Magic Workstation

WyrdMagic · User Joined: 24 May 2003 Posts: 5

I checked a couple FAQs, but I couldn't tell. Is this program Open Source or not? If not, why not? If the makers can make it be Open, then it will never go away. No matter what WotC or anyone else may try to do, the program won't really die and other programmers can pick up the task of keeping the program up to date if it becomes necessary.

Of course, it can be difficult to turn a profit from Open Source software. (Not impossible, just difficult.) So if the makers have that goal in mind, that could be a problem.

Please, please, please make the source code available for download so that this program never dies so we're not stuck with paying WotC for electric cardboard. Thanks.
_________________
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

Planeswlk · Posted: Sat May 24, 2003 8:25 am Post subject:

This has been discussed before.. the reason it cant be open source is because users could change the code to cheat.

Now, the Database module could be open source, just not the Play module.

WyrdMagic · User Joined: 24 May 2003 Posts: 5

With all due respect, if you honestly think keeping the code secret prevents cheating, all I can say is I hope you're not in any way involved in the coding.

You should take a look around at how programming and security really work. While it's not a good idea to broadcast all of a piece of software's bugs and security holes to the world, at the same time, it's necessary for the public to know about them. Why?

Well, here's what usually happens with a buggy program that has security holes:
1. Some programers (let's call them "kindly hackers") find out that a piece of commercial software has security holes and can be "hacked". This piece of software could be some little chat program or it could be some important financial software dealing with real money. It's happened in both situations and everything in between.
2. In this made up situation, the kindly hackers are nice and not corrupt. Rather than exploit the vulnerability for their own gains they privately tell the company about it.
3. The company does nothing and tries to keep it secret, rather than fix the bug(s). Sometimes the company even tries to sue the kindly hackers.
4. The kindly hackers wait while the company does nothing. and more nothing.
5. Eventually, the kindly hackers get pissed and go public--telling everyone about the security holes. Of course, this will make it easier for people to exploit the cheat, but now that the public knows about it, the company has no choice but to fix it.

You guys have already seen this happen with the Apprentice software and the stupid league that wouldn't let its users know people were able to cheat.

Did you know that the security of the data that banks transfer back and forth from the ATM to the main bank relies on well known, public encryption algorithms? True. You know why? Because the only way to guarentee the algorithm really works is to hold it up to public scrutiny.

There really was a point here. And here it is: security through obscurity is a broken concept--keeping the source code secret may make it harder to make some cheats, but it doesn't make it impossible. The only way to ensure a lack of cheaters is to have a system that still works even when the code is public. It shouldn't be too difficult. At least, I know it's possible to have a mechanism that determines whether the code has been tampered with or not. (md5 sums) The game could be made to verify itself.

In any case--possible or not--keeping the code secret does not prevent cheating, but it does create a situation where people can charge you for the code if they want to. Until the source code is released, there's no guarentee that these people won't decide to charge for it in the future--they'd be like WotC mark II.

So... IMO, hiding the source code does not prevent cheating, so I'm still waiting to find out the real reason.
_________________
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

vitualis · User Joined: 17 May 2003 Posts: 5

Because not everybody agrees with the open source concept and some people when they create something like to OWN it.

Hidden source code does make it harder to cheat by obscurity -- at least for a while. In itself, however, it is definitely not foolproof.

Though I would like for this proggy to be open source like you WyrdMagic, I think you are hardly in the position to DEMAND it to be so. It is surely in the discretion on the author.

Regards.
_________________
Michael Tam

WyrdMagic · User Joined: 24 May 2003 Posts: 5

I'm not demanding, I'm ranting. There's a difference.

When you make something Open Source, you still own it, but I think I know what you mean anyway.

So let's sum up here. So far we've got ease of cheating and plain selfishness (not wanting to let anyone else see the pretty source code because you wrote it) as reasons not to share the source code.

Are there any others?
_________________
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

DaDemon · Posted: Sat May 24, 2003 2:00 pm Post subject:

There is no selfishness in open source. The programmers keep the source closed because this is copyrighted program. To be able to have shareware (making money) and to keep people from figuring out how to bypass the encryption. Programmer's are also in Russia, mind you, and do not follow the same laws as other countries, so this is done so they can protect their work. MWS main code will NOT be open source, so you may as well drop the subject.

Thank you.

WyrdMagic · User Joined: 24 May 2003 Posts: 5

Well, I agree with your first sentence, "There is no selfishness in open source."

The selfishness I was referring to was with the nonopen source stuff.

Okay, so basically the only reason not to open up the source is so that you can charge money for it. Yeah. That's what I suggested up above.

Something I'd like to clarify: When you make something Open Source, you generally retain copyright. No one's asking them to put it in the public domain--that would be different and a little bit dumb.

I understand if they don't want to open up the source because they're more interested in making a profit than in helping to ensure that people can play Magic:tG freely. That's perfectly natural and understandable. Just like WotC and Micro$oft and all the rest.

Considering how difficult it would be to write the code, I think they deserve to make some money off it. I just don't want people hiding behind the false pretense that locking away the source is for the good of the players. It isn't. Keeping secrets like this is all about control--those with the control want to keep it. They don't dare give it away to the masses.
_________________
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

rizwank · Registered User Joined: 26 Apr 2003 Posts: 68

Wyrd, now it sounds like you have an agenda. I don't think Wotc can stop the authors, being in russia. Even if they can, that bridge can be crossed later. If it was open source, how would they be expected to make money on it .. I could just plug it into VS.net and compile it and sell it at half price... or just give it away for free.

As for security, yes, public algorytms get tested better, but it matters less in smaller circuimstances like this. The effort that hardcore memory hackers and assembly hackers would expend upon a bank is much different than the effort expended on MWS. There isn't even a serial crack out yet, which is amazing to me.

In the end, Opensource wouldn't solve much. They want this to be their enterprise, and thats that. If they wanted everyone to contribute to the codebase and help fix things then they would release it under GPL.

Can we drop this now?

Detonator · Posted: Sat May 24, 2003 4:18 pm Post subject:

WyrdMagic · User Joined: 24 May 2003 Posts: 5

Ok, now I understand where you're coming from.

I'll shut up now.

Thanks for explaining.
_________________
--
Furry cows moo and decompress.

thaKav · User Joined: 02 Nov 2003 Posts: 4

Hey all,

The game of magic interestes me to no depth.
I just have this to say about the following...

.. the reason it cant be open source is because users could change the code to cheat.

I disagree with this statement. Any electronic represtentation of magic ive seen relies on each players fundamental agreement of how the rules of the game operate. If both players agree on the rules there should be no possible way to "change the code to cheat". The flow of a game in Magic Workstation is dependent upon both players agreeing on the results of play, just like in the cardboard version.

to further this, let me comment on this statement,
"You should take a look around at how programming and security really work. While it's not a good idea to broadcast all of a piece of software's bugs and security holes to the world, at the same time, it's necessary for the public to know about them. Why?"

A very accurate statement yes, but does it really appliy to the implications of making MWS OpenSource?
No.
Everyone seems to be on the same page, in that open technology is good for the betterment of said technology, but in the same light when you show one person the flaws of a system, it is potentially the case that many people will exploit the same vuneraliblity.

What im saying here is, In this case of open source technology, cheating would'nt matter since we all have an understanding of how magic works and if someone makes a bunk move, we can reconize that and call it.

If this project were to become opensource the MWS community would all benefit. The program could become more user friendly, additional options could be added, and it could change the greater meta-game of magic as a whole.

I personally am really interested in making an Artifical Intellegence for Magic. I am an undergrad persuing Graduate studies in AI at the university of wisconsin. If anyone is interested email me at KavalryBeatz@hotmail.com
Thx,P

ps. the real reason this project isn't open source then, must because of money

MaoMao · User Joined: 29 Oct 2003 Posts: 8

Keep it closed. Retaining complete ownership of something you created isn't selfish, its just preserving your interests. Wanting to profit from your work isn't greed, its capitalism. They haven't suffered from socio-economic changes and crippling depresion just to hand over their work to the community now that their efforts are putting food on the table.

In case you can't tell, this isn't a big corporation making this program, just a bunch of guys who found a nice niche market that can sustain them. In return they provide an excellent program and possibly the fastest customer response on any piece of software I've seen.

Keep up the good work boys, and I'm registering my copy of MWS as we speak.

DaDemon

Jef_Lord · Posted: Mon Nov 03, 2003 9:29 pm Post subject: And after?

From a registered user point of view, I don't care that MWS goes Open source. I like this tool as it is, and would just like to see it extended with some new features.

There is another apect you did not talk about with Open Source: it is not a small effort to make a project Open Source. It would be really an additional work for MWS team to drive, support, and organize an Open Source project.

Finally, I'm even ready to pay for all versions after the 1.0 one. Thanks to MWS team for your work.

brainwad · Posted: Tue Nov 04, 2003 4:42 pm Post subject:

It seems every 2 months, some person who hasn't actually read the 100's of posts comes in and makes irrelevent and incongruous arguments about why Open Source is good, why closed source is thus bad, and why MWS would be much better as open source...

There is only one problem: it isn't going to happen as long as Crazzy and Detonator are actually working on this... think about it: would you pay $US20 and buy MWS, or (after editing the code to give it your own personal backwash) compile it yourself, for free?

Not to mention the fact that MWS client compatibility would disintegrate into nothingness... without any central controls, since MWSdevs wouldnt keep this site if they cant afford it, and very few people understand CVS and other such systems, people will not update and progress will stagnate...

Open source is going to go ahead on a limited scale... for example, non core modules of MWS (ie, MWSHost) will be made open source so that it can be ported and improved, without MWSDevs wasting time on it... But they will never abandon the main modules, the ones that put food on their tables...
_________________
Have you ever noticed how some flavor text has no relevance whatsoever to the card it's on?