![]() Also (to Lin545 again): The user may possibly apply any patches they want as long as they do that only for their own personal use. So far this doesn't seem to be the case for Loki's Sim City 3000 port. There are a few examples where the rights to the Loki ports have been bought by another company. And who might that be? EA apparently isn't because if they were we'd get a different answer from gog (remember that further up linuxvangog replied to my initial question). I would assume that there is enough original work of Loki in the Linux port that Loki could rightfully claim rights to the port - not the game assets themselves, that's true.īut that is largely irrelevant, because in order to sell the game you'd need permission from the copyright holder. The Windows-version makes use of DirectX for example, while the Linux port can not. ![]() How do we know that those binaries of the Linux version were not written from scratch? If you take the time to just compare the files included in both versions (not even trying to disassemble them), the differences are apparent and that's to be expected. Plus, never underestimate the level of EA's bureaucracy. ![]() Plokite_Wolf: Loki's Wikipedia page mentions reclaiming rights to Linux ports instead of those rights being with clients from the beginning, the way I see it.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |