Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
The best collection of speccy games, denied included (Activision, Codemasters, Ultimate)
38 views
Skip to first unread message
Espineter
Oct 2, 2011, 7:10:57 AM10/2/11
to
More than 5000 TAP files, nice user interface with loading screens and
snap-in screens.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SCJKJ8JH
snap-in screens.
http://www.megaupload.com/?d=SCJKJ8JH
zx1...@gmail.com
Oct 5, 2011, 12:45:25 PM10/5/11
to
Thank you for sharing.
Much appreciated.
You even included 2 games by me…
Much appreciated.
You even included 2 games by me…
Espineter
Oct 6, 2011, 6:59:54 PM10/6/11
to
File updated:
korax1214
Oct 24, 2011, 4:45:51 AM10/24/11
to
"denienced"... :-)
(Search the WoS forums for the origin of this term...)
Jason Orpington
Jan 30, 2012, 12:31:15 PM1/30/12
to
"Espineter" wrote in message
news:a62041f2-9923-418c...@i14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>File updated:
>
>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=D0G459P8
Any chance you could upload this to a domain which isn't seized? Megaupload
seem to be having difficulties with the Feds.
Jason
news:a62041f2-9923-418c...@i14g2000yqg.googlegroups.com...
>File updated:
>
>http://www.megaupload.com/?d=D0G459P8
Any chance you could upload this to a domain which isn't seized? Megaupload
seem to be having difficulties with the Feds.
Jason
hp
Jan 30, 2012, 3:52:52 PM1/30/12
to
Once out there that way I could also serve as a seed for it.
Brian Gaff
Jan 31, 2012, 3:00:04 AM1/31/12
to
Its a real shame that companies cannot just issue a statement in suitable
legalese that basically says, this old code is fine to distribute as a
historical artefact, but all characters and game designs remain the
copyright of their respective owners, and any use outside of the original
code is prohibited.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"hp" <fe...@farkel.net> wrote in message
news:jg6vv1$r82$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
legalese that basically says, this old code is fine to distribute as a
historical artefact, but all characters and game designs remain the
copyright of their respective owners, and any use outside of the original
code is prohibited.
Brian
--
Brian Gaff - bri...@blueyonder.co.uk
Note:- In order to reduce spam, any email without 'Brian Gaff'
in the display name may be lost.
Blind user, so no pictures please!
"hp" <fe...@farkel.net> wrote in message
news:jg6vv1$r82$1...@speranza.aioe.org...
Ivan Shmakov
Feb 5, 2012, 1:22:20 AM2/5/12
to
>>>>> Brian Gaff <Bri...@blueyonder.co.uk> writes:
[...]
> Its a real shame that companies cannot just issue a statement in
> suitable legalese that basically says, this old code is fine to
> distribute as a historical artefact, but all characters and game
> designs remain the copyright of their respective owners, and any use
> outside of the original code is prohibited.
... Smart managers? Impossible!
--
FSF associate member #7257
[...]
> Its a real shame that companies cannot just issue a statement in
> suitable legalese that basically says, this old code is fine to
> distribute as a historical artefact, but all characters and game
> designs remain the copyright of their respective owners, and any use
> outside of the original code is prohibited.
--
FSF associate member #7257
Phil Reynolds
Feb 5, 2012, 3:07:26 AM2/5/12
to
As this is in response to Brian, I'm top-posting...
The other thing is, some of us remember things like this. On principle I
won't buy anything by Activision or Codemasters, and Ultimate is now
owned by Microsoft whom I have long avoided anyway. It might be
different if they were still selling the old titles in a form I could
use, but in general they aren't. I apply the same principle to other
companies too, of course, with Sony being about the only one I excuse a
little.
On 31/01/12 08:00, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Its a real shame that companies cannot just issue a statement in suitable
> legalese that basically says, this old code is fine to distribute as a
> historical artefact, but all characters and game designs remain the
> copyright of their respective owners, and any use outside of the original
> code is prohibited.
>
> Brian
>
--
Phil Reynolds
mail: phil...@tinsleyviaduct.com
Followups to NEWS please, that's what it's there for.
The other thing is, some of us remember things like this. On principle I
won't buy anything by Activision or Codemasters, and Ultimate is now
owned by Microsoft whom I have long avoided anyway. It might be
different if they were still selling the old titles in a form I could
use, but in general they aren't. I apply the same principle to other
companies too, of course, with Sony being about the only one I excuse a
little.
On 31/01/12 08:00, Brian Gaff wrote:
> Its a real shame that companies cannot just issue a statement in suitable
> legalese that basically says, this old code is fine to distribute as a
> historical artefact, but all characters and game designs remain the
> copyright of their respective owners, and any use outside of the original
> code is prohibited.
>
> Brian
>
--
mail: phil...@tinsleyviaduct.com
Followups to NEWS please, that's what it's there for.
Duncan Snowden
Feb 5, 2012, 1:59:54 PM2/5/12
to
I'll continue the top posting in case Brian wants to follow the thread.
What he proposes isn't actually all that unusual. A lot of open-source
games are dual-licenced, with the code under something like the GPL,
and the copyright holders of the “assets“ reserving their rights. Free
software purists don't like it, but it happens. And there's no problem
with “active protection“ rules, any more than Mozilla's trademarks are
threatened by their inclusion in Firefox. That's their distribution
model.
I think it would be eminently possible for a company to say that the
code of its 8-bit games was now under a BSD licence, but it retains
copyright and trademark rights on the graphics and characters. The only
likely difficulty is that in these old games, code and assets weren't
kept very seperate. I imagine that's the way these companies are
looking at it: how can you use two different licences for what is,
effectively, one single block of code? I'm not so sure that's a problem.
What he proposes isn't actually all that unusual. A lot of open-source
games are dual-licenced, with the code under something like the GPL,
and the copyright holders of the “assets“ reserving their rights. Free
software purists don't like it, but it happens. And there's no problem
with “active protection“ rules, any more than Mozilla's trademarks are
threatened by their inclusion in Firefox. That's their distribution
model.
I think it would be eminently possible for a company to say that the
code of its 8-bit games was now under a BSD licence, but it retains
copyright and trademark rights on the graphics and characters. The only
likely difficulty is that in these old games, code and assets weren't
kept very seperate. I imagine that's the way these companies are
looking at it: how can you use two different licences for what is,
effectively, one single block of code? I'm not so sure that's a problem.
Guesser
Feb 5, 2012, 5:48:23 PM2/5/12
to
Really? cause *I* imagine the way they look at is more along the lines
of "oh get lost, we're not going to waste money paying lawyers to draft
up licenses just for the sake of a few weirdos who want to play obsolete
computer games"
:)
of "oh get lost, we're not going to waste money paying lawyers to draft
up licenses just for the sake of a few weirdos who want to play obsolete
computer games"
:)
0 new messages