that would be a trademark or copyright suit not a patent suit. Patents are strictly mechanics, they didn’t sue on design, I agree I think they had a better case on that, but the Nintendo lawyers decided otherwise
Just your normal everyday casual software dev. Nothing to see here.
that would be a trademark or copyright suit not a patent suit. Patents are strictly mechanics, they didn’t sue on design, I agree I think they had a better case on that, but the Nintendo lawyers decided otherwise
the problem is, palworld isn’t “pokemon with guns”, they used that slogan originally sure, but palworld 100% shows more similar mechanics and concepts to ark then pokemon, it’s a mix of pokemon style mechanics and Arks RPG mechanics. I would say they had a stronger suit against trademark than they did mechanics side.
The only game mechanic similarity between the two is the ball capture system and the fact that it’s called a trainer/leader when you battle the NPC’s anything else is already present in other games.
By this logic, any game that features the ability to tame or capture monsters would be a pokemon clone. That’s far too broad of a category to allow as a patent if challenged. I personally believe it will result in them losing the patent as a whole if it is that patent they are fighting with.
rokus will DoS your DNS servers if you block their telemetry, I had to disable most logging on my pihole due to that because I was getting 2 or 3 gigs worth of DNS daily logging which was almost fully the sole roku Premier upstairs. It’s so bad.
I use graveyard mods for it, gives me at least a chance but lowers challenge some
paralives is so slow development though, and the lack of teaser releases concerns me about the quality. I have high expectations for it as well but starting to grow concerned
I was just about to say a comment on the billboards, like wtf how is this legal. So glad that my state has them banned lol
I recently learned not all commercial craft are fly by wire when watching a mentor pilot video, I was amazed it was legal. ofc it was a crash video, but still the fact it was legal appalled me
That’s the downside of having the invisible boatmobile, they just keep coming
I’m mobile so I can’t check those numbers, but they leave the sources they got for the calculations they provided, by category here
I know the numbers are pretty on point for for poverty vs living wage for my area, but like any actual research studies YMMV, but they do have sources of why they have the numbers they do, and they are by verified/reliable sources
it’s not a copyright/dmca claim, they are claiming they are violating a patent of some kind, so it’s not visuals or names, I’m curious if it will be a ball object that captures them, cause like if so that’s so broad that it shouldn’t be able to be patented
fully agree, my signature is different every time I sign, my penmanship sucks so I never have it the same, I’ve never been questioned on it, likely due to the fact I don’t have a natural signature
the definition of living wage is already defined by MIT
They actually have a pretty decent website that calculates it for you here
I don’t like videos either tbh, but I would be ok with posts that are properly identified, so like [video] [news] [opinion] etc lol
yea and when that happens I just cancel, then I can worry about all the ad blocking and stuff, but currently it’s worth it for me
I agree that it’s a great investment, and it will definitely get people on board for if the platform really takes off. I think they’re definitely assuming that the majority of their people who pay the $400 aren’t going to remain on the platform which is probably a safe bet, once they get somewhat established and have content that’s more for the everyday person, I would probably recommend converting the lifetime license over to an extended long-term subscription.
So like a subscription that lasts five six years at like the price of 3 years of the monthly subscription price, I know if YouTube offered something like that I 1,000% would buy it in a heartbeat because I know that YouTube will still be around in that time frame and it’s a no-brainer cuz I use it daily,
That being said if they did end up having a significant amount of people that are still using the lifetime subscription, they may revert to adding features to the monthly subscriptions like how Discord does that entice you to switch to a new plan with a retroactive sub and then you just can’t switch back again.
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.
a retail license doesn’t even prompt that, just sign in with your MS account and bobs your uncle, that’s how I manage all of my VM stuff I just sign into my primary Microsoft account and it automatically activates, I’m sure one of these days it’s going to hit a Hidden activation limit but I’m not really sure how Windows works with that, I don’t change vm’s all that often.
My main bottleneck for swapping fully off of dual booting is the annoyance when it comes to trying to configure GPU pass through with KVM, I would definitely be using that virtual machine for gaming on the few games that no longer work using proton but like it’s such a pain in the butt to set up, that and for the duration of me having to transfer the system I basically need to have twice the amount of disk space because I need to clone that data over to an image before being able to free up the partitions
it’s still practical to block them, twitch has adblockers and uses the same mechanics, if there’s a client rendered element(such as a pop up box that can be clicked) it’s detectable and therefor skippable or at the very least hidable.