WoW UI AddOn Development Policy discussion thread - Page 15

**Shirik** · 03-22-09, 05:16 PM

Please check your facts before you post them.

Originally Posted by spiel2001

Here we disagree... no API is usable outside the platform on which it is built. And API is an API, the platform is something else.

Someone here has never used WINE.

Originally Posted by spiel2001

The Glider case keeps coming up. However, it is not analogous... what Glider did modified the in-game character behavior, database content, etc. and was without question detrimental to the product it was parasitic to.

Glider did not modify a single WoW component. It merely monitored WoW's address space in memory to obtain what it needed to know, and sent commands based on that information via hardware events. This is very well outlined in the Judge's opinion posted on the case.

I will not disagree that Glider should have been (and is) illegal, nor will I disagree that it was morally wrong. However, it did not do what you said it did, and should not be advertised as such. This was one of MDY's biggest (albeit failed) defensive points.

Jiminizer · 03-22-09, 05:51 PM

Hey, thought I'd post my $0.02

I haven't read all of this thread, just the first few pages (I'm tired!) so sorry if any of this has already been brought up.

I currently work on a project that revolves around an obfuscated addon. However, we're in a situation where it's obfuscated or nothing. The addon monitors certain in game stats and can then be uploaded to a website. If, however, the code were openly available, users could make it save the stats differently to look better and the addon would be useless. It's actually quite a popular addon that provides new functionality, and I'm sure its users would be sad to see it gone.

The same principle here applies to other addons too though - for example thottbot and others which record data and upload them much like our addon does. If these addons had to unobfuscate their code then users could upload false data and the sites would be wildly inaccurate. If Blizz enforces this, will these sites be a thing of the past?

Asking for donations should be allowed IMO - and I see nothing wrong with allowing a reward. We have an unlockable easter egg in our addon (not really premium content) which users can get if they donate to us, and we think this is a nice way of rewarding those who help us out.

All in all, I think these new rules might be useful in some circumstances, but they can also hinder legitimate addons that aren't trying to scam their users, and some real gems of addons could be put to death with these changes.

Hope I haven't bored you all,

Jim

spiel2001 · 03-22-09, 05:58 PM

Jim... I sure hope you're wearing Nomex... I'm thinking it's about to get hot in here.

~grinning~

***Cairenn*** · 03-22-09, 06:06 PM

It had better not get too hot.

seebs · 03-22-09, 06:09 PM

Honestly, I don't think Thottbot, or any of the other similar mods, have to be obfuscated to work.

Thotbott's database is full of crazy garbage anyway (Ashenvale mobs being reported in Hillsbrad, for instance). And actually, Thottbot was the mod that convinced me that I really didn't want any obfuscated mods anymore. It had a bug which I couldn't diagnose or fix because it was a nil variable named bbbbbbbbbbbbb on line 1 of a file...

What's the real frequency of people intentionally submitting bad data? Is this an actual problem or a theoretical problem? Perhaps it could be resolved by requiring multiple corroborating submissions, or something?

spiel2001 · 03-22-09, 06:14 PM

And, quite honestly, if the addon is popular enough and has enough users reporting data, a little statistical regression would weed out the outliers in a hurry.

Tristanian · 03-22-09, 06:22 PM

In all honesty the clause about non-obfuscated code, is probably one of the few good things that can come out of this. While it is certainly within the rights of the authors wanting to protect their code in terms of structure or w/e, the way lua is being used makes this very much impractical (to say the least) and morally, against the "spirit" of the community, considering that addon development has benefited a lot from the fact that people actually learn stuff by looking at each others code.

At the end of the day, obfuscating an addon really serves very little purpose (if we ignore purely commercial solutions), which usually degrades into "I'm smarter than you" arguments. I highly doubt that the possibility of someone tainting a data mining addon, or one that offers armory style services, would have that severe consequences. The vast majority of users would simply not care at all.

Republic · 03-22-09, 06:42 PM

Originally Posted by Tristanian

Eh, how to say this, but no. Just, no. Addons containing lua code are the intellectual property of their authors, whether they are referencing the WoW API or not, as long as they are not copying or including anything from Blizzard's code. You cannot copyright or license an API (despite the fact that the code behind that API is copyrighted), essentially a list of 'names'. As such, an addon cannot be considered a derivative work that is in violation of copyright and I would really like to see anyone including Blizzard, arguing otherwise.

The point is very simple. Blizzard sets a policy. You do not have to, agree with it, it's not legally binding. BUT, in that policy they clearly state that if you choose NOT to comply with it, it is well within their rights to decide to disallow/block your addon(s), while being used inside World of Warcraft. It is really that simple.

That's incorrect. Blizzard sees Addon work as derivatives of the game itself. Thus, anything making use of any part of the game is legally a derivative unless it contains enough content on its own to be a stand-alone product (something that doesn't rely upon the game). That's the ONLY way any AddOn has a chance to stand on its own copyrightable grounds. It must show itself as a product that does not incorporate any previously published work(s) (like making use of the game, etc.).

In a nutshell, Blizzard is saying AddOn authors exist because of the game. This makes all AddOns derivative works, something which is now expressly prhobited from being a commercial product. Frankly, I agree with the fact that without the game, none of this exists out here. There are no Addons, no AddOn authors. Blizzard wants all revenue from their game as its a commercial product. This is not a new thing for software publishers and it certainly isn't unique to Blizzard or WoW.

I understand both sides of the argument but you cannot blame them for making these policy changes. The guys of Carbonite and similar AddOns simply don't exist without Blizzard. I'm pretty certain Carbonite hasn't been paying royalty fees to Blizzard. Thus, we have this set of very limiting rules. I don't know of an AddOn that exists which can't legally be claimed as a derivative work, regardless of the respective author(s) work(s). AddOns don't exist without WoW. Period. Legally, everything in the community can be seen as a derivative now.

spiel2001 · 03-22-09, 06:48 PM

Originally Posted by Republic

That's incorrect. Blizzard sees Addon work as derivatives of the game itself. Thus, anything making use of any part of the game is legally a derivative unless it contains enough content on its own to be a stand-alone product (something that doesn't rely upon the game). That's the ONLY way any AddOn has a chance to stand on its own copyrightable grounds. It must show itself as a product that does not incorporate any previously published work(s) (like making use of the game, etc.).

(preface everything that follows with "I thinK")

Right there is the crux of the problem and I do believe you are correct that Bliz is trying to use the derivative argument. And, if so, then that's a huge can of worms, because AddOns do not use any part of WoW except the API they provide for use by AddOns and if using an API is in fact something that makes the client of that API a derivative work, there's a big problem.

It will be interesting to see where that legal battle goes.

My 30 years of experience as a software engineer, not a lawyer, tells me Bliz loses that argument. And, to be perfectly honest, i'm not sure they won't set themselves up for a class action if they try to enforce it.

We'll see.

Tristanian · 03-22-09, 06:57 PM

Originally Posted by Republic

That's incorrect. Blizzard sees Addon work as derivatives of the game itself.

I'm sorry but that would never hold water in any court. It is very much possible to create an addon that is totally independent of WoW as a platform and can actually utilize any kind of lua platform. Admittedly, it wouldn't do much on its own but that is immaterial. You don't even have to agree to any EULA and you are totally unaffected by Blizzard's decrees. Hell, even IF you use the WoW API, since you are simply referencing it and not copying it (the code behind the functions, methods etc), you are creating something that it is very much YOUR intellectual property. Likewise, if you aren't (re)distributing or modifying any sort of Blizzard game files, including but not limited to art files, binaries, libraries etc, then I personally cannot see how your addon can be considered as "derivative work".

While I'm not a lawyer, I would be very interested to see someone (Blizzard or anyone else) trying to dispute author copyright of their own work, in regards to addon code.

jadakren · 03-22-09, 06:58 PM

Originally Posted by meganbto

Well, sorry but I have donated to Addon authors where I have liked the addon. I have not donated to you because I have not ever seen your addon tbh.

If someone is impressed with an addon's features AND basically an honest person they will pay. If they are not, they will not, even if you shove the 'donate NOW' button up there nose.

Creating and maintaining any addon was your choice. Free choice so do not moan because you are not being paid. I hold store doors open for people who need it, and sometimes other people go through the door too. I do not expect to get paid, I can choose not to hold open the door. You can choose not to write/maintain addons and do a job that pays you for your effort

As far as i am aware Tekub created libDataBroker? therefore i would be surprised if at least one of your addons wasn't making use of this.

seebs · 03-22-09, 07:07 PM

I have seen nothing that convinces me that Blizzard is making any ownership claims to addons. They certainly haven't suggested that authors don't get copyright. The closest they might have gotten is to suggest that the addons are derivative works and thus that Blizzard also has rights -- but I haven't actually seen that, yet.

I think it comes down to this:

* They can block any addon that annoys them.
* If you start circumventing those blocks, then there's some kind of attempt going on to use unauthorized third-party code.
* Which they have established they can squelch, at least in some cases.

I don't see any assertion of ownership, and I don't think they're likely to make that assertion.

Sythalin · 03-22-09, 07:12 PM

Originally Posted by Yhor

As for WoW addons ONLY being viable in WoW API, there are a few WAR addons that came from wow addons. The API must not be all that different, at least to some degree.

This is heresay, mind you. I've never played WAR.

I've made mods in both. Right now I'm "re-porting" a project back to WoW, and it's a pain. They're similar in function, until the API calls. That's when you have to tediously change each little thing or it blows up.

spiel2001 · 03-22-09, 07:20 PM

Originally Posted by seebs

I have seen nothing that convinces me that Blizzard is making any ownership claims to addons.

When Blizzard tells you how you can distribute the add-on, how much your can charge for it (if anything) and the terms under which you deliver and support the add-on, that is pretty much a claim of ownership.

Jiminizer · 03-22-09, 07:37 PM

If there was a way to run our project open source we would and were open to suggestions but as it is obfuscation seems the only way to make the addon fair to our users. Details on the project are available on our site epeenratings.com if u want to take a look.

seebs · 03-22-09, 07:47 PM

Originally Posted by spiel2001

When Blizzard tells you how you can distribute the add-on, how much your can charge for it (if anything) and the terms under which you deliver and support the add-on, that is pretty much a claim of ownership.

I don't think it is.

Let's look at, say, the GPL. The GPL imposes a HUGE number of requirements on code you link with GPL'd code. It doesn't exactly address how much you can charge, but it forces you to allow other people to redistribute without charge. It certainly dictates the terms under which you can deliver code.

Does that mean that it creates an ownership claim? Why, no. It does not. Indeed, the insidious part is that all the code linked with the Linux kernel is GPL'd, but not owned by the same people.

I have not seen Blizzard claim:
* That they have the right to distribute my addons.
* That they have the right to create derivative works of my addons.
* That I must give other people the right to distribute or copy my addons.

I retain full copyright, I am the sole and exclusive owner of my code, and I am entitled to determine for myself what terms I wish to license it to other people under... Except that I can't charge money for it.

There's no requirement that I give anyone else permission to copy, reuse, or modify my code. If I wanted to release an addon with licensing terms saying "you may not modify this code, you must either use it as is or not use it at all", Blizzard's policy would have no effect on this. (I might have a hard time enforcing it anyway, but their policy does nothing to stop me.)

So while they're certainly asserting some kind of rights to do with addons, it really doesn't seem to me that they're asserting ownership.

... Interesting question: What is the state under this policy of the WoW addon book? I'm guessing it's legit, but I could see someone arguing that money is being charged for addons or services. (In practice, Blizzard seems to be fairly supportive of the book, and of other tools used to help developers code addons. I am pretty sure that there is an implicit Rule #9, "Don't be Carbonite", in the list as they really use it.)

seebs · 03-22-09, 07:48 PM

Originally Posted by Jiminizer

If there was a way to run our project open source we would and were open to suggestions but as it is obfuscation seems the only way to make the addon fair to our users. Details on the project are available on our site epeenratings.com if u want to take a look.

Interesting. Well, let's think this through. Imagine an unobfuscated version. What's someone going to do? Submit bogus data? Unless two people collaborate to create that bogus data, you'll have a mismatch when two different people report back inconsistent data for a given fight, no?

Shadowed · 03-22-09, 07:52 PM

Originally Posted by Jiminizer

Hey, thought I'd post my $0.02

I haven't read all of this thread, just the first few pages (I'm tired!) so sorry if any of this has already been brought up.

I currently work on a project that revolves around an obfuscated addon. However, we're in a situation where it's obfuscated or nothing. The addon monitors certain in game stats and can then be uploaded to a website. If, however, the code were openly available, users could make it save the stats differently to look better and the addon would be useless. It's actually quite a popular addon that provides new functionality, and I'm sure its users would be sad to see it gone.

The same principle here applies to other addons too though - for example thottbot and others which record data and upload them much like our addon does. If these addons had to unobfuscate their code then users could upload false data and the sites would be wildly inaccurate. If Blizz enforces this, will these sites be a thing of the past?

Asking for donations should be allowed IMO - and I see nothing wrong with allowing a reward. We have an unlockable easter egg in our addon (not really premium content) which users can get if they donate to us, and we think this is a nice way of rewarding those who help us out.

All in all, I think these new rules might be useful in some circumstances, but they can also hinder legitimate addons that aren't trying to scam their users, and some real gems of addons could be put to death with these changes.

Hope I haven't bored you all,

Jim

If somebody wants to upload fake stats, they can still upload fake stats. Since there is an author with the same name and has an obfuscated project on Curse, I'm going to assume you're one of the authors of epeen.

It's really not that hard to remove the obfuscation, I had Preform AV Enabler (when it was obfuscated) in plain text in about 2-3 hours out of boredom, and that was before I realized I could use a simple Lua script to restore the line breaks. Since you can't hide the if/then/else/function syntax nor can you really hide the WoW function names it's not that hard to figure out the intent and what does what once everything has line breaks in it, and even indention if someone is bored enough.

In the specific case of this mod: Converting characters from the number values such as "\76\111\115\115\101\115" to "Losses" could be done with a script without much hassle, and figuring out the SavedVariable format could be done with relative ease after that, especially if you had SavedVariable examples of a game you lost and a game you won.

Could probably figure out how to upload fake data in maybe an hour or two if at that, if I really wanted (Which I don't). The point is, obfuscation does nothing but add a little bit of extra time, and can make it more fun to do since it adds an extra challenge.

spiel2001 · 03-22-09, 07:59 PM

Originally Posted by Shadowed

The point is, obfuscation does nothing but add a little bit of extra time, and can make it more fun to do since it adds an extra challenge.

I'll go one further... obfuscation only motivates people to crack it just because it was obfuscated.

Republic · 03-22-09, 08:26 PM

Originally Posted by spiel2001

And, if so, then that's a huge can of worms

I agree. I'm also questioning the timing of such a policy change. I mean, why now?