Talk:bnetd

History

I'm suprised not to find more about the history of bnetd and at least a passing mention about FSGS. In any case, bnetd was more or less ignored by blizzard for years (when it was used for starcraft and starcraft:broodwar). It wasn't until *another* group of unknown developers forked the bnetd project to gain access to the Warcraft III alpha (which itself had new security measures to stop exactly this kind of thing). Blizzard could not identify the programmers behind that, so they sued bnetd instead.

FSGS started out as fork of the BNETD source code to make it a Windows server/service. BNETD was exclusively a *NIX based server program at the time. FSGS was in constant violation of the GPL the entire time it was out, because they refused to release the source code to their version. At one point and time FSGS even tried to charge for their version, but it didn't last. FSGS at first tried to say that they wrote their version from scratch, but several people pulled up early versions of FSGS that showed clear ties to/from BNETD. FSGS tried to say that they re-wrote everything eventually so they didn't have to release the source code, but as you know that would not clear them of the GPL. Also it doesn't clear them of every binary release they put out as they worked to rewrite all the code. They re-wrote it in stages they admitted, but never released the source code. Eventually FSGS came full circle and released a *NIX version of their program as well as the Windows version of the server.Protektor35 (talk) 06:25, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

PVPGN is also a fork of the BNETD code as well. They started their fork at the time that Warcraft 3 was in beta. PVPGN wanted to be able to play all the beta versions of Warcraft 3 that were floating around on the net illegally. They didn't have login codes to the beta server so they began to hack both the client (Warcraft 3) and BNETD to make it possible to use the beta games without connecting to Blizzard servers. This is what I believe caused Vivendi to launch their lawsuit, since BNETD had been around for something like 4-5 years at the point without a word from Blizzard or Vivendi. I also know for a fact that BNETD did come up in conversations from time to time on the Battle.net message boards but Blizzard never contacted any of the BNETD developers prior to this. The BNETD developers knew that supporting the beta would really upset Blizzard, so the BNETD developers made an active choice not to support the beta, or have anything to do with PVPGN and their fork. It wasn't but maybe a week or so after PVPGN got their server working with the Warcraft 3 beta that BNETD was served legal notice by Vinendi, but there was nothing BNETD could do about PVPGN. That's the beauty or evil of Open Source and the GPL, depending on how you look at it. PVPGN never had any problems with GPL violations because they always admitted that they were a fork of BNETD and they always released their source code as required. In fact they still leave the server daemon name as "bnetd", as way to honor BNETD I have been told.Protektor35 (talk) 06:39, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"corporate interests"

IIRC, w/o a valid cd key, blizzard software can't actually be installed. Does someone want to confirm that? 69.17.59.214 23:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

• Well, a keygen can still be used to actually install the game, but I'm sure blizz has some mechanism in place to detect false cd keys when the user attempts to connect to Battle.Net. Considering the monetary resources that blizz now has thanks to World of Warcraft, I would venture a guess that they've amassed a database of either legit or false keys to query a connection's cd key against. Speculation aside, as long as your key, legit or otherwise, meets the algorithm's criteria, the game won't challenge an installation, but your online component may be less than functional. See CD key. Archmagi1 00:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with 62.251.90.73 in that anti-circumvention legislation, like the DMCA, is a product of political corruption. Still, not everyone would agree. I'd like to see a more NPOV statement here.

Perhaps the article on Digital rights management can be linked. It has the best discussion on the anti-circumvention controversy I've found so far. Matt Fitzpatrick 06:37, 4 January 2006 (UTC)

Never mind. The implication may be NPOV, but the statement itself appears to be factual. Matt Fitzpatrick 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)

I can tell you for a fact you can install the game without a "valid key". Also you can connect to Battle.Net with a key generated from a "keygen program" as well since I have seen both done and there should be info about this in the trial transcripts and court documents. BNETD offered to add a keyproxy to forward the data for authenication to Battle.net but Vivendi said "absolutely no way". I can tell you the impression I got from Vivendi's lawyers was that they wanted to crush BNETD and make sure no one else ever tried to do anything similar. They were also extremely worried at the time that someone would try and clone a World of Warcraft MMO server and take money/clients away from them with it. Also if you read the Diablo 1 user license it has none of the restrictions about servers and clone servers that the later games had. It might also be interesting to note that at the time Diablo & Warcraft 2 were used on Kali game service/server and that Blizzard even had the Kali client up on their web server as another way to play online.Protektor35 (talk) 06:18, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

"corporate interests have less influence on government policy"

"Other hosts were quickly set up in countries where corporate interests have less influence on government policy."

Are you kidding me!? This is dripping with such bias that I threw up all over my keyboard. Suggestion: "Other hosts were quickly set up in countries where the DMCA does not apply."

Link to bnetd

Come to think of it, I'm a little concerned about the link to bnetd. Under the DMCA, it's illegal to link to "circumvention" software.

Personally, I doubt Vivendi will risk giving bnetd a second day in court by suing Wikipedia. In the Eleventh Circuit, in which the Wikipedia servers reside, the Eighth Circuit decision is merely advisory, not a binding precedent. Consequently, I think we should leave the link until Wikipedia gets a nastygram from Vivendi lawyers.Matt Fitzpatrick 21:48, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

Cleanup

Hey, I decided that the giant lump of bias text needed a bit of cleanup. I divided it into 2 sections (VU v Jung, and Criticism), and moved a bunch of text around. I also tried to dilute the previous incarnation's frequent and obvious bias throughout (most notably the overusage of clickwrap). I dont much agree with the ruling, but this place is an encyclopedia not an opinion forum.

PS, it could still use a bit more work if you guys can find some improvements over my stuff. Archmagi1 00:46, 6 April 2006 (UTC)Archmagi1

• I also added the merge banner because much of the Blizzard v. BnetD article is already here and thensome. Archmagi1 01:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• I agree, merge into bnetd. The content is all there. Besides, the case wasn't even called Blizzard v bnetd. 209.6.187.140 16:08, 4 June 2006 (UTC)
• Good work! I wasn't even thinking about how loaded the word 'clickwrap' is. Matt Fitzpatrick 17:44, 25 August 2006 (UTC)

POV-check?

On 21 Jan 2007 the POV-check tag was added to the bnetd article by an anonymous user. [1] No comment was left on the talk page. If you are the anonymous user please explain why you feel the article needs editing to conform to WP:NPOV. If there's no apparent issue, the tag may be removed by anyone pursuant to Wikipedia:POV check. Matt Fitzpatrick 10:07, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

I have removed the POV-check template per the Wikipedia:POV check guidelines, which state:

In order to ensure the POV check template cannot be used to brand articles as non-neutral without a justification, it may be removed by anyone if they feel that the issue has been resolved.... if you disagree with its removal, place the full neutrality dispute template on the page, explain your reasons on the talk page, and follow the regular NPOV dispute resolution process.

Matt Fitzpatrick 19:28, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Advocacy in the criticism section

A few days back, I removed [2] the criticism section, which read:

Many observers disagree with the court's technical findings. In particular, whether the battle.net modes of Blizzard's client programs are eligible for protection under the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause, or are uncopyrightable functional elements, remains a topic of debate in technology law.

This debate relates to the CD key's validity as a copyright access control subject to the DMCA's anti-circumvention clause. Lack of a valid CD key does not prevent the games in question from being copied, installed, or played in modes that do not involve battle.net servers. Further, battle.net administrators regularly disable CD keys to block suspected cheaters from the service. A player with a disabled CD key remains able to play independently of battle.net, such as in single player mode, or through a direct UDP connection to another player. A player with unlicensed software is permitted to play on battle.net, so long as the player's CD key is valid and not in concurrent use by another player. This treatment of the CD key raises the question as to how much the CD key functions to protect the client software from unlicensed use, and how much it functions as copyright-blind permission to connect to the battle.net service.

There is also some doubt as to the ruling's sway in courts outside the Eighth Circuit. To illustrate, critics allege Blizzard forum shopped to keep the case out of the Ninth Circuit, despite all of the licenses involved in the lawsuit requiring claims to be filed in Los Angeles County, California. The Ninth Circuit, which includes California, where Blizzard Entertainment headquarters are located, built much of the case history protecting reverse engineering uses against copyright infringement and other claims (Sega v. Accolade, 1992; Sony v. Connectix, 2000).

I believe this passage could be reworked, but I also believe it should be reworked before it is restored, as it is currently rife with advocacy. In particular, the second paragraph is simply a point-counter-point style debate that criticizes the court's finding in this case. Wikipedia is not a platform for popularizing opinions on current affairs. To improve this section, it would be necessary to find reliable third-party sources that make these criticisms, and then report on those sources. Beware of weasel terms such as Many observers disagree... and There is also some doubt as these passive, vague phrases are usually a way for an editor to get his or her own view of the subject into the article.

Cheers, ⟳ausa کui ^× 07:51, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

Anything I haven't added back in by now, I'm not planning to add back in. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 12:07, 9 May 2008 (UTC)

I haven't looked at this page in a very long time. As the one of the ones who were actually sued I can tell you the whole case boiled down basically to the login & password encryption. At first Vivendi/Blizzard tried to claim we stole all the server code from them. Then they narrowed it down to the authentication functions. We knew what encryption they were using, which if I remember correctly was 3DES, the public standard, but it didn't quite match. They had a typo in their code which threw the whole thing off and actually made it easier to crack. Unknown to the core developers at the time the person who finally broke how it worked, just disassembled the client code to see how it was encrypted and then passed us code so that we could read what the client sent. That was was the entire basis of the DMCA arguement. Their claims was that we stole/copied the encryption from the client and violated the EULA which didn't allow disassembly/reverse engineering. Which also triggered the DMCA as well. I was the ISP and web site developer that got dragged in the whole mess and did most of the contact with EFF on the case since it was tried here in Missouri. I don't know how much of this I could add to this article since everything I know is because I was there, & because of the legal documents I have for it. I don't know of any sites online that would have all this information to use as a source. If you want to know more let me know. Protektor35 (talk) 06:10, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Feature Sets

Would it make any sense to list some of the features that BNETD had that Battle.net didn't have or at least ones that BNETD had first before Battle.net? If you look at this web page you can see a list of the features that were posted on the bnetd.org website. I am sure there are probably other things BNETD did before Battle.net as well, that isn't listed on that list that I could dig up.
http://web.archive.org/web/20030408231927/www.bnetd.org/features.php
One of the biggest things that BNETD did that still to this day Battle.net can't do or they have for some reason chosen not to do is to link multiple physical servers so that they appear as 1 giant server, and the ability to load balance them. It was called the BITS system and was quite inventive in that it would allow you to scale up to a very large number of clients connected to what appeared to be 1 massive server. In fact PVPGN still doesn't use all the hooks for BITS these days to allow it to scale as large as BNETD could. Let me know what the rest of you think. Protektor35 (talk) 06:51, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 6 external links on Bnetd. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://starhack.ml.org/cease.txt
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://starhack.ml.org/mark1.txt
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://starhack.ml.org/beruk2.txt
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://starhack.ml.org/mark4.txt
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://starhack.ml.org/spa.shtml
• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://lawmeme.research.yale.edu/modules.php?name=News&file=article&sid=149

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Bnetd. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151106134352/http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/%7B6a130b0a-234a-de11-afac-001cc477ec70%7D.pdf to http://www.ssrc.org/workspace/images/crm/new_publication_3/%7B6a130b0a-234a-de11-afac-001cc477ec70%7D.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)