From the article "Nowadays, some third-party servers rival the original in size and quality"... is this true? As far I knew OSI servers have (had) several thousends players online, while the size of any emulated not shard not yet grew beyond a few hundred in absolute maximum times. Can somebody please backup this statement with some sourced numbers? -- Jestix 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it is "proper" does not matter when they have "unofficial" in the name of the software. They could have called it "official UOX3 server of the King of Hawaii" if they wanted to, and, as an encyclopedia, it would be proper to list the entire name. Especially considering the fact that removing it would cause confusion with another software project. If "unofficial" was not part of the software's name, I would not have a problem with it being removed, but I stand firm on this so long as it is clearly part of the software's logo and name. If they called it, "Official server of the United States", we would have to say that is the title of it. eBay is not a bay, but you would not leave out the "bay" part. Microsoft is not micro. Hell, Ultima Offline eXperiement (what UOX stands for) is not offline! -- Sydius 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot validate the refence to be valid, since ryan decided to blocked my IP. Stupid eh? -- Jestix 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if its an issue for wikipedia to cite the OSI EULA. Since its copyrighted by them... but i guess this might be "fair use"? -- Jestix 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This thing on the executability of the EULA is also a complicated issue. Since as far I know it was never tested on court. When it's written does not yet mean it's valid, I also can write "Not responsible when I hit you" on my car, yet its not valid ;) I don't know anything about the US, but as I see about current european judicature this section would must likely be invalid if they would for example suit you for reimpursement because of EULA violation... -- Jestix 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Got one about them shutting emulated servers down? The reference I used did not mention Diablo 2. -- Sydius 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been flagging a few articles for cleanup, but seeing as I almost accidentally deleted this article I figure I should focus more specific on my concerns. The good news is that it's notable. But a problem with the article is that the "legal issues" section is written like it's trying to give advice, when it really should just explain the copyright issues with reverse engineering. Perhaps a link to a different article that talks about reverse engineering and copyright in general would be more appropriate. I think this section kind of gets off topic. It's more of a tone thing. Randomran ( talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
![]() | This redirect does not require a rating on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||
|
From the article "Nowadays, some third-party servers rival the original in size and quality"... is this true? As far I knew OSI servers have (had) several thousends players online, while the size of any emulated not shard not yet grew beyond a few hundred in absolute maximum times. Can somebody please backup this statement with some sourced numbers? -- Jestix 17:59, 9 August 2006 (UTC)
Whether or not it is "proper" does not matter when they have "unofficial" in the name of the software. They could have called it "official UOX3 server of the King of Hawaii" if they wanted to, and, as an encyclopedia, it would be proper to list the entire name. Especially considering the fact that removing it would cause confusion with another software project. If "unofficial" was not part of the software's name, I would not have a problem with it being removed, but I stand firm on this so long as it is clearly part of the software's logo and name. If they called it, "Official server of the United States", we would have to say that is the title of it. eBay is not a bay, but you would not leave out the "bay" part. Microsoft is not micro. Hell, Ultima Offline eXperiement (what UOX stands for) is not offline! -- Sydius 14:19, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I cannot validate the refence to be valid, since ryan decided to blocked my IP. Stupid eh? -- Jestix 14:51, 10 August 2006 (UTC)
I don't know if its an issue for wikipedia to cite the OSI EULA. Since its copyrighted by them... but i guess this might be "fair use"? -- Jestix 15:33, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
This thing on the executability of the EULA is also a complicated issue. Since as far I know it was never tested on court. When it's written does not yet mean it's valid, I also can write "Not responsible when I hit you" on my car, yet its not valid ;) I don't know anything about the US, but as I see about current european judicature this section would must likely be invalid if they would for example suit you for reimpursement because of EULA violation... -- Jestix 15:37, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
Got one about them shutting emulated servers down? The reference I used did not mention Diablo 2. -- Sydius 15:47, 11 August 2006 (UTC)
I've been flagging a few articles for cleanup, but seeing as I almost accidentally deleted this article I figure I should focus more specific on my concerns. The good news is that it's notable. But a problem with the article is that the "legal issues" section is written like it's trying to give advice, when it really should just explain the copyright issues with reverse engineering. Perhaps a link to a different article that talks about reverse engineering and copyright in general would be more appropriate. I think this section kind of gets off topic. It's more of a tone thing. Randomran ( talk) 02:32, 29 May 2008 (UTC)