• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

johan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,554
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
 

Isee

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
6,235
GitHub hosts open source software doesn't it? So what's the problem with said software being used.
 

Sapo84

Member
Oct 31, 2017
308
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.
 

Deleted member 1849

User requested account closure
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
6,986
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.
 

johan

Member
Oct 29, 2017
1,554
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
 

trashkitty

Member
Oct 30, 2017
31
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/
 

Lashley

<<Tag Here>>
Member
Oct 25, 2017
59,864
It's a bad port. When it sells like shit Atlus will go "See, PC gahmers, u dont buy our gamez"
 

Bomblord

Self-requested ban
Banned
Jan 11, 2018
6,390
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.
 

Sapo84

Member
Oct 31, 2017
308
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.
 

JB2448

One Winged Slayer
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,943
Florida
It's a bad port. When it sells like shit Atlus will go "See, PC gahmers, u dont buy our gamez"
Except it's selling really well.
unknown.png
 

famikon

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
4,604
ベラルーシ
If it's open-source and there's credits about it - then nothing wrong about that.

But if not – forget about PC ports for any game that has "Atlus" logo.
 

Marmoka

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,003
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.
 

PC-tan

Member
Feb 25, 2018
1,320
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
4,967
Canada
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.
 

koutoru

Member
Oct 27, 2017
1,311
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.
 

collige

Member
Oct 31, 2017
12,772
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.
 

Faabulous

Member
Oct 27, 2017
255
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.
 

Trojita

Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,721
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?
 

Marmoka

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,003
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
3,583
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.
 

Weltall Zero

Game Developer
Banned
Oct 26, 2017
19,343
Madrid
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.
 

horkrux

Member
Oct 27, 2017
4,697
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.
 

mute

▲ Legend ▲
Member
Oct 25, 2017
25,062
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?
 

Echo

Banned
Oct 29, 2017
6,482
Mt. Whatever
What does this mean for me the consumer and why should I care?

It's selling really well on Steam so hopefully Atlus sees that demand.
 

Dinjoralo

Member
Oct 25, 2017
9,106
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.
 

newtonlod

Member
Oct 27, 2017
658
Brazil
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.
 

Bomblord

Self-requested ban
Banned
Jan 11, 2018
6,390
OP
OP
cucholix

cucholix

Member
Oct 30, 2017
935
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

Shin Megami TC - Community Resetter
Member
Oct 25, 2017
18,995
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.
 

chandoog

Member
Oct 27, 2017
20,071
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.
 

AVtechNICK

Member
Dec 13, 2017
505
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?