Search Results
7/1/2025, 11:18:05 PM
>>714199210
>It’s vulnerable to cheating, NAT fuckery, sync issues, and security holes you really don’t want in your game.
Something that happens today under "the protection" and inside the infrastructure of authorized providers. Pic related.
>self-hosting
>building a clean server binary, documenting it, making it runnable on various OSes
Can be done and is not an extremely unachievable demand. Software providers do it all the time.
>updating it when exploits are found
Not necessary. Software delivered under licenses such as GPL, BSD or Apache are clear in what to expect from the provider.
>"this software is provided by the copyright holders and contributors “as is” [...] IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages"
Have you ever wondered how Open Source software providers make money taking into account they give software for free or they don't suffer legal consequences for doing so? They have clear rules. They also have End of Life schedules for their products, and with the release of community version they are explicit in being free for the consequences of any damage the library use can provoke, because the operational risk is in the hands of the customer once they consume the software.
What is done in this cases is that the support and patch releases are defined to be delivered for a well established time frame. A correctly defined user license helps to protect the provider and gives clear rules to the customer.
That is the most important part of SKG. The possibility of making clear rules of use and consumption with a strong emphasis in people's right to ownership.
>It’s vulnerable to cheating, NAT fuckery, sync issues, and security holes you really don’t want in your game.
Something that happens today under "the protection" and inside the infrastructure of authorized providers. Pic related.
>self-hosting
>building a clean server binary, documenting it, making it runnable on various OSes
Can be done and is not an extremely unachievable demand. Software providers do it all the time.
>updating it when exploits are found
Not necessary. Software delivered under licenses such as GPL, BSD or Apache are clear in what to expect from the provider.
>"this software is provided by the copyright holders and contributors “as is” [...] IN NO EVENT SHALL THE COPYRIGHT HOLDER OR CONTRIBUTORS BE LIABLE for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, exemplary, or consequential damages"
Have you ever wondered how Open Source software providers make money taking into account they give software for free or they don't suffer legal consequences for doing so? They have clear rules. They also have End of Life schedules for their products, and with the release of community version they are explicit in being free for the consequences of any damage the library use can provoke, because the operational risk is in the hands of the customer once they consume the software.
What is done in this cases is that the support and patch releases are defined to be delivered for a well established time frame. A correctly defined user license helps to protect the provider and gives clear rules to the customer.
That is the most important part of SKG. The possibility of making clear rules of use and consumption with a strong emphasis in people's right to ownership.
Page 1