Re: why is it not open source yet?
Posted: Sun Jan 26, 2025 3:28 am
Duckula wrote:
> [quote=Ragnarok post_id=2750 time=1737823993 user_id=194]
>
> From the first day I saw WG, I knew it was the most advanced bbs of the
> time. But what happened was that it remained stagnant over the years due to
> maintaining this closed development model.
> My question is: in 2025 is it still convenient to keep it like this? What
> are the benefits?
>
> [/quote]
>
> Firstly, WG was never really a closed development model. Source code kits
> were sold by Galacticomm as far back as MBBS V6. It may have been expensive
> but it was available.
>
> Next, I believe Rick has always provided the wg3.2 / wg3.3 SDK to people
> who have requested it.
>
> Yes, there is no equivalent for V10 but that is more of a developer
> resource constraint than anything else.
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, we are finalising a module SDK that will
> have all the V10 LIB and Header files needed to create a V10 module along
> with an example.
>
> Now to the GSBL. This seems to be the sticking point with people who want
> it, probably because it's never been released more than anything else.
> There is a GSBL guide which outlines all the functions so apart from BBA
> reg# and activation code generation routines there is no requirement for
> this to be open source.
>
> I say that for a couple of reasons, firstly is, as you know, MBBS uses an
> activation code to generate a unique BBS reg #. This reg number is used
> extensively throughout the system and identifies systems on MajorLink.
> People compiling and determining their own reg #'s would cause chaos with
> these systems. So an alternative needs to be developed.
>
> Secondly is the fact that people's IP (those who wrote modules) relied on
> this system to protect that IP. Regardless of how long ago that was, I have
> no intention of implementing. Banges that circumvents that IP protection.
>
> Finally, Elwynor Technologies (Questman / Rick) and I have an agreement
> regarding the protection of that IP.
>
> So my question is, what is it with the GSBL that you believe you need that
> you don't already have access to?
that thing will make your eyes hurt... plus even if you compile a new galgsbl.dll you need the gcon utility to inject serial number.
and i am not knocking anyone or their abilities but to mess with that thing, you really have to know what you are doing.
ASM better be a second language to you.
> [quote=Ragnarok post_id=2750 time=1737823993 user_id=194]
>
> From the first day I saw WG, I knew it was the most advanced bbs of the
> time. But what happened was that it remained stagnant over the years due to
> maintaining this closed development model.
> My question is: in 2025 is it still convenient to keep it like this? What
> are the benefits?
>
> [/quote]
>
> Firstly, WG was never really a closed development model. Source code kits
> were sold by Galacticomm as far back as MBBS V6. It may have been expensive
> but it was available.
>
> Next, I believe Rick has always provided the wg3.2 / wg3.3 SDK to people
> who have requested it.
>
> Yes, there is no equivalent for V10 but that is more of a developer
> resource constraint than anything else.
>
> As I mentioned in a previous post, we are finalising a module SDK that will
> have all the V10 LIB and Header files needed to create a V10 module along
> with an example.
>
> Now to the GSBL. This seems to be the sticking point with people who want
> it, probably because it's never been released more than anything else.
> There is a GSBL guide which outlines all the functions so apart from BBA
> reg# and activation code generation routines there is no requirement for
> this to be open source.
>
> I say that for a couple of reasons, firstly is, as you know, MBBS uses an
> activation code to generate a unique BBS reg #. This reg number is used
> extensively throughout the system and identifies systems on MajorLink.
> People compiling and determining their own reg #'s would cause chaos with
> these systems. So an alternative needs to be developed.
>
> Secondly is the fact that people's IP (those who wrote modules) relied on
> this system to protect that IP. Regardless of how long ago that was, I have
> no intention of implementing. Banges that circumvents that IP protection.
>
> Finally, Elwynor Technologies (Questman / Rick) and I have an agreement
> regarding the protection of that IP.
>
> So my question is, what is it with the GSBL that you believe you need that
> you don't already have access to?
that thing will make your eyes hurt... plus even if you compile a new galgsbl.dll you need the gcon utility to inject serial number.
and i am not knocking anyone or their abilities but to mess with that thing, you really have to know what you are doing.
ASM better be a second language to you.