They've got that part about you making modules with popular works covered in a different section of the EULA.
"(3) your Modules must not contain any libelous, defamatory or other illegal material, material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of any third party, or contain any trademarks, copyright-protected work or other property of third parties"
So, basically, what this means is that if you make a module with copyrighted stuff in it you are not allowed to legally distribute it. And since Bioware only recieves control of modules you legally distribute, they wouldn't get control of Princess Leia or whatever.
By the by, it also follows that if you wanna protect your ideas, then throw a little framed picture of Calvin and Hobbes on a nightstand in some hut somewhere in your world. Sure, the clause I mention here would give Bioware the power to make you stop distributing it, but they already have that power from the clause that we're already upset about. At least they couldn't get control of it. -- Said argument relies completely on the assumption that one piece of copyrighted material makes the WHOLE module illegal.
Can't they do some broad consumer review asking how we, the consumers, feel about being hurt by this? That way we can all say, "Yes it hurts; but getting a little dutch rub from Vermont law is preferable to being boiled in oil by corparate if(screw customer=makemoney) then exec(screw customer) policy . .."
Half-life didn't use the Quake2 engine like the article says. According to the Half-Life FAQ:
What Is Half-Life's Game Engine
Valve originally licensed the source for Quake engine from id Software and they began working on that code around October of 1996. Between October of 1996 till the time they finished Half-Life in October of 1998, they modified, removed, and created about 70% of their Half-Life coding. Not only did they got license for the Quake engine, but also got Quake II engine too.
1. The article states that DOOM was the first 3D first-person shooter.
No it does not, in fact it specificly says "...it was done in an immersive first-persion perspective. Doom was not the first game to do this, but it was the first game to do it well."
3. "It was the first 3D game to have textures on everything on the screen, and that made a huge difference for the atmosphere and the mood of the game."
See Wolfenstein 3D.
Wolfenstein 3D did not have textured celings or floors
Seems to me everyone is using this situation as an example of the problems with face recognition software. Unfortuantly this incident has nothing to do with that. Some woman saw this guy's picture in the paper and thought it was her ex-husband. It's not like the system looked at his picture and concluded he was Mr. Dead Beat Dad. It's no different than someone misidentifying a person in a lineup.
I agree that there are definiately some privicy rights issues with this type of face recognition system but this particular situation DOESN'T exemplify those issues.
Slashdot Mirror
They've got that part about you making modules with popular works covered in a different section of the EULA.
"(3) your Modules must not contain any libelous, defamatory or other illegal material, material that is scandalous or invades the rights of privacy or publicity of any third party, or contain any trademarks, copyright-protected work or other property of third parties"
So, basically, what this means is that if you make a module with copyrighted stuff in it you are not allowed to legally distribute it. And since Bioware only recieves control of modules you legally distribute, they wouldn't get control of Princess Leia or whatever.
By the by, it also follows that if you wanna protect your ideas, then throw a little framed picture of Calvin and Hobbes on a nightstand in some hut somewhere in your world. Sure, the clause I mention here would give Bioware the power to make you stop distributing it, but they already have that power from the clause that we're already upset about. At least they couldn't get control of it. -- Said argument relies completely on the assumption that one piece of copyrighted material makes the WHOLE module illegal.
Can't they do some broad consumer review asking how we, the consumers, feel about being hurt by this? That way we can all say, "Yes it hurts; but getting a little dutch rub from Vermont law is preferable to being boiled in oil by corparate if(screw customer=makemoney) then exec(screw customer) policy . . ."
Syrinx is exactly right! I can't count the number of times I've had to correct would-be nitpickers about this.
Why do they always do 2 single-sided dvds where one double-sided dvd would suffice? (Gladiator for example) Wouldn't that make it less expensive?
(no, i haven't seen the actual star trek dvd set so it could concievibly be a 2 double-sided dvd set but i doubt it)
Half-life didn't use the Quake2 engine like the article says. According to the Half-Life FAQ:
What Is Half-Life's Game Engine
Valve originally licensed the source for Quake engine from id Software and they began working on that code around October of 1996. Between October of 1996 till the time they finished Half-Life in October of 1998, they modified, removed, and created about 70% of their Half-Life coding. Not only did they got license for the Quake engine, but also got Quake II engine too.
actually, i downloaded the demo just to make sure :)
1. The article states that DOOM was the first 3D first-person shooter.
No it does not, in fact it specificly says "...it was done in an immersive first-persion perspective. Doom was not the first game to do this, but it was the first game to do it well."
3. "It was the first 3D game to have textures on everything on the screen, and that made a huge difference for the atmosphere and the mood of the game."
See Wolfenstein 3D.
Wolfenstein 3D did not have textured celings or floors
spose i should preview my subject lines too. . .
Seems to me everyone is using this situation as an example of the problems with face recognition software. Unfortuantly this incident has nothing to do with that. Some woman saw this guy's picture in the paper and thought it was her ex-husband. It's not like the system looked at his picture and concluded he was Mr. Dead Beat Dad. It's no different than someone misidentifying a person in a lineup.
I agree that there are definiately some privicy rights issues with this type of face recognition system but this particular situation DOESN'T exemplify those issues.
Here are some pics of the WonderSwan from their japanese website for those wondering what it is. And this is the hompage for the WonderSwan.