ForumsHQ

And actually, new link: http://money.cnn.com/2003/10/07/commentary/game_over/column_gaming/index.htm?cnn=yes



Evidently, it's compiled and ready to go. Someone find it. :)

*cough*

an actual pic from HL2! hahahaha he's a muff diver



http://www.uploadit.org/files/091003-hi2u.jpg

more found here.......



hehehe

http://koti.mbnet.fi/dredge/alyx/

Would that make a commerical copy able to be distributed legally by anyone? It's their property...



No, because the commercial copy is not labeled as Beta. My statement said nothing about being their property. I simply thought beta versions of software were legally distributable. It doesn't matter to me, because legally, illegally, I'm still always going to have every piece of software I want without paying for it.

No, because the commercial copy is not labeled as Beta. My statement said nothing about being their property. I simply thought beta versions of software were legally distributable. It doesn't matter to me, because legally, illegally, I'm still always going to have every piece of software I want without paying for it.



Since "beta" isn't a legal term (it's a computer term, among others), it has no weight on this. Beta is really just an in-house distinction that's caught on outside companies. It was started as a way to short up "it's complete, or mostly complete, but it's still not ready for the real world." Version numbers are like the same thing - they don't really mean anything legally. You can go backwards in releases if you want (it's happened) - it just confuses the shit out of people. SunOS 2.7 became SunOS 7 with no code changes...they just dropped the "2." in front because a version number of 2 was so low it had a negative conotation. Sure, there are standards for release numbering, but there are also rules to what is legal in HTML and JavaScript that Microsoft doesn't listen to. Ever wonder why some code works in IE but not in Netscape? It's not because Netscape sucks, it's because M$ decided to make up their own rules (and allow bad code). But I digress.



The only software that can be distributed legally is software whose "licenses" (anything, really) specify that you can do so. Every right belongs to the owner of the code until they say otherwise (with few exceptions; code hasn't hit 73(?) years old yet...)



As for your statement having not said anything about it being their property, it didn't have to; it's just impled. No one is wondering whether or not this code is actually from Valve. And when talking about legal vs illegal distribution IP comes into play...100% of the time.



As for your last sentence, I'll break out the guy I like: :werd:

wtf nobody is going to comment on my post of the scientist performing cunnilingus?

Apathy- Ya didn't have spend your time typing all that, I had already seceded to Ray a couple posts up that it was illegal to distribute. He cleared it up. My post replying to yours said nothing about beta.



Ray- It's funny, but not THAT funny. We've all seen worse in games.

Apathy- Ya didn't have spend your time typing all that, I had already seceded to Ray a couple posts up that it was illegal to distribute. He cleared it up. My post replying to yours said nothing about beta.



Ray- It's funny, but not THAT funny. We've all seen worse in games.



Quote:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Would that make a commerical copy able to be distributed legally by anyone? It's their property...

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------





No, because the commercial copy is not labeled as Beta. My statement said nothing about being their property. I simply thought beta versions of software were legally distributable. It doesn't matter to me, because legally, illegally, I'm

still always going to have every piece of software I want without paying for it.









Not to dwell, but it was my post you responded to about beta, not Ray's. That's why I responded again. Ray's just been going apeshit with oral sex :)



So anyway, has anyone gotten their hands on and run this? I'd like to know if it's decent or has anything neat or .... anything about it really.

Not to dwell, but it was my post you responded to about beta, not Ray's. That's why I responded again. Ray's just been going apeshit with oral sex



Sigh... let's dwell here for a second.



Ray says beta.

I say beta = legal.

Ray says beta = illegal.

I say oh, ok.

You say if beta = legal then commercial = legal.

I say I -thought- beta was legal. (Ray had cleared that up)

You explain beta.

I say explanation = unecessary.



That last step, the long winded explanation, was unnecessary since it was already stated previously in the post that beta was illegal to distribute.