Jump to content

Breach of License


Guest aetas

Recommended Posts

The file mta_dll.dll includes code from libjpeg of the IPG group. Part of the legal info in the libjpeg readme is included below:

This software is copyright © 1991-1998, Thomas G. Lane.

All Rights Reserved except as specified below.

Permission is hereby granted to use, copy, modify, and distribute this

software (or portions thereof) for any purpose, without fee, subject to these

conditions:

(1) If any part of the source code for this software is distributed, then this

README file must be included, with this copyright and no-warranty notice

unaltered; and any additions, deletions, or changes to the original files

must be clearly indicated in accompanying documentation.

(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying

documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of

the Independent JPEG Group".

(3) Permission for use of this software is granted only if the user accepts

full responsibility for any undesirable consequences; the authors accept

NO LIABILITY for damages of any kind.

You guys should mention that somewhere, thanks.

Link to comment

The kids get killed, thus decompile and try to find reasons to shut down MTA...how cute, here, have a lollipop.

Besides...it's a nonprofit mod, so the only thing the devs get is our undieing devotion and respect...oh and your pathetic attempts to stop them...I hope you feel bad now. :P

Link to comment

Actually you can see much of it to make such a guess just by opening the dll with notepad, which wouldn't violate MTA's EULA, plus the guy could claim to have gained knowledge of this by a third party, thus not having taken any action disallowed by your agreement text himself.

And eAi, I could be wrong, but I think the "jpeg stuff" you've done with MTA might pertain to F12.

Either way, IJs, why didn't you really reply to this? I mean IMO even if this claim's solid, it's still nothing big; Thomas Lane's licence agreement could just be appended after yours as another section or an addendum in the end.

Link to comment

Direct3D has a helper function called D3DXSaveSurfaceToFile.

D3DX routines allow loading of JPEG images, but none that I know of allow saving them.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/archive/default.asp?url=/archive/en-us/directx9_c/directx/graphics/reference/d3dx/functions/texture/d3dxsavesurfacetofile.asp

Please take a look at the D3DXIMAGE_FILEFORMAT enumeration. Microsoft is the party responsible for representing the JPEG group. I'd appreciate it if next time you have a moronic demand, you contact one of us personally (preferably me, since i deal with almost everything related to Direct3D) instead of taking it to a public forum.

Have a nice day.

-Derek

Edited by Guest
Link to comment
F12 uses Bitmap's ... We do not use JPEG code anywhere, but thanks for the concern.

I know it does, but it's the only thing related to pictures I can think of...

Care to give us your comment on this then? "The file mta_dll.dll includes code from libjpeg of the IPG group". Fact or fiction?

Edit: N/m slush took care of it.

Edit #2: Not quite sure on this one: is opening the dll with notepad against MTA's EULA?

Link to comment

Good luck reading it ..., and I imagine someone like IJs or Blokker should be able to answer that type of question.

Or, live by the motto, if you have to ask about doing something, maybe you shouldn't be doing it.

Link to comment
How funny, you didn't agree to the terms of the EULA.

It forbids you from reverse engineering, disassembling and thus viewing the MTA binaries, and that's what you did.

I'm pretty sure he didn't have to agree to the EULA as aetas derived this from reviewing actual source code from a much earlier version. Don't quote me on that as I haven't asked him about it yet, but I'm almost positive.

Link to comment
How funny, you didn't agree to the terms of the EULA.

It forbids you from reverse engineering, disassembling and thus viewing the MTA binaries, and that's what you did.

I'm pretty sure he didn't have to agree to the EULA as aetas derived this from reviewing actual source code from a much earlier version. Don't quote me on that as I haven't asked him about it yet, but I'm almost positive.

and you would know that how?

edit -

nevermind i remember you now.... no comment

Link to comment

Because Matt (aetas) is a close friend of mine.

Furthermore, the aforementioned leaked source was delivered via email to several XPG staff members by a disgruntled ex-mta'er thinking we would like to venture into the creation of an mta clone. Which we obviously did not. Our efforts are better served elsewhere. This is assuming he was indeed viewing the leaked source (which is now several versions old anyhow). If he did in fact 'reverse engineer' anything, so be it. To make such a demand in the EULA is contradictory to what mta is. To create a hack and then ask people not to hack your hack is kind of... well... ignorant? I realize that mta has grown substantially into something much more than a memory hack, but lets not bullshit anyone here.

Really, I don't know, and I'm not trying to start anything, but all he was doing was making a statement and in my opinion he did so in a polite and courteous manner. But the questions still stands, is the code still in there? That's all he wanted to know and the question really never was answered directly, but the fact that IJs pointed to there EULA rather than denying the allegation makes me think it is, in which case why not give credit where credit is due? In the event that it's not, no harm done.

Link to comment
But the questions still stands, is the code still in there?

NO

If it was ... where are we using it? Wouldn't that be a logical question to ask yourself before making a false accusation against us in public, rather than in private where this should have been dealt with. Obviously, I am not necessarily refering to you eeos, but both of you / anyone else reading this.

Link to comment
Because Matt (aetas) is a close friend of mine.

Furthermore, the aforementioned leaked source was delivered via email to several XPG staff members by a disgruntled ex-mta'er thinking we would like to venture into the creation of an mta clone. Which we obviously did not. Our efforts are better served elsewhere. This is assuming he was indeed viewing the leaked source (which is now several versions old anyhow). If he did in fact 'reverse engineer' anything, so be it. To make such a demand in the EULA is contradictory to what mta is. To create a hack and then ask people not to hack your hack is kind of... well... ignorant? I realize that mta has grown substantially into something much more than a memory hack, but lets not bullshit anyone here.

Really, I don't know, and I'm not trying to start anything, but all he was doing was making a statement and in my opinion he did so in a polite and courteous manner. But the questions still stands, is the code still in there? That's all he wanted to know and the question really never was answered directly, but the fact that IJs pointed to there EULA rather than denying the allegation makes me think it is, in which case why not give credit where credit is due? In the event that it's not, no harm done.

So, Matt (aetas), comes on here to tell us that there is code in the piece of old source code he has that was stollen from us that breaches an EULA? I personally can't think of any people who have left the MTA team in a disgruntled way for maybe over a year? That makes the source code he has kind of ancient... So, either hes stupid, or hes posting this here to get some atention, or perhaps he tried to decompile our software?

As for you saying that, because we're a mod of another game, its fine to hack our code around. ITS NOT. We put huge ammounts of work into this project, and to get the desierd effects is considerably harder than it would be if you were modding a game like half-life or UT... In no case is it legal to break the EULA, don't try to kid yourself, we put a lot of work, time and concequently money into this mod, and we don't want people coming here and quoting EULAs at us when they've broken the law themselves.

If you've got a valid point, then fine, but MTA has never had any JPEG code included directly in it, to my knowledge, so you're just wasting everyones time.

eAi

Link to comment

Good luck proving that one. It isn't reverse engineering if I can open the file in a hex edit view and see another person's copywrite listed. This is included in the DLL for 0.3.1 and anyone that doesn't believe me can open it in a hex editor do a search for "Thomas G. Lane." As for your reverse engineering crap, the EULA is involved when you actually run and use the game and as such have never needed to use it. No one probably knows this but MTA's original code was again another person's code. They ripped off gta3console's VB code and just modified it which is why the client was on VB and the server was on C++.

Edited by Guest
Link to comment

ok moron explain where any JPEG code could actually have been used,

only place that does anything w/ textures is the directX overlay and the screenshot function..

the screenshot function saves in bmp format , so its obviously not that, and the directX license covers that as well..

you most likely found something that was included by the DirectX SDK when we compiled. If you're going to come in here talking like a hacker, perhaps you should learn something to make a little more sense of the code, rather than just finding stuff in a hex editor.

Link to comment
ok moron explain where any JPEG code could actually have been used,

only place that does anything w/ textures is the directX overlay and the screenshot function..

the screenshot function saves in bmp format , so its obviously not that, and the directX license covers that as well..

you most likely found something that was included by the DirectX SDK when we compiled. If you're going to come in here talking like a hacker, perhaps you should learn something to make a little more sense of the code, rather than just finding stuff in a hex editor.

Kent, are you stupid? Do you think that maybe just cause microsoft includes this in their code that it gives you the right to ship it around with no aforemention of the actual programmer? Does it make an exception for you guys in the license, because when I read it I thought it said:

(2) If only executable code is distributed, then the accompanying

documentation must state that "this software is based in part on the work of

the Independent JPEG Group".

Where does it say that you are excluded from this when you are including it in a DLL that you are distributing?

Link to comment

We believe we are making proper use according to the terms of our license agreements with our SDK suppliers.

If you believe we are in violation of our license terms, please contact us privately about exactly what term you feel we are violating, and where it is found in the license agreements. Otherwise, we do not appreciate your use of libel against our group.

-Derek

Link to comment
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...