| ▲ | skissane 7 hours ago | ||||||||||||||||
> It's strange to me that Microsoft has taken this opportunity to clear up the rights to Zork 1-3 but not to the rest of the Infocom back catalog. Likely explanation: their lawyers are worried there may be third party rights or agreements limiting their ability to open source a game – even if that isn't true, lawyers want to see paperwork to convince themselves it isn't true. For Zork, that was comparatively easy because the game's history is well-known, and Activision had a history of releasing sequels. For other games, that may be more difficult – so start with the lowest hanging and highest profile fruit. | |||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | WorldMaker 4 hours ago | parent [-] | ||||||||||||||||
Yeah, they probably started with what was easiest/oldest/most iconic with the clearest copyright history/ownership record. In at least one of the above mentioned cases, we do know that the current rights holder and/or most recent licensee appears to be the BBC: https://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/1g84m0sXpnNCv84GpN... The BBC probably has a say in if that game will be open source. (Their multi-decade effort at making the game free to play and being open about some of their enhancements to it suggests they may be willing to help with that, and Microsoft making the first move with Zork 1/2/3 may help with any interest there.) | |||||||||||||||||
| |||||||||||||||||