WoW UI AddOn Development Policy discussion thread - Page 18

Sythalin · 03-23-09, 07:24 AM

Originally Posted by HonorGoG

You mean people will not be able to use QuestHelper anymore? So, umm, that means people will actually have to think for themselves and not rely on an addon to tell them where to go and what to do?

"OH NOEZ!"

Sorry. I couldn't resist even though I should have. Yes, I had an extended conversation regarding this "turn off the brain"-mode with a guildie who uses QH and was over for a D&D game this weekend. I wish I knew about this Blizzard change before today. That's what I get when I try to do things in real life instead of staying in the WorldOfChatcraft. Damn my "get a life" pledge!

But my "BlizzardEmployee" was over visiting today and asked me if Titan has a donation request within it. It doesn't but then I asked him, "Why?". That's why I'm here now. WoW. Just WoW.

I use QH myself and it's not for the "turn off the brain function". It's so that I can level an alt faster by giving a guide to quests that I've done a dozen times already. Sure, I should have all it's info memorized by now, but I can't remember what I did 3 days ago, much less what I did on another toon 6+ months ago.

Kimmik · 03-23-09, 07:27 AM

Originally Posted by ChaosInc

I use QH myself and it's not for the "turn off the brain function". It's so that I can level an alt faster by giving a guide to quests that I've done a dozen times already. Sure, I should have all it's info memorized by now, but I can't remember what I did 3 days ago, much less what I did on another toon 6+ months ago.

That is my thing is I have trouble remembering and sometimes finding those pesky out of the way hiding quest givers...

by the way is the official forums giving anyone else funny errors?

Sythalin · 03-23-09, 07:31 AM

Originally Posted by ChaosInc

I use QH myself and it's not for the "turn off the brain function". It's so that I can level an alt faster by giving a guide to quests that I've done a dozen times already. Sure, I should have all it's info memorized by now, but I can't remember what I did 3 days ago, much less what I did on another toon 6+ months ago.

And to futher elaborate, I use QH in Azeroth and Outlands. I haven't actually been out to Northrend yet (restarted a toon and taking sweet time in Azeroth. Lvl 64 and just hitting Silithus

). When I hit Northrend, I plan to turn it off to enjoy the mystery of finding things and exploring again. Anything before that is "mindless", boring repetition that I'd like to get through as quick as possible.

Jiminizer · 03-23-09, 07:43 AM

As far as obfuscation goes, what we (Epeen Team) would like to see is a system where addon authors can obfuscate / secure code, with the source code available to Blizzard to verify we are not hiding anything.

Xruptor · 03-23-09, 08:35 AM

Seems the Carbonite devs have not said anything but have clearly stated their stand with the new Blizzard UI policies. Carbonite has been removed from this site and several other addon sites in protest. No official word yet on their forums at carboniteaddon.com.

I'm beginning to wonder how much Blizzard cares or doesn't about all this really. I'm sure they don't really care if a few mods stop production so long as they have 11 million subscribers.

Eggi · 03-23-09, 08:54 AM

Originally Posted by Jiminizer

As far as obfuscation goes, what we (Epeen Team) would like to see is a system where addon authors can obfuscate / secure code, with the source code available to Blizzard to verify we are not hiding anything.

They already can read the code that you produce as you can get the input which is sent to the load functions.

So the point about readable code is mainly there because of laziness.

Xruptor · 03-23-09, 09:05 AM

Blizzard will easily and most probably remove the ability to use the loadstring() function in LUA. In attempts to prevent addons from using it towards addons being obfuscated. Note that isn't the only way to do it but it's one used by lots of addons and authors. If they did that it would be harder to do but not impossible

Well lol it's Monday and I'm still waiting

Mikord · 03-23-09, 09:43 AM

Originally Posted by Jiminizer

As far as obfuscation goes, what we (Epeen Team) would like to see is a system where addon authors can obfuscate / secure code, with the source code available to Blizzard to verify we are not hiding anything.

Security by obscurity never works and is generally a bad idea. It is extremely simple to reverse obfuscation. All it takes is a little time. Once it's been done, your whole scheme is now essentially worthless. On top of that, by causing everything to be decoded and loaded from a string, you are increasing the load time for the users. You are also increasing the memory usage to hold the obfuscated string. Granted you can nil it out after the load operation, but of course then you'll force garbage collection. It's a bad practice all around.

You are far better off using some ingenuity and developing a system that would require checks and balances so it would require a large scale concerted effort to cheat the system.

Sythalin · 03-23-09, 10:21 AM

Originally Posted by Derkyle

I'm beginning to wonder how much Blizzard cares or doesn't about all this really. I'm sure they don't really care if a few mods stop production so long as they have 11 million subscribers.

Quite true. When making $165,000,000/month, I wouldn't really care about pissing off a handful of authors either. Welcome to business.

twobits · 03-23-09, 12:00 PM

Originally Posted by Maul

While I personally think the policy is over-reaching in some areas, Xinhaun brought an excellent point on WoWAce that I don't think too many are understanding: If Blizzard adds the addon standards to either the EULA or ToU, telling each user they many not use an addon that violates policy, and an addon author continues to develop an addon in defiance of said policy, any legal arguments about the policy itself is not what the addon author needs to worry about, but rather being sued for "tortious interference with contract." In other words, providing a addon that interferes with the contract between the account holder and Blizzard.

And this "tortious interference with contract" aspect already has established itself to be on Blizzard's side via the Glider case. All copyright issues aside, Blizzard has an ace in the hole with "tortious interference with contract".

So has Blizzard now tortuously interfered with the contract some addons have made with their customers? If someone has paid for a year subscription to say WowEcon or Carbonite, it seems that this term, and/or any move to enforce it would be just that.

As for 'it is our platform/ our rules' , given how activision started out that is an amazing hypocritical stance.

On way to protest this for addon authors that pulled their addons, instead of doing this, which removes one of your best ways to reach people, put in a link asking for a donation to the EFF if people liked your addons, and see how Blizzard reacts.

Tristanian · 03-23-09, 12:09 PM

The contract in question is between the end user and Blizzard, the EULA/ToS that you actually accept and in a way "sign". If Blizzard can prove that it causes them some form of damage, then you can bet that they have the right to sue. Whether they will end up doing so, however, is an entirely different matter with other....parameters and implications

Slakah · 03-23-09, 12:12 PM

Originally Posted by Derkyle

Blizzard will easily and most probably remove the ability to use the loadstring() function in LUA. In attempts to prevent addons from using it towards addons being obfuscated. Note that isn't the only way to do it but it's one used by lots of addons and authors. If they did that it would be harder to do but not impossible

Well lol it's Monday and I'm still waiting

loadstring() has plenty of other uses apart from obfuscation.

twobits · 03-23-09, 12:23 PM

Originally Posted by Tristanian

The contract in question is between the end user and Blizzard, the EULA/ToS that you actually accept and in a way "sign". If Blizzard can prove that it causes them some form of damage, then you can bet that they have the right to sue. Whether they will end up doing so, however, is an entirely different matter with other....parameters and implications

And the other contract in question is between the end user and the addon provider. So if the addon provider can prove it cause them some form of damage do they not also have the same right to sue under the same grounds?

Tristanian · 03-23-09, 12:34 PM

Originally Posted by twobits

And the other contract in question is between the end user and the addon provider. So if the addon provider can prove it cause them some form of damage do they not also have the same right to sue under the same grounds?

That is likely the case, though I won't pretend to be a lawyer and make assumptions on whether they would have a valid legal case or not. Judging from the Glider precedent, I wouldn't hold my breath. The point is, the WoW lua platform is their own playground, they control the waters and they can set whatever rule they feel its necessary to protect their investment and business model. The part that is currently controversial is whether addons should be actually considered as a "derivative work" or not or in simple words whether they should be considered as the IP of their respective authors. If you ask me (did I mention that I'm not a lawyer btw ?

), I'd say no, based on how addons work in the first place. In such a case, Blizzard is basically reserving their right to sue for tortious interference with contract, since they cannot actually remove author's rights granted by copyright law to be able to sell or distribute their addons in any way they see fit. As a result, though seemingly no author right is (legally) removed, in essence it is (indirectly) removed.

twobits · 03-23-09, 12:41 PM

Originally Posted by Tristanian

That is likely the case, though I won't pretend to be a lawyer and make assumptions on whether they would have a valid legal case or not. Judging from the Glider precedent, I wouldn't hold my breath. The point is, the WoW lua platform is their own playground, they control the waters and they can set whatever rule they feel its necessary to protect their investment and business model. The part that is currently controversial is whether addons should be actually considered as a "derivative work" or not or in simple words whether they should be considered as the IP of their respective authors. If you ask me (did I mention that I'm not a lawyer btw ?

), I'd say no, based on how addons work in the first place. In such a case, Blizzard is basically reserving their right to sue for tortious interference with contract, since they cannot actually remove author's rights granted by copyright law to be able to sell or distribute their addons in any way they see fit. As a result, though seemingly no author right is (legally) removed, in essence it is (indirectly) removed.

I think it is safe to say nothing being said here is give as legal advice or in a client relationship for any of the parties here. It is all discussion and opinion, even if said by a lawyer, till a ruling gets made anyway. The Glider case may not be considered as an exact model as to what contract takes precedence though. The reason being, is that you need to figure out which contract prevails in a sense. In the case of glider, it interferes with terms that have always been in the game, and thus the game terms existed before glider did, and thus gliders contract. In this case, the change in terms to interfere with those addons providers obligations from the payments they received from their customers came later, so if the prevailing contract is decided on by which came first, now the situation is reversed. Now I don't have a clue how it would be ruled on, but it does seem the same grounds are at least there and a case on them may be able to be made
against blizzard using the same grounds.

BTW, the this is my playground I can set the rules is the very same argument Atari tried to make to stop Activision from starting up.

Shadowed · 03-23-09, 12:51 PM

Originally Posted by Mikord

Security by obscurity never works and is generally a bad idea. It is extremely simple to reverse obfuscation. All it takes is a little time. Once it's been done, your whole scheme is now essentially worthless. On top of that, by causing everything to be decoded and loaded from a string, you are increasing the load time for the users. You are also increasing the memory usage to hold the obfuscated string. Granted you can nil it out after the load operation, but of course then you'll force garbage collection. It's a bad practice all around.

You are far better off using some ingenuity and developing a system that would require checks and balances so it would require a large scale concerted effort to cheat the system.

This, this and this. Although slightly wrong on one part, in the case of epeen it doesn't use loadstring to obfuscate it does the general variable renaming, converting strings to \### (What they are called is escaping me for some reason)

Originally Posted by Derkyle

Blizzard will easily and most probably remove the ability to use the loadstring() function in LUA. In attempts to prevent addons from using it towards addons being obfuscated. Note that isn't the only way to do it but it's one used by lots of addons and authors. If they did that it would be harder to do but not impossible

Well lol it's Monday and I'm still waiting

Blizzard can't stop obfuscation code wise really, even without loadstring nothing stops you from removing all the indentation/linebreaks renaming the variables to _, __, ___ and so on to make it somewhat unreadable.

Aelobin · 03-23-09, 01:07 PM

Thought i'd show my face in this thread (i made Epeen).

Originally Posted by Shadowed

This, this and this. Although slightly wrong on one part, in the case of epeen it doesn't use loadstring to obfuscate it does the general variable renaming, converting strings to \### (What they are called is escaping me for some reason)

I'm looking into making the actual obfuscation a bit more secure if Blizz answer a few of my questions i've emailed them.

Blizzard can't stop obfuscation code wise really, even without loadstring nothing stops you from removing all the indentation/linebreaks renaming the variables to _, __, ___ and so on to make it somewhat unreadable

I agree, what if you were just a 'retarded' programmer who learnt to program on 1 line and with variables like that? :P

EDIT: oh and to those saying obfuscation is pointless and makes it more of a challenge, the point is to defer people from editting it (after so long i think they'd get bored and give up) and to stop "non-coders" editting simple things with find/replace

Shadowed · 03-23-09, 01:12 PM

Originally Posted by Aelobin

Thought i'd show my face in this thread (i made Epeen).

I'm looking into making the actual obfuscation a bit more secure if Blizz answer a few of my questions i've emailed them.

I agree, what if you were just a 'retarded' programmer who learnt to program on 1 line and with variables like that? :P

I'm trying to be nice, but you need to understand this. You CANNOT make obfuscation secure, this is not a "maybe you can do x, y, z" you flat out, cannot make it secure, no if thens or buts. Take Mikord's advice and work out a good system of checks and balances, instead of wasting your time with obfuscation.

seebs · 03-23-09, 01:15 PM

Here's the thing.

A policy banning obfuscated code may wreck your pseudo-arena stuff. And that's a shame, I guess.

But...

It also provides a serious barrier to attempts to build sinister addons that might do Evil Things.

and I think that's probably enough more important to win out.

I know more people who've been hacked somehow than who've needed to get meaningful arena ratings for twinks. I'd say you might do better to put your time into developing corroboration between multiple submissions as a requirement, to make it harder for people to cheat without getting buy-in from the people on the other team.

Aelobin · 03-23-09, 01:17 PM

Originally Posted by Shadowed

I'm trying to be nice, but you need to understand this. You CANNOT make obfuscation secure, this is not a "maybe you can do x, y, z" you flat out, cannot make it secure, no if thens or buts. Take Mikord's advice and work out a good system of checks and balances, instead of wasting your time with obfuscation.

I know it'll never "make it secure", but it'll be a lot better obfuscated than not (or at least until i find another way of doing the system, like balance/checks).