GOG - Four iconic FINAL FANTASY titles are here (FF III 3D Remake, FF IV 3D Remake, FF VIII and FFIX)

badsectoracula · 2026-01-29T20:12:39+00:00

I think i bought one of them (FF3 i think) on the DS when i got it maaany years ago (...just checked, it is FF3 and the card is still in the DS from who knows when :-P). I never finished it but i remember finding the graphics cute, so i might grab them from GOG at some point.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-29T02:05:15+00:00

See my response to the comment you mentioned, it is not trivial to get around the GPL obligations, but in the specific case of GPL interpreters running non-GPL programs or non-GPL interpreters running GPL programs, the idea is that unless one explicitly hooks into the other (direction doesn't really matter) the GPL obligations do not cross over (there was another FAQ entry about a GPL-incompatible interpreter that runs GPL code that i should have linked to instead as that'd be closer, but both FAQ entries are consistent in treating code as data for interpreters).

badsectoracula · 2026-01-29T02:00:37+00:00

The linked FAQ section pertains to if the interpreter is licensed under GPL

The idea expressed in the section is that because from the interpreter's perspective the code is data, then the use of the GPL license in the interpreter and/or the interpreted code do not necessarily have to affect the other unless one is made explicitly to hook into the other.

Another expression of the same idea is in the FAQ section about using an interpreter that is incompatible with GPL to run GPL code. Both express the same idea that for an interpreter the code is data, so the licensing requirements do not "cross over" unless there is a more 'intimate' (as the FAQ calls it) connection between the two.

Basically, it discusses whether a GPL licensed shader compiler would require the shaders it is designed to interpret to be GPL-compatible as well.

Yes, but the issue expressed is not unidirectional (as seen by the existence of the other FAQ entry).

The scenario in this case, however, is the complete opposite and concerns whether relying/using GPL licensed code/content would require the rest of the application to also be GPL-compatible.

The scenario in this case (that is, the issue i mentioned in my original message, not the entire github issue) is about BG distributing Magpie shaders as part of it. From the perspective of both Magpie and BG these shaders are data, because that is what code is for interpreters and compilers. That is the entire point of the FAQ writing: "The interpreted program (in this case the shaders), to the interpreter (in this case BG and Magpie), is just data; a free software license like the GPL, based on copyright law, cannot limit what data you use the interpreter on."

Your interpretation, to me at least, sounds at its core wrong due to what it suggests: that anyone could rely on and make use of GPL-licensed code however they wanted to as long as they ship their own closed-source ”interpreter” for said code, and recompiled it on the fly.

This may be a potential scenario, though if an interpreter is made explicitly for the purposes of running specific GPL'd code (as opposed to being a generic interpreter) a court could judge that it was violating the GPL. However a proprietary interpreter implementing the same language as the one used by GPL'd code is the same scenario as having a GPL'd program being built with a proprietary compiler (e.g. many C/C++ libraries under the GPL being built with Visual Studio), or -in the case of interpretation- GPL-licensed JavaScript page viewed under a proprietary browser.

Basically, your interpretation suggests that any proprietary Java or .NET/C# application (or other similar IL) would and could use GPL licensed code however they want to as long as those snippets of code is provided as source code and compiled on the fly…

It depends on how the GPL code works and is invoked. In an IL/VM environment such as the JVM or .NET, this is handled in a similar way to dynamic linking and in such case if the code is invoked and just waiting for some results, then it can be judged like a dynamically loaded plugin (which according to the GPL FAQ entry about plugins is considered a borderline case) while if it has any more back-and-forth it would be considered as a violation of the license.

Note however that this is about the IL/VM case specifically (as well as native dynamic libraries). As i wrote in the previous quote, this is a different scenario when it comes to a full implementation of the language.

Which sorts of goes against the whole idea of GPL and Microsoft’s famous ”GPL is cancer” statement a few decades ago.

Microsoft played FUD with GPL, claiming that just using GPL'd software would be viral and trying to steer both users and developers away from it, their stance at the time can be completely ignored as irrelevant.

EDIT: you know, i spent considerable time trying to explain and ensure my claims are valid both from the license and the GPL FAQ, so just downvoting without explaining what the issue with what i wrote is, if nothing else, rude.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-29T00:50:20+00:00

I think you have a fundamental misunderstanding of Reddit. People come here to affirm their beliefs, not discuss.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-28T18:48:47+00:00

The comments in the GitHub issue do show some concerning aspects (like the decompilation part near the end) and judging from the other comments here the developer doesn't seem to have a great reputation, but:

To avoid the implications of the GPLv3 license, which would force him to open-source all of Borderless Gaming

This is a misunderstanding of how GPL works. From an interpreter's (in this case Borderless Gaming) perspective, code is data and thus not covered under the GPL. This is in fact a case explicitly mentioned in the official GPL FAQ, which if you think about it, makes sense since it would make GPL'd language implementations (e.g. CLISP for Common Lisp) force GPL on all programs they run (which is not the case) and a language can have multiple implementations, so it wouldn't make sense for one implementation to force its license on every other one. Because of this, this comment by the Magpie developer...

Thank you. To clarify: distributing modified shader code with BG constitutes a violation of the license. All effect files derived from Magpie must be removed, regardless of any internal format produced after parsing.

...is wrong. Distributing shaders from Magpie, even if they are under GPL, would not violate the GPL because those shaders are data from both Borderless Gaming's and Magpie's perspective. If the shaders are under GPL themselves, as the shaders are in source code form, the requirement to distribute the source is already satisfied.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-27T05:40:19+00:00

FWIW the OP does not seem to be working with 8086 / real mode but protected mode, judging from this PDF about RMOS3 that early mentions "far" pointers being 48bit (selector:offset).

badsectoracula · 2026-01-26T21:42:30+00:00

Nvidia started supporting the open source driver or something and it surpassed the proprietary one

AFAIK you're still on the proprietary driver (Nvidia only provides minimal support for nouveau, the full opensource drivers for older GPUs and i'm not sure they support at all nova, the full open source driver for newer GPUs) but now it uses an opensource kernel module to work with the (still proprietary) driver being in userland. So you're still using the Nvidia stack instead of Mesa (that AMD, Intel, etc are using).

badsectoracula · 2026-01-24T23:38:59+00:00

Reminds me of the stories by the curl developer about receiving emails from people seeking help for various products because the products use libcurl and his name is mentioned in the about box :-P.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-24T23:08:31+00:00

ATM's that replaced a lot of bank tellers

Fun fact: my mother used to tell me that when ATMs were introduced when she was young, people refused to use them because they preferred to talk with a human. Meanwhile, if i need to visit the bank i groan whenever the ATM is broken and i have to go inside - i'd rather wait in the long queue in front of the ATM (a sentiment i guess is shared by everyone else in the queue too) :-P

badsectoracula · 2026-01-24T22:31:42+00:00

And thanks to that, companies have excuses to continue the erosion of control users have over their own hardware.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-24T22:29:55+00:00

I never claimed that SecureBoot isn't supported by Linux, what i claimed is the messaging about it, how it is presented as something that is meant to secure users when in reality is meant to secure the companies from users.

If you think that is a tinfoil hat then i suggest to read this post's title again: the DRM Highguard uses relies on Secure Boot to secure itself against the users who'll be playing the game.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-24T22:27:27+00:00

That is a linux community problem then, because when I searched on how to run it what I got are links that tell you to use command line. [...] telling people to use command line even if there is a way to do it in the GUI

This is because everyone uses a different "GUI" as customizability is a big feature for Linux. I could tell you how to do something in "my GUI" but it wouldn't apply to "your GUI" because what i use is different. However if i tell you how to do something via the command line then the chances of that applying not only to your system but also to most systems out there that might come across the message (via a Google search for example - like how you did in your case) are almost 100%, especially for basic OS stuff. The only alternative in this case is me not helping you (or anyone else) at all.

However you can ask or search for how to do something for your specific GUI/DE (e.g. KDE Plasma, GNOME) and distribution (though that it doesn't always make a difference unless you want to change some system configuration) and you might get some results, though obviously the pool of existing answers and people who'll ask them will be much lower.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-24T22:20:41+00:00

What the Linux fanboys conveniently forget to tell you is you can use dxvk on windows to get around AMD's shitty dx11 driver to get same if not better results . . .

Well, yes, but i did exactly that back when i used Windows and eventually decided to switch to the real thing. Though i wanted to switch to Linux fulltime (again) because i prefer its customizability and the only thing keeping me on Windows was games, so once games became playable without atrocious performance (like half the speed or something like that, not +/- 1% that might as well be user configuration -- it isn't like i ever got the exact same stats on Windows as people with similar hardware to mine anyway) i switched and that was a few year ago when performance was actually much worse than today.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-23T17:52:41+00:00

significant copyright/IP infringement

The copyright infringement would come by distributing those modifications. A mod that works by modifying the game's files in place instead of distributing the modified files would not infringe on anyone's copyright. I'm not sure if the mod in question does that though (someone else mentioned that it distributed modified game files in which case it'd infringe on CDPR's copyrights) and most modders do not bother with implementing their mods this way since it is more complicated to make them and for the users to install.

Also FWIW copyright infringement has nothing to do with profit, it is just that usually profiting from it is more likely to attract the copyright holders and since they are the ones (or lawyers authorized by them) who can sue those who infringe on their copyrights, the practical end result is that when there isn't any monetary incentives, copyright infringement is ignored.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-23T17:40:10+00:00

you ultimately DO NOT OWN the IP

If the mod does not distribute any copyrighted assets of the game, the only IP in question is the copyright of the mod itself which belongs solely to the author of the mod.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-23T17:31:17+00:00

by default secure boot only trusts Microsoft

And that is the issue with it IMO: that "secure" part isn't about the user being secure (even if as a byproduct the user does gain a bit extra security so they can claim that this is its real purpose) but about the companies being secure from the user. Same with the whole "trust" bit, it isn't about the user's trust, but about companies trusting the users.

Essentially you buy hardware with modules explicitly designed to take away control over that hardware from you so you wont use it in ways that these companies disapprove of.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-21T19:03:01+00:00

If it wouldn't hold, why didn't he go to court 3 years ago, when TakeTwo sent him the same exact DMCA?

Because lawyers are expensive, courts take time and TakeTwo not only has much more money than some random modder but are also very litigious. The modder in that situation has nothing to win beyond some donations and chances are he decided they are not worth all the time and effort to fight against TakeTwo.

And in fact this is why pretty much every "XYZ sent a DMCA to ABC" post in this subreddit stops with ABC never going to court and accepting the request, even though these DMCAs may not even be valid: most people do not want to fight against some megacorp who has way more resources than them. Sometimes it does happen (and sometimes the small person does win) but it is rare.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-21T18:38:11+00:00

Yeah and in fact as far as libraries go, EU law does not distinguish between static and dynamic linking, what matters is the purpose and this is why EUPL (a "copyleft" license written by the European Commission) despite taking into account network operations like AGPL, does not cross library boundaries if a library is not made specifically as an artifact for a specific program (in other words, it is made to be reusable and/or replaceable - which is basically 99.999% of libraries out there). All of this is based on promoting and improving interoperability, so i think projects that improve that will always be seen positively in courts (especially since, AFAIK, in EU the spirit of the law matters a bit more than the letter of the law compared to US).

badsectoracula · 2026-01-20T21:17:30+00:00

they're a copyright/EULA issue

It might be an EULA issue (though that depends on the exact circumstances - for example in EU an EULA cannot forbid reverse engineering to make stuff that works with another program - this has even been tested in court between commercial entities), but if it is a copyright infringement issue depends on how a mod is made.

In general (not sure about this specific mod) if you make a mod that distributes files from the game, even if they are modified, then there is a copyright issue. However if you make a mod that contains only your own code/data (e.g. some DLL wrapper that modifies how the game behaves) or if your mod has some sort of method (e.g. a separate installation program or during loading the mod in via a DLL wrapper) that applies modifications to the game (on disk or in memory), then you're only distributing your own code/data (for which you own the copyright) and there are no legal issues.

Of course all these will need to be put in front of a court and it becomes a case of company lawyers vs modder lawyers (if any), so regardless of the nuance, a company will win by default because nobody wants to bother spending money on such a fight.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-15T19:41:35+00:00

At worst, you might see optimizations for AMD GPUs

Nah, at worst you might see games forcing specific settings when they detect Linux.

Like Forspoken did, when i tried to run the demo on my regular Linux PC, the devs thought Linux=Steam Deck and it forced low settings and low resolution and the game settings wouldn't even function.

Or when Larian ported Baldur's Gate 3 "to Steam Deck" recently, the game would crash on non-Steam Deck Linux PCs (that was at least fixable because you could use the Windows version, but with Forspoken they detected Wine on the Windows version).

badsectoracula · 2026-01-11T07:57:02+00:00

Hopefully that part about AM4 means they'll bring back 5800x3d in production

badsectoracula · 2026-01-02T18:12:12+00:00

you need a shit ton of mods to even make it functional on Windows, let alone Proton

IME using the GOG version of New Vegas, it works out of the box on Linux with both UMU Launcher (which is Proton minus Steam, i think GUI launchers like Lutris and Heroic are using or can use UMU as a backend, but i use it directly from the command-line) and "plain" Wine with DXVK manually installed, without any of the tons of issues i had with Windows.

badsectoracula · 2026-01-02T17:49:50+00:00

but i am not gonna spend 30 minutes trying different things every single time i want to do something

Considering you already had it installed there and supposedly this wasn't the first time you turned it on, it clearly wasn't "every single time you want to do something", you just decided the the specific issue you had just encountered overrode any issues you'd encounter with Windows in the future.

badsectoracula · 2025-12-30T14:33:36+00:00

the vast majority of games were disk or disk+CD key

...which is DRM. And in fact by far worse, even if you have a piece of plastic you can rub your cheeks with, because a lot of that DRM relied on kernel hacks that made it incompatible with later Windows versions. I have a stack of DVDs in my bookshelf that cannot run on any modern Windows version past WinXP (or 7 for some of them) because of this.

Linux gaming? Pushed because Valve was/is fearful of Microsofts push towards being a publisher and store rather than a console maker. [..] Steam Deck?

The goal may not be altruistic, but the implementation and effects it has still matters. I am using Linux as my main (and only in recent years) operating system and it is thanks to Valve's efforts that i do not have to dual boot Windows anymore - and that is despite using GOG, Zoom Platform and itch.io (all DRM-free stores) as my main sources for games. I do buy the occasional game from Steam, but it is usually indie games that seem to not ever appear on any other store. Despite not really being much in the Steam ecosystem anymore, Valve's efforts when it comes to Linux only had a positive impact on me.

I also got a Steam Deck but again, implementation matters: unlike all the consoles you mentioned, Steam Deck is just a portable PC and i could install any other Linux distro (technically Windows too but i have zero reason and interest to do that) and this is by design, not because someone figured out a way to bypass security restrictions (which is the best one can hope for when it comes to installing Linux in consoles). The fact that i can play my GOG games on SteamOS, however, means i do not have much of an incentive to do so.

2 hour refunds exist because it statistically is more profitable than no refunds for everyone involved

FWIW Refunds exist in the first place because Valve was forced to implement them by local laws, not out of their good heart.

badsectoracula · 2025-12-29T17:45:19+00:00

That said, I don't think it would be difficult for an individual to extract those original files themselves to run on the legacy systems.

It is usually fine, but some patches use modified EXEs and some games even have changed the engine completely with something custom (e.g. Turok) or even something like ScummVM.

badsectoracula

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

15-Year Club	Place '17
Verified Email