To Decompile or Not to Decompile...
...that is the question of the hour.
As some of our community members know, it has been long debated in the community about whether or not the Dink Network should host programs that will decompile those precious .d and .ff files that modders... and cheaters are so eager to get at.
Back in "the before time"... the long, long ago, the venerable Gary Hertel asked us whether or not he should release his .d decompiler to the public. Eventually he decided that in the interest of the original authors protecting their work, his decompiler would remain hidden away. This rationale was adopted by the DN and, ever since, we have not hosted such files.
However, times and attitudes change... and such a tool would be quite valuable in unlocking the secrets of various d-mods, as well as for some of us who may have lost the original source to d-mods we stupidly decided hide behind compiled code.
What do you, as members of the Dink community think should be done? Should the status quo be maintained, or should we finally hand over these keys to doors intentionally locked by their authors?
As some of our community members know, it has been long debated in the community about whether or not the Dink Network should host programs that will decompile those precious .d and .ff files that modders... and cheaters are so eager to get at.
Back in "the before time"... the long, long ago, the venerable Gary Hertel asked us whether or not he should release his .d decompiler to the public. Eventually he decided that in the interest of the original authors protecting their work, his decompiler would remain hidden away. This rationale was adopted by the DN and, ever since, we have not hosted such files.
However, times and attitudes change... and such a tool would be quite valuable in unlocking the secrets of various d-mods, as well as for some of us who may have lost the original source to d-mods we stupidly decided hide behind compiled code.
What do you, as members of the Dink community think should be done? Should the status quo be maintained, or should we finally hand over these keys to doors intentionally locked by their authors?
April 5th 2008, 03:42 AM
Ano
I think Decompiling should be done by request, with email.
So if, like you said, you need it for your own dmod, just ask people who have this program to Decompile it.
Compiling is a anti-cheat and a security metod to protect your scrypt from been stolen, and I dont think everyone should have acces to those.
Only People of high Status should have this program I think.
So if, like you said, you need it for your own dmod, just ask people who have this program to Decompile it.
Compiling is a anti-cheat and a security metod to protect your scrypt from been stolen, and I dont think everyone should have acces to those.
Only People of high Status should have this program I think.
I don't see the harm in having them for download, it's already so easy to get your hands on one people should know compiling isn't going to keep their stuff safe. It serves as an indication the author might not appreciate you using their stuff without permission, not much else.
Definitly in support of making them available for downloading, for fixing up/looking at older scripts and accessing graphics from dmoders now gone.
At long last I'll have full access to all of PQ's graphics, and the world shall be mine...
Or something like that anyways
At long last I'll have full access to all of PQ's graphics, and the world shall be mine...
Or something like that anyways
Hmmmmm. This is a tough one. The only way that I'd let it be released, is to try to make reasonable attempts to contact all known d-mod authors with compiled code, and let them know that a decompiler is going to be released. Give them the option of removing their d-mod from the site.
It's really the only way I can think of.
Also remember: it's easier to seek forgivenesses than permission. SO release it, and if they complain, let them remove their d-mods.
It's really the only way I can think of.
Also remember: it's easier to seek forgivenesses than permission. SO release it, and if they complain, let them remove their d-mods.
I think such tools should be allowed. They do have legitimate uses as Striker pointed out.
This doesn't mean we can _reuse_ any decompiled source. The original author has copyright on it, and if he decided not to share the code with others, too bad, he has the law with him -- whether the code is compiled or not.
Perharps D-Mods authors should say more explicitely how they share it (e.g. I used the GNU GPL for DinkMines).
It's not like we weren't already hosting a decompiler anyway, check for "void decompress" in the official Dink source code. The game engine has to read it in a way or another, right?
(It's not actually "compiled", it's only "compressed", with the little known "byte pair algorithm" or BPE for short.)
This doesn't mean we can _reuse_ any decompiled source. The original author has copyright on it, and if he decided not to share the code with others, too bad, he has the law with him -- whether the code is compiled or not.
Perharps D-Mods authors should say more explicitely how they share it (e.g. I used the GNU GPL for DinkMines).
It's not like we weren't already hosting a decompiler anyway, check for "void decompress" in the official Dink source code. The game engine has to read it in a way or another, right?
(It's not actually "compiled", it's only "compressed", with the little known "byte pair algorithm" or BPE for short.)
I think decompiling should be allowed. The D-Mods are free, why shouldn't they source?
Some people don't want their methods, their work inserted into other peoples work, without their permission. They might make money of it someday, in another application of theirs.
And they might also be held liable for their code...
And they might also be held liable for their code...
I think this is the best suggestion, along with Beuc's.
It can't too hard to contact these authors, I've contacted Paul Pliska and Raven before now (maybe Binirit as well, can't remember) - none of them are still around but they answered me.
If they can't be contacted it's probably safe to presume they've lost interest in Dink and couldn't care less if their source code was available...
It can't too hard to contact these authors, I've contacted Paul Pliska and Raven before now (maybe Binirit as well, can't remember) - none of them are still around but they answered me.
If they can't be contacted it's probably safe to presume they've lost interest in Dink and couldn't care less if their source code was available...
April 7th 2008, 01:22 AM
Ano
Humm...
I guess to ask the people who compiled his file should at least be informed,
if you do really make it public if possible.
But I still think the best idea is still by request.
The one that really need it are:
*They Lost there uncompiled data, and want to continue there Dmod.
*They Want to make an update on a unfinished/Demo dmod. (With autorisation of the original autor if possible)
*Maybe to Walkthrough writer to have easyer time finding secret.
If you need it for those reason, ask a Mod who have it.
You should name the one who have it by the way.
The other who just want it to cheat/steal-data should not have acces to this.
By the way Striker, are you planing to complete Back from the Grave?
That would be really nice!
I guess to ask the people who compiled his file should at least be informed,
if you do really make it public if possible.
But I still think the best idea is still by request.
The one that really need it are:
*They Lost there uncompiled data, and want to continue there Dmod.
*They Want to make an update on a unfinished/Demo dmod. (With autorisation of the original autor if possible)
*Maybe to Walkthrough writer to have easyer time finding secret.
If you need it for those reason, ask a Mod who have it.
You should name the one who have it by the way.
The other who just want it to cheat/steal-data should not have acces to this.
By the way Striker, are you planing to complete Back from the Grave?
That would be really nice!
There's really no effective way to make sure that only people with good intentions get access to such files though. A lot of EVIL CHEATERS undoubtedly already have decompilers, seeing how easily available they are. Going by that, it might even be misleading not having them available for public as someone might think their stuff is safe compiled when in actuality that's not really the case.
The point I'm trying to make is that anyone determined enough will be able to get their hands on them anyway- not having decompilers easily available is just barring access from people who can't be bothered to ask someone, when chances are they would use them for legitimate purposes rather than something sinister and evil. (I'm propably not the only one who has quit playing a dmod after noticing I couldn't fix a bug because the scripts were compiled, or stumbled upon a faulty anti-cheat script)
<MO>...Of course, most people that use decompilers for the "wrong reasons" really aren't that evil anyway. If someone wants to bypass an anti-cheat script, so what? If someone wants to steal your scripts, too ducking bad. Maybe you should learn to share. =P </MO>
The point I'm trying to make is that anyone determined enough will be able to get their hands on them anyway- not having decompilers easily available is just barring access from people who can't be bothered to ask someone, when chances are they would use them for legitimate purposes rather than something sinister and evil. (I'm propably not the only one who has quit playing a dmod after noticing I couldn't fix a bug because the scripts were compiled, or stumbled upon a faulty anti-cheat script)
<MO>...Of course, most people that use decompilers for the "wrong reasons" really aren't that evil anyway. If someone wants to bypass an anti-cheat script, so what? If someone wants to steal your scripts, too ducking bad. Maybe you should learn to share. =P </MO>
April 7th 2008, 03:58 AM
Ano
Well in the end, all we need to do is remove the compiling program completly (so no one else will think there dmod are safe)
After that, at least tell all the possible Autor with compiled Dmod, that anyone can now see there work whitout any protection in the way.
For the future Dmod. Compiling will be pointless so, people will have to find other way to protect there stuff I guess.
That is only if you make it public, my previous post were more in favor of keeping it secret sinse I dint know you could find it somewhere else, but now that change everything.
At least now, everyone will know that if they post a dmod here, it will be open to all, no false protection in the way.
After that, at least tell all the possible Autor with compiled Dmod, that anyone can now see there work whitout any protection in the way.
For the future Dmod. Compiling will be pointless so, people will have to find other way to protect there stuff I guess.
That is only if you make it public, my previous post were more in favor of keeping it secret sinse I dint know you could find it somewhere else, but now that change everything.
At least now, everyone will know that if they post a dmod here, it will be open to all, no false protection in the way.
Compiling does serve some purpose, though. By what I've seen people are more hesitant to steal other people's stuff when it's compiled, whereas they're just going to think the author won't mind when it's not. Though adding a disclaimer in the readme would propably serve the same purpose better (beuc ftw ).
I also agree that telling authors with compiled dmods about the change would be the polite thing to do.
That is only if you make it public, my previous post were more in favor of keeping it secret sinse I dint know you could find it somewhere else, but now that change everything.
Yeah, they seem to be pretty common nowadays. Several people have made their own .d decompilers and there's already an .ff decompiler available on this website with one of the development files.
I also agree that telling authors with compiled dmods about the change would be the polite thing to do.
That is only if you make it public, my previous post were more in favor of keeping it secret sinse I dint know you could find it somewhere else, but now that change everything.
Yeah, they seem to be pretty common nowadays. Several people have made their own .d decompilers and there's already an .ff decompiler available on this website with one of the development files.
"Some people don't want their methods, their work inserted into other peoples work, without their permission. They might make money of it someday, in another application of theirs."
I don't always agree with you, but I really need to call you out here.
Do you honestly think anyone is going to make any money from DinkC at this point?
I don't always agree with you, but I really need to call you out here.
Do you honestly think anyone is going to make any money from DinkC at this point?
No, probably not. But it's more the principle of the thing. I didn't agree with cypry's analogy that just because something was free, that it should be open source.
I've always been one to promote open source d-mods. Why would we want to keep our DinkC scripts secret when they could help an upcoming d-mod author to improve his game?
It's in the best interests of the community for source to be easily accessible. Therefore, I think hosting decompilers would be a good thing.
It's in the best interests of the community for source to be easily accessible. Therefore, I think hosting decompilers would be a good thing.
I'm all for this, but I think you should make that the next poll. Should decompilers be released? That way you can access the results much more easily.
Any data gathered from the poll is invalid. The fact that anyone can vote, it's not uncommon for certain people to vote multiple times, as well as other factors, make it pointless to have anything nontrivial for the poll. *Checks the poll* I highly doubt the majority of 683 votes are valid. Probably less than 100 of those votes would actually be legitimate ones.
I think I recall somestaff saying that most of the votes were from forum-bots, throwing queries everywhichway. Kinda the same reason they got rid of the complaint box.
That, and most of the real complaint box submissions were from total idiots.
You could always use some sort of CAPTCHA to prevent bots from voting and sending stupid complaints.
Yeah, but then we have to go through that crap everytime as well.
I agree with Sabre. People will mostly use the decompiler to steal not ideas, but individual elements like graphics, animations, spells, etc. that they can stitch together into their own game. Which should be cool. That's how we've gotten most of the best games anyway. We all had to technically borrow from Seth's work in the beginning. Open source is a force for good.
Also, you can't make any money from something that is derivative of freeware.--(See "copyright" post.)
And Rabid, legitimacy of votes doesn't matter. This is America.
-rcbanks
Also, you can't make any money from something that is derivative of freeware.--(See "copyright" post.)
And Rabid, legitimacy of votes doesn't matter. This is America.
-rcbanks
"This is America."
This is Australia.
This is Australia.
THIS... IS...* ...SPARTA!!
*aaargh no I can't hold myself back
*aaargh no I can't hold myself back
Well, I'm not suggesting d-mod authors should simply steal spells and enemy scripts from other d-mods. Rather, they can see how these things were created, and adapt the scripts to suit their own purposes.
For example, if someone took the Cast Guard scripts from Initiation and used these to help them develop a d-mod based purely around stealth.
For example, if someone took the Cast Guard scripts from Initiation and used these to help them develop a d-mod based purely around stealth.
Don't say "This is America!" because not all of us are from, in or even have been to, 'America'!!
The whole of Dink, plus tools like the FF compiler, is open source, so anyone who has a bit of experience can decide to decompile compiled files at any moment. If this is true I'd say just host these decompiler tools.
The whole of the original Dink is open source but D-Mod authors can choose not to make their own code/graphics open source. Dink's not under a licence that says 'use me but your stuff also has to be free and/or open source'. Seth was quite happy for people to make money from D-Mods even.
Compiling serves a purpose alright! its no fun if you can just open up the STORY or GRAPHICS source/originals straight away. "hacking" protected files is half the fun!!
Forget about the rest, Canada will always be the BEST
What was the question again?
What was the question again?
June 15th 2008, 11:16 AM
Skuz
What exactly does a decompiler do?
I can view scripts and edit maps d-mods anyways.
I can view scripts and edit maps d-mods anyways.
June 15th 2008, 03:52 PM
dinkmega
Yeah, but there are some d-mods that have scripts in .d extension and graphics in .ff extension, and those are compiled.
It's a very important question, ( No one knew that ) and is good to see that the staff members are giving the oportunity to the Dinkers give their opinions.
Yes, there are a lot of cheaters that can use decompilers to cheat and make "pirate copies" of the scripts and graphics, but it's also important to know that starters (at least I've done this before) can use the scripts as example, and to make their own scripts later, I've used some scripts from Initiation, Lyna's Story, ... , on my demo-mod, and I'll credit the creators of the mods at the end of my own.
I mean that everything have it good and bad side, now we have to measure wich one is the most important for the future of the mods, not only the mods, but all the DN, for the future generations of Dinkers!!
It's better stop it now, before I be compared to Obama