SiO2 on 23/5/2012 at 11:45
I had a premonition that this would happen. When I was in charge of updating DDFix - with permission from Timeslip, of course - I placed big "COMMERCIAL DISTRIBUTION PROHIBITED" messages in the ini file. I see that whoever picked up updating DDFix after me didn't carry this on. It's kind of a moot point, though, since the version of DDFix in the Steam download is an older version and appears to have only been worked on by Timeslip.
I never publicly released the source code to my own modifications to DDFix but that was "only" to fix fog anyway and the current DDFix seems to do the job with fog anyway (though with far fewer lines of code than me but, meh, it seems to work so who cares).
Another moot point, but it's kind of a pity they didn't use any of my versions of DDFix with the prohibition messages as we maybe could have stirred up a little media fuss and maybe got Timeslip paid. :cheeky: I work in the games industry as a graphics/software engineer, have worked on multi-million selling AAA X360/PS3/PC/DX11 games and won a BAFTA last year. :cool:
Once again, a big thanks to Timeslip for making DDFix in the first place. :thumb:
Timeslip on 23/5/2012 at 12:59
Quote Posted by SiO2
I never released the source code to my own modifications to DDFix but that was "only" to fix fog anyway and the current DDFix seems to do the job with fog anyway
Yes, you never did, and that annoyed me far more than anything steam has ever done... Thanks to that, Jermi had to waste time to recreate the fog fix from scratch, when he could have been working on the issues he actually wanted to fix from the start.
tbh, I have no reason to complain at either steam nor square, especially if the readme file is there and intact this time. Many of the rights holders seem to have deals with GOG that GOG creates packages that work on modern windows, gets xxx amount of exclusivity, then the same packages go to other download sites. (Heck, I've even seen gamersgate use the original GOG installers, complete with the original GOG artwork and adverts...) The steam version is just a straightforward ripoff of the GOG version, and neither steam nor square probably know or care what is in there. If GOG is happy with that arrangement, then so be it.
And disclaimers work both ways. The reverse engineering and patching required to create something like ddfix is almost always against the EULA of whatever's being patched. You win court cases by having more expensive lawyers than the opposition, not by having disclaimers in capital letters at the top of a text file or even having any actual law on your side. (Yes, I have my cynical hat on today. I like my cynical hat; tis a nice shade of blue. :p)
elwing on 23/5/2012 at 13:12
once back home I'll check if your readme is there...
Timeslip on 23/5/2012 at 13:29
Quote Posted by elwing
once back home I'll check if your readme is there...
tis fine. ripnard already mentioned that it was. :)
SiO2 on 23/5/2012 at 14:22
Quote Posted by Timeslip
Yes, you never did, and that annoyed me far more than anything steam has ever done... Thanks to that, Jermi had to waste time to recreate the fog fix from scratch, when he could have been working on the issues he actually wanted to fix from the start.
tbh, I have no reason to complain at either steam nor square, especially if the readme file is there and intact this time. Many of the rights holders seem to have deals with GOG that GOG creates packages that work on modern windows, gets xxx amount of exclusivity, then the same packages go to other download sites. (Heck, I've even seen gamersgate use the original GOG installers, complete with the original GOG artwork and adverts...) The steam version is just a straightforward ripoff of the GOG version, and neither steam nor square probably know or care what is in there. If GOG is happy with that arrangement, then so be it.
And disclaimers work both ways. The reverse engineering and patching required to create something like ddfix is almost always against the EULA of whatever's being patched. You win court cases by having more expensive lawyers than the opposition, not by having disclaimers in capital letters at the top of a text file or even having any actual law on your side. (Yes, I have my cynical hat on today. I like my cynical hat; tis a nice shade of blue. :p)
Damn, that sounded bitter! Anyway, could have sworn that I'd sent a copy of the source to yourself, but that was five years ago IIRC. I don't recall any message from yourself complaining or asking for the source, which I would gladly have given to you at the time. I posted full details of what the issue was and how to fix it. It should have taken five minutes to recreate.
I guess you've taken my partly lighthearted post too seriously. And I am all too aware that caps in a text file is not a legal guarantee. One has to wonder why they chose a version prior to mine, with the disclaimers, though - maybe pertinent; maybe pure coincidence.
Since it sounds like you need neither help nor sympathy I shall desist from posting further on the topic. :cheeky:
Timeslip on 23/5/2012 at 14:36
Quote Posted by SiO2
Damn, that sounded bitter! Anyway, could have sworn that I'd sent a copy of the source to yourself, but that was five years ago IIRC. I don't recall any message from yourself complaining or asking for the source, which I would gladly have given to you at the time. I posted full details of what the issue was and how to fix it. It should have taken five minutes to recreate.
I guess you've taken my partly lighthearted post too seriously. And I am all too aware that caps in a text file is not a legal guarantee. One has to wonder why they chose a version prior to mine, with the disclaimers, though - maybe pertinent; maybe pure coincidence.
Nah, if I wasn't being lighthearted I wouldn't joke about my cynical hat being blue. It's actually fluorescent pink.
You vanished after (
http://www.ttlg.com/FORUMS/showthread.php?t=117616&p=1986720&viewfull=1#post1986720) this short exchange, and have never responded to me since until today, afair. You certainly never provided the source, or explained what your problem was.
SiO2 on 23/5/2012 at 14:56
Quote Posted by Timeslip
You win court cases by having more expensive lawyers than the opposition, not by having disclaimers in capital letters at the top of a text file or even having any actual law on your side
Just a point: I think this is absolutely spot-on. Having worked in the games industry and on massive, expensive licenses and had to adhere to sometimes bizzare licensing criteria I am as cynical (or realistic) as Timeslip. The idea of copyright messages and CAPS DISCLAIMERS is to reduce the possibility - however slim - of reaching that phase. These kind of things can work or at the least make a legal department think twice or at least notify you before they screw you over. :cheeky:
$0.02
ripnard on 23/5/2012 at 17:29
Timeslip - trying to get you guys recognized as much as i can (and get more hits for TTLG and Thief!)
Hopefully my job is done...
(
http://www.dsogaming.com/)
elwing on 23/5/2012 at 20:52
Ok, I can confirm thief2 is not DRM ridden, it run fine without Stea service running...
Renault on 24/5/2012 at 02:29
@SiO2 - what game did you work on that won a BAFTA?
