Included Resources

What do you want to see in Armagetron soon? Any new feature ideas? Let's ponder these ground breaking ideas...
Luke-Jr
Dr Z Level
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: IM: [email protected]

Included Resources

Post by Luke-Jr » Tue Jun 27, 2006 12:33 pm

Looks like we need a bit of QA on resource inclusion. We have 6 included unofficial resources. Two of them look like they shouldn't even be included (aarotate is not a finalized spec, and the other is 'test'), so I'll presume those are just in a 0.3 alpha (which of course doesn't need full QA):
Self_Destructo/test-0.0.2.aarotate.xml
wrtlprnft/testfile-0.0.1.aacockpit.xml

The rest are unofficial, but look quite real:
Anonymous/standard-0.0.1.aacockpit.xml
Lucifer/sick/Playroom-0.0.1.aacockpit.xml
Lucifer/sick/PlusSignFortress-0.2.2.aamap.xml
wrtlprnft/classic-0.0.1.aacockpit.xml

The release manager should be ensuring that included resources are all official. Presuming the license on the resource permits redistribution (it had better if we're including it =p), any missing can simply be added to the repository to make them official. In this case, the release manager should just email me the missing resources and I will add them manually.

Shall I go ahead and add the latter 4 unofficial-yet-included resources above?

User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11221
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne, Jabber: [email protected]
Contact:

Post by Z-Man » Tue Jun 27, 2006 1:17 pm

/me carefully avoids to even use the word "official".

I'd say all resources that go into a release should be incuded in our central repository automatically. They'll be used, they'll be editied and go into a future release with a different version, and if they're not in the repository, a new client connecting to an old server with the old release version won't work. Or my user.cfg cockpit definition will stop working after an upgrade if the version of the cockpit got bumped.

I'd even include the test files. Someone may like them anyway, and I wouldn't want the extra, repetetive and error prone work to exclude them from releases (or to write an automation that does so).

User avatar
wrtlprnft
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:42 am
Location: 0x08048000
Contact:

Re: Included Resources

Post by wrtlprnft » Tue Jun 27, 2006 2:47 pm

Luke-Jr wrote:wrtlprnft/testfile-0.0.1.aacockpit.xml
This isn't really a test anymore, I'm using it and it works fine. It is more experimental than the other included cockpits since it uses features no other cockpit I've seen uses and that I don't really wanna keep that way anyways (ie <Math> tags, they should be replaced by a formula parser).
There's no place like ::1

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer » Tue Jun 27, 2006 9:38 pm

What problem are you trying to solve, Luke? I ask because I just happen to know that I'm trying to solve the "we don't ship very many resources with the game" problem. I suspect wrtlprnft is doing something similar, and the resources you're bitching about come from him and me. So what problem are you trying to solve? Please tell me you actually have a problem to solve and aren't just trying to be officious gratuitously...
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
joda.bot
Match Winner
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by joda.bot » Wed Jun 28, 2006 10:33 am

What license applies to maps and resources anyway ?

Let's say Steven Lisberg gets all maps from Tron 2.0 for us, but the maps are copyrighted but allowed to be freely distributed.

Would we be able to include those ?
I really don't mind having "comercial" style maps in the release, because as phillipe always quotes at me, let people decide and allow as much as possible ?

(This would just require ArmagetronAd Code to be under GPL, while resources could use their own restrictions, except that they should be copyable freely I don't see any problems. Linux Distributions might have problems, not sure ?)

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer » Wed Jun 28, 2006 9:21 pm

Resources can have any license, of course, but I"m not interested in distributing any resources that aren't compatible with the GPL.

If programmers have to work under the GPL, so do resource creators. Being a so-called artist doesn't give you an exemption to this.

(not you specifically, joda, "you" as in the collective "you resource creators")

So, if people want their resources included with the game, for all intents and purposes they should just put their resources under the GPL. They're free to pick a gpl-compatible license if they'd like, but I will make a lot of noise if a resource appears in our svn repo that's not gpl compatible (and I know about it).
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
wrtlprnft
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:42 am
Location: 0x08048000
Contact:

Post by wrtlprnft » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:31 pm

This doesn't affect resources on http://resource.armagetronad.net/resource/, right?
There's no place like ::1

User avatar
Lucifer
Project Developer & Local Moonshiner
Posts: 8610
Joined: Sun Aug 15, 2004 3:32 pm
Location: Republic of Texas
Contact:

Post by Lucifer » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:42 pm

Well, I can't really answer for Luke's server, now can I? I don't consider myself associated with the central resource repository. Which reminds me, I keep meaning to add a config item to disable using it.

Anyway, I don't see what's so unreasonable that you get this game under a share and share-alike deal, why can't you release your own stuff for the game under a share and share-alike deal? Seems selfish to me to not do that.
Image

Be the devil's own, Lucifer's my name.
- Iron Maiden

User avatar
wrtlprnft
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:42 am
Location: 0x08048000
Contact:

Post by wrtlprnft » Wed Jun 28, 2006 11:55 pm

Well, I'd release anything I do under the GPL, but maybe I'm using material that is not GPL- compatible (but still freely distributable), like textures or fonts?
Of course, we can only ship GPL compatible stuff with armagetron itself, but that restriction doesn't need to apply to stuff that isn't shipped with the game and not hosted on sourceforge.

That would be the same way as a linux distribution can't include opera on its CD, but offer a package to install it.
There's no place like ::1

User avatar
joda.bot
Match Winner
Posts: 421
Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2004 11:00 am
Location: Germany
Contact:

Post by joda.bot » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:35 pm

Are we required to show the license for a downloaded resource ?

I'd rather include support for licenses / copyrights somehow than just "restrict" the system to GPL / public domain or whatever it takes.

User avatar
wrtlprnft
Reverse Outside Corner Grinder
Posts: 1679
Joined: Wed Jan 04, 2006 4:42 am
Location: 0x08048000
Contact:

Post by wrtlprnft » Mon Jul 03, 2006 12:56 pm

Yeah, i think we should display licenses when we have an automated way to download resources.
There's no place like ::1

User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11221
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne, Jabber: [email protected]
Contact:

Post by Z-Man » Mon Jul 03, 2006 1:16 pm

When should we show the licence and why? For a downloaded resource, the license has to be at least "free to copy and use". Legally, a "don't copy and use on your server" restriction would be possible, but you can't forbid other server admins to just point MAP_FILE to the URI where your server servers the map, so all you get by forbidding copies is more bandwidth usage on your server. Restrictions only make sense for modifications, and for those, you have to open the file and read the comments anyway.
I don't even think we should make the user "sign" the GPL in the Windows installer; after all, it just tells the user he can do whatever he wants with the binary. License displays are overused. What if every webpage displayed at the top : "You are allowed to view and print this page."

Call what gets displayed when amap is first loaded "credits" and you may get my approval :) But we already display the filepath which contains the author, and we support console commands that get executed when the map is parsed, so I see little need for an extra feature anyway.

And think about what happens when we have more resources types... We certainly can't display the credits/license for them all, which would leave map authors privileged.

Luke-Jr
Dr Z Level
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: IM: [email protected]

Post by Luke-Jr » Tue Jul 04, 2006 10:13 pm

joda.bot wrote:Are we required to show the license for a downloaded resource ?
Technically, not to the end-user downloading it. But we do need the person responsible for the repository to read and ensure the license allows his distributing it.
joda.bot wrote:I'd rather include support for licenses / copyrights somehow than just "restrict" the system to GPL / public domain or whatever it takes.
Well, as far as I'm concerned copyrights are immoral anyhow... I'd give a vote to using a GPL-like license for the DTDs such that all resources must be free.
z-man wrote:I don't even think we should make the user "sign" the GPL in the Windows installer; after all, it just tells the user he can do whatever he wants with the binary.
Actually, that's not entirely true. The GPL does not allow the binary to be redistributed without the source, or at least an offer for it. However, we don't need to force an "I Agree" button-- they don't need to agree for mere use. Copyright only covers distribution/copying, it cannot regulate use.

User avatar
Z-Man
God & Project Admin
Posts: 11221
Joined: Sun Jan 23, 2005 6:01 pm
Location: Cologne, Jabber: [email protected]
Contact:

Post by Z-Man » Wed Jul 05, 2006 7:03 am

No, you only have to provide the source if you distibute a modified binary. With an unmodified binary, you can do anything you want.

Luke-Jr
Dr Z Level
Posts: 2246
Joined: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:03 pm
Location: IM: [email protected]

Post by Luke-Jr » Wed Jul 05, 2006 6:53 pm

z-man wrote:No, you only have to provide the source if you distibute a modified binary. With an unmodified binary, you can do anything you want.
Nope, read the GPL.

Post Reply