Re: [Warzone-dev] lib/script/interp.c, g++ unbreakage
Am Dienstag, 19. September 2006 23:05 schrieb Christian Ohm: Hm, I wouldn't have changed 'ip', as that name is used in other places as well, but OK. Maybe change those other places, too then? ;) I had quite some difficulties imagining what UWDORD*ip could be, till Troman told me that it is an Instruction Pointer. So I felt like changing that. The attached patch fixes g++ compilation broken by Troman's commit. The removed casts inspired a new SVN rule: ALWAYS do 'svn up' before 'svn diff' (and fix conflicts, if necessary). I guess I should make a new draft for the SVN guidelines soon. I guess everybody is doing that. Just MSVC doesn't check the code as good as GCC does, and G++ does it even better than GCC. The removed inline was necessary for g++ to actually find the function when linking. extern inline doesn't really make sense. Oh, that does make sense. I even got it from a website, because I wondered if it is possible. http://www.greenend.org.uk/rjk/2003/03/inline.html But that could be a GNUC dialekt... If we want to keep the function inlined (probably not necessary, as the compiler will inline functions when optimizing*), we can add it to lib/script/script.h, but then we have to include the RetStackPos variable there as well. I added those inlines when I replaced if(retStackPos 0) with if(retStackIsEmpty()). I also had a look at the other retStack functions and choose several to be inline. Then I detected that most of them are only used in interp.c and thuse moved them over and made them static inline. retStackCallDepth was the only remainder. --Dennis pgpAmqWwM1KgE.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Cutscenes (RTS.net discussion)
Am Dienstag, 19. September 2006 19:53 schrieb Christian Ohm: Some comments on the current discussion on RTS.net ( http://www.realtimestrategies.net/forums/viewtopic.php?t=1266 , my login there doesn't work anymore, thus I'll answer here. Perhaps someone with a working RTS.net account can post a link to this mail later): About Quake 2: The Quake 2 data format for the retail version is the same as for the demo, you just have to copy it from the CD and the engine can use it. The RPL movies are in a format we cannot play at the moment, so to use them we have to implement a video decoder, either in the engine itself or to convert them to a format the engine can play (that'll have to be done as well first). Big difference. Doesn't the GPL forbid something like that anyway? We have movies we can only play through closed source dlls. I thought for the GPL everything needed to get it running must be opensource. (Or was it the other way round? Everything using something with GPL must be opensource and everything used by the thing with GPL must only be free?) Who's the lawyer to answer this? Ugh I hate that licensing stuff... Audio tracks: Grabbing the audio tracks is easy and could be done in an installer (which has to be written as well, for every platform (and possibly Linux distribution) separately). As a first step we can just tell people how to rip and use the audio tracks (that was a recurring question on the forum as well, so it's an ideal FAQ). I'd just supply a converter script independent of the game package if I'd have to do it. Use the game engine to create AVIs: The only advantage that has is easier postprocessing. The disadvantages are: we still need a video player in the engine, and the videos will be limited in quality (both by the engine and video format constraints). If we can get the engine to produce useful scenes, we can just output those directly, possibly with some post-processing effects added. Just curious: All the time I hear people talking that they'd need post-processing effects in the game engine to create cutscenes. What exactly do you mean with that phrase? Or asked differently: What effects do you think you need to tell the story in ingame cutscenes? Using mplayer code for OpenGL playback: mplayer will only serve as a very rough guide for the implementation, we probably can't use much of their code directly (there's just far too much stuff in mplayer that we don't need). Same applies for Xine. And either one of them would still need a lot of integration into the engine. And we would need to ship with it in Windows. And require it on Linux. Or if we include it into our repository: That's insane! We would need to maintain it and... and... *ugh* Using Vorbis for movie audio: I guess that will not reduce development time much, as video playback is different from sound effects - there's not much code to reuse. And finally about the divergence of the plans before the source release and now: Well, the people who have actually done any work on the source were not those who have made those plans. And you can't create plans for others as long as you don't pay them. ;) You can determine what work needs to be done (and hope someone does it) and setup rules of thumb so the work will flew better, but that's what we are doing here (todo,svn-guidelines). --Dennis pgpFNvLnTqJdf.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] lib/script/interp.c, g++ unbreakage
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 14:00 schrieb Christian Ohm: On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 5:06, Roman wrote: The attached patch fixes g++ compilation broken by Troman's commit. The removed casts inspired a new SVN rule: ALWAYS do 'svn up' before 'svn diff' (and fix conflicts, if necessary). That's the rule of thumb I follow. What did it break? Look at your changes to src/multiplay.c in rev. 371. You removed the four casts in eventFireCallbackTrigger I added for g++ compatibility (I guess because you were editing an older revision of that file). Yes, he had that HD crash and after getting the data back he commited what he got. Well, now that casts are back, so no need to worry anymore... --Dennis pgp64uRSa1Elu.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Questions
-BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE- Hash: SHA1 On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 05:31:02 -0400 Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Would be nice if the main WZ site could put up a bot in both rooms and have a archive section in the main WZ site, so we can see what all is going on. There are lots of logging IRC bots available for free that can be used. I guess Kamaze is the one to ask there. I must admit that I would not like such a official what the devs said last summer [about Mr. Bush] logs... Mr. Bush? Don't get all paranoid. :p Discussion takes place mostly on IRC and if something which could get official turns out of it, it is taken to the mailinglist for official discussion. So what we talk about on IRC is either in preproduction state (dunno how to call it) or is allready widely know (because mentioned on the list, the forums or the wiki). And I still can't understand those people who like to listen to what other people are talking on IRC, but not wanting to participate in that talk and rather want to read the logs of it in their own small, dark, secret room... If you want to read something official which will persist to exists during the next days, then you can read the list, wiki or maybe even forums. If you want to help build that official info, you can come join us in our talk (list or IRC, whatever you want). If you want neither of the 2, I am sorry, but I can't and don't want to give you anything. The problem with IRC is we are all over the world, and time zones, and when most people are on IRC, others are working. Not everyone can have access to IRC from work. In fact, that is frowned upon. If you read the logs, most decisions go there, then a few (if any) get to be put on the mailing list. This is why logs are a good thing, not something to be paranoid about. PS: To whoever will do the netcode rewrite: Please have a look at SDL_net2, I think this could ease the process a lot. (Google for it and you will find a my mail to this list about using it in Warzone to be the first search result. ;) ) What uses SDL_net2? From what I can search in google, I find: We already tried that ;) Our coder used sdl_net and sdl_net2 for a multiplayer test but he mentioned that it was very unstable :( On gamedev. So if it isn't stable, then it don't really make sense to use it does it? I also saw mention of this in some very old logs: http://www.opentnl.org/ That says TNL is available under the GNU General Public License (GPL), an indie license, and a commercial license. Worls in mac,windows, and linux, so this might well be better than SDL_net2. There wasn't much problems with the Tribes network code, I think it can handle 64 player games easy? -BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE- Note: This signature can be verified at https://www.hushtools.com/verify Version: Hush 2.5 wpwEAQECAAYFAkURZMcACgkQBI/HGYfOTxaJgwQAhebiaQSwSLgyVV0N/9meIC068BZ+ G1/Scb6s/ZX3rIJgqEBcdU4zfv1481FEdk27fTJI015k4Xv4RGcAPUbk2axW7liZGsdB E0aUM92xlkHg1gp28DvIEN0BNiKrKyWpDnwl3li8lq8KRQKKklZtLjO5NnX74YgOsp+p RfbjLlE= =30Mr -END PGP SIGNATURE- Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
2006/9/20, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Who owns the copyright on a file of sourcecode when the file has been written by dozens of people? Is it shared between all of them? I think I know this one: all of the people who have code in the file, have copyright. If, for instance, the file is to be relicensed, all of them must agree to relicense the file. -- All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
Forgot to mention that I think this: The readme says: provided as is with no guarantees. Can't we use that as a license? sounds like the obvious thing to do, provided it is GPL compatible. And since it impose no restrictions that the GPL does not impose, chances are that it is GPL compatible (though I'm not the one to guarentee this!!!) -- All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
On 9/20/06, Christian Vest Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/9/20, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Who owns the copyright on a file of sourcecode when the file has been written by dozens of people? Is it shared between all of them? I think I know this one: all of the people who have code in the file, have copyright. If, for instance, the file is to be relicensed, all of them must agree to relicense the file. More likely, the copyright is held by a corporation or other business entity, and not by the programmers themselves. In the US, at least, works made for hire pass the copyright to the employer. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] videos / briefings / pause 'bug'?
2006/9/20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: We just don't know what as is with no guarantee means in the legal sense, and if that conflicts with GPL in any way at all? Is this not also one of the reasons Rodzilla Grimandmandy Charun Henrivee Qamly Kevin ?? left the project to move on to their own RTS? Rodzilla got a new job that he is very happy about, and I think he just don't have time to follow the project any more. Qamly has/had a job that kept him away from computers for weeks. He probably found that it was unstable to be as committed as he was, to a project like this when you only have one or two weekends a month to work on it. Kevin is still Kevin. I haven't noticed any change in activety levels here ;) I recall hearing something about Grim not wanting to release his artwork under a GPL compatible license, and if he's not with us any more, then this could probably be the reason. I don't recall much about Charun Henrivee I really doubt that Eidos/pumpkin (who are now Pivotal)-- http://www.pivotalgames.com/index.php?content=warzonecat=support care, but I think the new person to contact would be Jim Bambra, Managing Director Pivotal Games. They say 'You can contact us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' Perhaps we can write up something again, and see if they can write a new license that is more clear for the GPL legal people so we can move on? Give it a shot. Though I'm skeptic. -- All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
2006/9/20, Ari Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 9/20/06, Christian Vest Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/9/20, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Who owns the copyright on a file of sourcecode when the file has been written by dozens of people? Is it shared between all of them? I think I know this one: all of the people who have code in the file, have copyright. If, for instance, the file is to be relicensed, all of them must agree to relicense the file. More likely, the copyright is held by a corporation or other business entity, and not by the programmers themselves. In the US, at least, works made for hire pass the copyright to the employer. I was presuming the file mentioned above was GPLed. If you want to relicense a GPLed file, I think you need to get concent from everyone who have code in it. -- All good software releases were accidents corrected in the next version. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 19:06 schrieb Christian Vest Hansen: 2006/9/20, Ari Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 9/20/06, Christian Vest Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/9/20, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Who owns the copyright on a file of sourcecode when the file has been written by dozens of people? Is it shared between all of them? I think I know this one: all of the people who have code in the file, have copyright. If, for instance, the file is to be relicensed, all of them must agree to relicense the file. More likely, the copyright is held by a corporation or other business entity, and not by the programmers themselves. In the US, at least, works made for hire pass the copyright to the employer. I was presuming the file mentioned above was GPLed. If you want to relicense a GPLed file, I think you need to get concent from everyone who have code in it. So the copyright notice in the Warzone sourcecode files has to be: Eidos and members of the Warzone Ressurrection Project ? Or do we need to list everyone? Or can we refer to the AUTHORS file and add Eidos to the list of authors? Also I think long time ago I have heard somewhere that if I a patch to a file I only have a (maybe partial if I only modified the line) copyright on that very line I changed. Is that correct? In the end that would leed us to having copyright on the 7th letter in the 150th line of this and that file. *ugh* --Dennis pgpw4jnqhjqc2.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Original source Sequence.c
On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 16:59, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On IRC: # [Wed 01:36:09pm]devurandom Does that archive also offer a free way to compile that code and play the videos? # [Wed 01:36:56pm]Troman wz source?:P devurandom, one thing I don't understand, why does everyone keep telling that wz can't playback rpls? # [Wed 01:37:13pm]devurandom Troman: Can it? # [Wed 01:37:17pm]devurandom Troman: I don't know? # [Wed 01:37:33pm]Troman but videos were always played with wz # [Wed 01:37:46pm]Troman unless someone ripped the code # [Wed 01:37:48pm]devurandom So our current game can play rpls? # [Wed 01:38:04pm]devurandom Or at least the original one could? The original code in the original archive has everything you need to play the rpl stuff. The code that was converted stripped out all the rpl playback stuff. Yes. Because that code was just an interface to dec130.dll that did the real work. I think one of the earlier versions implemented wrapper functions for the missing code (as all development was done on Linux, so the DLLs didn't work), the Berlios SVN can probably tell you more (by the way, someone disabled access to everything on Berlios including the SVN - could that be restored?). So the RPL stuff was stripped from the sources, since a) there was no free code available to play it (and still isn't) and b) the interesting RPL sequences are not freely available, thus any development in that direction would just benefit a few people and not the whole project (and, as we all are painfully aware, developers don't grow on trees). Sound output was another thing not supplied, so the source release didn't even work on Windows unless using the closed-source DLLs. It uses DirectX code for the buffer/frames it seems, so that may be why it was dropped/cut out. From what I can tell, all the code does is pass parameters to the .dlls and those do the actual work of decoding the rpl video files into the DirectX buffer. Looking at it some more, since it also worked with 3dfx glide, we should be able to use those routines with some modifications for the 16bit vs 32 bit color display. Might even be possible to use PNG routines to do the converting of the buffer to something that we can use. How fast this is, is anyones guess. Blindingly fast. I guess you could even implement a virtual machine in which to run the DLL and it'll still be fast enough to play on any halfway decent hardware. (Now don't get any funny ideas, that wasn't a serious suggestion). But like I said, this is in limbo until we can know if the rpls that were released (BrfCom.rpl, BrfCom4s.rpl, end.rpl ,IncomInt.rpl, IncomTns.rpl, nexend.rpl, npend.rpl, npstart.rpl, player.rpl, Plyr4sec.rpl, PrjUpDat.rpl, res_com.rpl, res_droid.rpl, res_pow.rpl, res_struttech.rpl, res_systech.rpl, res_weapons.rpl, Victory.rpl) will be OK to distribute with the dll's needed to decode them (included in the archive) and be OK with GPL rules. Distributing the videos won't be a problem, but using the DLL with the GPL Warzone will: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs For that, the released source would need a GPL exception to explicitely use the DLLs (needless to say, we are not likely to get that). The question (I think) is can we use those libraries or not? Are they free ? Yes, the decoders are free AFAIK. The encoders are the ones you pay for to make a rpl. Then linux/mac people would need those .dlls to be converted to be able to be seen. And how do you want to convert the DLL? The other option is to have someone re-record those above listed videos, and make it into divx/avi/mpg whatever format, then we can all see them. I assume this will be OK with the GPL--if the data is covered by the GPL that is. Yes. It still needs someone to implement video playback in Warzone, and someone to actually convert the videos. And I'd guess only for the free RPLs, it's not worth the effort. The only way I see for RPL playback to enter Warzone is if someone takes the description of the RPL video codec recently posted to this list and implements this, and then adds all code necessary to play the videos. Then those with the original CDs could copy their RPLs and the game would show them. The catch here is, of course, that someone hasn't appeared yet. This will still leave allot of 'holes' by the videos that tell the story for the SP mission though. I have read that some people want to recreate them, but is that ok? The videos that were not included still have a (c) to them. Can you retell the story without getting into trouble? There should be enough of the story in the GPLed files for that not to be a problem. -- Infidel: In New York, one who does not believe in the Christian religion; in Constantinople, one who does. -- Ambrose Bierce ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org
Re: [Warzone-dev] r378
On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 23:30, Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 23:17 schrieb Christian Ohm: Don't know what I was doing when making that patch. Thinking can't have been involved. In script.h, the 'inline' has to be removed, not the 'extern'. Fix attached. Interesting. I wonder why devurandom.brain() Don't ask me. and both GCC and MSVC did not complain about it... Because you didn't use the C++ compiler. Linking works a bit different with C++ as well. -- BOFH excuse #115: your keyboard's space bar is generating spurious keycodes. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] videos / briefings / pause 'bug'?
On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 19:02, Christian Vest Hansen wrote: 2006/9/20, [EMAIL PROTECTED] [EMAIL PROTECTED]: I really doubt that Eidos/pumpkin (who are now Pivotal)-- http://www.pivotalgames.com/index.php?content=warzonecat=support care, but I think the new person to contact would be Jim Bambra, Managing Director Pivotal Games. They say 'You can contact us at: [EMAIL PROTECTED]' Perhaps we can write up something again, and see if they can write a new license that is more clear for the GPL legal people so we can move on? Give it a shot. Though I'm skeptic. The question is: Who owns the copyright to Warzone? The README says Thankyou to Jonathan Kemp of Eidos Europe for permitting the release. So, at that time, Eidos owned the copyright. Now what happened? Did Eidos transfer the copyright to the Pumpkin guys, as Virgil said? (They could have done it, there's no law (yet) that copyrights can only belong to corporations.) Then those are the ones to ask. I'd guess Pivotal has no role in that, other than them being employed there. So, asking Pivotal will only be successful if they actually do know anything about the Warzone affair. But if they don't, they might start assuming things, and that's the last thing we need... -- The politician is someone who deals in man's problems of adjustment. To ask a politician to lead us is to ask the tail of a dog to lead the dog. -- Buckminster Fuller ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] videos / briefings / pause 'bug'?
On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 12:33, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 08:15:26 -0400 Christian Ohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 1:36, [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: If not OK, then what, fork the SP MP/skirmish so we don't have to deal with GPL restrictions that make no sense for this game since everything *should* be covered by GPL, but we can never be 100% sure, since we can't contact anyone who can tell us? *BINGBINGBING* Wrong. If there is any doubt about the data's license (ie. we are not allowed to redistribute and change it), that will affect both the campaign and multiplayer modes, so there's no sense separating them. If that is the case (and it is highly unlikely, since the intention of the source release was the continued development of the game), we can stop the whole project. You sure about that? The SP game is the only thing that uses video I thought? The video playback is a thorn for GPL, since it uses non GPL content. The rest of the data can be viewed/used with no special codecs or anything else that might break GPL. Oh, you meant just the videos. I thought you were speaking of the whole data, because you mentioned the uncertainty around it. The video issue is crystal clear, we cannot redistribute any of those not included in the source archive (ie. those that are interesting). The format of the videos doesn't matter, a GPL program can use data that is not GPL (else you couldn't use GPL programs for commercial purposes). Just the whole source code has to be GPL (so until someone writes a GPLed implementation for the RPL video codec, we cannot play them in the GPLed Warzone). What I meant was the whole data. If we are not allowed to modify and distribute that, this project is over (then there is nothing to resurrect, just to conserve - and who wants the role of a curator?). -- You will outgrow your usefulness. ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] Original source Sequence.c
*g* Too funny... pgpkCXtxWDRgN.pgp Description: PGP signature ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 19:43, Dennis Schridde wrote: Am Mittwoch, 20. September 2006 19:06 schrieb Christian Vest Hansen: 2006/9/20, Ari Johnson [EMAIL PROTECTED]: On 9/20/06, Christian Vest Hansen [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: 2006/9/20, Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED]: Who owns the copyright on a file of sourcecode when the file has been written by dozens of people? Is it shared between all of them? I think I know this one: all of the people who have code in the file, have copyright. If, for instance, the file is to be relicensed, all of them must agree to relicense the file. More likely, the copyright is held by a corporation or other business entity, and not by the programmers themselves. In the US, at least, works made for hire pass the copyright to the employer. I was presuming the file mentioned above was GPLed. If you want to relicense a GPLed file, I think you need to get concent from everyone who have code in it. So the copyright notice in the Warzone sourcecode files has to be: Eidos and members of the Warzone Ressurrection Project ? Something like that, yes. Or do we need to list everyone? Or can we refer to the AUTHORS file and add Eidos to the list of authors? An AUTHORS file, with Eidos added, and the SVN log for details should suffice. -- Just when you thought you were winning the rat race, along comes a faster rat!! ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 18:36, Christian Vest Hansen wrote: Forgot to mention that I think this: The readme says: provided as is with no guarantees. Can't we use that as a license? sounds like the obvious thing to do, provided it is GPL compatible. Why GPL compatible? The data could have another license (but for practical reasons, see below). And since it impose no restrictions that the GPL does not impose, chances are that it is GPL compatible (though I'm not the one to guarentee this!!!) That was my interpretation as well. The next step I'd take is to actually use the GPL for the data (as there are no restrictions imposed we can just relicense it to GPL), with a little clarification of how to apply it to the data (since the GPL is mainly written with source code in mind). Why the GPL for the data? Because there is a hazy line between source and data in Warzone. Are the scripts the engine uses data or source code? Another point that wasn't clarified in the README. And for general consistency, else we need to decide on what license the data should have, if we accept contributions with other licenses... too much hassle in my eyes. Clarification on using the GPL for data: Data is (generally speaking) just a binary blob without a defined source code. So, if we get, for example, a PNG file, that file can be modified and distributed with no further restrictions, and, unless we also get the layered Gimp file (or whatever was used to make the PNG), the file has no source. Of course we should encourage people to also share their source material, but that's no requirement in my eyes. (For example, there are image libraries where you are allowed to use the images in you own work (composites) which can be freely resistributed, but you are not allowed to distribute the images themselves.) Thinking about it, that sounds suspiciously like the I want to use a closed source library question, and it is getting close to the limits of the GPL, but as you can edit a PNG file without any problems (contrary to a compiled program), I think it's still acceptable (we just define the PNG file to be its own source - contrary to a JPG, that needs a version without lossy compression as source). -- I have gained this by philosophy: that I do without being commanded what others do only from fear of the law. -- Aristotle ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: [Warzone-dev] videos / briefings / pause 'bug'?
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 18:25:15 -0400 Christian Ohm [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: What I meant was the whole data. If we are not allowed to modify and distribute that, this project is over (then there is nothing to resurrect, just to conserve - and who wants the role of a curator?). Did this not come up before, or is this more of a issue now since more people have found the project, and just the Debian guys are the first to ask more questions about the license? Doing some checking in the logs, to me it seems that there was a inadvertent GPL violation for the newer map editor that works with a higher color quality (32 bit versus 16bit) Coyote's hard disk crashed or something, and lost the source code. Does that matter? I was reading the GPL FAQ, and it said that if binaries are available and released, then the source must be with it. Wonder if any member of the warzone community is a lawyer? Looks like we need a international lawyer to deal with this stuff. Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
Re: Fwd: [Warzone-dev] Fwd: Re: Warzone 2100 in Debian
On Wed, 20 Sep 2006 19:16:43 -0400 Dennis Schridde [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: Am Donnerstag, 21. September 2006 01:04 schrieb Christian Ohm: On Wednesday, 20 September 2006 at 18:36, Christian Vest Hansen wrote: Forgot to mention that I think this: The readme says: provided as is with no guarantees. Can't we use that as a license? sounds like the obvious thing to do, provided it is GPL compatible. Why GPL compatible? The data could have another license (but for practical reasons, see below). And since it impose no restrictions that the GPL does not impose, chances are that it is GPL compatible (though I'm not the one to guarentee this!!!) That was my interpretation as well. The next step I'd take is to actually use the GPL for the data (as there are no restrictions imposed we can just relicense it to GPL), with a little clarification of how to apply it to the data (since the GPL is mainly written with source code in mind). Why the GPL for the data? Because there is a hazy line between source and data in Warzone. Are the scripts the engine uses data or source code? Another point that wasn't clarified in the README. And for general consistency, else we need to decide on what license the data should have, if we accept contributions with other licenses... too much hassle in my eyes. Clarification on using the GPL for data: Data is (generally speaking) just a binary blob without a defined source code. So, if we get, for example, a PNG file, that file can be modified and distributed with no further restrictions, and, unless we also get the layered Gimp file (or whatever was used to make the PNG), the file has no source. Of course we should encourage people to also share their source material, but that's no requirement in my eyes. (For example, there are image libraries where you are allowed to use the images in you own work (composites) which can be freely resistributed, but you are not allowed to distribute the images themselves.) Thinking about it, that sounds suspiciously like the I want to use a closed source library question, and it is getting close to the limits of the GPL, but as you can edit a PNG file without any problems (contrary to a compiled program), I think it's still acceptable (we just define the PNG file to be its own source - contrary to a JPG, that needs a version without lossy compression as source). I don't know how good the GPL is for data... And if we want to change it to be suitable for data, then we need a lawyer to write us the license additions / changes... (so they are waterproof) *sigh* --Dennis Too bad they didn't say this was public domain. That would mean that they don't care what we did with the data, but I think then the (c) is invalid. Or they could have done: This material is provided as is, with absolutely no warranty expressed or implied. Any use is at your own risk. Permission to use or copy this software for any purpose is hereby granted without fee, provided the above notices are retained on all copies. Permission to modify the code and to distribute modified code is granted, provided the above notices are retained, and a notice that the code was modified is included with the above copyright notice. Software = source + data I think. We got: These source and data files are provided as is with no guarantees. No permission to do anything with it really. Is explicit permission needed? Whatever as is turns out to mean is what we are stuck with unless Eidios/Pivotal can save the game once again. :) Concerned about your privacy? Instantly send FREE secure email, no account required http://www.hushmail.com/send?l=480 Get the best prices on SSL certificates from Hushmail https://www.hushssl.com?l=485 ___ Warzone-dev mailing list Warzone-dev@gna.org https://mail.gna.org/listinfo/warzone-dev
