SpringRTS Organizational specification - Page 3

SpringRTS Organizational specification

Various things about Spring that do not fit in any of the other forums listed below, including forum rules.

Moderator: Moderators

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by smoth » 23 Jan 2015, 05:10

Anarchid wrote:I think this as good a time as any to breach the SPI issue.

It has been discussed in lobby chat that basically having one individual person rather than an organization to handle the donations, and generally having assets which keep Spring alive in hands of various possibly irreplaceable individuals represents a risk.

The suggested strategy to remedy this situation is to have SpringRTS become an SPI associate project.

Software in Public Interest is one of those legal scaffold organizations in the form of an USA nonprofit. They can handle donations, defend against lawsuits, such stuff. In particular, SPI provide these services to Debian and 0AD, amongst others.

Relevant to the bounty discussion, it seems that 0AD were able to do their crowdfunding campaign with the help of SPI.

So: does anyone actually have issues with, thoughts about, or other ideas about Spring actually becoming an SPI associate project?
It depends on what kind of LEGAL restrictions and BS they will introduce. If they come out with some crap about how projects HAVE to be GPL or some other bullshit. If that is the case I would fight them coming in with every fiber of my being. Because DEBIAN has a history of requiring ALL THINGS are GPL.
0 x

User avatar
Anarchid
Posts: 1380
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 04:31

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Anarchid » 23 Jan 2015, 09:45

It depends on what kind of LEGAL restrictions and BS they will introduce. If they come out with some crap about how projects HAVE to be GPL or some other bullshit. If that is the case I would fight them coming in with every fiber of my being. Because DEBIAN has a history of requiring ALL THINGS are GPL.
There is no forced GPL everything clause or 0ad would be in violation of it (they allow non-gpl games to be made on Pyrogenesis engine, and much of their artwork is CC)

Spring is already GPL. You are already forced to GPL for your scripts.

I didn't notice any other constraints. You (as in, the project that wants to associate, which is Spring) just has to be "a substantial and significant Free Software project". If SmothRTS is not a free software project, that changes nothing about SpringRTS.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by smoth » 23 Jan 2015, 10:11

Anarchid wrote:Spring is already GPL. You are already forced to GPL for your scripts.
we are not according to the forum sticky. my _scripts_ are pd which is GPL compatible which is ok.
Anarchid wrote:I didn't notice any other constraints. You (as in, the project that wants to associate, which is Spring) just has to be "a substantial and significant Free Software project".
what if I wanted to allow people to give me donations. I actually turned them down for YEARS when I was doing GRTS. Why would projects need to be free? What is "substantial" and "significant?"
Anarchid wrote:If SmothRTS is not a free software project, that changes nothing about SpringRTS.
If they change the agreement here it would affect projects like mine. I am not saying my project is going to be affecting spring. My concern is what the organization would expect of projects using the engine? There are those who feel the art needs to be GPL'ed as well, that is incorrect but that doesn't mean people are going to change any incorrect opinions and if those people are the organization that takes over control over spring, that is where i get concerned.

I am not sure if my concern is valid but I am expressing it not as a road block but because I feel it is an important consideration.
0 x

User avatar
Anarchid
Posts: 1380
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 04:31

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Anarchid » 23 Jan 2015, 10:33

we are not according to the forum sticky. my _scripts_ are pd which is GPL compatible which is ok.
Right; gpl-compat is OK. My bad.
what if I wanted to allow people to give me donations
So you want those people give donations to your game or to Spring? ZK currently gathers donations no issue and those are separate from Spring donations. You can accept those donations in your own name, run a for-profit org to do that, etc. ZK accepts as a for-profit org which is Licho's one-man company.
Why would projects need to be free? What is "substantial" and "significant?"
Which projects? SPI associate projects do have to be that, but your game project doesn't have to be an SPI associate project. ZK, to reuse the example, does not become SPI associate project if Spring does.
"substantial and significant" is something they vote on.
If they change the agreement here it would affect projects like mine
I'm pretty sure they don't care about that. Re-quoting the 0ad precedent.
0 x

User avatar
Tim Blokdijk
Posts: 1239
Joined: 29 May 2005, 11:18

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Tim Blokdijk » 23 Jan 2015, 16:46

Anarchid wrote:I think this as good a time as any to breach the SPI issue.
It depends on how much is donated to "Spring" as a project v/s how much is donated towards specific bounty’s. I like the bounty approach and for bounty's it would probably work better if money is directly donated to the developer.
If money is "blindly" donated to Spring it would have to be spend on infrastructure first.
Once it exceeds that and we start to build up a small buffer that can't effectively be spend.. then it should be a good idea to involve the SPI. At that point we will have to start dealing with taxes and maybe form a foundation.
Once the buffer exceeds +1 year of infrastructure costs we would need to figure out a process on how to spend this excess "Spring" money.

My preference might be to "force" people to donate to a bounty (and thus a developer) directly and keep Spring itself out of the money flow.
0 x

User avatar
Anarchid
Posts: 1380
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 04:31

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Anarchid » 23 Jan 2015, 17:42

At that point we will have to start dealing with taxes and maybe form a foundation.
Not doing that is basically the purpose of those scaffold organizations like FSF and SPI. E.g. they're charitable so no taxes, and they already exist, so no much organizational overhead.

There do seem to exist unnamed problems with SPI handling bounties or paying for developement work, so maybe direct bounties are better. But those are also somewhat less accountable?
0 x

User avatar
AF
AI Developer
Posts: 20669
Joined: 14 Sep 2004, 11:32

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by AF » 24 Jan 2015, 02:33

GPL compatible*

Can we please stop spreading the bullshit myth that GPL stuff means everything must be GPL? It doesn't. Never has. It must be compatible. You can be compatible and not be GPL. Seriously, stop this shit, it's old, it's debunked, and its just wrong. It's misinformation, and it's damaging to all involved.

I cannot pour enough scorn and hate on the people spreading this myth here, it's persistent and needs to die. Root the people spreading this stupid myth out and burn them with fire.


GRTS would have been a separate project. It seems obvious that it is not the same as the spring project, and no matter what this other group says, so long as Smoth is on good legal ground, he can do what the fuck he wants, and I trust he understand the GPL well enough to do that

User was warned for this post. Felony 1 (intentional flaming) & Misdemeanour 4 (disrespect - please keep the language civil & PG13)

-- FLOZi
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3593
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Silentwings » 24 Jan 2015, 17:36

so maybe direct bounties are better. But those are also somewhat less accountable?
At present, they are more accountable. E.g. there is currently no visible record of how much money Spring has in donations (although http://springrts.com/phpbb/viewtopic.ph ... =0#p564299 tries to count, it seems to be quite a lot) and there is no mechanism at all for spending it.
0 x

Super Mario
Posts: 814
Joined: 21 Oct 2008, 02:54

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Super Mario » 24 Jan 2015, 19:27

Are there going to be any meetings, concerning the development of spring rts? There used to be meeting minutes thing, yet there hasn't been a min meeting sense 2013.
0 x

User avatar
smoth
Posts: 22298
Joined: 13 Jan 2005, 00:46

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by smoth » 24 Jan 2015, 21:43

Super Mario wrote:Are there going to be any meetings, concerning the development of spring ENGINE? There used to be meeting minutes thing, yet there hasn't been a min meeting sense 2013.
There have not been any real meetings for some time
0 x

User avatar
Anarchid
Posts: 1380
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 04:31

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Anarchid » 25 Jan 2015, 02:41

At present, current individuals are more accountable than other individuals
Is what i have to say about individuals.
0 x

User avatar
Silentwings
Moderator
Posts: 3593
Joined: 25 Oct 2008, 00:23

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Silentwings » 25 Jan 2015, 11:49

Where is that quote from? I am not able to find it anywhere. I also don't understand what you mean.
0 x

User avatar
Anarchid
Posts: 1380
Joined: 30 Nov 2008, 04:31

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by Anarchid » 25 Jan 2015, 12:12

At present, they are more accountable. E.g. there is currently no visible record of how much money Spring has in donations
I'm talking about this, but maybe i should have been less ambiguous.

Bounties given to individuals by individuals at current point are less unaccountable than the "current state" of donations given to Spring: this is true. I merely assert that this is so because there was no spring organization when those donations were given, and thus in effect they were given to poorly accountable individuals (or an individual).
0 x

User avatar
PepeAmpere
Posts: 586
Joined: 03 Jun 2010, 01:28

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by PepeAmpere » 09 Feb 2015, 22:39

AF wrote:GPL compatible*

Can we please stop spreading the bullshit myth that GPL stuff means everything must be GPL? It doesn't. Never has. It must be compatible. You can be compatible and not be GPL. Seriously, stop this shit, it's old, it's debunked, and its just wrong. It's misinformation, and it's damaging to all involved.

I cannot pour enough scorn and hate on the people spreading this myth here, it's persistent and needs to die. Root the people spreading this stupid myth out and burn them with fire.


GRTS would have been a separate project. It seems obvious that it is not the same as the spring project, and no matter what this other group says, so long as Smoth is on good legal ground, he can do what the fuck he wants, and I trust he understand the GPL well enough to do that
Only you need to be is to be member of the right class, and you can speak this way without any harassment or censorship.

User was warned for this post, felony 4 (Backseat moderation). It is also off-topic (Misdemeanour 1).

If you wish to discuss moderation, please do so in the relevant thread: viewtopic.php?f=1&t=33043

-- FLOZi
0 x

User avatar
aegis
Posts: 2456
Joined: 11 Jul 2007, 17:47

Re: SpringRTS Organizational specification

Post by aegis » 15 Feb 2015, 11:18

FLOZi wrote:There are only 2 forum admins and one of those is an engine dev.
In the literal sense, there are currently 8 forum admins. Of those, only 4 have logged in within the last year or so (let alone done anything adminy).
0 x

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”