These forums have been archived and are now read-only.

The new forums are live and can be found at https://forums.eveonline.com/

EVE General Discussion

 
  • Topic is locked indefinitely.
 

EVE Central is now dead?

First post
Author
Previous Topic Next Topic
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#61 - 2013-09-05 20:46:07 UTC
Dirk Decibel wrote:
While i'm no lawyer, technically none of the things mentioned in the paragraph is done by cache scraping:

"You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile, or attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code, or from any information accessible through the System (including, without limitation, data packets transmitted to and from the System over the Internet"
That's one part that covers the cache: it's information accessible through the system and part of “[software, system] or anything incorporated therein”.

Quote:
What am i missing?
The bajillion subclauses that characterise legalese. P
Rischwa Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#62 - 2013-09-05 20:56:59 UTC  |  Edited by: Rischwa Amatin
Quote:
Quote:
While i'm no lawyer, technically none of the things mentioned in the paragraph is done by cache scraping:

"You may not reverse engineer, disassemble or decompile, or attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code, or from any information accessible through the System (including, without limitation, data packets transmitted to and from the System over the Internet"

That's one part that covers the cache: it's information accessible through the system and part of “[software, system] or anything incorporated therein”.

No, it isn't, imho. The sentence only refers to the reverse engineering or derivation of source code.
Well, maybe one could argue that the cache reading source code gets derived by reverse engineering the data format AND implementing a program to read it, but then again i don't see how any other file formats could be legally reverse engineered and supported by other applications, which - as mentioned before - is common practice in the industry.
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#63 - 2013-09-05 21:02:46 UTC
Only one opinion matters wrt the EULA.

CCP's.

After all, there's a clause in there saying they can terminate service for whatever reason they want.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Mara Rinn
Cosmic Goo Convertor
#64 - 2013-09-05 21:28:15 UTC
EULA Licence C paragraph 2 wrote:
You may not intercept for any purpose other than playing EVE in accordance with the EULA any information accessible through the System. You may not access the System or upload, download or use information accessible through the System, other than as permitted by the EULA.


CCP Stillman quoted an inappropriate paragraph.

Day 0 Advice for New Players
Rischwa Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#65 - 2013-09-05 21:38:45 UTC
Mara Rinn wrote:
EULA Licence C paragraph 2 wrote:
You may not intercept for any purpose other than playing EVE in accordance with the EULA any information accessible through the System. You may not access the System or upload, download or use information accessible through the System, other than as permitted by the EULA.


CCP Stillman quoted an inappropriate paragraph.

Haha okay, that explains it, thx :)
Spillrag
Neurotoxin Control
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII
#66 - 2013-09-05 21:47:00 UTC
CCP Stillman wrote:
Sable Blitzmann wrote:


But again, I stand by my statement that they are within their right to modify the cache without putting it in the patch notes, especially if something came up that required it to be modified to ensure stability (with new items / features / what have you). Since the cache is not an official third party data source, us developers can't expect them to tell us jack squat about changes.

You're right, technically cache scraping is not currently something the EULA allows for. But as we've stated, it's not something we'll enforce.

In this specific case, the fact that cache scrapers broke is a side-effect of a very major engineering change in the EVE code base that's been in the works for a while. I won't get into the specifics other than the fact from our perspective it's great and wonderful. It's a shame it broke some cache scrapers though, as that was not intentional.

If we decide to make away with the cache, then we'll make sure not to create a huge void in it's place. We had this discussion at Fanfest, and I've had this discussion both with other CCPers and with the CSM lately as to how to remove the cache without causing major disruption.

That's not to promise that anything is going to happen. As a security guy, I can't make promises. But I know there's a desire for the cache to be removed, as it's actually decreasing performance rather than increasing it.




As a computer science student, I would really love to see more dev blogs about the internal changes that happen to the eve client and servers and whatnot.
I Love Boobies
All Hail Boobies
#67 - 2013-09-05 21:48:07 UTC
Seems to be working again. Was just able to use it to check prices of stuff.
Tippia
Sunshine and Lollipops
#68 - 2013-09-05 22:00:14 UTC
Rischwa Amatin wrote:
No, it isn't, imho. The sentence only refers to the reverse engineering or derivation of source code.
Nah. It refers to a lot more — you just have to parse it properly. P

You may not [ reverse engineer | disassemble or decompile | attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code from ] [ all or any portion of the Software | any information accessible through the System | anything incorporated therein ].

The first part enumerates three things you're not allowed to do, and the second part enumerates three parts you're not allowed to do any of it to. Mix and match to taste.

The cache could be seen as “any information accessible through the System” or just caught by the catch-all “anything incorporated therein”, and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer it. Nor are you allowed to disassemble or decompile it. Nor are you allowed to attempt to reverse engineer or derive source-code from it. Whether or not they can be done (such as deriving source-code from the cache) tends to be besides the point.

Quote:
then again i don't see how any other file formats could be legally reverse engineered and supported by other applications, which - as mentioned before - is common practice in the industry.

In many cases, it wasn't allowed, based on similar boilerplate text, but the manufacturers didn't care because it was handy if more software could be tied to their product — kind of like CCP's stance: “yeah, not allowed but go ahead because we won't care”. In other cases, it was just licensed out. Iirc, as far as the legal system it usually depends on whether you're aiming for interoperability or creating a competing product, but that will vary with the country.
Rischwa Amatin
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#69 - 2013-09-05 22:32:02 UTC
Tippia wrote:
Rischwa Amatin wrote:
No, it isn't, imho. The sentence only refers to the reverse engineering or derivation of source code.
Nah. It refers to a lot more — you just have to parse it properly. P

You may not [ reverse engineer | disassemble or decompile | attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code from ] [ all or any portion of the Software | any information accessible through the System | anything incorporated therein ].

The first part enumerates three things you're not allowed to do, and the second part enumerates three parts you're not allowed to do any of it to. Mix and match to taste.

They way you write it, it could make sense, but the text cited before had a ',' in the ", from all or any portion of the software", which makes your parsing invalid, imho, but i'm no native speaker.

Quote:
Quote:
then again i don't see how any other file formats could be legally reverse engineered and supported by other applications, which - as mentioned before - is common practice in the industry.

In many cases, it wasn't allowed, based on similar boilerplate text, but the manufacturers didn't care because it was handy if more software could be tied to their product — kind of like CCP's stance: “yeah, not allowed but go ahead because we won't care”. In other cases, it was just licensed out. Iirc, as far as the legal system it usually depends on whether you're aiming for interoperability or creating a competing product, but that will vary with the country.

Well i'm convinced that if it would have been illegal, A LOT of companies would enforce that, because denying competitors access to data was/is a main reason for a closed format in the first place.
In the CAD world you afaik even had companies changing the format around with different releases, so the competitors, which reverse engineered the data formats, were no longer able to read the files.
Caerfinon
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#70 - 2013-09-06 01:36:59 UTC
I Love Boobies wrote:
Seems to be working again. Was just able to use it to check prices of stuff.


new version of EVEMON seems to be uploading again....

Cheers C.

@Caerfinon - Twitter
Myriad Blaze
Common Sense Ltd
Nulli Secunda
#71 - 2013-09-06 07:51:25 UTC
Rischwa Amatin wrote:
Quote:
Quote:
then again i don't see how any other file formats could be legally reverse engineered and supported by other applications, which - as mentioned before - is common practice in the industry.

In many cases, it wasn't allowed, based on similar boilerplate text, but the manufacturers didn't care because it was handy if more software could be tied to their product — kind of like CCP's stance: “yeah, not allowed but go ahead because we won't care”. In other cases, it was just licensed out. Iirc, as far as the legal system it usually depends on whether you're aiming for interoperability or creating a competing product, but that will vary with the country.

Well i'm convinced that if it would have been illegal, A LOT of companies would enforce that, because denying competitors access to data was/is a main reason for a closed format in the first place.
In the CAD world you afaik even had companies changing the format around with different releases, so the competitors, which reverse engineered the data formats, were no longer able to read the files.

You should consider that legal enforcement costs money. And that going to trial is a roll of the dice - one can never predict the outcome (that's one of the reasons why you should go for a settlement in many cases). And even if you win the case or end up settling the case for a lot more than the case is worth, you can lose (a lot of) money if the defendant does not have the financial resources to pay up. So unless damage may occur as a result of the behavior of the person(s) in question, why take legal action?
dexington
Caldari Provisions
Caldari State
#72 - 2013-09-06 08:09:56 UTC
Tippia wrote:
You may not [ reverse engineer | disassemble or decompile | attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code from ] [ all or any portion of the Software | any information accessible through the System | anything incorporated therein ].

The first part enumerates three things you're not allowed to do, and the second part enumerates three parts you're not allowed to do any of it to. Mix and match to taste.


Are the cache files CCP property and legally part of the eve software?, i understand the the EULA says you are not allowed to reverse the software.

If the cache files are not legally a part of the application, would it not be legal to give the cache files to a 3. party, who extract data from the cache files?

If you didn't sign the EULA would you then break any rules by extracting data from the cache files?

I'm a relatively respectable citizen. Multiple felon perhaps, but certainly not dangerous.
Sal Landry
School of Applied Knowledge
Caldari State
#73 - 2013-09-06 14:14:07 UTC
dexington wrote:
Are the cache files CCP property and legally part of the eve software?

My computer and everything on it are my own property thank you very much. CCP does not own or have rights to anything on it, and if they think they can tell me what to do with my own property then there is always the unsub button
Steve Ronuken
Fuzzwork Enterprises
Vote Steve Ronuken for CSM
#74 - 2013-09-06 14:19:11 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
dexington wrote:
Are the cache files CCP property and legally part of the eve software?

My computer and everything on it are my own property thank you very much. CCP does not own or have rights to anything on it, and if they think they can tell me what to do with my own property then there is always the unsub button



I think you'll find that you don't, due to the way that copyright (and other intellectual property) works, with licensing.

You don't buy software. You buy the right to use it, under very specific circumstances. Break those, and you no longer have the right to retain the copy.

Woo! CSM XI!

Fuzzwork Enterprises

Twitter: @fuzzysteve on Twitter
Kal Arkhenty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#75 - 2013-09-06 20:22:22 UTC
Tippia wrote:

You may not [ reverse engineer | disassemble or decompile | attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code from ] [ all or any portion of the Software | any information accessible through the System | anything incorporated therein ].

The first part enumerates three things you're not allowed to do, and the second part enumerates three parts you're not allowed to do any of it to. Mix and match to taste.

The cache could be seen as “any information accessible through the System” or just caught by the catch-all “anything incorporated therein”, and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer it. Nor are you allowed to disassemble or decompile it. Nor are you allowed to attempt to reverse engineer or derive source-code from it. Whether or not they can be done (such as deriving source-code from the cache) tends to be besides the point.

The way the EULA is written makes it possible to make nonsensical, albeit EULA-valid, arguments:

{rant} When I play EvE I have to constantly decompile/decrypt information. A lot of this information is presented through a screen encoded in a format called "text", a series of symbols such as "letters" are used to form "words"; there are also other symbols such as "spaces" and "punctuation" that allow for complex arrangements of "words" into things like "sentences". Different encodings exist such as "English", "French" and "German", also known a "languages". The decryption method is usually referred to as "reading". Sometimes intermediate steps are required such as "translation" in which "words" and/or "sentences" can be ported from one "language" to another.

So is reading against the EULA? "No", you'll say, "unless you are being aided by a tool not provided by CCP". OK, so if I need a tool to read it, such as "glasses", is this then against the EULA? {/rant}

Lawyers are abusive. These EULAs are written so that they can argue anything they want and it will be valid.
Lady Areola Fappington
#76 - 2013-09-06 22:34:00 UTC
Kal Arkhenty wrote:
Tippia wrote:

You may not [ reverse engineer | disassemble or decompile | attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code from ] [ all or any portion of the Software | any information accessible through the System | anything incorporated therein ].

The first part enumerates three things you're not allowed to do, and the second part enumerates three parts you're not allowed to do any of it to. Mix and match to taste.

The cache could be seen as “any information accessible through the System” or just caught by the catch-all “anything incorporated therein”, and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer it. Nor are you allowed to disassemble or decompile it. Nor are you allowed to attempt to reverse engineer or derive source-code from it. Whether or not they can be done (such as deriving source-code from the cache) tends to be besides the point.

The way the EULA is written makes it possible to make nonsensical, albeit EULA-valid, arguments:

{rant} When I play EvE I have to constantly decompile/decrypt information. A lot of this information is presented through a screen encoded in a format called "text", a series of symbols such as "letters" are used to form "words"; there are also other symbols such as "spaces" and "punctuation" that allow for complex arrangements of "words" into things like "sentences". Different encodings exist such as "English", "French" and "German", also known a "languages". The decryption method is usually referred to as "reading". Sometimes intermediate steps are required such as "translation" in which "words" and/or "sentences" can be ported from one "language" to another.

So is reading against the EULA? "No", you'll say, "unless you are being aided by a tool not provided by CCP". OK, so if I need a tool to read it, such as "glasses", is this then against the EULA? {/rant}

Lawyers are abusive. These EULAs are written so that they can argue anything they want and it will be valid.



That would be the point with most EULA type documents. They are there to cover the issuing company's backside.


Lets say tomorrow you find a magic clause in the EULA that permits you to bot. "Ah-ha!", you exclaim, "My 500 bot mining fleet is legal now, the EULA says so!" I promise you that, very quickly, a new EULA will be set out that prohibits your activity.

Hell, if CCP were crazy and dumb enough to do it, they could say "Mining is now against EULA", leave the entire mining system in EVE, and just ban people who engaged in mining. EULA trumps anything the system allows you to do, and the EULA is under sole control of the issuing company, at least until you bring it before a judge.

7.2 CAN I AVOID PVP COMPLETELY? No; there are no systems or locations in New Eden where PvP may be completely avoided. --Eve New Player Guide
GreenSeed
#77 - 2013-09-06 22:38:52 UTC
Sal Landry wrote:
dexington wrote:
Are the cache files CCP property and legally part of the eve software?

My computer and everything on it are my own property thank you very much. CCP does not own or have rights to anything on it, and if they think they can tell me what to do with my own property then there is always the unsub button

then unsub, legally CCP owns the memory region the game runs in, and by "own" i do mean own, in the absolute sense of the word. also "running" the software means making a licensed copy of part of the software on your ram, that license can be revoked at any time, if you run the software with no license, you are infringing their copyright and can get sued... it can even qualify as a misdemeanor if the copyright holder is a jerk and wants to make you miserable.

welcome to the future.
Caviar Liberta
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#78 - 2013-09-06 23:31:22 UTC
Kal Arkhenty wrote:
Tippia wrote:

You may not [ reverse engineer | disassemble or decompile | attempt to reverse engineer or derive source code from ] [ all or any portion of the Software | any information accessible through the System | anything incorporated therein ].

The first part enumerates three things you're not allowed to do, and the second part enumerates three parts you're not allowed to do any of it to. Mix and match to taste.

The cache could be seen as “any information accessible through the System” or just caught by the catch-all “anything incorporated therein”, and you are not allowed to reverse-engineer it. Nor are you allowed to disassemble or decompile it. Nor are you allowed to attempt to reverse engineer or derive source-code from it. Whether or not they can be done (such as deriving source-code from the cache) tends to be besides the point.

The way the EULA is written makes it possible to make nonsensical, albeit EULA-valid, arguments:

{rant} When I play EvE I have to constantly decompile/decrypt information. A lot of this information is presented through a screen encoded in a format called "text", a series of symbols such as "letters" are used to form "words"; there are also other symbols such as "spaces" and "punctuation" that allow for complex arrangements of "words" into things like "sentences". Different encodings exist such as "English", "French" and "German", also known a "languages". The decryption method is usually referred to as "reading". Sometimes intermediate steps are required such as "translation" in which "words" and/or "sentences" can be ported from one "language" to another.

So is reading against the EULA? "No", you'll say, "unless you are being aided by a tool not provided by CCP". OK, so if I need a tool to read it, such as "glasses", is this then against the EULA? {/rant}

Lawyers are abusive. These EULAs are written so that they can argue anything they want and it will be valid.


But of course the majority of the the EULA is there to protect the companies intellectual property, wouldn't you agree? Reverse engineering or decompilation of the software is to keep people from finding ways to make the software do things it wasn't intended to do no? Or take it a step further, using parts of the source code to create something and saying its your work?
Kal Arkhenty
The Scope
Gallente Federation
#79 - 2013-09-07 00:29:16 UTC
Caviar Liberta wrote:

But of course the majority of the the EULA is there to protect the companies intellectual property, wouldn't you agree? Reverse engineering or decompilation of the software is to keep people from finding ways to make the software do things it wasn't intended to do no? Or take it a step further, using parts of the source code to create something and saying its your work?

I am not talking about the need or purpose of an EULA; I am commenting on the way in which they are redacted.
Frostys Virpio
State War Academy
Caldari State
#80 - 2013-09-07 00:37:45 UTC
Rischwa Amatin wrote:

They way you write it, it could make sense, but the text cited before had a ',' in the ", from all or any portion of the software", which makes your parsing invalid, imho, but i'm no native speaker.




Would't the cache technically be part of the software? Can the software run without that file? What if you were to prevent the game from even re-creating it after it got cleared?