.dll CC's Yes or No

[ski]

Your first argument doesn't make sense on this topic because that goes for both dlls and source files.
For your second argument, it also takes seconds to open the source of the CC of the guy who posted a warlock CC with the exact same properties as yours. But I haven't seen anyone yet who has ripped code so directly on this forum, so how can you say there are far more people?

Honestly, I don't think anyone here would ever rip code, dll or otherwise. Hell, someone can steal my code if they want to, but most people here will know it was mine anyway. This is a very tight-knit community.

 

[MaiN]

Honestly, I don't think anyone here would ever rip code, dll or otherwise. Hell, someone can steal my code if they want to, but most people here will know it was mine anyway. This is a very tight-knit community.

That's exactly one of my points.

 

[verbo]

Why not implement some kind of digital certificate system controlled by the developers. Have the CC's in dll form inspected and then approved and digitally signed otherwise HB2 won't load them?
I doubt there will be so many CC's in dll form that the developers will be overwhelmed and be unable to cope.
I know this should be standard practice but make one of the requirements of approval that code be well commented to speed up the approval process.

 

[Tony]

Honestly, I don't think anyone here would ever rip code, dll or otherwise. Hell, someone can steal my code if they want to, but most people here will know it was mine anyway. This is a very tight-knit community.

we will have a policy for that(credits,etc)

 

[ski]

Why not implement some kind of digital certificate system controlled by the developers. Have the CC's in dll form inspected and then approved and digitally signed otherwise HB2 won't load them?
I doubt there will be so many CC's in dll form that the developers will be overwhelmed and be unable to cope.
I know this should be standard practice but make one of the requirements of approval that code be well commented to speed up the approval process.

There are 15+ CC's, some of which are updated every day. Would have to be re-signed for every minor code change and would end up being a pain in the balls.

 

[MaiN]

Why not implement some kind of digital certificate system controlled by the developers. Have the CC's in dll form inspected and then approved and digitally signed otherwise HB2 won't load them?
I doubt there will be so many CC's in dll form that the developers will be overwhelmed and be unable to cope.
I know this should be standard practice but make one of the requirements of approval that code be well commented to speed up the approval process.

Because it takes way too long to add manually, and we would have to modify the server to send a list of allowed plugins/CC's. Not going to happen.

 

[Hawker]

Advantages of open source combat classes include:
1. Shared knowledge and experience. New cc devs have working code they can copy/paste and add their own bits to.
2. Safe from malicious code.
3. Better quality - bugs in open source ccs are not just reported, they are usually reported with working fixes.
4. More reliable - no-one can cancel it after release. Once its released, its out. So its users don't risk being abandoned if the developer gets bored and moves on.

Disadvantages include:
1. You cannot sell a cc.

Example of this in action:
Bobby53 wrote shamwow and did things with it that none of us saw as even possible. He stopped for personal reasons. xvampx picked up the project and it is still developing and thus has a great future. If it was a dll, Shaman users would have to start from scratch with new ccs.

Conclusion:
An open source cc policy is best cc developers and for users.

 

[Synik]

I voted no for one reason and that is because I have recently got off my lazy ass and started to write my own cc for a warrior based on Themsycira by fpsware.

Now obviously I am not stealing the code as that is downright disrespectful but I am however taking insane amounts of time to learn the code to get a better understanding. In all my knowledge is very limited in regards to writing my own from scratch but I can say looking at other people's code as an example to build my own is helping incredibly.

Whilst I did vote no I do also understand why some developers would prefer to use dll's but the above is my overall opinion on the matter.

 

[DarkBen]

Advantages of open source combat classes include:
1. Shared knowledge and experience. New cc devs have working code they can copy/paste and add their own bits to.
2. Safe from malicious code.
3. Better quality - bugs in open source ccs are not just reported, they are usually reported with working fixes.
4. More reliable - no-one can cancel it after release. Once its released, its out. So its users don't risk being abandoned if the developer gets bored and moves on.

Disadvantages include:
1. You cannot sell a cc.

Example of this in action:
Bobby53 wrote shamwow and did things with it that none of us saw as even possible. He stopped for personal reasons. xvampx picked up the project and it is still developing and thus has a great future. If it was a dll, Shaman users would have to start from scratch with new ccs.

Conclusion:
An open source cc policy is best cc developers and for users.

have to agree with that, because i myself did that to my first release. And if i didn?t had sources to study from, i wouldn?t had learned what i did. it even let me do my own coding, but i am still riping some code of other working ccs, as for that there is no reasons to rewrite a working open code only to say it?s yours, it?s only a matter of giving proper credits..

Ps: this reminds me i believe i dont give nesox proper credits on my CC thread.

 

[LiquidAtoR]

First of all thanks for all responses so far (yet again).
Also thanks Hawker for reacting while I guess you are experiencing stressfull times with the upcoming release.

I'm making a crude, very black and white comparison now.

Request:
I would like to have the sourcecode to HonorBuddy2 please.
I can't see what's inside the .exe, the used dll's etc etc and don't know what it does.
You use dll's too in HB itself.
What tells me that one of the devs of HB2 get a "blackout", decides to abuse the dll's used and put a keylogger/virus/your poison here into the library.
All members are cooked, and you have a problem as being the liable one.

You ask us to trust you (and your team), but meanwhile you don't trust the CC developers (in a way, don't take it all literary).
So HB developers are allowed to use .dll libraries and the CC developers (that are in facto a part of the Dev team) are not allowed to use them.
As I said before and I will say it again: the CC's make part of HB what it is today.

Besides this little smirk I still wonder if it would not be possible to encrypt the CC's that HB can read, but users can't without a proper key.
This way both sides get a bit what they want, protection of the code and no dll's.

 

[Ilja Rogoff]

i voted yes because i really like it to change settings via gui (like cimmerian, convalescense...). it just sucks that you can't reach the settings dialogue when using HB in small form. but this is just my view from a users aspect.

 

[MaiN]

First of all thanks for all responses so far (yet again).
Also thanks Hawker for reacting while I guess you are experiencing stressfull times with the upcoming release.

I'm making a crude, very black and white comparison now.

Request:
I would like to have the sourcecode to HonorBuddy2 please.
I can't see what's inside the .exe, the used dll's etc etc and don't know what it does.
You use dll's too in HB itself.
What tells me that one of the devs of HB2 get a "blackout", decides to abuse the dll's used and put a keylogger/virus/your poison here into the library.
All members are cooked, and you have a problem as being the liable one.

You pay for software. It is our job to deliver it. What do you think would happen if we keylogged everyone? No business.

You ask us to trust you (and your team), but meanwhile you don't trust the CC developers (in a way, don't take it all literary).
So HB developers are allowed to use .dll libraries and the CC developers (that are in facto a part of the Dev team) are not allowed to use them.
As I said before and I will say it again: the CC's make part of HB what it is today.

You can trust us because if you can't we don't have any business. And that is just not right, because all bots have combat. Do all bots have the same navigation as HB is going to have? Do all bots have questing like HB is going to have?
Also, we have built up your trust over HBs lifespan by providing you with great support and great software. This also shows by the amount of growth in HB users. It has grown a lot since HB started, and HB is getting more popular day after day.

Besides this little smirk I still wonder if it would not be possible to encrypt the CC's that HB can read, but users can't without a proper key.
This way both sides get a bit what they want, protection of the code and no dll's.

Similar to the certificate idea except that it won't work for previously explained reasons.

i voted yes because i really like it to change settings via gui (like cimmerian, convalescense...). it just sucks that you can't reach the settings dialogue when using HB in small form. but this is just my view from a users aspect.

You are able to do this without using a .dll.

 

[Dalees]

First of all thanks for all responses so far (yet again).
Also thanks Hawker for reacting while I guess you are experiencing stressfull times with the upcoming release.

I'm making a crude, very black and white comparison now.

Request:
I would like to have the sourcecode to HonorBuddy2 please.
I can't see what's inside the .exe, the used dll's etc etc and don't know what it does.
You use dll's too in HB itself.
What tells me that one of the devs of HB2 get a "blackout", decides to abuse the dll's used and put a keylogger/virus/your poison here into the library.
All members are cooked, and you have a problem as being the liable one.

You ask us to trust you (and your team), but meanwhile you don't trust the CC developers (in a way, don't take it all literary).
So HB developers are allowed to use .dll libraries and the CC developers (that are in facto a part of the Dev team) are not allowed to use them.
As I said before and I will say it again: the CC's make part of HB what it is today.

Besides this little smirk I still wonder if it would not be possible to encrypt the CC's that HB can read, but users can't without a proper key.
This way both sides get a bit what they want, protection of the code and no dll's.

Sorry LiquidAtoR but your arguments are going to be really ridiculous.
Why is it so absolutly necessary for you to get .dll's in HB2.0 allowed? Is it thaaaaat important for you, that nobdy, really nobody could ever take a look on your super cool code?
I mean... you really act like a little child, that somebody tries to steal it's plaything. You are same like me, and hundreds of other users in here only a user. You pay for beeing allowed to use HB.
The ONLY thing that makes you a little of a bit more special is, that you are really good in developing CC's. Nothing more.

I'm well versed in internetsecurity, know about phishing and things like that too. But do I go to my Bank an say "I want to see how you make your website save! Who says that you don't try to play games with me and absue my accountdata"? No, that would be verry verry foolish and they would just laugh about me.

As MaiN said before, if they would had a game with us, they wouldn't earn any money. And believe me, with a programm like HB/GB you can earn more money as with every stonlen account in this world

Furthermore, remember that THEY had developed this program and YOU_ARE_ALLOWED to use it!

Mate, I really won't flame you, I only want to open your eyes.

 

[DarkBen]

LiquidaTor, Really dude, you points got nowhere.

HB is Business, Bossland is a real person behind a nickname. As his busines is legit (in a way of saying because Blizz wont agree with this). If he steal people out, it will take him a to loose a god business loprtuniti, and he wont make as much money as he is doing right now.

 

[ski]

Sorry LiquidAtoR but your arguments are going to be really ridiculous.
Why is it so absolutly necessary for you to get .dll's in HB2.0 allowed? Is it thaaaaat important for you, that nobdy, really nobody could ever take a look on your super cool code?
I mean... you really act like a little child, that somebody tries to steal it's plaything. You are same like me, and hundreds of other users in here only a user. You pay for beeing allowed to use HB.
The ONLY thing that makes you a little of a bit more special is, that you are really good in developing CC's. Nothing more.

I'm well versed in internetsecurity, know about phishing and things like that too. But do I go to my Bank an say "I want to see how you make your website save! Who says that you don't try to play games with me and absue my accountdata"? No, that would be verry verry foolish and they would just laugh about me.

As MaiN said before, if they would had a game with us, they wouldn't earn any money. And believe me, with a programm like HB/GB you can earn more money as with every stonlen account in this world

Furthermore, remember that THEY had developed this program and YOU_ARE_ALLOWED to use it!

Mate, I really won't flame you, I only want to open your eyes.

This is starting to get away from my "Please keep it civil" post. Personal attacks on Liquidator because he's having an intelligent conversation are unnecessary. This isn't solely for his own benefit, but for the benefit of all the devs who currently use DLLs. Keep that in mind next time you use any of the dll-based plugins or CCs.

 

[Dalees]

This is starting to get away from my "Please keep it civil" post. Personal attacks on Liquidator because he's having an intelligent conversation are unnecessary. This isn't solely for his own benefit, but for the benefit of all the devs who currently use DLLs. Keep that in mind next time you use any of the dll-based plugins or CCs.

I only was going civil because of LiquidAtoR should not shoot the bull.

It's ok to hold your opinion but don't go too far.

 

[twolf]

I'd go with no for these reason's as pointed out by hawker. Though I do get the point and why in locking down your code:

Advantages of open source combat classes include:
1. Shared knowledge and experience. New cc devs have working code they can copy/paste and add their own bits to.
2. Safe from malicious code.
3. Better quality - bugs in open source ccs are not just reported, they are usually reported with working fixes.
4. More reliable - no-one can cancel it after release. Once its released, its out. So its users don't risk being abandoned if the developer gets bored and moves on.

But as for:

Request:
I would like to have the sourcecode to HonorBuddy2 please.
I can't see what's inside the .exe, the used dll's etc etc and don't know what it does.
You use dll's too in HB itself.
What tells me that one of the devs of HB2 get a "blackout", decides to abuse the dll's used and put a keylogger/virus/your poison here into the library.
All members are cooked, and you have a problem as being the liable one.

You ask us to trust you (and your team), but meanwhile you don't trust the CC developers (in a way, don't take it all literary).
So HB developers are allowed to use .dll libraries and the CC developers (that are in facto a part of the Dev team) are not allowed to use them.
As I said before and I will say it again: the CC's make part of HB what it is today.

is just a little too much and dalees said a valid point, though I dont compare HB/GB to a bank maybe more akin to another piece of software:

But do I go to my Bank an say "I want to see how you make your website safe! Who says that you don't try to play games with me and abuse my account data"?

Oh yeah, does this mean anything to plugins if at all?

TWolf

 

[LiquidAtoR]

Ok, now we are getting off track.

@ Dalees,

Why it's

thaaaaat important

for me to have dll's allowed.
Simple, ever used the standard CC's that come with HB, and compared em to the CC's developed by for example FPSWare or Mordd?

If you tell me those standard CC's are gonna hack it for you, by all means stay with em.
I prefer those rocking CC's with all the features. It makes it a more realistic bot.

I don't make CC's (I am trying but it's not really working so far). I use em and alter em to my liking when I need that.
But I also know the countless hours spend by those that make the CC's, trying to perfect em for us mere users.

I'm trying to see it from both sides, trying to understand why the developers of HB don't want it, why the CC developers want some form of protection.

Furthermore, remember that THEY had developed this program and YOU_ARE_ALLOWED to use it!

I don't make HB, I bought it, that means I paid for their work, time and development, that means I have a voice in this.
Whether or not you agree or disagree, I can't really care.
I just put it up for discussion.

Now back on track please (before this thread gets uncivil).

 

[Tony]

guys dont make us to close the thread...plz....
we have a nice discussion here...keep it low

 

[bossland]

First of all thanks for all responses so far (yet again).
Also thanks Hawker for reacting while I guess you are experiencing stressfull times with the upcoming release.

I'm making a crude, very black and white comparison now.

Request:
I would like to have the sourcecode to HonorBuddy2 please.
I can't see what's inside the .exe, the used dll's etc etc and don't know what it does.
You use dll's too in HB itself.
What tells me that one of the devs of HB2 get a "blackout", decides to abuse the dll's used and put a keylogger/virus/your poison here into the library.
All members are cooked, and you have a problem as being the liable one.

You ask us to trust you (and your team), but meanwhile you don't trust the CC developers (in a way, don't take it all literary).
So HB developers are allowed to use .dll libraries and the CC developers (that are in facto a part of the Dev team) are not allowed to use them.
As I said before and I will say it again: the CC's make part of HB what it is today.

Besides this little smirk I still wonder if it would not be possible to encrypt the CC's that HB can read, but users can't without a proper key.
This way both sides get a bit what they want, protection of the code and no dll's.

Maybe you have not yet realized it ... but actually Bossland GmbH is liable with 25.000 EUR put in that company for any keylogger/virus shit that could be provided with our software.

We can allow .dll's, but
- you have to verify yourself with postal ID service
- you have to pay couple thousand Euro as an guarantee for any harm that can come along with your CC
- you have to sign an contract, underwriting you are personal liable for any phising or scam that can come along with your work

in the end, i do not even know why there was any .dll support, i would never have allowed that, hawker too.

Now to CCs as source and Profiles as XML.

With the same argument you could ask us to make Profiles .dll's to secure your work, because they have unique spots, which are not known by other ppl, and you do not want to share them as a source code.

But, you could also write a good CC, publish it and ask for paid unique support on your webpage, where you offer your customers 100 % player dependend settings, and the users out there, most of them actually, would be happy to spend couple of $ to have an unique set CC for their char.

However the protection argument does not count at all, with a good strategy you are able to make unique content and earn at least reputation with it.

If someone copy/pastes your code, and sells the CC on any webpage - as his own. This is no problem at all.

1) This user will be warned / banned / hammered!
2) Honorbuddy and Gatherbuddy are european brands, i can force any seller who uses HB or GB to shut down his webpage, or his provider. Which will be only done on abusive practices like reselling someone others work.

More questions ? Don't hesitate.