Developed by ... . Published by ... .

[kadioguy]

©KUNOS Simulazioni Srl – 2018-2020. All rights reserved. Developed by KUNOS Simulazioni Srl. Published by Published by 505 Games globally. Licensed by 505 Games and published by Game Source Entertainment in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia. All trademarks are property of their respective owners and are used under license. [source]
---
tedmc:
If you want a verb to be added to each of the notes to make them into sentences, the simple present tense is appropriate since they are meant to be current at the time of publishing.
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...-published-by-arrangement.272738/post-1512941

[GoesStation agreed with tedmc]
https://www.usingenglish.com/forum/...-published-by-arrangement.272738/post-1512962
----
I think that this one is the same case as that one in the link. So what tadmc said can also be applied here, right?

[Edit: fixed a typo]

 

[Skrej]

©KUNOS Simulazioni Srl – 2018-2020. All rights reserved. Developed by KUNOS Simulazioni Srl. Published by Published by 505 Games globally. Licensed by 505 Games and published by Game Source Entertainment in Hong Kong, Taiwan, Singapore, Malaysia, Philippines, Thailand, Vietnam, Indonesia. All trademarks are property of their respective owners and are used under license. [source]

As stated in the other thread, these aren't full sentences, nor should they be made into complete sentences. They're publication and copyright notes, not a paragraph. Leave them as is, and don't try to make full sentences out of them.

I get that you're concerned about verb tenses, but you shouldn't look to special usage cases such as these to understand verbs, because they're not necessarily meant to be grammatical sentences - just brief legal notes.

However, I will comment that there is one error. I'm not sure if it was a copy-paste error on your part, or an actual printing error, but the words 'published by' shouldn't appear twice back to back. I bold-faced and underlined the relevant errors.

Unless you're trying to make some legal defense case about why you should be allowed to infringe on their trademarks and copyright*, the tense question is moot. The point is to show who legally owns what. The dates are provided for exactly this reason, to establish a timeline.

*not a lawyer

 

[kadioguy]

However, I will comment that there is one error. I'm not sure if it was a copy-paste error on your part, or an actual printing error, but the words 'published by' shouldn't appear twice back to back. I bold-faced and underlined the relevant errors.

I agree with you. I think that it is an error in the original web page.

 

[Skrej]

Ah yes, I see it is. I didn't actually look at the source link until now.

 

[Tdol]

These are standard phrases for the context. Leave them alone.