[BLOCKQUOTE]
Or none, as the FreeCraft engine can use the original WC2 graphics if you own a legal copy of WC2. It seems to me that all FreeCraft does is promote the sale of more copies of WC2. It expands the WC2 market into the Linux and Macintosh world. How terrible.
[/BLOCKQUOTE]
This is where you are wrong. A legal copy of WC2 does not seem to be required, any copy of WC2 will do. Even your neighbors. This is what bothers Blizzard.
The naming convention only applies to something in the same field as what you have trademarked. IE FreeCraft was a RTS game, so therefore it infringed. If FreeCraft had been something like a boat, or what you pointed out, a recreational vehicle - then there is no case. However, someone's bright idea to name the game very similarly and to blatantly copy the gameplay are both violations. This common legal issue is in place so that the parent company does not take flak if the similar product gets a bad rap.
This is why Blizzard also got the name of a movie changed from Diablo to something else. At the time, Blizzard had the rights to the name as they were making a movie.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. WarCraft 3 was quite different than StarCraft or WarCraft games before it. FreeCraft blatently made their game almost identical to WC2.
It might be just me, but I remember that Valve gave away CounterStrike to anyone who had Half-Life.... Whereas you _must_ buy WarCraft II in order to play it.
"The version of software that was reviewed has not been distributed since the fall of 2000 to consumers, and did not adversely impact users," an AOL spokesman said in a statement about the Netscape settlement.
I wonder if anyone else RTFA... My guess is not many people who care about it are still using this version of the browser anyway.
You say all commercial software, but that's a big area to cover. I know of several commercial tools that rely on user input to figure out the direction in which the tools will change for future releases.
There's a 1.x megabyte file that uses IE to do tabbed browsing. Also, if someone has Visual Studio.Net, you can browse the internet in tabs with that.
Upgrading IE has not crippled any of the systems I've worked on, expecially when going from IE4 to IE6. Did you operate Windows Update properly?;p
"Mozilla doesn't have libraries that are integral to other applications." = Mozilla is not required and is optional whereas IE is required.
If you use the security settings and only enable trusted sites to have popups, you get the same effect as what you described.
People who use Visual Studio.Net can use it for tabbed browsing. There's a free program that allows you to do tabbed browsing (1.xMB!). It should now be obvious that tabbed browsing is a trivial to impliment in IE. As to why they haven't done it? Who knows.
With comments like this, I'm surprised it compiles at all. Please find some non-hacked together code to put me on trial by.
"Added a hack to seek past raw video data in a system stream"
Well that's rather odd then. I've had const all over the place in a couple projects and everything seemed to work just fine. I wouldn't throw out the possibility of the compiler misbehaving at this point, but I'd still guess it to be something else. Code collapsing is like being able to fold a piece of paper so that you only see the parts you want to. A lot of newer IDE's have this.
Re:this is all well and good
on
GCC 3.3 Released
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Sounds like you just don't have a lot of experience compiling. The first thing you do when something acts out of spec is to clean and then rebuild. This probably would have solved a lot of your troubles. The GNU make has this bug even worse, since it only checks file size most of the time. Speed optimization has _never_ in my 5 years of using VC++ produced bad code. Please stop with the trolling and get back to learning how to use the compilers properly.
Borland C++ was okay 6 years ago, but after VC6 came out it's easy to see why it's not so great any more. Two more IDE updates and the old BC is left far behind. I'd take many OpenSource IDE's over BC. Features such as auto-completion and code collapsing have saved me a good deal of time & typing.
NVidia drivers have been generally good on the windows side for quite a while. I remember the whole problem with OpenGL not too too long ago, but that's been resolved from what I've seen. DirectX crashes clean every time, so it's of no trouble. I remember back in the day running RedHat on my box and X would randomly crash, so I guess that makes 'em about even. The only thing that really sets either OS apart is what software you want to run. Someone else made a comment about incorrect documentation on some of the features, and I agree that there are some. However, I think the bigest flaw is the lack of a standard for interfaces in *nix.
Linux systems have more hidden costs than Windows. Linux systems don't declare that they require a high paid geek to sit and tweak them and take care of them when some script kiddie takes over the box. There's a million and one MS certs ready and waiting to get paid for any job.
Slashdot Mirror
[BLOCKQUOTE] Or none, as the FreeCraft engine can use the original WC2 graphics if you own a legal copy of WC2. It seems to me that all FreeCraft does is promote the sale of more copies of WC2. It expands the WC2 market into the Linux and Macintosh world. How terrible. [/BLOCKQUOTE] This is where you are wrong. A legal copy of WC2 does not seem to be required, any copy of WC2 will do. Even your neighbors. This is what bothers Blizzard.
The naming convention only applies to something in the same field as what you have trademarked. IE FreeCraft was a RTS game, so therefore it infringed. If FreeCraft had been something like a boat, or what you pointed out, a recreational vehicle - then there is no case. However, someone's bright idea to name the game very similarly and to blatantly copy the gameplay are both violations. This common legal issue is in place so that the parent company does not take flak if the similar product gets a bad rap.
This is why Blizzard also got the name of a movie changed from Diablo to something else. At the time, Blizzard had the rights to the name as they were making a movie.
I don't think you know what you're talking about. WarCraft 3 was quite different than StarCraft or WarCraft games before it. FreeCraft blatently made their game almost identical to WC2.
It might be just me, but I remember that Valve gave away CounterStrike to anyone who had Half-Life.... Whereas you _must_ buy WarCraft II in order to play it.
If a GUI cannot be copywrited, then why was Apple allowed to sue (and win) people over Aqua like Window Blinds themes.
I wonder if anyone else RTFA... My guess is not many people who care about it are still using this version of the browser anyway.
You say all commercial software, but that's a big area to cover. I know of several commercial tools that rely on user input to figure out the direction in which the tools will change for future releases.
There's a 1.x megabyte file that uses IE to do tabbed browsing. Also, if someone has Visual Studio .Net, you can browse the internet in tabs with that. ;p
Upgrading IE has not crippled any of the systems I've worked on, expecially when going from IE4 to IE6. Did you operate Windows Update properly?
"Mozilla doesn't have libraries that are integral to other applications." = Mozilla is not required and is optional whereas IE is required.
If you use the security settings and only enable trusted sites to have popups, you get the same effect as what you described.
People who use Visual Studio .Net can use it for tabbed browsing. There's a free program that allows you to do tabbed browsing (1.xMB!). It should now be obvious that tabbed browsing is a trivial to impliment in IE. As to why they haven't done it? Who knows.
There's already a game like that. It's call Guitaroo Man.
I wish I had that kind of connection via land.
Either you're very creative or you need to stop with the whacky tobaccy.
Maybe if you find 170MB/s abysmal....
No, ATI forced you to medium quality no matter what so that it would seem like high quality scores were better.
My understanding of the GPL is that you are required to distribute your code with the product. That's less a right and more a "contract" to me.
Is this not the same clame about click through EULA's? I could be mistaken...
With comments like this, I'm surprised it compiles at all. Please find some non-hacked together code to put me on trial by.
"Added a hack to seek past raw video data in a system stream"
Just download IEEE_802.3af_FULL_REAL_WORKING_VERSION.exe
The answer is however TRUE. As this is the make that comes with a certain development kit and is quite outdated.
Well that's rather odd then. I've had const all over the place in a couple projects and everything seemed to work just fine. I wouldn't throw out the possibility of the compiler misbehaving at this point, but I'd still guess it to be something else. Code collapsing is like being able to fold a piece of paper so that you only see the parts you want to. A lot of newer IDE's have this.
Sounds like you just don't have a lot of experience compiling. The first thing you do when something acts out of spec is to clean and then rebuild. This probably would have solved a lot of your troubles. The GNU make has this bug even worse, since it only checks file size most of the time. Speed optimization has _never_ in my 5 years of using VC++ produced bad code. Please stop with the trolling and get back to learning how to use the compilers properly.
Borland C++ was okay 6 years ago, but after VC6 came out it's easy to see why it's not so great any more. Two more IDE updates and the old BC is left far behind. I'd take many OpenSource IDE's over BC. Features such as auto-completion and code collapsing have saved me a good deal of time & typing.
Does anyone have an example of the GPL holding up in court? Or would this be a first?
NVidia drivers have been generally good on the windows side for quite a while. I remember the whole problem with OpenGL not too too long ago, but that's been resolved from what I've seen. DirectX crashes clean every time, so it's of no trouble. I remember back in the day running RedHat on my box and X would randomly crash, so I guess that makes 'em about even. The only thing that really sets either OS apart is what software you want to run. Someone else made a comment about incorrect documentation on some of the features, and I agree that there are some. However, I think the bigest flaw is the lack of a standard for interfaces in *nix.
Linux systems have more hidden costs than Windows. Linux systems don't declare that they require a high paid geek to sit and tweak them and take care of them when some script kiddie takes over the box. There's a million and one MS certs ready and waiting to get paid for any job.
Some people play games... games under *nix that do not come with *nix are not fun.