Yup. I hated having to pull the addon, it was really great in so many ways, but with that being in there I really didn't have any choice. If the original author had still been around, I could have talked to him to see if he'd close it, but he isn't, so ...

Trust me, no more happy about it than you guys are. :(

Did you try contacting him by e-mail?

Stupid question, but had to be asked. :)

Curioser and curiosr, the original code, apparently by the original author Gjit (James Bebbington) does not have the "Naghty hacking section." (Versions 4.1.6 and 4.1.6c are versions I have copies of.)

It appears that "Evendale" posted a revised version (I have 4.2.3) and that is where the "hack" was inserted. (so much for Copyright issues)
I'm guessing that version 4.2 is where the code was inserted.

Player names: Evendale, Evenwym, and Damagemeter, are explicitly mentioned in the code.

So, who is the real author?

Interesting. How do you know his real name? Do you have contact info for him?

I am unsure how the author transition happened but ownership can be passed over to someone by the copyright holder i guess. So GJit might have passed it to Evendale. We cannot just edit the addon because ownership changed in the past (well sure we could, we have the sourcecode, but it is a question of principle).

The author name is in the API. In the ".plugin" file.

Is it real or not is anyone's guess.

Is "gjit" simply another in-game name for the same account as "Evendale, Evenwym, and Damagemeter?"

No one knows.

Sadly, especially with the advent of F2P, there is no way to relate "real names" to "in-game names."
Gaming in general, and especially MMOs, have evolved a culture where hiding one's identity is not only normal, but is expected.
And if you want to change your identity, you just open a new F2P account.

Similarly, sites such as lotrointerface have no way to identify any "registrant."
All they can do is take whatever information is given them as true.

All of which is to say, enforcement in cases such as this is a "throw it against the wall and see what sticks" issue.

Deleting the download structure eliminates future "infections," but it does nothing for those who have it installed;
it makes collateral damage of folks who are innocent bystanders.
I.e. No word of explanation of the problem and how to treat it in place of the deleted plugin.
Minimally a page describing the problem which caused the plugin to be deleted would be appreciated.

However, fixing the problem would have been a more preferable solution.

By declaring that only the author can fix the problem implies that the author is the one who created the problem in the first place.
A typical assumption, but one not necessarily grounded in fact.

A large number of the plugins on this site have been abandoned.
That is to say the accounts of the Authors have NOT been logged into for many months.

It would be as "just and arbitrary" a "rule" to declare any abandoned account open to anyone for "takeover."

There is nothing on this site (no instructions, policy statements, etc.) which implies what happens to "abandoned" plugins -- deleted or otherwise disabled.

And just for the record, it appears that the idea of "fast action" is not relevant.
The code in question existed in the plugin back in January of 2012 when version 4 was uploaded. (you can check via the Wayback machine)
It went un-noticed by the moderators for two years.
Or perhaps more correctly, no one complained about it for two years.
Looking at the thread on the forums, it was apparently a well-known" hack.

It is an interesting discussion --
Note however, that the concept of Copyright does not PREVENT someone from utilizing the material as long as they give credit to the original author.

Were there remuneration involved, then it might be a different story.

BTW, the only reason I am arguing about this is the simple fact --
Combat Analysis is the ONLY plugin which provides any kind of useful tool to evaluate "Turbine's Balance" efforts.

THEY (Turbine) have various tools to monitor what happens in-game.
WE (the players) have nothing to use to document the effects of Turbine's changes.

That's not quite accurate from my understanding. It's a little bit complicated, but my understanding of the situation is:

1. Author writes a plugin. By the process of creating the plugin, author owns all of the copyrights to the plugin.
2. Author uploads plugin to lotrinterface. Lotrointerface doesn't specifically say which copyrights they acquire, but given that lotrointerface is a plugin distribution site, I think by uploading the plugin, the author implicitly grants lotrointerface the right to distribute the plugin.
3. User downloads the plugin. I don't think lotrointerface uses the software licensing model, so the user actual owns a copy of the plugin. (Which probably means that first sale doctrine applies - so if I understand things correctly, you could, technically sell your copy of a plugin downloaded from lotrointerface, you just wouldn't get to keep your copy after you sold it - since you can only make copies for personal use. Of course, then you could just download another copy from lotrointerface... and digital copies don't play well with first sale doctrine.)

Since lotrointerface doesn't have the right to assign distribution rights, they can't give users the right to distribute the plugin, which would probably be necessary to upload a modified copy. It's basically the difference between the general case of Freeware (distributed for free, but typically with no right to redistribute granted) and freely redistributable software (distributed for free, along with the rights to redistribute).

There may be some wiggle room under Fair Use doctrine, but at that point it's not particularly clear cut. The fact that redistribution wouldn't be for commercial purposes is a point in its favor, but the fact that it's derivative (you're just removing a backdoor) would be a point against it.

I think the most relevant question is whether the site would be exposing itself to any potential liability by allowing another author to take over maintenance of an abandoned plugin without explicit permission.

And I think the answer is "no". After all, what possible damages could the original author claim?