Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 21 Sep 2008, 14:35
Made of Win!
Spring RTS Engine
Open Source Realtime Strategy Game Engine
https://springrts.com/phpbb/
Attack AoE v3.1
Page 2 of 2
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 22 Sep 2008, 00:15
Holy shit, you just made Buzzsaws useful again!
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 23 Sep 2008, 00:48
GPL v2 is good for GPL projects, I would just maintain a GPLv2 and a CC SA licensed version which would be functionally the same, but retain different licenses. It's just two different releases of the same content which get you around 99.5% of licensing issues.
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 23 Sep 2008, 01:08
excellent widget, well done sir, i don't know how i managed without it
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 23 Sep 2008, 02:40
So... licensing.
First, I hereby release version 2.6 of the Attack AoE widget into the public domain. 3.0 is a huge overhaul of the widget, and frankly I can't think of anything colossally stupid one could do with version 2.6 that would be affected by releasing it into the public domain.
3.0... unfortunately it's a little more complicated. There's two issues:
First, in order to predict the possible impact points of cannons, it does a ballistic simulation in the same way that the engine does. Since the engine is GPL, does this automatically make this widget GPL?
Second, the most recent version of this widget in CA's SVN has been modified by jK, who added a few glLineWidth and glColor calls to reset the GL state. Since at this point in time this widget is only available under GPL, presumably this means that I no longer have full control over the copyright status of the latest version. I don't know jK's full feelings on GPL, so I'm not sure how difficult it would be to get his permission to release under a different license. This probably isn't a huge concern, though; since he didn't add any nontrivial logic, I think I could get jK's permission to release under a different license. Even if this is not the case, I could just relicense the version before jK's modifications. It's not like it's going to blow up your computer or anything.
Finally, there is the question of which license to use if I were to relicense. I've heard LGPL and CC-SA suggested. I hear CC-SA's focused more on art than code, though?
First, I hereby release version 2.6 of the Attack AoE widget into the public domain. 3.0 is a huge overhaul of the widget, and frankly I can't think of anything colossally stupid one could do with version 2.6 that would be affected by releasing it into the public domain.
3.0... unfortunately it's a little more complicated. There's two issues:
First, in order to predict the possible impact points of cannons, it does a ballistic simulation in the same way that the engine does. Since the engine is GPL, does this automatically make this widget GPL?
Second, the most recent version of this widget in CA's SVN has been modified by jK, who added a few glLineWidth and glColor calls to reset the GL state. Since at this point in time this widget is only available under GPL, presumably this means that I no longer have full control over the copyright status of the latest version. I don't know jK's full feelings on GPL, so I'm not sure how difficult it would be to get his permission to release under a different license. This probably isn't a huge concern, though; since he didn't add any nontrivial logic, I think I could get jK's permission to release under a different license. Even if this is not the case, I could just relicense the version before jK's modifications. It's not like it's going to blow up your computer or anything.
Finally, there is the question of which license to use if I were to relicense. I've heard LGPL and CC-SA suggested. I hear CC-SA's focused more on art than code, though?
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 23 Sep 2008, 14:16
no, methods are not subject to copyright.Evil4Zerggin wrote:First, in order to predict the possible impact points of cannons, it does a ballistic simulation in the same way that the engine does. Since the engine is GPL, does this automatically make this widget GPL?
ask jK or rewrite those pieces of code.Second, the most recent version of this widget in CA's SVN has been modified by jK, who added a few glLineWidth and glColor calls to reset the GL state. Since at this point in time this widget is only available under GPL, presumably this means that I no longer have full control over the copyright status of the latest version. I don't know jK's full feelings on GPL, so I'm not sure how difficult it would be to get his permission to release under a different license. This probably isn't a huge concern, though; since he didn't add any nontrivial logic, I think I could get jK's permission to release under a different license. Even if this is not the case, I could just relicense the version before jK's modifications. It's not like it's going to blow up your computer or anything.
Hard question... I'd go for LGPL, personally.Finally, there is the question of which license to use if I were to relicense. I've heard LGPL and CC-SA suggested. I hear CC-SA's focused more on art than code, though?
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 23 Sep 2008, 22:15
LGPL should work, I recommend it as well upon review of the full text.
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 26 Sep 2008, 07:47
I really wish I could get a consistent answer on what Lua can be non-GPL...[10:02:23 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> jK: do you mind if i make attack aoe LGPL?
...
[10:03:59 PM] <[LCC]jK> Evil, any spring lua code is GPL
[10:04:30 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> just by being a widget?
[10:05:09 PM] <[LCC]jK> yup
[10:05:25 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> API just say fuck it and go LGPL
[10:05:28 PM] <[Spam]Clogger[CA]>
[10:05:37 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> what about mods that include gpl widgets?
[10:06:07 PM] <[LCC]jK> artistic content is seperate license
[10:06:12 PM] <[LCC]jK> but all lua is gpl
[10:06:36 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> *sigh*
[10:06:42 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> i can never get the same answer from two people
[10:06:56 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> does it really have to be gpl and not just gpl compatible?
[10:07:35 PM] <[Spam]Clogger[CA]> hey what about me? LOOK AT ME!
[10:08:27 PM] <[LCC]jK> compatible
[10:08:38 PM] <[Spam]Clogger[CA]> am i invisible?
[10:08:41 PM] * [Spam]Clogger[CA] jumps up and down
[10:08:59 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> ...
[10:09:01 PM] <[LCC]jK> but LGPL doesn't help at all, cuz can't be non-GPL spring lua code
[10:09:04 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> LGPL is GPL compatible!
[10:09:11 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> but don't tell him no
[10:09:13 PM] <[LCC]jK> +there
[10:09:17 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> ignore the other mods
[10:09:28 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> because it's in a state of constant disagreement
[10:09:37 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> just let evil do his thing
[10:10:10 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> jK added a few glColor and glLineWidth resets, so technically i have to ask
[10:10:20 PM] <[LCC]jK> not really
[10:10:28 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> ?
[10:10:35 PM] * Charlie has left #lua (Quit)
[10:10:52 PM] <[LCC]jK> such changes don't change the widget at all
[10:11:02 PM] <[LCC]jK> it makes it just compatible with others
[10:11:43 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/license-lis ... reLicenses says LGPL v3 is compatible with GPL v3
[10:11:51 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> so is LGPL fine?
[10:12:22 PM] <[Spam]Clogger[CA]> me me me
[10:12:31 PM] <[LCC]jK> yeah, but why want some1 LGPL, if all the other stuff needs to be GPL compatible, too?
[10:12:48 PM] <[LCC]jK> it doesn't make sense :p
[10:13:02 PM] <[LCC]jK> also it is just forb, who pushs ya
[10:13:41 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> what's wrong with LGPL?
[10:14:03 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> maybe because they're unsure about the safety of GPL?
[10:14:12 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> if forb and anybody else who wants it benefits, and nobody is hurt, why not?
...
[10:15:32 PM] <[LCC]jK> forb can't benefit by it! his code have to be GPL caompatible, too!
[10:15:36 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> no need?
[10:15:48 PM] <[LCC]jK> -a
...
[10:15:59 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> but forb will feel safe that his content isn't in license limbo
...
[10:24:54 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> re: LGPL: LGPL is compatible with GPL, so perhaps he could have LGPL lua so it wouldn't risk GPLing the rest of the mod?
[10:25:17 PM] <[Spam]Clogger[CA]> what's the diff between the two?
[10:25:19 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> unless all mods are automatically GPL, which is icky
[10:25:30 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> LGPL doesn't GPL things that link to it
[10:25:39 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> that's the goal yes
[10:25:50 PM] <[LCC]jK> every code in his mod have to be GPL compatible
[10:26:15 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> even if the general consensus is that it doesn't gpl the mod, LGPL is *clearly* safe
[10:26:17 PM] <[LCC]jK> his artistic content isn't under GPL, even if he uses GPL code
[10:26:36 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> doesn't matter, LGPL has the safety on its sleeve
[10:27:06 PM] <[LCC]jK> nah, it is just that forb wants to avoid that ppl use his stuff for all reasons
[10:27:16 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> wha?
[10:27:41 PM] <[LCC]jK> meh it is 7am ..
[10:27:53 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> I think IW would consider LGPL code.
[10:27:56 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> GPL? no chance
[10:28:04 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> as a non-forb example
[10:28:28 PM] <[LCC]jK> why not?
[10:29:18 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> they don't want *anything* to do with licensing issues, at least last I talked about it
[10:29:55 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> this isn't just about legality
[10:30:12 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> a fair number of people seem to be scared shitless of GPL
[10:30:31 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> i don't even know what anything really means
[10:30:44 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> as far as this stuff goes
[10:30:46 PM] * cake[NOTA] has joined #lua
[10:31:23 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> exactly my point. LGPL actually SAYS IT'S SAFE RIGHT THERE
[10:31:35 PM] <[LCC]jK> yeah, evil, that's the problem, not the license itself
[10:31:44 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> hmm iw might consider gpl, I should bring it up with them later
[10:31:54 PM] <[SmuG]lurker> not much discussion in a while
[10:31:58 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> i don't know whether that is true or not
[10:32:09 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> there's been pages of debate with no real resolution
[10:32:22 PM] <[W]Evil4Zerggin[CA]> in any case, it's a problem that's not going away
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 26 Sep 2008, 14:09
this is a mess which won't get solved soon. I'd release as LGPL anyway ;p
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 26 Sep 2008, 21:42
LGPL. I read it, it offers you the best solution that offends the fewest people and allows for the widest use, particularly since a custom license is almost impossible to square with the GPL.
Use it and be done.
Use it and be done.
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 27 Sep 2008, 01:03
So far as I am aware, LGPL seems to be the way to go. I hereby release version 3.0 of this widget under the GNU LGPL, version 2.1 or later. Also, version 1.5.2 of the Night widget.
Re: Attack AoE v3.1
Posted: 04 Apr 2009, 03:00
The dgun inaccuracy bugged me very much so i've fixed it for BA (probably an improvement in most *A mods) in this modified version which will also be bundled with the next BA..
http://consternationstation.com/gui_attack_aoe.lua
http://consternationstation.com/gui_attack_aoe.lua
Re: Attack AoE v3.1
Posted: 04 Apr 2009, 21:46
Would someone explain to me how and why I became part of that conversation?
Re: Attack AoE v3.1
Posted: 25 Sep 2009, 10:58
i just noticed the dgun attack AOE doesnt work properly, it draws the middle point in wrong place... you can see it by changing the dgun direction, looks like the circle isnt a circle :P
is anyone maintaining this widget anymore? could fix that thing, or is that how it should look like? idk, looks weird.
is anyone maintaining this widget anymore? could fix that thing, or is that how it should look like? idk, looks weird.
Re: Attack AoE v3.1
Posted: 25 Sep 2009, 15:10
In the BA version the circle follows the center of where the dgun will emit from which is the commanders arm (not the center of the commander), thats why it moves around - however it doesn't seem to be correct in its radius so that needs tweaking, will look into it.
Re: Attack AoE v3.1
Posted: 25 Sep 2009, 17:50
The last version I programmed took the firing position from roughly the center of the unit. There is a GetWeaponVectors callout; however, when I last tried it, the position returned tended to jump around the unit. Unfortunately I'm rather short on time ATM so don't expect much from me in the near future D:
Re: Attack AoE
Posted: 26 Sep 2009, 01:14
Edit: Ignore this - missed the dates and the timespans between posts... sorry.