[HN Gopher] Leaked source - CS:GO
___________________________________________________________________
Leaked source - CS:GO
Author : wastedbrains
Score : 192 points
Date : 2023-06-03 14:39 UTC (8 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (lwss.github.io)
(TXT) w3m dump (lwss.github.io)
| cssONLY wrote:
| [flagged]
| pharmakom wrote:
| it says one of the leakers was arrested? is there a source for
| this?
| GaggiX wrote:
| I dream of a day when the source code for Mario Kart Wii is
| leaked (my favorite game), but I guess CS:Go and TF2 is already
| something.
|
| But to be honest, in the future there will be powerful models
| trained to reverse engineer binaries, so it probably won't be
| necessary.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| There's a vibrant Mario Kart Wii mapmaking community and you
| can run the game flawlessly using Dolphin. It's not perfect,
| but it's about as good as we can hope for.
| GaggiX wrote:
| I play modded Mario Kart Wii almost everyday on my modded Wii
| U, there are so many beautiful community tracks.
|
| Creating tracks is fairly easy, the community has already
| reverse engineer all you need, changing the game behavior by
| modifying the main.dol and StaticR.rel is not (that's why a
| source leak or a complete reverse engineering would be gold).
| Jack5500 wrote:
| This world view is quite perplexing, to be frank. On one hand, he
| urges potential users to switch to Linux, emphasizing its cost-
| free nature and the freedom it offers in terms of code and game
| direction. However, on the other hand, the code being used is
| stolen and leaked, thus infringing on the original creator's
| copyright. Additionally, the repository's license claims that all
| contributions are considered public domain, which adds to the
| oddity of the situation. Since there is no legitimate license
| permitting the existence of this code, it is even more peculiar
| that a custom license is being invented, allowing contributions
| to this clearly stolen source code to be considered public
| domain.
| smoldesu wrote:
| I was also confused, but I think their thesis statement is
| pretty enlightening:
|
| > If we got nuked tomorrow, and Steam went down, anyone could
| have CSGO up and running in the Bunker LAN by next week. Years
| later when us smoothskins are rockin' Power9 Rigs, we would
| also have the ability to recompile and port the game.
|
| The lip service to "Open Source" and white-knighting is a
| little harsh, but I think this was made with honest intention.
| Someone wanted to make a thing and offer it to others in the
| spirit of open collaboration. Their wording is wrong, but their
| heart is in the right place.
| netule wrote:
| Valve has been relatively permissive regarding open-sourcing
| and liberally licensing some of its properties under the
| right conditions. See its push for SteamOS and allowing Black
| Mesa to be sold for profit. However, it might have been a
| good idea to contact them about this before hosting modified
| stolen property, even if it was with good intentions. I've
| got a feeling that this repo won't last too long.
| dandongus wrote:
| >I've got a feeling that this repo won't last too long.
|
| It appears the repo in question has been available for 3
| years.
| asddubs wrote:
| they're a bit confused about their terminology, but i think
| they are just coming at it from an archivist perspective. they
| wanted something that is self contained and can be used to
| compile the game for any platform
| vjk800 wrote:
| In jurisdictions with weak/non-existing copyright laws or
| copyright law enforcement, there is not much difference between
| "the source code can be found somewhere on the internet" and
| "open source". Quite a large part of the world people is living
| in such jurisdictions.
| [deleted]
| FileSorter wrote:
| Checking his github account was no surprise to me. Of course it
| was loaded with cheats for multiplayer games.
| 93po wrote:
| Open source cheats for multiplayer games are a benefit to
| everyone who doesn't want cheaters.
| RobotToaster wrote:
| If you consider illegalism a legitimate political tool, there
| doesn't seem a great deal of contradiction.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| It's unlicensed proprietary code, you cannot use it.
| quazar wrote:
| Who is going to stop me?
| RektBoy wrote:
| Mighty global police named U.S.A. greedy mfkers.
| 29athrowaway wrote:
| 1. github
|
| 2. Hacker News
| 93po wrote:
| I'm using it right now.
| metafatess wrote:
| no
| xwdv wrote:
| I think we will begin to see more projects like this as it
| becomes trivial to take some leaked source code, and hand it off
| to an AI and tell it to make it non-copyright infringing.
|
| Eventually the next natural progression is to hand over an entire
| program's binary, and have the AI produce an equivalent code base
| in whatever language you wish.
|
| In response, this will usher in a new era of very thin clients,
| or perhaps server based rendering of programs.
| oleg_antonyan wrote:
| [flagged]
| codethief wrote:
| Given the proprietary nature of most of the source code, I'm
| surprised the author's Github account hasn't been suspended yet.
| The blog post is from 2020 and everything's still online.
| kristopolous wrote:
| For other people totally confused, all these acronyms are for
| video games
| babuloseo wrote:
| The best CS:GO was when they didn't have competitive mode XD
| metadat wrote:
| Anyone have a magnet link to the original full.7z as a torrent?
|
| _< Edit: The best I can find so far are these~>_
|
| [1] https://git.botox.bz/BotoX/hl2_src-
| leak-2017/src/commit/21b3...
|
| [2] https://hl2-beta.ru/index.php?topic=29120.0
|
| Both of which lead to:
|
| magnet:?xt=urn:btih:21dda6847dde983f2f8063739249d2d1d09a5dda
|
| "April 22nd 2020, random leaked shit.rar" / 5.0GB
|
| MD5: c053f2b60d104f61c3057d3d425abd25
|
| SHA256:
| f77c6124b35b3a44966aa904cccc178342957e0e2d42e8588e240ce9533d6096
|
| _< /Edit>_
|
| Also, really admire the level of skill, dedication, and degree of
| focus it took to pull this off. I'm good at most of the areas
| used in this article, except the RE, and this was undoubtedly a
| TON of work for one lone wolf to execute on! Huge respect for
| this person. Then creating such an amazingly detailed technical
| write-up with the entertaining story bits and cute references
| like ".. us smoothskins ..", I had to look it up:
|
| https://fallout.fandom.com/wiki/Smoothskin
|
| Thank you so much, @LWSS (the author)!
| sylware wrote:
| And cs2 is about to be released. Funny timing.
|
| You could dev a PC AAA game and released it only for elf/linux.
| It is so easy to install free mainstream elf/linux distros, ppl
| will probably do it to play that big PC AAA game.
| jablala wrote:
| Probably a good thing as from my understanding there is an
| uncertainty whether a version of CSGO will exist. For example
| there are some old patch versions available from circa ~2013
| which are still playable.
|
| Not sure if that will be possible after the move to CS2. You
| would think so, but at the very least, "Kisak-Strike: Gentoo
| Offensive" will exist.
| saratogacx wrote:
| I'm not sure I understand this point. Can't you still play
| CS:Source and CS 1.6? Why wouldn't CS:Go keep operating. It
| may not get as many content updates but the core game should
| be able to keep going as long as Valve keeps the game servers
| running.
| piperswe wrote:
| Considering that Counter-Strike 2's beta is being
| distributed as a private DLC for CS:GO [1], it's possible
| that CS 2 will entirely replace CS:GO.
|
| [1]: https://steamdb.info/app/2279720/
| jrflowers wrote:
| > Some weird schizoid managed to grab both these codebases during
| his work on some 900th attempt of a HL2 VR project and his major
| goal was to have this circle leak it to the public and fly to his
| girlfriends house (also involved in the valve community) and kill
| himself and her.
|
| What the _fuck?_ This is so weird.
| gatkinso wrote:
| its finally the year of the linux desktop
| sodality2 wrote:
| (2020)
| [deleted]
| T3RMINATED wrote:
| [dead]
| Aeroi wrote:
| dope, can you make my macbook run 1.6?
| kowalej wrote:
| No need to even install. Play right in the browser:
| https://play-cs.com.
| opan wrote:
| The title says "open source" but then goes on to talk about
| leaked source. Unless a clean room RE was done, I don't think
| this can be called "open source". I want the thing in the title
| to exist, of course, but at best this seems like the sort of
| thing that won't be legal and free until we're all dead.
|
| If anyone was interested in making a properly free CS:GO, they
| probably should avoid reading this post as it seems to show the
| leaked source.
| EamonnMR wrote:
| AssaultCube was a pretty good foss CS clone, no idea if people
| still play it though.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| For a lot of people, "the source code being available" is what
| "open source" means.
|
| Licences, to many people, are the domain of really fucking
| boring crusty nerds.
| packetlost wrote:
| Then a lot of people are objectively wrong. The license is an
| incredibly important and central part of what makes code open
| source or not. What you're describing is "source available".
| Failure to pay attention to the licensing can end you up in
| very big and expensive legal trouble. I _strongly_ encourage
| you to update your terminology for you and anyone you
| communicate with 's own safety.
| fullspectrumdev wrote:
| Again: most people I know don't care. Many used to. Hell, I
| used to.
|
| If they use a licence, they just throw WTFPL on it and call
| it a day like me.
|
| What's the worst risk? Someone in America sues me? Big
| deal.
| hparadiz wrote:
| The license isn't enforcable everywhere the same way.
| Typically a license is in a project but not always. It's
| kind of on you to figure that out.
| jaimehrubiks wrote:
| I got the same impression, is he suggesting that the code
| itself is open source, or did he rewrite everything (not only
| the binaries he mentioned)
| ogurechny wrote:
| Intellectual property is a convention. Saying that nothing
| exists outside of that convention is like saying that someone
| without official papers does not exist (which is,
| unfortunately, not an odd occasional curiosity, but a hidden
| assumption permeating everyone's lives).
|
| This is an open source code. It is not compatible with
| widespread economical system, but it is not any less open.
| dizhn wrote:
| This person is really confused about licenses and copyright.
|
| > Please note that this code is property of Valve-Software and
| any contributions that you make are considered a donation into
| the public domain.
| BasedAnon wrote:
| This is a common 'copyright infringement NOT intended ALL
| rights belong to X' type of widespread misunderstanding of
| how copyright actually works, and it's why I'm convinced that
| if most people understood copyright they would think it was
| absurd.
| PrimeMcFly wrote:
| The sheer amount of YouTube videos where people put that as
| a disclaimer so think it's fine is kind of shocking.
| [deleted]
| ethanbond wrote:
| Legitimately seems like a GPT-tier confusion. Just put all
| the somewhat-relevant words in a syntactically correct
| configuration and call it done.
| DizzyDoo wrote:
| Heh, it's like all those YouTube videos where someone
| uploads a song and the uploader puts "No copyright
| infringement intended" in the text description, sometimes
| with five or six exclamation marks just to really make sure
| they avoid the takedown.
| plorkyeran wrote:
| Often they drop the "infringement" and just have "no
| copyright intended" because they don't actually know what
| copyright is beyond it being a word in the emails they
| get from youtube.
| awestroke wrote:
| What are you talking about? GPT4 would not do that kind of
| mistake. I must say, reading comments like this, that GPT4
| actually comes across as more intelligent than many hn
| commenters
| arboles wrote:
| Unlike other commenters, I think the author of the article
| meant to say you can't hope to license contributions built
| ontop leaked code, obviously, so it'll always be a gray area
| that one could call "public domain".
| kadoban wrote:
| One could call it pea soup and it'd be approximately as
| correct.
| arboles wrote:
| He's a hacker, not a laywer.
| RektBoy wrote:
| what the fk cares about copyright, this is coming from
| community of game hackers. They don't care.
| dgellow wrote:
| Anyone who cares about open source by definition cares about
| copyright. That's what the concepts of free software and open
| source software are built upon.
| ogurechny wrote:
| Wow.
|
| Free software movement _abuses_ the copyright system to
| prevent anyone from "owning" the software and putting a
| fence around others ' work when greed tells it's suitable
| to do so. It has no intention to support its existence. As
| people only have that mediocre system today, and believe in
| it, it is used as a tool to partially formalize something
| from a different sphere of values.
| dgellow wrote:
| I think you misread my comment, at no point did I express
| that free software intents to support the existence of
| copyright. But free software and open source are
| obviously built on top of the copyright system, as you
| said (they are a kind of hack). So you obviously care
| about copyright frameworks and their various
| implementations if you care about open source/free
| software.
| ogurechny wrote:
| One can totally care about an illness, but not CARE about
| it much.
| arboles wrote:
| I will continue to release my code without a license, glad
| that it makes corporations and their drones seethe.
| dgellow wrote:
| That just means you have full and complete ownership, so
| you're sharing non-open source, non-free software code,
| also known as proprietary code. That has literally no
| impact on corporations or their drones, whatever that
| means.
| 93po wrote:
| > That has literally no impact on corporations or their
| drones, whatever that means.
|
| It does if they want to use his code for anything. The
| parent commenter is also clearly making the point that
| his efforts are to be used by people who share the same
| sentiment of "fuck copyright". Which I think is a noble
| perspective, since IP laws in the US are much more bad
| than good.
| [deleted]
| orra wrote:
| General point: Clean room reverse engineering is a common
| approach, from corporations keen to minimise their liability.
|
| Nonetheless, clean room RE is not a legal requirement:
| certainly not in the EU, nor AIUI in the US.
|
| The EU allows reverse engineering for interoperability. The EU
| allows reimplementations of APIs (as does the US). The EU also
| explicitly allows decompilation, where necessary.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| That's true, but it doesn't change your parent's point - this
| cannot be called "open source" at all.
| dgellow wrote:
| Wait, there are EU regulations on this topic? I understood
| there wasn't a common framework, and instead each countries
| in the EU have their own approach.
|
| Edit: I was wrong, I found the following:
| https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Computer_Programs_Directive
|
| > (Art. 5). The legal owner of a program is assumed to have a
| licence to create any copies necessary to use the program and
| to alter the program within its intended purpose (e.g. for
| error correction). The legal owner may also make a back-up
| copy for his or her personal use. The program may also be
| decompiled if this is necessary to ensure it operates with
| another program or device (Art. 6), but the results of the
| decompilation may not be used for any other purpose without
| infringing the copyright in the program.
| scott_w wrote:
| In a general sense, yes. However, I really don't see how this
| would fall into that category. It looks like someone has a
| copy illegitimately and is trying to reimplement it.
| ramshanker wrote:
| That will be helpful with my open source projects. Thanks.
| [deleted]
| antris wrote:
| Well that's the difference between "open source" and "free
| software", no? "Open source", meaning that anyone can see/copy
| the source code, and "free software" meaning code that is
| licensed accordingly.
|
| I always thought that "open source" has nothing to do with
| what's legal and what isn't, it just means that anyone can
| materially access the code.
| asddubs wrote:
| no, that would be something like "source available" or
| "source visible". both open source and free software imply
| specific licenses, though they are not synonymous
| wyldfire wrote:
| No. Both of these terms are well described by the relevant
| organizations [1][2]. And "source the happens to be public"
| or "leaked source" does not imply any particular license.
|
| [1] https://opensource.org/
|
| [2] https://www.fsf.org/
| amelius wrote:
| Anyone can start an organisation and define "open source"
| the way they want.
|
| The common way it is understood should probably be named
| "libre source" or something, because it means more than
| that the source is just out in the open.
| scott_w wrote:
| That's no different to saying "You can define black as
| white." That's true but nobody is going to pay attention
| to you if you do.
| amelius wrote:
| The analogy falls flat because the words that make "open
| source" both already have meanings that make the OSI
| definition confusing to say the least.
| scott_w wrote:
| That's not how human languages work at all. A term picks
| up common or agreed use. When you try to push against
| that, you see the exact reaction you're observing here.
| seba_dos1 wrote:
| Sure anyone can, but OSI is _the_ organization that
| popularized the term in the first place and its
| definition is widely followed, so there 's no need to
| make such point in this particular case.
| version_five wrote:
| I feel like there is a consensus that open source is
| defined as you say. But there seems to be a vocal group,
| that I suspect are mostly just being pedantic about the
| literal definition of the two words separately that seem to
| keep coming up with alternate definitions. There was a long
| discussion about it on here the other day with tons of
| people "confusing" the availability of source code with
| open source.
| antris wrote:
| I mean, you're not saying that this project is "closed
| source" either, right?
|
| So what is it if not "open source" on the scale between
| closed and open? "Half-open source"? "Leaked source" only
| refers to the way the source has initially began to be
| distributed, not whether it's open/closed right now.
| dgellow wrote:
| It's more like someone illegally distributing a closed
| source program.
| mrob wrote:
| The middle ground is "source available", although that
| usually means source made available by the copyright
| holder under terms that don't meet the Open Source/Free
| Software definitions. I think just "leaked source" is the
| best terminology here.
| ZoomZoomZoom wrote:
| Source Available is the worst of both, unless there's a
| way to reproducibly build the source and check the
| results against the shipped product. False sense of
| security and no legal ways to use the code.
| antris wrote:
| Ah, found it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Source-
| available_software
|
| I see, never heard of that term. Still wish there was a
| term that encompassed all software that has publically
| available source code. I thought "open source" was it.
| The literal meaning of the term aligns so beautifully
| with it.
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2023-06-03 23:01 UTC)