Quote:
Originally Posted by swiss
I see: if the NP interface is the only one available, you use it with FT.
It's justified because you got the moral "right" too have a second option of your choice?
What W-R wants is basically FT 2.3 without the option of being able to use the np interface.
Yes, that would mean you couldn't use in games like IL2 anymore, but at least there would be nothing left to argue about and this discussion could finally end.
|
It's obvious what he wants, he's perfectly entitled to his opinion and until we hear otherwise from a qualified lawyer it could or couldn't stand in court, but for the majority of people who are looking at the big picture the issue is not the legalities but the actual usability:
we can't let the availability of alternative forms of head tracking in general (besides FT) to rest on that one point of FT doing things the way it does.
If we do, the FT debate will only serve as a "trojan horse" to block all alternatives by trying to make the developer screen each method for copyright issues, which in turn will make the developer not bother at all because it will be too much work.
This is what i'm against, we're looking at the tree and missing the forest here.
The thing is, there's an even easier way to do it all and the developer totally "washes his hands" of all responsibility so to speak if they follow this route: 6 generic headtracking axes in the game options that the user can map to whatever control on his own. Get your favorite alternative headtracker set up, map the axes in the game to it (either directly or through emulation like PPjoy as a 2nd joystick) and you're good to go:
1) Is this legal? Perfectly.
2) Will it work with the majority of head tracking solutions without the need to add customized support separately for each one? Most likely so.
3) Will it prevent freetrack from working with it until they remove the naturalpoint emulation? Well,
it's not Oleg's job to enforce a solution, so we don't care.
That's all there is to it. We can't expect the developer to individually screen every head tracking method for copyright issues just like we can't expect him to provide customized individual support for each one. However, if they choose to use an in-house generic interface of their own they shift the burden of dealing with the legalities away from them to the end user (that means us) and they also get a working product for everyone, problem solved.