• Sidebar and Width settings will now no longer reset after 4 hours of inactivity! We have implemented a new system that will remember these preferences on each browser, for both members and guests. This allows you to choose different settings on different devices if you so desire.

PC port of Catherine used a Github tool

Oct 29, 2017
536
#4
There's no license on the tool so why wouldn't the developer use the tool

Leaving the source code behind is a bit messy but I don't see the problem
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,371
#5
GitHub hosts open source software doesn't it? So what's the problem with said software being used.
 
Oct 31, 2017
126
#8
There's no license on the tool so why wouldn't the developer use the tool

Leaving the source code behind is a bit messy but I don't see the problem
There's no license so the code is private and no one can use it without the risk of being sued.
Lucky day for the developer I guess.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,416
#9
There's no license on the tool so why wouldn't the developer use the tool

Leaving the source code behind is a bit messy but I don't see the problem
If there is no license, then I believe under most copyright laws this would be placed under a restrictive license by default.

If you want to GPL/MIT it, you need to include the license file with the code.
 
Oct 29, 2017
536
#10
If there is no license, then I believe under most copyright laws this would be placed under a restrictive license by default.

If you want to GPL/MIT it, you need to include the licence file with the code.
If that's the case then the developer is theoretically fucked

But probably not in real life
 
Oct 30, 2017
24
#12
There's no license on the tool so why wouldn't the developer use the tool

Leaving the source code behind is a bit messy but I don't see the problem
Exactly this. Just because it's out there, if there's no license it doesn't mean you can just use it.

I mean you can, but if you've written the code you can also go after whoever uses it in court.

Here's a resource from Github on the topic: https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
 
Nov 21, 2018
144
#14
If that's the case then the developer is theoretically fucked

But probably not in real life
I remember in the Shenmue Collection a fan-made tool was used too, am I right?
I doubt anyway the creator of the software has enough money to sue Sega, even if he/she would win.
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,025
#15
If there is no license, then I believe under most copyright laws this would be placed under a restrictive license by default.

If you want to GPL/MIT it, you need to include the license file with the code.
Wouldn't that depend on it it was copyrighted, or are those things automatic?
 
Jan 11, 2018
2,295
#18
Exactly this. Just because it's out there, if there's no license it doesn't mean you can just use it.

I mean you can, but if you've written the code you can also go after whoever uses it in court.

Here's a resource from Github on the topic: https://choosealicense.com/no-permission/
Unless I'm misinterpreting something (look if someone is going to jump on me for this no need to insult me just correct me) your link says that the Terms of Service of github allows any public repository to be used by whoever wants to use it in the absence of a license file.
Even in the absence of a license file, you may grant some rights in cases where you publish your source code to a site that requires accepting terms of service. For example, if you publish your source code in a public repository on GitHub, you have accepted the Terms of Service, by which you allow others to view and fork your repository. Others may not need your permission if limitations and exceptions to copyright apply to their particular situation. Neither site terms nor jurisdiction-specific copyright limitations are sufficient for the kinds of collaboration that people usually seek on a public code host, such as experimentation, modification, and sharing as fostered by an open source license.
 
Oct 31, 2017
126
#19
Unless I'm misinterpreting something (look if someone is going to jump on me for this no need to insult me just correct me) your link says that the Terms of Service of github allows any public repository to be used by whoever wants to use it in the absence of a license file.
No, what is written there only means that you grant permission to allow the normal github repositories operations.
What is granted to the other users is the following:
License Grant to Other Users

Any User-Generated Content you post publicly, including issues, comments, and contributions to other Users' repositories, may be viewed by others. By setting your repositories to be viewed publicly, you agree to allow others to view and "fork" your repositories (this means that others may make their own copies of Content from your repositories in repositories they control).


If you set your pages and repositories to be viewed publicly, you grant each User of GitHub a nonexclusive, worldwide license to use, display, and perform Your Content through the GitHub Service and to reproduce Your Content solely on GitHub as permitted through GitHub's functionality (for example, through forking). You may grant further rights if you adopt a license. If you are uploading Content you did not create or own, you are responsible for ensuring that the Content you upload is licensed under terms that grant these permissions to other GitHub Users.
In the case of Catherine the source file are included in the Steam release, which means the SEGA/Atlus developers aren't protected by the above license.

It's always interesting to me in these threads where devs use uncited resources made by other people that the only concern there is could only be legal in nature.
Since we don't know how the tool were used why would we talk about anything else?
It's literally the only reasonable concern one may have.
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,395
#23
Why should developers reinvent the wheel? This software is publicly available in GitHub, so why not use it? It has no license at all, so they can. This way they have saved lots of time and money.

And they included the original source code. It's a nice way to give credit to the original work.
 
Feb 25, 2018
448
#25
It's a bad port. When it sells like shit Atlus will go "See, PC gahmers, u dont buy our gamez"
I'm not having any major issues with the game, there are some annoying parts, but I'm not sure if it's my controller or not. Since I do see some slow down. For what I payed I'm not too disappointed.
 
Oct 25, 2017
815
Canada
#26
It's a bad port. When it sells like shit Atlus will go "See, PC gahmers, u dont buy our gamez"
aside from the 30fps issue I’m having no issues at all with it.

Its selling well and theres no way SEGA is expecting it to be a massive seller. Its a 8 year old niche game with a massively overhauled version releasing soon after so a lot of people will hold off.
 
Oct 27, 2017
548
#27
As mentioned, I don't see why this would be a problem if there's no licensing issues with the tool and it works as intended.
Though it is a bit unorganized to leave the development tools in the game files like that.
 
Oct 31, 2017
2,805
#28
There's no license on the tool so why wouldn't the developer use the tool

Leaving the source code behind is a bit messy but I don't see the problem
https://help.github.com/articles/licensing-a-repository/
You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work. If you're creating an open source project, we strongly encourage you to include an open source license. The Open Source Guide provides additional guidance on choosing the correct license for your project.
 
Oct 27, 2017
51
#30
Unless I'm misinterpreting something (look if someone is going to jump on me for this no need to insult me just correct me) your link says that the Terms of Service of github allows any public repository to be used by whoever wants to use it in the absence of a license file.
Limitations and exceptions to copyright are fair-use and such, and commercial use certainly isn't that. Also, having the right to fork is very different from the right to using it in a commercial setting.

IANAL, but its pretty shitty to use unlincensed software like this, also probabbly illegal in most countries.

For Era users that don't work in software:
Open source doesn't mean it's free. Free doesn't mean no cost.
If I did this in my job I would have been fired on the spot for opening up the company to litigation.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,059
#31
Why should developers reinvent the wheel? This software is publicly available in GitHub, so why not use it? It has no license at all, so they can. This way they have saved lots of time and money.

And they included the original source code. It's a nice way to give credit to the original work.
lol?
 
Oct 27, 2017
1,395
#32
Why should developers reinvent the wheel? This software is publicly available in GitHub, so why not use it? It has no license at all, so they can. This way they have saved lots of time and money.

And they included the original source code. It's a nice way to give credit to the original work.
I've been checking out other posts more deeply (now I read them from a workstation, not from mobile). I didn't know if there's no specific license, you are not allowed to use the code. I always thought you could make use of the code however you wanted, and you could even include it inside your programs without giving any credit to it, because in the end, you never specified what you could and couldn't do with it.

But I don't see why you would upload anything to GitHub if you don't want anyone to use it. Does not make sense to me.

It could happen that the developer is not familiarized with licenses, and could also happen that Sega/Atlus developers aren't either.
I don't have much idea about licensing and also work in R&D. Dealing with licensing stuff is a pain in the ass. Cause we want (and need) researchers and industry to make use of our resources for free, we always use the MIT license, because as far as I know, it's the less restrictive one, but I'm not even sure about that.

Dealing with all these laws stuff when you are no layer is tedious.
 
Oct 27, 2017
728
#33
The readme says it's based on the publicly released but unlicensed work of at least two other people, so there's a chain of license violations going on, if you want to get technical about it.

Honestly, the only mistake they made was redistributing it with the game, especially as it seems to be entirely unnecessary for the end user.
 
Oct 26, 2017
6,780
Madrid
#34
Excuse me, "fan" made in what sense? What are the devs of the tool "fans" of and what relevance does it have to the news?

Redistributing the source with the game is a clear case of "whoops", though. There's no reason or benefit for them to do so.
 
Oct 27, 2017
822
#35
Why should developers reinvent the wheel? This software is publicly available in GitHub, so why not use it? It has no license at all, so they can. This way they have saved lots of time and money.

And they included the original source code. It's a nice way to give credit to the original work.
Why should fans reinvent the wheel just so companies who can get those licences and official tools can cheapen out or just lose the proprietary shit they made?

I don't like this. They have all the means to get official Criware tools or whatever this is for. Sure they can use tools from github, but the reason they were made in the first place is so people who simply don't have the means to acquire official tools can still do some modding.
Now you're working with the actual source of the game and have to scour github for tools, pathetic XD

The creators will probably feel vindicated and recognized, but I think this practice on behalf of these companies itself is simply shameful.
 
Oct 25, 2017
3,992
#36
Who developed the port? Leaving the source code in is a silly fuck up, but why did they need to use those 3rd party tools in the first place?
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,346
#38
A lot of little things point to The Eccentric Ape (the team that did the port, this being their first) handling it very sloppily and rushed. I get the feeling Sega might not hire their services again.
 
Oct 27, 2017
413
Uberaba, Brazil
#40
It’s ok, at least Sega is really nice with fangames and the fanbase (just look at the Sonic Mania case).
Really different compared to Nintendo using backup ROMs found on internet and then fucking every fangame possible and being as ridiculous as the case with the Smash Bros on EVO.
 
Jan 11, 2018
2,295
#41
OP
OP
cucholix
Oct 30, 2017
242
#42
Why should fans reinvent the wheel just so companies who can get those licences and official tools can cheapen out or just lose the proprietary shit they made?

I don't like this. They have all the means to get official Criware tools or whatever this is for. Sure they can use tools from github, but the reason they were made in the first place is so people who simply don't have the means to acquire official tools can still do some modding.
Now you're working with the actual source of the game and have to scour github for tools, pathetic XD

The creators will probably feel vindicated and recognized, but I think this practice on behalf of these companies itself is simply shameful.
Seriously, it is amateurish at best, they basically used a reverse engineering tool to get the Criware assets they should have total access in the first place, they are not some anonymous modders in the internetz. On the top of that they leave the tool in the game folder -___-
 

HylianSeven

Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,013
#48
I also read that the port is locked at 30 FPS like FFX's Steam port.

Is that true ?
No, it's running at 60FPS. Really it's that many of the animations are keyframed at 30FPS, so they can look a little strange sometimes, especially in the Nightmare stages. It looks more 60FPS in Cutscenes, the landings, and the bar.
 
Oct 27, 2017
8,355
#49
No, it's running at 60FPS. Really it's that many of the animations are keyframed at 30FPS, so they can look a little strange sometimes, especially in the Nightmare stages. It looks more 60FPS in Cutscenes, the landings, and the bar.
Ok, thanks. It still sounds weird that half the game looks like it's running at 30 FPS, the rest looks like 60. I can almost imagine deliberately locking it to 30 using RTSS or something .. for consistency's sake.
 
Dec 13, 2017
392
#50
And what's the problem with it? Lot of people are talking about it, but I don't understand what's all this fuss about.

And what exactly is this tool doing? Isn't just resource packer/extractor?