Maybe they didn't have Criware's tools license or something xD
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 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 licence file with the code.
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
I remember in the Shenmue Collection a fan-made tool was used too, am I right?If that's the case then the developer is theoretically fucked
But probably not in real life
Wouldn't that depend on it it was copyrighted, or are those things automatic?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.
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.
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/
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.
No, what is written there only means that you grant permission to allow the normal github repositories operations.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.
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.
Since we don't know how the tool were used why would we talk about anything else?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.
To Arkansas.
Except it's selling really well.It's a bad port. When it sells like shit Atlus will go "See, PC gahmers, u dont buy our gamez"
The problem is that there is a list of bugs, problems, crashes and other issues a mile long.
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.It's a bad port. When it sells like shit Atlus will go "See, PC gahmers, u dont buy our gamez"
It's a bad port. When it sells like shit Atlus will go "See, PC gahmers, u dont buy our gamez"
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
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.
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.
lol?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.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 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.
Did you read the op?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?
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.
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 -___-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.
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?
Yes.
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.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.