EQClassic's Source Code

[ChaosSlayerZ]

Originally Posted by trevius

They can't create new armor? The armor files are right in the client install folder. It would be relatively easy for them to create a decent variety of armor sets even if all they did was add new textures. Why this has never been done is far beyond my understanding, but it has nothing to do with them losing files at any point. All they would do is create another equipment file and then adjust the client to load the new equipment file when the client logs in like normal. Maybe they don't do it because it isn't in the budget (extremely ridiculous excuse), or maybe they don't do it because it would cause a heavy performance hit to the client (unlikely, but not as ridiculous of an excuse). I am fairly confident that if I was given the tools to edit the EQG files easily, I could make new armor set textures for all races and all armor types in a couple of weeks. My artistic skills are nothing compared to people who do it professionally, but I bet I could pull something decent off. If distributing those files wasn't a legal risk, I would probably make special sets just for my server right now!.

Back when they put out Luclin engine they SPECIFICALLY stated that new engine in so many ways superior, specially cause how textures of armor now overlays the model, rather than replaces its texture, that they can now EASILY produce many more new armors looks, as easy as 1-2-3.
Of course those those greedy bastards never did...

[neorab]

Yeahlight, my friend. I think the paranoia has finally made you crack. SoE wanting or using GPL code is as outlandish as a derivative work of a GPL project withholding source code. No, actually it's far less, but still crazy.

Edit: Sony definitely has the tools to modify zone files client side. There are tools floating around online that will unpack and (supposedly) repack. Secondly, it took little more than a weekend to create new tools to do it. Unfortunately, I get the impression that they put a ton of code into the server side that people over look. I recall reading that the new bump code in SoL was saving the servers 14% cpu time. That makes me wonder. Maybe they really did "lose" something that would have made it all come together at a cost that was likely to return a profit. Who knows.

[Wesell]

Originally Posted by neorab

[...]SoE wanting or using GPL code is as outlandish as a derivative work of a GPL project withholding source code. No, actually it's far less, but still crazy.

Uh, the GPL doesn't require EQC or anyone to distribute their work. It only describes what will happen if they do.

[KLS]

That's not entirely true, if you distribute object code(ie compiled program) from the work you're subject to distribute both verbatim and modified source copies of the code if someone requests it. So in a sense it would require someone to release the code in that situation, in this situation they clearly didn't do that however.

Of course the GPL also allows anyone who receives the source code to also distribute the source code, and bars further limitations being placed on that distribution. So anyone who in this case: 'EQC's Dev Team with source access' was completely within their rights to further distribute the entire source with or without the permission of the other people in the team. It may "suck" but it's the tradeoff you make when using GPL code, it's only closed source as long as everyone in your team wants it to be.

[Wesell]

Originally Posted by KLS

That's not entirely true,[...]

Well since this is already a pretty silly thread I'll respond. What I said was:

Originally Posted by Wesell

Uh, the GPL doesn't require EQC or anyone to distribute their work. It only describes what will happen if they do.

That statement is entirely true. You've mentally replace "work" with "source code". The word "work" is even specifically used in the license in the way same way that I used it in my statement. I'm not aware of anyone who uses the word "work" to refer specifically to source code.

[KLS]

Quoted from:

SoE wanting or using GPL code is as outlandish as a derivative work of a GPL project withholding source code. No, actually it's far less, but still crazy.

I was using your own implied definition of work based off what you were quoting from. Sorry if there was any confusion but it's not that difficult an assumption to make based on the way you worded it.

[KLS]

Also, I'm going to lock this thread because I don't think it's going anywhere up from here. It has been devolving into nothing but pointless arguing even if it's relatively civil for some time.