How do i properly credit resouces.

[oksnoop2]

If i wanted to use sounds or other resources from other GPL or Public Domain projects how do i properly credit them and where should this credit be placed? An example would be a sound from nanoblobs, mercsquad, or xonotic.

[Neddie]

Well, I tend to include a text file with the requisite credits in my archive. In the case of .lua, you should also credit in the widget/gadget.

[AF]

Public domain content doesn't have to be credited, its PD, you can do whatever you like with it.

GPL sets out how you give credit IIRC, most opensource projects distribute an AUTHORS file amongst others, but take that as a guide for research rather than the definitive word.

[SinbadEV]

INALB I think even public domain stuff you have to say it's from the public domain so people don't think you made it up.

[Neddie]

Though that doesn't mean you need to credit the original creator.

I try to credit people simply because there is little reason not to.

[oksnoop2]

I agree, i just want to do it properly before i get a huge number of files i'll have to go through. Here's a question that's probably been asked before. If i use stuff that's GPL in my project, does that make my whole project GPL, or can i still release it Public Domain or BSD or some less restrictive license.

[Neddie]

It has to be GPL compatible. Depending on how you interpret that, you could shove it into a CC license. I simply would elect not to license the aggregate, and instead license different elements of the project different ways as desired.

[FLOZi]

http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-list.html


btw, fwiw, S44 code is licensed as GPL v2 (and, unfortunately, v2+) whereas the art is licensed as CC-BY-NC, a non-GPL compatible license.

No doubt this annoys certain people. Especially those god awful Randists over at debian. But someone accidentally told them it was CC-BY-SA.

[oksnoop2]

Does the GPL require that source code of modified versions be posted to the public?
The GPL does not require you to release your modified version, or any part of it. You are free to make modifications and use them privately, without ever releasing them. This applies to organizations (including companies), too; an organization can make a modified version and use it internally without ever releasing it outside the organization.

But if you release the modified version to the public in some way, the GPL requires you to make the modified source code available to the program's users, under the GPL.

Thus, the GPL gives permission to release the modified program in certain ways, and not in other ways; but the decision of whether to release it is up to you.

---http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.htm ... stedPublic

So does this mean since the grandaddy of all my animation scripts came from another source and since a very few people in the public have played CT, does that mean i have to make the source available? By source i guess i mean the lua scripts.

[FLOZi]

Spring mods are open source by the very nature of being zip or 7z archives, all lua source code of a mod (be it widget, gadget or lus) is available as lua is an interpreted (non-compiled) language.

By this I mean simply;

1. you only have to release source if you release the mod
2. releasing the mod releases the source anyway

(atleast with lua. Arguably mods using cob scripts should release the .bos source, but .cob is easily decompiled anyway, if needs be)

[oksnoop2]

Cool that's easy. Eventually i'd like to set up something like what CA or Masse has.

[FLOZi]

And S44

SVN is pretty handy for mod development for sure, especially if there are multiple contributors.

[oksnoop2]

Are those difficult to set up?>

[hoijui]

i recommend git over SVN.
git is practically superior to SVN in any way, except that there are not yet as many GUI tools for it under windows.
But SVN is OK too

for the licensing, i personally prefer what neddie said: release different parts under different licenses, they should all be GPL compatible though (which, simply speaking, means: GPL or less restrictive). a good rule of thumb is: if that part is inherently bound to spring, and is not usable/useful in any other project, make it GPL. if it could be of use in other projects (models, textures, algorithms logically independent of spring, ...), use your preferred GPL compatible license or public domain (which might be GPL, LGPL, BSD, ...).

i think it is good you start thinking about this now already.

[FLOZi]

I reccomend SVN over Git

[hoijui]

..so much we already knew
please elaborate.

[FLOZi]

I've had nothing but trouble with git since spring moved over to it (not compilation, git itself)

I also think that the advantages of git wrt branches don't really factor into mod development, and if you're on windows tortoiseSVN is probably the easiest piece of revision control software ever.

Also there already exists the software to automatically make a test build from an SVN repo (as used by CA, S44 and EvoRTS), dunno if anyone has bothered to make such a thing for git (can't imagine it'd be any more difficult) seen as noone uses it for mod development.

[SirMaverick]

I also think that the advantages of git wrt branches don't really factor into mod development

[...] seen as noone uses it for mod development.

Just because you don't see it, doesn't mean it's not used.
I use git with svn plugin when working on CA and used branches a lot when working on bigger changes (which might take some time, also includes bug hunting). So I don't have to commit unfinished work that might e.g. break the game.

[FLOZi]

I use git with svn plugin

Says it all?

I think I'd rather go back to CVS rather than use git. Perhaps its some unfounded irrational hatred. Doesn't change the fact that SVN is easier to use and well suited to the task.

[hoijui]

you just know it better. the only real argument so far, is TurtoiseSVN.
As contra, there is TurtoiseGit. I guess it is not as mature yet, but the page says that basic stuff is working.