Pika

This should be correct yes, as long as you don’t include code that was added after the license change you should be in Clearwater.

Technically speaking I don’t think it’s allowed for him to have changed the license to a more restrictive license in the first place because he didn’t rewrite the entire project when he did so which means it’s still containing code that under the license terms are supposed to be open indefinitely, but if you want to avoid all that drama you can just play it safe and Fork the version prior to him editing the license

Personally speaking now this isn’t going to stop the people that he’s trying to avoid that hassle with, because I don’t think he has legal ground because I don’t think the license change was within the allowed terms of his license in the first place

Sending as a second comment cuz I just now read your source, but it’s different than what my original comment was.

I didn’t realize the density that GPL code puts into your project, it does seem upon looking into it that that is correct that he cannot under GPL terms redistribute that software under the license that he’s chosen. He is violating the GPL by doing so, because even with permission of the contributors, GPL code cannot be converted over to a lesser freedom code without a full rewrite, because code that was generated while under the GPL can’t be locked down at a future date via a license that that is stricter than the existing one. The only thing you can do is make it less restrictive than GPL.

That being said, the only people who can report violations of code that is not following the GPL, are going to be copyright holders so if everyone was indeed okay with it there’s no one who would be able to pursue the violation anyway

My main concern is that he states that he has permission from every contributor so he isn’t misusing it, then immediately locks the repository to only people who had contributed before.

I understand it’s probably just a tactic to lower the amount of useless information from people wanting to comment from posts like this, but it doesn’t look good from a point of view of declaring Victory and then retreating immediately.

fully agree, the maintainer pulled a “It’s my toy and I’m taking it elsewhere” which is never healthy for a project like that. Instead of embracing the fact people were active in the project he only focused on the fact that there was some malicious parties that were violating GPL, so his solution was to kill most external support of the project. It won’t survive that

according to the maintainer he got permission from everyone, and those who didn’t give the permission for he rewrote the code for. Least that’s how it seems to be here

Regardless as the maintainer of that GitHub clarified in a closed pull request, it’s not actually allowed on Github to have a license that blocks the ability to do forks and modify the programs yourself, I never knew this but it says it on the page he linked.

basically it seems if you post a project as public on Github, you implicitly grant a license to fork and use the code regardless of what it’s terms say since you need to follow those terms for the Github platform usage. The section 6 I’m not sure about though, cause the terminology confuses me, I can’t tell if it means that it can be supercedes or that it supercedes a private license

it seems his intent isn’t to dissuade people contributing, he’s just been burned a few times with GPL violations so he’s changing the terms to prevent that

Yet another reason that copyright really needs to be revamped hardcore. You should not be able to retroactively revoke a license in that way and the entire idea of yeah I license you to be able to use this for x amount of years is ridiculous to me either you can use the Media or you can’t.

It’s monopolistic practice is soley due to its market share, that alone is enough to. It’s a monopoly that isn’t anti-competitive, it’s inherently not bad, as long as it isn’t being Abused, many misconstrue anti-competitive as monopolistic, the term doesn’t go hand and hand. Monopolistic competition exists when many companies offer competing products or services that are similar, but not perfect substitutes. This is valve at the moment with steam. Alternatives exist but none come even close to being a full substitute. but that’s OK it isn’t a bad thing, but it doesn’t change the fact it’s monopolistic.

As for the gog thing, maybe it is easier than I thought, if so I’m surprised that no other game store has done so, steam dedicated an entire division to it and it still has a lot of issues with functionality and usage.

I agree with almost all of your viewpoints , however I believe that steam has engaged in monopolistic practices. The difference in market share between Steam and any other game launcher is night and day, it is the online game store. That being said that’s not always a bad thing as they have shown

They have a higher than average fees that is for sure, but they also have a significantly bigger feature set than any other store out there. Like when you launch a game on Steam you have a game publishing with built-in DLC support, you have a built-in mod Workshop, you have the review system, you have a built-in DRM if that’s something that you wanted to do, you also have access to a community forum for bug reporting and discussions, not to mention you have the entire steam proton system and the VR system at your disposal both of which are Super complicated to set up stand alone.

Their Workshop, while it takes a 75% cut, is mostly for the Cosmetic items or the trading items were steam does almost exclusively all of the work for it. Basically the only thing the dev team has to do for it is upload the image for the item and the cost that it thinks that item is worth and then steam does the rest. At that point the 75% cut while steep, makes sense to me

Every other reason that they provided in that video, seemed to either hyperbolize the impact of it or disregard what is concidered standard. like for example pricing parity that’s an industry standard, any reputable shop has the same system, and if there is any place that’s different, they actively try to have similar pricing. Hell Walmart hires people strictly to go to their competitors to make sure that their pricing is the same as their competitors. The attribution agreement while I don’t believe should be legal, isn’t anti-competitive, it is anti-consumer but not anti-competitive. I am also super against the fact that technically every game is a license but again that’s not anti-competitive that’s anti-consumer.

I firmly believe that if a game competitor decided to have an equal feature set to the steam launcher, eventually they would be able to give steam a run for their money. Which is not something I can say the same of with companies such as Google which has been proven to actively manipulate the market and use their position of power as a way to keep competitors out, be it by making it so third-party browsers can’t use DRM, or doing things such as manipulating your web results that way your competitors do not appear. I have never seen steam do this

deleted by creator

I’m guilty as charged with using YouTube’s new AI feature to summerize videos so I don’t need to watch them

From what I understand that’s basically the gist of with the exception that the elite developer was transferred over to a new person, the only real conditionals is of course Microsoft has say if they decide to do something they want. Thankfully that has only been in regards to moderation and of course the shitty account management so far,

their main problem currently is that Community mostly ran off of modding support, and with every big game mechanic change they lose more mods due to people moving on/no longer interested in the game. But considering the game itself is 13 years old now it’s impressive that it’s still going as strong as it is.

Only for premeire club and that was already a thing from what I understand

wait mysims still exists? I loved my sims kingdom!

coming from someone who has both a ps4 and a 5, I wouldn’t buy the upgraded. the 5 is worth maybe 400 max, but I honestly think if you have a ps4 pro I would peg it around 350ish. I hate the new UI layout along with the controller layout. It’s worth it maybe if you don’t have the ps4 pro, because the increase in ram, Vram and general processing power is noticable. but if your current system is the PS4 pro, you won’t really notice a big performance difference, and while there is a clear graphical difference, I for sure don’t think its worth a 600$ price point.

I regret buying the latest gen consoles. I would likely be more pleased with the purchase if there was actually something decent on them. Ragnarok was probably the one I played the most. I’ve been debating selling, the price point for them should be closer to 300-350, 500-600 is not worth it.

sorry, I am just now realizing I misread your post. I thought you had meant first party content when I originally read the reply. Yea I agree that there are a far good amount of fan made mods and content, it’s still prevailed into the current field. I love when games launch with steam workshop support. I disagree that that content doesn’t exist anymore though. I still play quite a few games that have a store system and have a functional mod workshop on the side.

I do agree that some companies are lowering their access to their API services, or having that as a secondary thought, but thankfully they aren’t at the point where they just won’t allow for third party content period. Well mostly anyway, there are a few oddities out there that have cheat software in place that won’t allow it but thankfully those are few and far between. I’m currently struggling against the urge to mod my elden ring run myself, because I know that trips the multiplayer AC which will remove networking features.

I might have to look into the older game systems I guess i did indeed miss a few of the old school systems, It’s not like I missed most of the gaming era though, my first PC I ever used was a Windows 96, then an XP which I fell in love with (gearhead garage is still one of the best mechanic game you can find[but you’ll have to virtualize it for it to run], same with flight sim 04 and train simulator 1 in terms of simulators). and I grew up with every playstation and nintendo(which I now boycott) product made so far. Basically every system I’ve used has had the ability to buy DLC or expansion packs though, with the exception of the ps1/2, I guess I just don’t see how thats that much different from the current day MT’s. buy it once in bulk via an additional disk with a serial key, or buy it individually, but I can’t say I remember any of my games giving the amount of content that games now have without any extra cost. It’s always been either super basic cosmetic customization, or a paid DLC

I just haven’t had that experience with the games I’ve played. It’s always been the opposite for me. Maybe it was for the best. Every once and awhile I boot up my ps2 cause thats the oldest system i still carry, but like the simplicity of that platform just doesn’t do it, the nostalgic feel can only go so far.

Fully agree, I like gear progression in games, its been a bit since ive played one that relied on it but, it added stuff to do. I’m not saying that system shouldn’t exist as well. I also can’t think of any games that used that system that removed it when adding the store.

I never said you can’t have Community armor unlocks, and I can’t think of a single game that I’ve played out there that has actively removed quest rewards From the game when they added the microtransaction system. The only thing I’ve seen is an increase in items available on the game via the micro transaction system.

Then again I haven’t really played the monster hunter games either, I never found them appealing