Thelvyn on 16/10/2012 at 12:55
Quote Posted by Thiev
I guess there is no harm in asking here:
Does anyone have any idea how to contact the author of 1.19 update? We'd love to add it to GOG releases, but obviously cannot do that without his / her approval.
No one is going to accept or claim responsibility for the 1.19 patch because they do not want to get sued.
You would have to show that there was no possibility of legal repercussions and maybe then they would acknowledge making it.
Thiev on 16/10/2012 at 13:20
Quote Posted by Thelvyn
No one is going to accept or claim responsibility for the 1.19 patch because they do not want to get sued.
You would have to show that there was no possibility of legal repercussions and maybe then they would acknowledge making it.
You're right, I forgot about the whole source mess :(
Contacting SE is not up to me, but we can at least try.
Renault on 16/10/2012 at 13:51
Quote Posted by Thiev
Does anyone have any idea how to contact the author of 1.19 update? We'd love to add it to GOG releases, but obviously cannot do that without his / her approval.
Not to sound too harsh, but if you're from GOG, from what I heard that didn't stop you from using DDFix.
Thiev on 16/10/2012 at 14:00
Quote Posted by Brethren
Not to sound too harsh, but if you're from GOG, from what I heard that didn't stop you from using DDFix.
Why? We are using DDFix with Timeslip's permission.
Timeslip on 16/10/2012 at 14:27
Indeed. Not sure why you thought otherwise, but I'm perfectly happy with GOG using ddfix...
Angs on 16/10/2012 at 14:47
GOG should definitely try to negotiate the release source code, they have money to gain from it being out in the open. They also might actually generate revenue from Thief unlike random TTLG members asking for the code, so the owner might listen to them. An official 1.19 would benefit everyone.
Briareos H on 16/10/2012 at 15:12
I think nobody knows who that code belongs to, Square-Enix certainly have no final word over its release. If I'm not mistaken the leaked code contains parts from Thief 1 and 2 (Looking Glass Studios, published by Eidos/Square-Enix), System Shock 2 (Looking Glass Studios, Irrational Games, published by Electronic Arts, IP bought by an investment company) and Deep Cover (Looking Glass Studios, Irrational Games, initially published by Microsoft then no publisher).
So many contracts to look through to know who the code belongs to. Who knows, maybe LGS managed to retain ownership of their codebase during all that time and it became public domain when the company went under?
Risquit on 16/10/2012 at 15:39
Thank you for this very clear answer!
MoroseTroll on 16/10/2012 at 16:42
Quote Posted by Thiev
Contacting SE is not up to me, but we can at least try.
Please do try :)! As you may know, we've written a several online petitions to Eidos & Square Enix about the source of Thief 1&2 (our last one is there - (
http://www.petitiononline.com/ThiefSrc/petition.html)), but have failed to receive a clear answer :(. I think you agree with that simple fact that this new, unofficial, patch (v1.19) of unknown origin is a
good for both Eidos & GOG, because it can significally boost the Thief 1&2 sales.
voodoo47 on 16/10/2012 at 18:19
seconded - if someone has a chance of making it happen, then it's GOG.
