Spring RTS Engine

you rise restrictive copyrights to abandonware? ok, in the field I'm not very well versed and thus out. I see, thats the final ban after a long run were you put mt onto the siding. Never noticed before that open source so severely sucks, but what a emblematic for the whole industry. Thanks sir for this insight.

AntiAllez wrote:you rise restrictive copyrights to abandonware?

thats out of the scope of this discussion... with "respect licenses" was meant: respect the GPL license and release forks under the gpl license, too. gpl violation is atm released without a license note, also there seems to be no source link available... -> its closed source atm.

I respect the BA dev team's ownership of the BA name, but that's it.

Because BA in turn is based on older open source projects, a new sudden introduction of stricter licensing rules is not possible nor legal.

As AntiAllez pointed out, the fork is therefore named "Balanced" and not "Balanced Annihilation".

Abma: Thanks for the lobby server ban, I really appreciate it!

No gpl violation binaries have actually been released so far. If binaries are released, the source will also be released.

Because BA in turn is based on older open source projects, a new sudden introduction of stricter licensing rules

It is not part of the license and not a legal issue. The branding policy is for the spring moderators.

zerver wrote:No gpl violation binaries have actually been released so far. If binaries are released, the source will also be released.

public available = released.

Abma: Thanks for the lobby server ban, I really appreciate it!

it seems to be the only way to talk to you.

whats your plan, to not split springs community? how do you plan to integrate the changes of your fork into spring?

from zervers modinfo.lua:

name='Balanced',
version='Annihilation V7.78 MT',

uhm... thats not respectful, still the resulting name is "Balanced Annihilation V7.78 MT" which is against the BA fork rules.

Finally a some more concrete OMP results (not that 10% difference is benchmark graphs aren't concrete)

How did I get those graphs?
As we switched to c++11, I am able to replace OMP with a custom threadpool implementation, and so have
1. more control of the sleep times of those
2. more control of the threads as a whole (e.g. can kill them at runtime)
3. it's possible to profile the efficiency \o/

So during reconnecting ThreadPool/OMP based multithreading speeds up the engine by ~12%. and that not at the start when you got >100FPS no matter what, no this speedup is given right when you need it and the engine is crawling!
(with spring-mt it's the opposite around)

zerver wrote:No gpl violation binaries have actually been released so far. If binaries are released, the source will also be released.

You uploaded it to springfiles, that is a release!

@zerver:

i've removed the iptables rule, please fix your stuff ASAP! violating game & gpl rules is not ok. without respecting this, many people will be interested in a perma ban on the spring rts project site(s) of these forks.

don't break the rules of ba and other games, else you can't take part in the spring community:
- rename your game(s)
- publish a link to the source code
- check if your other forked games respect the rules of forking the games on springrts.com


also respect the gpl and release the source code (which has to be the same version as the released binary).

i want a living, working well-together community which makes a rts engine which allows a great gaming experience, nothing else. i hope you (and others) want the same. If not, please go away.

abma wrote:whats your plan, to not split springs community? how do you plan to integrate the changes of your fork into spring?

This confused me a lot. I'm getting the impression that you changed your mind and want MTsim after all, but at the same time I'm thinking "no, that can't be". jK's post added to the confusion, because it sounded to me like "you are welcome back because will remove OMP".

I don't see any possibility to merge gpl violation/Spring at this moment. We are stepping on each other's toes and I need free hands to make MT really fast without having ask you guys about permission to do so.

The only option would be some kind of joint release effort, i.e. two executables that are clever enough to know about each other. And yes, I could re-brand gpl violation into Spring MT for something like that.

For the time being, I wish you good luck with the 95 release.

I don't see anything in jK's posts about replacing OMP. I also don't see why you have to release a binary without source and an ambiguously repackaged mod to pursue your stated goal; creating a truly fast and advanced MT build. I mean, logically you would take such a large project into a separate fork, carry it forward to goal performance, and then start discussing the merge.

zerver wrote:This confused me a lot. I'm getting the impression that you changed your mind and want MTsim after all, but at the same time I'm thinking "no, that can't be". jK's post added to the confusion, because it sounded to me like "you are welcome back because will remove OMP".

no, i don't want mtsim as it is. imo its a dead end, as we discussed it already very often. i want that we work together and not against each other, but this would require to drop "mtsim" as it is which is very likely not happen.

jk's plan is to replace omp with c++11 threadpools... omp will be replaced if i understood it correct.

AntiAllez wrote:you rise restrictive copyrights to abandonware? ok, in the field I'm not very well versed and thus out. I see, thats the final ban after a long run were you put mt onto the siding. Never noticed before that open source so severely sucks, but what a emblematic for the whole industry. Thanks sir for this insight.

It isn't abandonware. It is still being sold actively by the company that owns it and *A content in spring existing at all with in spring is extremely illegal. Not only that, it is a total disgrace.

@zerver:

you are doing it wrong...

- game is still the same name
- why are you using LOeT as username & Terra as description, does LOeT know about that?
- no source code

- The game name is "balanced", which does not violate BA's mutator naming policy. Furthermore, the policy is meant to protect other games from profiting on the BA name, but in this case it is an exact copy of the game with fixes. In addition to this I am a member of the BA dev team, so I consider myself as having rights to make releases even using the BA name. You are doing it wrong, trying to enforce a policy to protect a game from itself.

- I have been given the honor to relaunch TERA as an MT host by [LOeT]Paste

- Source will be released if binaries are released

Thanks for the lobby server ban again.

you didn't read what other people wrote.

Firstly, zerver is not a member of the BA dev team. (Although BA does contain some mt related fixes he did a long time ago.)

Secondly, aside from issues with the engine, the mod "name" chosen, as well as the incompatibilities violates our branding policy in multiple ways and we had made zerver explicitly aware of this.

So Silent, how can I make you happy?

zerver, for example, by:
- respect other people (by reading / trying to understand what they mean)
- rename your game
- publish the source code of your released engine (link to current source code)

On part of BA, I ask that your project works with the official modfile that we release.

We want no attempt to hijack/imitate/rebrand/etc or force dependency on some lobby or engine. I have made that clear to you in the past and, amongst other things, it's also clear in the branding policy.

Lastly, I would like you to respect the wishes of moderators, engine/mod developers and stop your continued attempts to circumvent community rules and licenses.