It is not superseding anything, why would it? It is not doing anything that is not clearly defined in the law. It is just bundling to types of contracts together.
I fear we have some kind of missunderstanding somewhere and I am not sure how to resolve that.
Yes, but such a license agreement is fully inside the limits of the law, not beyond it. There is no violation, only a addition inside of the rules and limits of the law.
There can be, but most of the time yes.
And it depends on the definition of retro games. Retro games can include up to WiiU and Xbox360 era, there is a lot of T&C there.
But for the good old 8/16bit era, yes it is mostly unkown there.
Not really, or not always at least. Not every law system allows to sell your copyrights. In germany for example it is only possible to license your copyrights but not to fully transfer them. Copyrights are therefor not part of the transfer of ownership, you have to add a license agreement additionally.
Why should retro games have no licenses? And I personally don’t oppose anything, just pointing to the laws and how I understand it. Am I a lawyer? No! Is my knowledge of such laws primarly only valid for germany and the EU? Yes
There could be a legal basis against romhacks, and even a bigger one if they are paid, but it could may be legal too. That is one of those cases where a court ruling would be helpfull to be sure.
If you want to fully own it then put a exclusive and unlimited license agreement into the contract with your architect.
All your examples are physical objects that are owned and physically manipulated or extended, not software that is not owned but always only licensed (yes, even when you buy a physical medium, the software is only licensed), and subject of very complex trademark, copyright and intelectual property laws. Its like saying I can safe look directly at the moon that means i can safe look directly at the sun because both looking like lights in the sky. You can and should not, and things that look a lot like each other don’t have to follow the same rules.
Oh and try to fix your physical John Deer tractor with anything not bought from John Deer (and even that is only possible to do in the US since 2023) you will very soon see the limits of 3rd party.
Btw the creators of phone cases and controllers and such need the permission when they use the trademarks and registered names owned buy other companies. You may be allowed to create unofficial accesoirs but you have no right to the trademarks to put them on your product or in your advertisements.
They don’t say anything against applying or installing the mod to the game, at least not in this case, but against making money with their IP. This should not be mixed together.
In germany we have the “Architektenurheberrecht”.
Architectural copyright (Architektenurheberrecht) protects an architect’s original intellectual and creative achievements, including designs, plans, and completed buildings, provided they possess a sufficient level of originality (Schöpfungshöhe).
Architects can, and have, use this to deny changes to such buildings or claim injunctive relief, removal of the infringement, or financial damages.
Installing extra cabinets would most likely not be enough to seize the house, but if he can convince a judge that it will sufficient change his art he could get a order to have them removed and the original space restored again.
Not sure if this is germany only, but it shows that every bullshit is possible when it comes to laws.
In german we have the saying “Eigenlob stinkt” which can be translated to “honouring yourself stinks” which fits perfectly here
Maybe that why it feels so “real” and “authentic” and not just forced onto the story.
I don’t care about politics in my games (and shows/movies) as long as it fits into the world and into the story. A TV show examples for that is Torchwood. It has to be the most gay scify show (at least it is the most gay I know) but all of it fits together and I love the show, even as a totaly hetero/cis guy. It doesn’t feel forced but is just how everything just it. Not sure if I can explain it good, hope it is somewhat to understand.
There is a lot of valid points there yes, still don’t see where the old article would be relevant for those though, and I think that I really can’t say a lot against your arguments in general. All is clear now! Thank you for this longer clarifiation and have a nice day!
All I am saying is that his so ultra specific hardware works flawless under X11 and that a new solution that plans to replace the old one should support at least the same displays, that should be the MVP - don’t be worse then the old cruft.
And I still don’t see where the 8 years old article would say anything otherwise, at least nothing that was not replaced by info from the more recent article. And yes, he has linked his old article in the new one but that doesn’t mean that every single sentence in it is still fully valid after all those years.
I am not more ignoring it then you are ignoring the fact that the hardware article is 8 years old and that the current article makes part of the old one obsolete.
Well and his current articel from 8 years later says that it worked with X11 for years, so what? Maybe your arguments are a bit out of date? Information can be obsolete after nearly a decade.
Oh i read both articles and I still have no clue why it would invalidate my point. Please enlighten my stupid little mind with some proper context and not only a link to a long document.
Not sure what you mean but:
With the nVidia driver now working per se with Wayland, unfortunately that’s still not good enough to use Wayland in my setup: my Dell UP3218K monitor requires two DisplayPort 1.4 connections with MST (Multi Stream Transport) and TILE support. This combination worked just fine under X11 for the last 8+ years.
As he said, it worked in X11 but not in Wayland.
It is the superseding that I don’t find correct, but maybe it is just a nuance of the word that i am missing.
But I would say, in some degree, yes.