+1
STOP THE MODER INFIGHTING NOW!
Moderator: Moderators
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
Fang misunderstood that if he included GPL licensed scripts then he would have to include all his scripts under GPL, when he wanted to keep his scripts private copy write. Argh did a poor job of explaining this and misunderstood that fang really wanted to use his content without any crediting or licensing as if it were under fang's own license, which was never really the case. Fang got smoth to rewrite the offending scripts before there was any real understanding about what the real issue is. Argh was in the legal right to be upset by the licensing infraction, but fang never intended to cause a problem, he just misunderstood the issue. Fang is protective of his work, he didn't want it released under GPL.imbaczek wrote:Flame wars happen. Develop a thick skin and live with it.
I didn't like that GPL violation too, and also consider both Argh's and Fang's reactions inappropriate. I don't understand why Fang didn't just give credit and relicense the infringing files to GPL either. (No need to relicense the whole mod, only those files that use GPL-d code, after all.) Anyway, this issue should never go public, and I strongly suggest that if some other mod finds itself in a similar situation, just comply with the damn license, it's there for a reason - be it GPL or something else.
That's my $.02.
I for one know that there is more to this community than that.1v0ry_k1ng wrote:what community are you on about? the spring modding community is like a daytime TV housewives soap;
"U STOLE MI COEDD"
"NO I DIDN IT WUS TER BULTTERS"
"MIE AA IS BETTERS THAN URS!!"
"LOLZ I MAED A WIKI OF UR MOD MAEKIN IT LUCK SUCK"
I dont see ayone actucally changed their conductbecause of this post, but its the right idea.
An even more annoying problem as a 'modder' i think is the aa/baa fanbois that show up posting inappropriate comments on the aar thread. Sure, constructive criticism is ok, even welcome. What is annoying is the comments in the style of "omg ur mod sux", what does it help anyone?
I have no problem with these immature comments, but whats sad is that someone that could end up liking the mod might decide not to test it because of these fanbois comments.
I have no problem with these immature comments, but whats sad is that someone that could end up liking the mod might decide not to test it because of these fanbois comments.
-
Felix the Cat
- Posts: 2383
- Joined: 15 Jun 2005, 17:30
Indeed, that's the entire point of the GPL: to make sure you can reuse improvements others make to your work in your own work. If you use the GPL, you essentially say: "you're free to use my stuff, as long as I'm free to use your stuff [that's based on / contains my stuff] [under the terms of the GPL]".
So it's pretty obvious using GPL'ed content in something that you don't want to see edited is a violation of the GPL and a violation of the intentions of the original author (because he chose the GPL).
One note tho: IANAL, but I think sure "work" isn't defined in the GPL, so I think you could easily write a small addendum that says e.g. "work == all script files in this package, work != all non-script files in this package".
Maybe the LGPL would be better suitable for those cases tho.
So it's pretty obvious using GPL'ed content in something that you don't want to see edited is a violation of the GPL and a violation of the intentions of the original author (because he chose the GPL).
One note tho: IANAL, but I think sure "work" isn't defined in the GPL, so I think you could easily write a small addendum that says e.g. "work == all script files in this package, work != all non-script files in this package".
Maybe the LGPL would be better suitable for those cases tho.
Let's face it - modding is an egotistical process. People pour their heart, soul, and free time into a personal project and then give it - for free - to the community to play with. The soul benefit is credit... so when someone uses your work without that expected credit, passions run just as high as if someone had robbed you of your time and money.
The most important thing to remember is the golden rule - put yourself in the place of the other modder, and remember times when you were scrambling to find material to use, or imagine if someone used your hard work without your permission.
And just remember - everybody sounds angrier and nastier in text, and you can't see the face of the person you're shouting at. If we were all sitting across from each other in a bar, nobody would say half the stuff they can type into this inhuman textbox.
The most important thing to remember is the golden rule - put yourself in the place of the other modder, and remember times when you were scrambling to find material to use, or imagine if someone used your hard work without your permission.
And just remember - everybody sounds angrier and nastier in text, and you can't see the face of the person you're shouting at. If we were all sitting across from each other in a bar, nobody would say half the stuff they can type into this inhuman textbox.
-
SwiftSpear
- Classic Community Lead
- Posts: 7287
- Joined: 12 Aug 2005, 09:29
This is not the case. You can individually license specific pieces of code in a coding project under GPL and the entire project does not need to be GPLed. This is the instance of the code argh is using for his BOS scripts AFAIK. Each script is individually GPLed. So I can use any of argh's scripts in my mod, or modify any of his scripts in my mod, and the only thing in my entire mod I need to redistribute as GPL is the script the original GPLed script derived from.manored wrote:Congrats smoth.
I readed somewhere (reliable) that if anything inside something you have done is under gpl license, the entire work falls under gpl license, so if you are going to do something you dont wanna see edited DONT USE GPL CONTENT!!!
For a blatant example. All spring mods need spring to run, spring is GPL, by your definition all spring mods are therefore GPL, this is simply not the case.
mannored, my mod doesn't belong to anyone but bandai and myself. If I wanted it to be STANDALONE as in I take spring do my own work with and and release all of that gundam is then stand alone. furthermore, you need to understand that gundam is entirely my work, guess what? it belongs to me. I don't use any gpl parts!
So that being said, I have not GPLED any of my work. Which means no you cannot use it.
Spikedhelmet, I read about your problem with the flamethrowers, please pm me I think I may have a solution.
So that being said, I have not GPLED any of my work. Which means no you cannot use it.
Spikedhelmet, I read about your problem with the flamethrowers, please pm me I think I may have a solution.
I agree with smoth and swiftspear.... :)
it is not nice if someone try to hijack your project in his/GPL/jesus/God name
If you spend months/years make a mod you will understand this....
but i DISAGREE TO STOP INFIGHTING!...
GO GO! FLAME hahahahha!
GUndam is suck 1944 is suck AA is suck XTA is suck Upspring is suck
ONLY WD COOL!!!
err.... can we have mandatory fighting now
it is not nice if someone try to hijack your project in his/GPL/jesus/God name
If you spend months/years make a mod you will understand this....
but i DISAGREE TO STOP INFIGHTING!...
GO GO! FLAME hahahahha!
GUndam is suck 1944 is suck AA is suck XTA is suck Upspring is suck
ONLY WD COOL!!!
err.... can we have mandatory fighting now
-
El Capitano
- Posts: 156
- Joined: 13 Oct 2006, 10:48
That is not true. The GPL requires all distributed derived work to be licensed under the GPL too. The one real "exception" is that you can basically run GPL code on top of a GPL-incompatible platform. For example, you can run proprietary code on Linux. However, if I, say, took a GPL unit and integrated it into my non-GPL mod, I'd be in violation of the GPL. If I built a GPL unit for a mod, then that's slightly muddier ground, but seeing as the unit is conceptually another layer on top of the mod, you're probably in the clear.SwiftSpear wrote: This is not the case. You can individually license specific pieces of code in a coding project under GPL and the entire project does not need to be GPLed.
If people want to create a unit and allow it to be integrated into any mod whilst the unit itself is under the GPL, they should be using the LGPL. The L used to stand for "Library", which made the nature of the license reasonably clear, but Mr. Stallman had a fit of childishness and renamed it "Lesser".
No, that's not true. That's basically the interpretation of the LGPL and it's what all these separate scripts really should be under. By making the script GPL, it does actually taint any mod that integrates it. Relicense under the LGPL, and this problem goes away.This is the instance of the code argh is using for his BOS scripts AFAIK. Each script is individually GPLed. So I can use any of argh's scripts in my mod, or modify any of his scripts in my mod, and the only thing in my entire mod I need to redistribute as GPL is the script the original GPLed script derived from.
I think the reason for this is for the same reason that you can run GPL-incompatible code on Linux, it's that Spring is a platform and developing/running code (mods) on top of that platform is normal use. Just as Linux is of little use on its own, Spring is also of little use without a mod to run on it.For a blatant example. All spring mods need spring to run, spring is GPL, by your definition all spring mods are therefore GPL, this is simply not the case.
Please keep in mind here that I'm not trying to start or further a flame war, but I want to disambiguate the situation so people better understand the situation before this happens again.
<shrugs>
I just want a bullet-proof license that requires people to not claim my work as theirs, and keeps knowledge in the community where it belongs- not in private hands. I give stuff away all the time- people aren't giving back like they should, and it really bothers me.
I have credited each and every person who has contributed in some important fashion to the development of NanoBlobs. Including people whose actual contributions were "minimal" or aren't even in the mod any more. Das Bruce is in the credits for a model I never even used. Yeha is in there for creating ColorMap and being one of the primary authors of CSimpleParticleSystem, and for generally giving me his time and mental energy because I said, "if you do, I will make cool stuff with this"- a promise I hope I kept. zszwg is in there for providing the back-and-forth critique session I needed to clean up my scripts and make them efficient. DRB is in there for animation scripts that were used for nearly 8 months, which are no longer in the mod. Smoth is there for one model.
KDR_11k will be credited in the next version, for giving me a chance insight and helping me finally find a workaround for fixed-arc unit behavioral problems. I found the solution, but he provided a clue. I should have credited him long before this, for other helpful back-and-forth like that, to be honest, but meh. And of course the winner(s) of the recent modeling contest get their names in the credits.
In short... I credit often, I don't take credit away when I no longer have a use for the stuff that was provided, and I take it very seriously. People who don't... suck. People who have a pirate's attitude, and steal whatever they lack the skill to make themselves, suck. If I had not already had, in my decade of game-making experience, many, many encounters with that kind of scum, I would not be such a big fan of licensing my stuff.
In previous game engines, I just asserted copyrights, and told people they had to get my written permission to use my work. This whole GPL thing has been, frankly, an experiment for me. Thus far, what I've learned about the Spring community is that many of you aren't even willing to put up with minimal restrictions or a license that is designed to require you to share- in short, it's OK for you to be selfish, but it's not ok for people like me, who are far more skilled, to hoard our hard-earned knowledge.
That kind've leaves me in a bind. On the one hand, I have dealt with leet mofos who share nothing. They can make life very hard for newbies, and whereever I go, I try to counter that trend with knowledge.
On the other hand, I have never run into a community where people refuse to even bother acknowledging copyrights or credit so poorly. I dunno if this is because of Spring's GPL status, or because the OTA crowd got so used to being completely illegal that they brought that culture with them. Either way, it's not healthy, and eventually it will lead to even more trouble.
For now, I am just going to very, very carefully evaluate what content I will release under what license. Major stuff- the stuff that most of you couldn't make yourselves- I will probably GPL, because I don't want anybody taking it away from anybody, or for some leet mofos (and trust me, they are HERE, and they ARE WATCHING US) to take that knowledge, soup it up, and then deny it to the community.
Minor stuff that is easy to replicate, I will release under the Creative Commons, so that I don't have to worry about e-drama or checking through mods to find violators.
In short... all the flaming you guys have been doing about this doesn't help me much at all. I have been sorely tempted to put everything I do under the GPL, just to make a point about it, but that would be annoying to enforce, and I don't want to bother with it. This thing with E&E was supposed to be a precedent showing how my work could contribute to other people's projects.
What I did not realize was that Fang has zero intention of making any part of his mod public domain. This is his choice- it's not evil or anything. He has every right to do so, and I have done so myself many times. If I'd known that was an absolute for him, though, I would not have offered any help to him, because most of the help I am willing to provide, beyond snippets and tutorials (as if that were minor) requires adhering to a license. In Fang's case, I didn't have time to help in detail, so I just pointed towards my GPL'd walkscripts and said, "have at it". If we'd had a conversation about the nature of the license at the time, which we did not, then I probably would've declined to help him, because I don't write code for other people, for free, on a game where I am not the lead designer
I could just shut up, and not share working knowledge with you people, but I'd rather be helpful in a way that's designed to protect the community as a whole- not just the people who read a post when it's fresh from my mind, but the people who read it months from now, when all they have is a burning desire to make something cool. The GPL is a way to do that. The LGPL ensures that others can use my work, but it doesn't prevent them from taking it, changing it dramatically (in a good way) and then calling it theirs. I don't want people privatizing their code for important stuff that I created, basically- the GPL prevents that. At least half the bitching about this issue is completely misguided, especially the more I am coming to understand exactly what the GPL does here. It doesn't prevent sharing- it makes sharing mandatory. Which is pretty much what I want, when I share something important, that may have taken me days or weeks of work. You guys simply do not understand how much work I do, to produce the little snippets I put out every week. I don't want other people ripping me off- and by extension, the rest of you.
I just want a bullet-proof license that requires people to not claim my work as theirs, and keeps knowledge in the community where it belongs- not in private hands. I give stuff away all the time- people aren't giving back like they should, and it really bothers me.
I have credited each and every person who has contributed in some important fashion to the development of NanoBlobs. Including people whose actual contributions were "minimal" or aren't even in the mod any more. Das Bruce is in the credits for a model I never even used. Yeha is in there for creating ColorMap and being one of the primary authors of CSimpleParticleSystem, and for generally giving me his time and mental energy because I said, "if you do, I will make cool stuff with this"- a promise I hope I kept. zszwg is in there for providing the back-and-forth critique session I needed to clean up my scripts and make them efficient. DRB is in there for animation scripts that were used for nearly 8 months, which are no longer in the mod. Smoth is there for one model.
KDR_11k will be credited in the next version, for giving me a chance insight and helping me finally find a workaround for fixed-arc unit behavioral problems. I found the solution, but he provided a clue. I should have credited him long before this, for other helpful back-and-forth like that, to be honest, but meh. And of course the winner(s) of the recent modeling contest get their names in the credits.
In short... I credit often, I don't take credit away when I no longer have a use for the stuff that was provided, and I take it very seriously. People who don't... suck. People who have a pirate's attitude, and steal whatever they lack the skill to make themselves, suck. If I had not already had, in my decade of game-making experience, many, many encounters with that kind of scum, I would not be such a big fan of licensing my stuff.
In previous game engines, I just asserted copyrights, and told people they had to get my written permission to use my work. This whole GPL thing has been, frankly, an experiment for me. Thus far, what I've learned about the Spring community is that many of you aren't even willing to put up with minimal restrictions or a license that is designed to require you to share- in short, it's OK for you to be selfish, but it's not ok for people like me, who are far more skilled, to hoard our hard-earned knowledge.
That kind've leaves me in a bind. On the one hand, I have dealt with leet mofos who share nothing. They can make life very hard for newbies, and whereever I go, I try to counter that trend with knowledge.
On the other hand, I have never run into a community where people refuse to even bother acknowledging copyrights or credit so poorly. I dunno if this is because of Spring's GPL status, or because the OTA crowd got so used to being completely illegal that they brought that culture with them. Either way, it's not healthy, and eventually it will lead to even more trouble.
For now, I am just going to very, very carefully evaluate what content I will release under what license. Major stuff- the stuff that most of you couldn't make yourselves- I will probably GPL, because I don't want anybody taking it away from anybody, or for some leet mofos (and trust me, they are HERE, and they ARE WATCHING US) to take that knowledge, soup it up, and then deny it to the community.
Minor stuff that is easy to replicate, I will release under the Creative Commons, so that I don't have to worry about e-drama or checking through mods to find violators.
In short... all the flaming you guys have been doing about this doesn't help me much at all. I have been sorely tempted to put everything I do under the GPL, just to make a point about it, but that would be annoying to enforce, and I don't want to bother with it. This thing with E&E was supposed to be a precedent showing how my work could contribute to other people's projects.
What I did not realize was that Fang has zero intention of making any part of his mod public domain. This is his choice- it's not evil or anything. He has every right to do so, and I have done so myself many times. If I'd known that was an absolute for him, though, I would not have offered any help to him, because most of the help I am willing to provide, beyond snippets and tutorials (as if that were minor) requires adhering to a license. In Fang's case, I didn't have time to help in detail, so I just pointed towards my GPL'd walkscripts and said, "have at it". If we'd had a conversation about the nature of the license at the time, which we did not, then I probably would've declined to help him, because I don't write code for other people, for free, on a game where I am not the lead designer
I could just shut up, and not share working knowledge with you people, but I'd rather be helpful in a way that's designed to protect the community as a whole- not just the people who read a post when it's fresh from my mind, but the people who read it months from now, when all they have is a burning desire to make something cool. The GPL is a way to do that. The LGPL ensures that others can use my work, but it doesn't prevent them from taking it, changing it dramatically (in a good way) and then calling it theirs. I don't want people privatizing their code for important stuff that I created, basically- the GPL prevents that. At least half the bitching about this issue is completely misguided, especially the more I am coming to understand exactly what the GPL does here. It doesn't prevent sharing- it makes sharing mandatory. Which is pretty much what I want, when I share something important, that may have taken me days or weeks of work. You guys simply do not understand how much work I do, to produce the little snippets I put out every week. I don't want other people ripping me off- and by extension, the rest of you.
Last edited by Argh on 18 Dec 2006, 13:22, edited 2 times in total.