Microsoft Technology Licensing has published a brand-new patent application showing us a context-aware “ad credit” system designed to serve ads on PC and console gamers without disrupt…
At least they are saying steam will not help or support that feature in any way. That reads like, if it makes your game unavailable offline, sale is prohibited.
A little harder to enforce (‘no, judge, it says SHOULD, grant our civil suit please’) and a little easier to grant exceptions for than saying “must” (ah sorry customers, bigco had a bunch of money, and the rules don’t say MUST). It’s a well known wording choice in software, see every RFC ever.
It signals to me that Valve wanted an out for their rules when they wrote them because it’s an odd choice for such a well known word choice otherwise.
Unfortunately “should” and “must” have different legal meanings
At least they are saying steam will not help or support that feature in any way. That reads like, if it makes your game unavailable offline, sale is prohibited.
Or shall.
Valve can kick out games that do not play along their rules. They should follow the rules, or they risk to get kicked out. So whats your point?
A little harder to enforce (‘no, judge, it says SHOULD, grant our civil suit please’) and a little easier to grant exceptions for than saying “must” (ah sorry customers, bigco had a bunch of money, and the rules don’t say MUST). It’s a well known wording choice in software, see every RFC ever.
It signals to me that Valve wanted an out for their rules when they wrote them because it’s an odd choice for such a well known word choice otherwise.
I think in this context “should” and “must” are interchangeable, because its under “Not Supported” listed.