Talk:Glider (bot)

Actuality

Is this article still actual? Does Glider works with Cataclysm (maps changed)?91.199.156.161 (talk) 14:05, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

This article is 'actual'. However Glider is illegal and no longer distributed. He's Gone Mental 14:21, 2 November 2011 (UTC)

Sources

Here are some sources. Some are more reliable than others:

• a post on Terra Nova (blog). (considered reliable for posters whose expertise falls into this field, which is almost all of them).
• another
• ZOMG blog from Matt Mihaly
• initial gamasutra coverage
• public knowledge's blog
• first post on it from PK
• post on the ruling
• BBC article
• ARS on the subject

there you go. Hope that helps. :) Protonk (talk) 04:01, 5 August 2008 (UTC)

whoa, scholar hits

• Paper from greg Lastowka. Published and he's a RS, by the way.
• conference paper on cheating in games. mentions glider
• conference paper on bot detection. mentions glider

Primary sources

Primary sources are OK for non-interpretive, descriptive claims that require no specialist knowledge to verify. See WP:PRIMARY. It seems to me that simple claims, such as Glider being $25 shareware, are better cited to a primary source. I wouldn't hurry too much to pack secondary sources into the article since Glider's notability is not in dispute. Matt Fitzpatrick (talk) 21:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

I know. I just replaces some primary sources with secondary sources. I replaced the footnotes that described PK's filing with links to reporting on the filing (previously the description was sourced to the primary document). It's also easier (I find) to get other editors to read secondary sources if they are linked in the article rather than listed in the talk page. Protonk (talk) 21:57, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

"If" qualifier

I don't think that's accurate. The copyright violation penalties come from running instances of the software (ZOMG copying it into ram) in an unauthorized fashion. the TOS only comes into play because the product is licensed. If the product were sold (See the recent decision regarding sale of software and Autocad) then the actions taken by the user (causing copies to be loaded into ram) aren't really violations of blizzard's copyright. they would fit into the broad category of things the user could do with a product after first sale. So the violation of the TOS doesn't cause the copyright infringement but the copying does. Protonk (talk) 14:23, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

Quick!!!

Ring the courts and tell them they are wrong!! We'll stay here till you get back. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 159.117.1.11 (talk) 19:06, 2 July 2016 (UTC)

New source

A new source covering the court case, from yesterday by the BBC. I don't fully understand exactly what's going on with this stuff, but perhaps it might come in handy for expanding on something in this article. -- Sabre (talk) 09:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)