I may not contribute a lot, but I wouldn't contribute at all if this was a closed source project.
I have no idea what the state of EQ Classic is, as I haven't really seen any demonstrations of it yet, nor do I own a trilogy copy. I've heard of the project for a long time, but until I can get my hands on it, I keep shrugging it off as a "project that will fruit to tuition one day..". I would love to see how it's going though to find where I may contribute if there is places I can discover this. I love the triology expansions, which is why I'm enjoying Project 1999, even if it has limitations on what it can imitate in times of old.
Security has always been an issue, and no matter what is revealed will remain such. Open or closed, you will have them. Live EQ and the battle with ShowEQ is a forever battle, and the ShowEQ team I don't think has access to live EQ's source (I would hope not). I think measuring security of a hacker who can reverse engineer a struct from packets vs. someone who can read source and develop a struct disassemble of packets is not leaps and bounds in difference of skill, it's more just a question of desire and patience. The exploitation of bugs is usually a keen eye and debugging... Open and closed source systems are prone to security flaws.
Not saying one is better than the other, but I am saying I prefer open so I can see what I can do to help.
