Talk:Bnetd

message: 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)
thread_title: History

message: 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)
replies: text: Never mind.  The implication may be NPOV, but the statement itself appears to be factual. Matt Fitzpatrick 23:34, 10 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "corporate interests"

message: 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)
thread_title: Link to bnetd

message: 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)
thread_title: Cleanup

message: A few days back, I removed  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Advocacy in the criticism section

message: 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)
thread_title: Feature Sets

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Bnetd. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add  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  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 ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:03, 29 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:15, 22 July 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified