why the fuck are you idiots still discussing the name? as if that were relatively important. it is not. it's just a fucking word that took no more than some thoughts to come up with. the assets are of most importance, as it took the designers and modelers many weeks to design, model, and package; and the assets are definitely known to have been infringed.
ive brought it up many times, but no one, not even you, seems to notice.
really? a FOSS game taken commercial with no connection to the people who developed the original. sounds pretty damn similar to me.
Except the people who originally started Nexuiz are also the people who worked with Illfonic on trying to get Nexuiz on consoles. This is not the case with the Tremulous2 situation.
you mean the two guys that had rights to the name, and nothing else, who sold it? because the engine was by someone else, and the assets were created by a variety of people.
why the fuck are you idiots still discussing the name? as if that were relatively important. it is not. it's just a fucking word that took no more than some thoughts to come up with. the assets are of most importance, as it took the designers and modelers many weeks to design, model, and package; and the assets are definitely known to have been infringed.
It's exactly your type of people that is detrimental to situations like this. I just want to have people making more good games, whereas you just want to see someone hang. The only thing that has taken place is that people think or assume there was infringement. Someone is still innocent until proven guilty in court. Yes, it sounds silly, but it seems such silly words are needed.
Take a hike.
i think dev/hc wants to see good games too. i know i do. i cannot speak for him, but i know i would have these good games be original works, and not starting on the basis of someone else's hard work.
you also do not need a court to see facts. fact: rota has no claim to the tremulous name, or the assets from tremulous. fact: usage of the assets (or derivative works based on the assets) must include proper attribution. fact: proper attribution is not given. we know that for usage to not be in violation of the license, proper attribution must be given, and such attribution does not exist. it is safe to say - fact: rota and co. are infringing the copyright. there is no "thinking" or "assumption". this is cold hard fact.
when repeatedly asked by me in this very thread why rota does not do the oh so easy thing of providing proper attribution, no response has been made. rota seems to studiously ignore it every time i do.
all he needed to do to silence me, and also bring himself into compliance with the copyright, was provide proper attribution. so, why didnt he, and why did he ignore it every time it was brought up?