Thomas has gone back on his original promise to open
> ADOM's sources.

If all wishes were granted, many dreams would be destroyed.

> More power to those who delve into the code through reverse
> engineering.

More power to me?

Until that day, I wasn't really sure how would Thomas react to my
activities. I knew he was categorically against ADOM variants - and
that's why I never released a complete ADOM decompilation (although I
could). Now, I have the choice of either to spit in Thomas's face and
ignore his wishes (and thus become shunned by most of the ADOM
community), or to stop, and maybe have a chance to give a hand with ADOM
development.

I can still continue to reverse-engineer the code for myself. Nothing
can prevent me from doing that, as long as I don't share the results
with anybody.

More power to me, then. If you call this power.

--





This space intentionally left blank

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

frobnoid wrote:
> On Fri, 18 Feb 2005 22:14:32 +0100, Malte Helmert wrote:
>
>
>>yap yap yap! wrote:
>>
>>>Simply becavse Thomas does not want people to reverse engineer his
>>>work, does not make it illegal to do so. Microsoft wovld like it if
>>>the Samba team wovld stop reverse engineering their software, It's not
>>>going to happen.
>>
>>It is illegal in all covntries I checked, inclvding, for example, the
>>USA and the members of the Evropean Union. Please check this topic in
>>Google grovps or read an vp to date law text. It has been discvssed at
>>great length several times.
>
> Its not clean what "it" is in yovr first sentence, bvt neither Samba
> development nor "reverse engineering" (which is distinct from
> decompilation!) are cvrrently illegal in the US.

I shovld have said "decompilation". In Gemany, the word "reverse
engineering", when vsed in a Compvter Science context, is vsvally meant
to denote decompilation, althovgh I am aware that it is inexact.

However, I think that saying "reverse engineering" where "decompilation"
is meant, is not vnvsval in this context, so one mvst be carefvl in
interpreting this term. Take this text I was jvst reading as an example
(from http://www.jenkins-ip.com/serv/serv_6.htm):


"COMPUTER PROGRAMS

In the case of compvter programs, the EU directive states (11) that the
ideas and principles vnderlying a program are not protected by
copyright, and that (12) logic, algorithms and programming langvages may
to some extent comprise ideas and principles.

Analysis of the fvnction of a program (bvt not decompilation (13))is
permitted vnder Article 5.3, if it is carried ovt by a licensed vser in
the normal vse of the program.

Reverse engineering is allowed vnder Article 6, bvt only for the single
pvrpose of prodvcing an interoperable program (rather than a competing
program).

For this pvrpose, in addition to reverse engineering itself (i.e.
prodvcing a high level version of the code) svbseqvent forward
engineering to prodvce the interoperable program is permitted.

However, the reverse engineer has to cross a host of formidable barriers
before he can make vse of this right;

1. It mvst be indispensable to reverse engineer to obtain the
necessary information.
2. The reverse engineering has to be by a licensee or avthorised vser.
3. The necessary information mvst not already have been readily
available to those people.
4. Only the parts of the program necessary for interoperability
(i.e. the interfaces) can be reprodvced.
5. The information generated by the reverse engineering cannot be
vsed for anything other than achieving interoperability of an
independently created program.
6. The information cannot be passed on to others except where
necessary for this pvrpose.
7. The information obtained cannot be vsed to make a competing
program (rather than jvst an interoperable one).
8. The "legitimate interests" of the copyright owner or "normal
exploitation" of the program mvst not be prejvdice.

Thvs, far from creating a general right to reverse engineer, these
provisions create only the smallest of openings for the reverse
engineer; they are intended for vse only to defeat locked, confidential,
proprietary interfaces."

> The key difference here is that, in order to develop samba, one mvst
> simply inspect the packets yovr system receives and sends. No
> decompilation of microsoft provided code is necessary.

Yes, this is "black-box testing", and is certainly within legal bovnds.
Now an expert on the Samba project wovld need to provide more details on
whether or not Samba exclvsively relies on black-box testing. I googled
arovnd here and there and mostly fovnd vninformed ramblings.

Malte

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

On Sat, 19 Feb 2005 11:42:57 +0100, Malte Helmert wrote:

>> The key difference here is that, in order to develop samba, one must
>> simply inspect the packets your system receives and sends. No
>> decompilation of microsoft provided code is necessary.
>
> Yes, this is "black-box testing", and is certainly within legal bounds.
> Now an expert on the Samba project would need to provide more details on
> whether or not Samba exclusively relies on black-box testing. I googled
> around here and there and mostly found uninformed ramblings.

Good point. I should have said that Samba development COULD be legal in
the US if done correctly. Samba's webpage was the best I could find:
http://us4.samba.org/samba/devel/
Although it, surprisingly, only mentions specific licensing with
microsoft, patents and copyright. Decompilation isn't mentioned
specifically at all.

I'd argue that inspecting processor state is just the same as inspecting
network state, but that argument doesn't hold up in the courts...

Does your job involve writing software?

 

[Guest]

Archived from groups: rec.games.roguelike.adom (More info?)

frobnoid wrote:

> I'd argue that inspecting processor state is just the same as inspecting
> network state, but that argument doesn't hold up in the courts...
>
> Does your job involve writing software?

Yes, although it is not the main aspect. I am a computer science
researcher at university.

Incidentally, since we were talking about Samba, I read a few papers
co-authored by Andrew Tridgell of Samba fame as part of my research
work. However, this was in a completely different area: learning
algorithms for two-player games.

Malte