openkore.com.br situation

[iMikeLance]

The thing I'm still having trouble with is: I don't know how to identify a packet's ID when using some packet's pacture tool. I'm using wire shark, but I don't know where to find the packet's ID... could youhelp with that?

They're always the first 2 bytes.

[daggerblade]

im extracting it directly from ragexe. the packets and the id

[ever_boy_]

The thing I'm still having trouble with is: I don't know how to identify a packet's ID when using some packet's pacture tool. I'm using wire shark, but I don't know where to find the packet's ID... could youhelp with that?

They're always the first 2 bytes.

What are the first one? down right or top left?

The first ones from the top left are always the same, so I touhgt it couldn't be them.

Also, are they show encrypted in openkore? So I'd have to rever the encryption system in bRO.pm?

[iMikeLance]

The thing I'm still having trouble with is: I don't know how to identify a packet's ID when using some packet's pacture tool. I'm using wire shark, but I don't know where to find the packet's ID... could youhelp with that?

They're always the first 2 bytes.

I forgot to say that those packetIDs(only the ID) are encrypted. You have to do the inverse of what kore does with sent packets in order to discover what's the real (initial) packetID. You could save your sniffer's log as a text file and create a script to analyse and calculate what's needed.

They are the top left ones. If you turn on debug options yes, they are shown encrypted. If you're talking about inserting them into Openkore, no, there's a function that calculates them against the encryption keys.

[Technology]

note: this is not a technical post, but a community post
About the topic
Why the hell is all this drama needed?

If bRO is broken & you have it fixed locally, the only socially acceptable and respectable thing to do is to include that fix it in the OK project and share it with the community. Here's why (and I mean this in general, just so you know that I'm not targeting anyone):

OK is open source software, giving everyone on the planet the freedom to use it, edit it, improve it, fix it.
It exists only because people like kLabMouse, EternalHarvest and everyone who has ever contributed to the project, had respect for the work people had put into the project before them and contributed their local fixes/improvements back. What a lot of users seem to forget is that all OK users owe these people their respect. So please, I welcome you all to the list of people who I and all users owe respect to, and all you have to do really is to contribute your stuff back to kore. But if you choose to be an antisocial bastard and try to make money off the back off all these people who I so dearly have respect for, well...
Let me tell you a little story about the history of all closed source bots... They died. The End!
Oh, and the same thing seems to happen to closed forums/discussion rooms too, so I've heard.

If you still feel like people should be able to reward you for your effort or provided service establish a way to allow donations (like the OK download service does).

And to those who are actively and openly working on a open solution, keep up the good work!
You could always blog or make a post on the forum about your findings, to teach others what you've learned, so next time, they'll be able to do this work for you.
United we stand, divided we fall.

[5e13ct]

(...)

If you read the license GLP well also, you can sell products, but can not sell the products without authorization
creators of the service.

For example, i invent a way to automatically update the list of items kore, until i can sell this product
but also have to provide the source code for all, and authorization also responsible for the project kore.

Example terms you ant-GLP is Microsoft, it disponibiza their products but does not release the source code of their products.

(...)
The GPL has no explicit indemnification clause protecting the contribution unscrupulous developers. For example, if a project is GPL plus a patented or copyrighted work, violating the terms of these, everyone involved in this project, not only the person who wrongfully took possession of the works of others, will be prosecuted for damages to the patent holder or copyright. This was a problem that led Mozilla to create and use the Mozilla Public License rather than GPL or LGPL.

Some software developers ended up concluding that the extensive scope GPL is too restrictive. For example, Bjorn Reese and Daniel Stenberg felt their choice GPL has created a "quodque pro quo" (from the Latin, all in return for something) to other software developers when they tried to link the projects. For this reason, in 2001, they GPLLv2 abandoned in favor of a less restrictive copyright.
(...)by: GNU General Public License

[PT-BR]
Se você ler bem a licença GLP também, é possível vender produtos, mas, não é possível vender produtos sem autorização dos
criadores do serviço.

Por exemplo, eu invento uma maneira de atualizar automaticamente a lista de itens do kore, eu até posso vender esse produto,
mas, também tenho que disponibilizar o código fonte para todos e também autorização do responsável pelo projeto kore.

Exemplo te termos ant-GLP é a Microsoft, ela disponibiza seus produtos mas não libera o código fonte de seus produtos.

(...)
A GPL não tem cláusula de indenização explícita protegendo os desenvolvedores de contribuição inescrupulosa. Por exemplo, se um projeto GPL é acrescido de um trabalho patenteado ou sob copyright, violando os termos destes, todos os envolvidos neste projeto, não só a pessoa que se apossou indevidamente dos trabalhos alheios, serão processados por danos ao detentor da patente ou do direito de cópia. Este foi um problema que levou Mozilla a criar e usar a Mozilla Public License em vez da GPL ou LGPL.

Alguns desenvolvedores de software acabaram concluindo que o escopo extensivo da GPL é muito restritivo. Por exemplo, Bjorn Reese e Daniel Stenberg sentiram que sua escolha pela GPL criou um “quodque pro quo” (do latim, tudo em retorno de algo) aos outros desenvolvedores de softwares, quando estes tentavam linkar os projetos. Por essa razão, em 2001, eles abandonaram a GPLLv2 em favor de uma copyright menos restritiva.
(...)fonte: GNU General Public License

[daggerblade]

note: this is not a technical post, but a community post
About the topic


And to those who are actively working on a solution, please blog or make a post on the forum about your findings, to teach others what you've learned, so next time, they'll be able to do this work for you.
United we stand, divided we fall.

we are http://forums.openkore.com/viewtopic.ph ... 064#p64064

As soon as openkore is working in the official server if i figure out ill make a guide myself explaining every detail of the findings klab provided us.

[Technology]

note: this is not a technical post, but a community post
About the topic


And to those who are actively working on a solution, please blog or make a post on the forum about your findings, to teach others what you've learned, so next time, they'll be able to do this work for you.
United we stand, divided we fall.

we are http://forums.openkore.com/viewtopic.ph ... 064#p64064

As soon as openkore is working in the official server if i figure out ill make a guide myself explaining every detail of the findings klab provided us.

Thats awesome ++daggerblade! And I wish you guys the best of luck.
(yes, postincrement, hehe)

[EternalHarvest]

GLP

Yeah.

If you read the license GLP well also, you can sell products, but can not sell the products without authorization creators of the service.

No. So-called "creators" already licensed the software to you under GPL terms. You can modify and distribute it under GPL terms without any further authorization.

Also openkore is not a service.

For example, i invent a way to automatically update the list of items kore, until i can sell this product...

This sentense is messed up, but if that would be a standalone software (and why not), it would have nothing to do with openkore's GPL license. It could be distributed under any license.

but also have to provide the source code for all, and authorization also responsible for the project kore.

Example terms you ant-GLP is Microsoft, it disponibiza their products but does not release the source code of their products.

You need to provide full source code if you're distributing any binaries. Yet nobody in this topic posted exactly what you were able to "buy" as these fixes. If you claim that it was a standalone software not dependent on any external services, you could have just contributed all of it into openkore. Nobody did.

If it was some kind of service, as already hinted in this topic, it's a different story.

(...)
The GPL has no explicit indemnification clause protecting the contribution unscrupulous developers. For example, if a project is GPL plus a patented or copyrighted work, violating the terms of these, everyone involved in this project, not only the person who wrongfully took possession of the works of others, will be prosecuted for damages to the patent holder or copyright. This was a problem that led Mozilla to create and use the Mozilla Public License rather than GPL or LGPL.

Some software developers ended up concluding that the extensive scope GPL is too restrictive. For example, Bjorn Reese and Daniel Stenberg felt their choice GPL has created a "quodque pro quo" (from the Latin, all in return for something) to other software developers when they tried to link the projects. For this reason, in 2001, they GPLLv2 abandoned in favor of a less restrictive copyright.
(...)by: GNU General Public License

What you wanted to tell with that?

[kLabMouse]

Anyhow. What I complained about, is that I helped thus people to update their ServerType under only one condition: changes will go to public SVN.
Yet, they Tried to SELL thus changes + their KoreGuard (that was build also with My help).
I don't mind the "KoreGuard" app, but the bRO.pm files...

About the Takedown of openkore.br ... Well it could be done, from a holder of trademark.

But that's not the Point.
What I RLY wanted, is that OpenSource stay open. And that people not complain about Constant BAN there.
But, as far it got. I can only say that "GHost" is a little freak who has no respect to others.

End of Story.