Whats the difference in licenses for users between SC3000 from EA/Maxis and from Loki? As I see it, Maxis/EA sublicensed the game to Loki - the only difference for user are binaries.
Yet those binaries are based on original Maxis/EA and were not written from scratch - hence those are officially sublicensed derivative work, like a "patch", because it introduced no new content - but instead compatibility, ability for same code and data to run on different OS.
The port itself is, in a way, Loki's property, but the game that was ported is Maxis'/EA's property.
Lin545: Plokite_Wolf: Loki's Wikipedia page
Does a user of original work require a license to apply and use a patch? He/she doesn't. Is there someone holding official Loki assets to disagree with my claim?..
mentions reclaiming rights to Linux ports instead of those rights being with clients from the beginning, the way I see it. Plus, never underestimate the level of EA's bureaucracy.
How do we know that those binaries of the Linux version were not written from scratch? If you take the time to just compare the files included in both versions (not even trying to disassemble them), the differences are apparent and that's to be expected. The Windows-version makes use of DirectX for example, while the Linux port can not. I would assume that there is enough original work of Loki in the Linux port that Loki could rightfully claim rights to the port -- not the game assets themselves, that's true.
But that is largely irrelevant , because in order to sell the game you'd need permission from the copyright holder. And who might that be? EA apparently isn't because if they were we'd get a different answer from gog (remember that further up linuxvangog replied to my initial question).
There are a few examples where the rights to the Loki ports have been bought by another company. So far this doesn't seem to be the case for Loki's Sim City 3000 port. Also (to Lin545 again): The user may possibly apply any patches they want as long as they do that only for their own personal use. But if you're trying to sell a game you will need the authorisation of the owner of the rights to the port. (see above) What can we expect? That gog.com gets a copy of Sim City 3000 for Linux, applies a patch and sells it without asking the copyright holder? And will that go down well, do we think? The Linux port isn't just a patch. My guess is: it's a full rewrite of the game engine.
I'm not defending any side. That's just the way it goes with commercial software licenses.