Nielk1 wrote:Did you serious link a thread in which GBD and I had a fake tong in cheek argument? Holy heck you are detached.
Ehhh, that's really weak. . .unless of course, you're now openly admitting you strive to get threads locked. If so, GSH needs to have a short sit-down with you.
Your nuts, that argument in the link was not intended to get a thread locked. I was advising someone to make their mission in C++ instead of the BZS Scriptor because the scriptor is limited, and not up-to-date with 1.3. C++ BZ2 dlls are not that hard to learn, you can do leaps and bounds more with it.
Aaand At the time of that thread, I was just barely scratching the surface of the DLLs, which is why N1 implied I still didn't know a lot about what I was doing. I have learned much since then, and he was right, I was giddy with the possibilities then.
You guys have been using this forum for the last. . .what year? And you STILL don't have a clear read on what will get a thread locked. . . thank you, that makes things a lot more clear.
Last edited by Psychedelic Rhino on Wed Oct 17, 2012 12:47 pm, edited 2 times in total.
Activision anet servers for all legacy anet games: Anet Servers
BattleZone Club (Supporting BattleZone 1.4, The Red Odyssey, BattleZone Enhanced, BattleZone 1.5 and Bionite) BattleZone 1 Community Since 2002
Just a silly question, but why is a license required to prove if something is or isn't a patch. Mainly, the existence of a license is designed to protect a company and it's user by defining what is or isn't acceptable from my understanding.
Wouldn't the idea of saying that requiring 1.4 technically count as an agreement for use anyway? Because otherwise, it just seems like the suggestion here is that we copypasta 1.4 license just to say it's a patch rather than a mod when there's very little or no real threat of legal action. It just really feels like unneeded legwork for a non-"word of god" work-in-progress only to merely call a work one thing or another.
It a simple case of 'patches are meant to replace', 'mods are meant to stand alongside'. I don't understand why Apollo/Dx needs to change that and make 1.5 a mod.
Although I loathe to jump into this argument, here I am doing so.
As to the mods vs patches debate. I dunno. Grey area maybe. Yes, a mod fundamentally changes things, either under the hood or cosmetically. A patch fixes things and may add some elements.
That being said, and further to the 'legal' argument, can even an "unofficial patch" be considered legal if it was created using source code that is not open source and developed without the IP owners involvement?
HitchcockGreen wrote:Although I loathe to jump into this argument, here I am doing so.
As to the mods vs patches debate. I dunno. Grey area maybe. Yes, a mod fundamentally changes things, either under the hood or cosmetically. A patch fixes things and may add some elements.
That being said, and further to the 'legal' argument, can even an "unofficial patch" be considered legal if it was created using source code that is not open source and developed without the IP owners involvement?
Either way, who cares.
Unofficial patches get made all the time by the IP owners. Official status only makes the publisher support it, thus, a publisher can turn and tell the dev NO, and it becomes unofficial or beta (BZ2's 1.2 for example), or, the dev might tell its employee that they can patch it but that it wont be supported by the company because the official life cycle is over. Ignoring the fact that by the definition of a patch has to do with purpose and not origin.