Quote:
|
It's specifically because of that developers that sell plugins don't want to include source code and add "protections" inside the compiled plugin. All the hard work and time you spent to develop the plugin it's basically being thrown in trash when they share it for free, as you did to sell only.
|
They are doing illegal things. If you want more control over your code, then stop writting amxx plugins and create your own hlsdk integration with your own license(if you can do that while using hlsdk).
I don't understand why people can't get this simple concept: if you use a product you explicitly agree with it's license. AMXX is a product and has a license, which states that you are not allowed to distribute only compiled binaries.
It's not rocket science.
Quote:
|
There we go again... if you're referring decompiler with "reverse engineered software" you're completly wrong, I'm totally against decompilers. Now if you're referring to amxx itself, there's nothing related between decompiler and compiler in the context I was referring, don't mix the things.
|
If you are totally against decompilers, then why are you using ReGameDLL and ReHLDS? You know that "RE" means reverse engineered, right? Reverse engineering in really simple terms means to use a decompiler to recreate the source from the compiled binary.
The guys behind ReHLDS/ReGameDLL did not ask for Valve's permissions, moreover Valve clearly states you are not allowed to reverse engineer their stuff.
Quote:
|
I understood, but what @Hamlet said still make no sense.
|
It should be crystal clear why I'm talking about hypocrisy. You can not use decompiled code and then be against decompilers, without being a hypocrite.
For example I use a lot ReGameDLL and ReHLDS as references while coding, but I'm not against decompilers either, thus there's no issue.
Give this a shot:
https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html
This is what you agreed with when you wrote amxx plugins.
__________________