Pika

This should be correct yes, as long as you don’t include code that was added after the license change you should be in Clearwater.

Technically speaking I don’t think it’s allowed for him to have changed the license to a more restrictive license in the first place because he didn’t rewrite the entire project when he did so which means it’s still containing code that under the license terms are supposed to be open indefinitely, but if you want to avoid all that drama you can just play it safe and Fork the version prior to him editing the license

Personally speaking now this isn’t going to stop the people that he’s trying to avoid that hassle with, because I don’t think he has legal ground because I don’t think the license change was within the allowed terms of his license in the first place

Sending as a second comment cuz I just now read your source, but it’s different than what my original comment was.

I didn’t realize the density that GPL code puts into your project, it does seem upon looking into it that that is correct that he cannot under GPL terms redistribute that software under the license that he’s chosen. He is violating the GPL by doing so, because even with permission of the contributors, GPL code cannot be converted over to a lesser freedom code without a full rewrite, because code that was generated while under the GPL can’t be locked down at a future date via a license that that is stricter than the existing one. The only thing you can do is make it less restrictive than GPL.

That being said, the only people who can report violations of code that is not following the GPL, are going to be copyright holders so if everyone was indeed okay with it there’s no one who would be able to pursue the violation anyway

My main concern is that he states that he has permission from every contributor so he isn’t misusing it, then immediately locks the repository to only people who had contributed before.

I understand it’s probably just a tactic to lower the amount of useless information from people wanting to comment from posts like this, but it doesn’t look good from a point of view of declaring Victory and then retreating immediately.

fully agree, the maintainer pulled a “It’s my toy and I’m taking it elsewhere” which is never healthy for a project like that. Instead of embracing the fact people were active in the project he only focused on the fact that there was some malicious parties that were violating GPL, so his solution was to kill most external support of the project. It won’t survive that

according to the maintainer he got permission from everyone, and those who didn’t give the permission for he rewrote the code for. Least that’s how it seems to be here

Regardless as the maintainer of that GitHub clarified in a closed pull request, it’s not actually allowed on Github to have a license that blocks the ability to do forks and modify the programs yourself, I never knew this but it says it on the page he linked.

basically it seems if you post a project as public on Github, you implicitly grant a license to fork and use the code regardless of what it’s terms say since you need to follow those terms for the Github platform usage. The section 6 I’m not sure about though, cause the terminology confuses me, I can’t tell if it means that it can be supercedes or that it supercedes a private license

it seems his intent isn’t to dissuade people contributing, he’s just been burned a few times with GPL violations so he’s changing the terms to prevent that

From what I understand that’s basically the gist of with the exception that the elite developer was transferred over to a new person, the only real conditionals is of course Microsoft has say if they decide to do something they want. Thankfully that has only been in regards to moderation and of course the shitty account management so far,

their main problem currently is that Community mostly ran off of modding support, and with every big game mechanic change they lose more mods due to people moving on/no longer interested in the game. But considering the game itself is 13 years old now it’s impressive that it’s still going as strong as it is.

coming from someone who has both a ps4 and a 5, I wouldn’t buy the upgraded. the 5 is worth maybe 400 max, but I honestly think if you have a ps4 pro I would peg it around 350ish. I hate the new UI layout along with the controller layout. It’s worth it maybe if you don’t have the ps4 pro, because the increase in ram, Vram and general processing power is noticable. but if your current system is the PS4 pro, you won’t really notice a big performance difference, and while there is a clear graphical difference, I for sure don’t think its worth a 600$ price point.

I regret buying the latest gen consoles. I would likely be more pleased with the purchase if there was actually something decent on them. Ragnarok was probably the one I played the most. I’ve been debating selling, the price point for them should be closer to 300-350, 500-600 is not worth it.

sorry, I am just now realizing I misread your post. I thought you had meant first party content when I originally read the reply. Yea I agree that there are a far good amount of fan made mods and content, it’s still prevailed into the current field. I love when games launch with steam workshop support. I disagree that that content doesn’t exist anymore though. I still play quite a few games that have a store system and have a functional mod workshop on the side.

I do agree that some companies are lowering their access to their API services, or having that as a secondary thought, but thankfully they aren’t at the point where they just won’t allow for third party content period. Well mostly anyway, there are a few oddities out there that have cheat software in place that won’t allow it but thankfully those are few and far between. I’m currently struggling against the urge to mod my elden ring run myself, because I know that trips the multiplayer AC which will remove networking features.

I might have to look into the older game systems I guess i did indeed miss a few of the old school systems, It’s not like I missed most of the gaming era though, my first PC I ever used was a Windows 96, then an XP which I fell in love with (gearhead garage is still one of the best mechanic game you can find[but you’ll have to virtualize it for it to run], same with flight sim 04 and train simulator 1 in terms of simulators). and I grew up with every playstation and nintendo(which I now boycott) product made so far. Basically every system I’ve used has had the ability to buy DLC or expansion packs though, with the exception of the ps1/2, I guess I just don’t see how thats that much different from the current day MT’s. buy it once in bulk via an additional disk with a serial key, or buy it individually, but I can’t say I remember any of my games giving the amount of content that games now have without any extra cost. It’s always been either super basic cosmetic customization, or a paid DLC

I just haven’t had that experience with the games I’ve played. It’s always been the opposite for me. Maybe it was for the best. Every once and awhile I boot up my ps2 cause thats the oldest system i still carry, but like the simplicity of that platform just doesn’t do it, the nostalgic feel can only go so far.

Fully agree, I like gear progression in games, its been a bit since ive played one that relied on it but, it added stuff to do. I’m not saying that system shouldn’t exist as well. I also can’t think of any games that used that system that removed it when adding the store.

I never said you can’t have Community armor unlocks, and I can’t think of a single game that I’ve played out there that has actively removed quest rewards From the game when they added the microtransaction system. The only thing I’ve seen is an increase in items available on the game via the micro transaction system.

Then again I haven’t really played the monster hunter games either, I never found them appealing

I have to apologize in advance, cuz I haven’t played a monster hunter game since the PS2, I started playing world but I just didn’t like it. That being said I know the PS2 version of Monster Hunter didn’t have a whole lot(in terms of cosmetics) but again it’s PS2. And I know that monster hunter world had some items available, and that rise is where it apparently was really hit with microtransactions. But from what I understand with monster hunter rise they gave the base cosmetic sets that they normally would have gave with the game, they just offered the paid expansion for the additional skins. Now being as I never actually played rise could be dead wrong on that but Google searching it seems to have given me the same answer.

That’s just it, you have more items in the games with microtransactions than what you had originally.

At the end of the day you gain more items by having the system in place meaning you have more content, now at the end of the day it’s optional content usually and by all means you don’t need it but to say that this content would have been in the game regardless just isn’t true.

I’m going to use Call of Duty as an example because that is what I saw microtransactions in the most growing up, and even that didn’t start until the I think it was ghosts(?)

they still provide standard Cosmetics that you can put on your guns, there’s still supplying your standard skins and now you have the option to purchase more skins, that is content that they would not have added to the game otherwise, it wasn’t until they introduced that microtransaction style system that most the options hit the table

Hell RuneScape even had microtransactions, and that games 23 years old now(granted it’s a hybrid F2P). You need to purchase in game currency to be able to do specific things and afford some of the items

I started with the ps1(unless you include XP as “gaming” lol) , I can’t give information on what was before that, but if the gaming prior to that is anything compared to what was on the PS1 I’m not holding my breath on the amount of stuff that was actually included in games, but you peaked my interest so if you have examples of games that went above and beyond and gave more content than today’s styled games that have microtransactions I’m definitely all ears I’d love to look into it.

I havent really seen any marketing either, I love these style games, I had never heard of it either, I think what happened was that twitch streamers caught wind of it and it spread like wild fire from then.

I’ve never heard of this before, but like I might look into it. I expect this will trigger any client side anticheat under moon though

look at what else it has given the field though. Since that was created, user mod stores have become further involved, paid mod workshops and free mod workshops have sprouted up. Cosmetic’s that for the longest time never was even thought of are now sprung up. Character creation has been re-invented basically. None of this would have happened if it continued to be a one-off price. Honestly online servers wouldn’t be lasting as long either as no company will run a game once the profit margin stagnates.

The problem at hand is not microtransactions, it’s consumers willingness to put up with/buy bullshit that shouldn’t be one

the alternative is the content just /not/ being there period though. A studio isn’t going to just supply the content for free, by having the MT’s there it’s increasing content to a game. The studios are abusing it sure, but just don’t buy it. I’ve never once spent money on any of my games for a MT that should have been base game. I have to say I haven’t had any issue with it. It’s there for the people who want to throw money away, and as long as it isn’t impacting me, I don’t care. I would rather have the option available for people to use it, then no option at all.

At the end of the day, Money talks, the studios that are abusing it are doing so because people are willing to throw money away like that. A better solution is to just not partake in the game, let the people who throw money away do their thing, just don’t buy those types of games IMO