PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: juggalo10101 on July 10, 2006, 08:29:02 pm
-
Sorry in advance if this is in the wrong area,
I am modding the google earth system to show the planeshift map and have 3d buildings like the newest addition to google earth. I am going to code in a "GPS" system to show where you are and where other users with "GOOGLE" Plane Shift are. It will install and you access it with macro. Screenshots are going to be posted soon! If you have any suggestion for names or anything else or comments please post!
-
Like.. an automap sort of thing?
-
kind of, but it is accesable outside of PS and has the google earth roads and editable points of interests. You can also share your points of interests with anyone you want, good for showing where you are and where to buy good items, ETC. There are more features under development!
EDIT- It is also avalable inside of PS, it will replace the blank bottom right hand or left hand corner of the screen, sorry for any confusion
-
I think its a great idea, probally be really difficult to do, but i wish you luck
-
yes it is hard, im just started on it and i wanted to let people know, i have a good year or so before im done, unless i find some more coders to help me out, so far i got google earth working with a mod that has a sketch of the map and im trying to get the share function working, i got one working on runescape for a test to see if its possible, but thats off topic, Soon though i might have a share function working for the minimap warking, so you can have a sample of the sharing function, you send it and the user accepts and TADA! its on your map.
i need some names for it, will anyone help me out?
-
I know I'm going to be an uptight purist again, but I don't like it!
Don't get me wrong - from the coding point of view I adore it and the coolness factor's WAAAAY up there, but I feel that it would just spoil exploring, hinder role-playing and provoke lazyness in many players. There is a good reason why PS won't have automapping and to this "Google Yliakum" is just a workaround to get automapping outside the offical client.
p.s. erm ...just from technical point of view: how do you plan to mod Google Earth to show different levels of the PlaneShift world and overlapping roads?
-
I'm going to have to side with hook on this one - it sounds like a really cool and definitely fun project, but it's just screaming "Spoilers!"
-
Wow, sounds like quite the ambitious project. If you can pull it off, bravo!
I understand the different viewpoints on ingame maps. But overall I would very much like to see an ingame mapping system. As long as its accurate. Its kind of like having the ability of zooming waaaay out. Something we used to be able to do for awhile there and I liked that. If you don't want to use it don't. But the reality of it is most players will. So why not?
The problem is by the time you are done, things might be different again. I hope you can get to a point where changes/additions are more easily managed rather than having to start from scratch. Best of luck with this!!!
-
Well noone's forced to use it, and who am I to try and stop it. I will, however, always rely on my own orientation.
-
ive got an idea, ill add a "fog of war" type feature used by RTS games to make it so you have to explore, like Age OF Empires, and Warcraft! ITs a few more days of coding, but its worth it! thanks for comments
i know i can pull it off, just it will take longer than most projects i do. I have several mods i create for other designers to get the most out of thier game, but im not the quickest at it. Im thinking about charging like 2 dollars for this program with a premium package that has a sharing program that allows you to share you location with your buddies.
-
I love you. Though I doubt PS will let you make a PS based project and charge for it.
-
he said nothing about charging for it, and if he tried, google would probally be the first to sue, also, planeshift is licensed under the LGPL(i believe) and their own license, source code would have to be released, and it would have to still remain licesed under LGPL and the other license
-
Actually it would infringe PS's rights not because of GPL, but because art and data are under PlaneShift license and therefore is legaly prohibited to use the art and data at all - no matter if commercially or free as in beer (or even as speech for that matter!).
PS's code has nothing to do with this project AFAIS. Google's does, and I agree they may not be too happy. Except if they actually support modding of their closed-source software.
I still say it's wrong because of the spoilers ...and if it the PS dev team (actually Atomic Blue) wouldn't tolerate this automap tool ... well, they would be eligible to legal actions because of license infringement concerning data (if not art as well) if such a "Google Yliakum" would be made outside the PS dev team (AB, actually). ;)
p.s. IRL I am a law student.
-
This does sound like an amazing project but yeah ... not having any type of spoilers available to the broad public is one of the Devs requirements. The fog of war thing might do the trick, if you can pull that off. Then the second requirement is having all of PS free of charge. Of course this would be your own thing so nobody can force you to make it free but it would be nice and fit into the game's ideals if it were. I personally wouldn't pay, simply out of protest because one of the main things I love about this game is the utter lack of commercialism and wanting to make money whenever possible. :P
I do have a suggestion though ... if you can program well enough to make this google planeshift thing, why not apply for the Devs team and work on planeshift officially? We all know they can use all the help they can get.
-
I don't think that's within PlaneShift rules..... :detective:
-
This is not good. I suggest to the developers to randomly change map locations and render the Google PS map irrelevant if it is ever implemented. Why, oh why do I need a Google interface to PS. It is DEFINITELY OOC. Nobody in the PS world knows what the h*ll Google is! This would also bring down the fun factor for some. Such as myself, one of the cool things about PS is that you DO NOT know what is really going on.
-
If and when this is completed I think it will be amazing. I am at a cross roads with the spoiler factor though.
That being said, this could be implimented as part of the cartoughraphy (however it is spelt) system. This way it isnt available to everyone imediatly, you would need to train and develope your skill in able to use the system.
-
planeshift is licensed under the LGPL(i believe) and their own license
According the web site, PS is a merge of GPL and proprietary licence modules, which is usualy forbiden by the GPL itself.
-
i woke up this morning and saw all these relplies and decited to start from scratch, so i am coding my own engine that you can run "on top of" PS so it has the illusion od bieng on the screen but not really. It will take me a bit longer.. but i didnt think about bieng sued, so just to be safe, it will be almost the same! So ill update you on it.
-
As much as I can appreciate the desire to make a good Google hack, this flies against how the game is supposed to be run. Quite a few of us LIKE not knowing. Not to mention that the devs have said numerous times that posting public information about the gameworld is not allowed. Here is the other thing: How are YOU going to get the game map? Where are you getting the data from? If you are talking about mapping the world yourself and posting the data ... then you are violating the conduct of the game. I think randomization will have to be done over time, or at least switching things around.
-
jugallo, if your so willing to do this, why dont you apply to the dev team and develop the cartography skill? would be kinda more pratical
-
planeshift is licensed under the LGPL(i believe) and their own license
According the web site, PS is a merge of GPL and proprietary licence modules, which is usualy forbiden by the GPL itself.
Different sections are under different licenses not a merge of GPL and proprietary ie server and client source is GPL and the art and DB rules are under a more restrictive license
-
I think randomization will have to be done over time, or at least switching things around.
I personally think that would ruin the game. It's quite OOC if you think about it. the real world doesn't "randomize" :P
-
The game engine is released under GPL. It means that you can take the sources and build your own game without any restrictions as long as you release it under the same GPL license.
Game rules, settings and art are released under the Atomic Blue License. In a fact, the license says that "You may use the provided Material, for personal use only, to connect to an Official PlaneShift Server only in conjunction with a Planeshift Client, distributed by Atomic Blue.". Using Planeshift art and maps for any other purposes is violating the license.
There is nothing wrong about having the game engine under the GPL license and rules, settings and art under a different license. Using a GPL licensed program to write your data to a DVD doesn't mean that your data has to be licensed by the same GPL license.
-
sounds like a good idea. and its totally IC as in the real world I would have a map to get around (i certainly use my GPS in new areas). Especially if points of interest in the game are broad general areas that span great lengths (eg oja road, arena2 etc..) Provides for better communication as well all know how hard it is to describe to someone in game how to get to a certain place... i'm so often flabergasted that I just escort them to the destination, otherwise I feel like a useless tool not being able to help them.
-
I just wanna say a little thing to the people saying that it would ruin the game for them. It is for YOU that it would ruin the game. If you reckon it would do so for you, well it is VERY simple, simply DO NOT use that program. If you think that it is cheating, DO NOT use the program, if you think that it is like a map (and they exist all the cultures around the real world in some sort of a form) well use it.
When stealing will be in the game, would everyone be obliged to use it? I don't think so, well it is the same with "spoilers" and especially, "google yliakum"
For the randomnisation of the places where map are, this would be just about impossible to do and totally useless. Image a newcomer going to Oja following there instructions "From the hydlaa Plaza, go under a "house-bridge" and you get in the Library section, continue on that road, pass the gate near the guards and you are on Ojaroad!" And after, when he finally comes to the end of the trip, he realises that it isn't Oja. I must say that this wouldn't be very pleasing.
-
The game engine is released under GPL. It means that you can take the sources and build your own game without any restrictions as long as you release it under the same GPL license.
Game rules, settings and art are released under the Atomic Blue License. In a fact, the license says that "You may use the provided Material, for personal use only, to connect to an Official PlaneShift Server only in conjunction with a Planeshift Client, distributed by Atomic Blue.". Using Planeshift art and maps for any other purposes is violating the license.
There is nothing wrong about having the game engine under the GPL license and rules, settings and art under a different license. Using a GPL licensed program to write your data to a DVD doesn't mean that your data has to be licensed by the same GPL license.
That's untrue for the client part. The arts are meaningless without the client and the client is meaningless without the arts. They're always released together in the same package and need to fit the same version. Of couse the copyright holder can give (written) special exceptions, but it's not the case yet because the raw GPL is used. Currently if someone would release the client :
- he must use a world with contacts about PS's ones because the client hard code some PS rules
- he must release his arts in GPL.
It's different for the server, because there is no binary package of it.
-
*hook gives up on this thread ...it's not like anyone would listen to a lawyer when it comes to licenses*
-
I like the idea. But having played PS for over a year and a half, i have this nagging feeling in my head.. i think its my conscience. well.. here's what its saying.
There never has been a "mini-map" in PS. and as far as i thought, there never will be. Maybe a vague map in a random book "like Jayose's Map". But i find it more realistic, and almost more personal when i get to know certain paths on my own. It makes everyone spend a certain amount of time actually exploring and making maps in their own minds, as opposed to just following some little box with a "you are here" sign. Something that comes to mind is the recent update. With all of the new maps that had been unexplored, some members from our guild went out and did a search for the quickest path to Ojaveda, or the Bronze Doors. We went out and tried to find some landmarks that could help navigate our way to our destination. It wasn't only a great RP event, but it was exciting, fun, an adventure, and useful to the guild. Having access to a mini-map completely destroys this type of activity. Of course there's the option to have a setting where you can hide the mini-map, but i feel the best possible choice is to just not have a mini-map.
That's just the opinion of little me. I like the idea, and the intention you have, but i just feel it might not belong.
Stay Safe,
Easton Ghent
-
As i said before
If and when this is completed I think it will be amazing. I am at a cross roads with the spoiler factor though.
That being said, this could be implimented as part of the cartoughraphy (however it is spelt) system. This way it isnt available to everyone imediatly, you would need to train and develope your skill in able to use the system.
If this was used, along with the "fog of war" idea, no one would just be able to buy a map. In order for you to see something on the map, you would have had to already been there.
Instead of a realistic map it could be a parchment style. keeping with the medeaval theme. :)
-
yeah, now that im thinking about it parchment would be good, i might not be able to do this though because i got the map to show up on the screen,(just a blank map to test) and there are major errors going on, but i can try to fix it!
-
I just wanna say a little thing to the people saying that it would ruin the game for them. It is for YOU that it would ruin the game. If you reckon it would do so for you, well it is VERY simple, simply DO NOT use that program. If you think that it is cheating, DO NOT use the program, if you think that it is like a map (and they exist all the cultures around the real world in some sort of a form) well use it.
As a game master, such a program would ruin the game for me. As a developer, it would ruin the game I am making for others. So if I caught anyone using such a program, I might give them a warning for cheating, but using an external program is grounds for removal.
The arts are meaningless without the client and the client is meaningless without the arts. They're always released together in the same package and need to fit the same version. Of couse the copyright holder can give (written) special exceptions, but it's not the case yet because the raw GPL is used. Currently if someone would release the client :
- he must use a world with contacts about PS's ones because the client hard code some PS rules
- he must release his arts in GPL.
It's different for the server, because there is no binary package of it.
Untrue. The client is seperate because you can download from cvs a fully gpl'ed client and server that contain no arts. The client should work on the laanx server, but every model would be a cube, and all the landscape would be, well... nothing. The art is part of the binary package and avaialble via updates because it is part of the game atmosphere that artists have built. But the art is given to you only under lisence and if you disagree you must delete it. The rules aren't given to you at all.
The art is sepereate because you can open most of it in genereic graphics or sound programs. The models are all simple crystalspace models.
see also this thread: http://hydlaa.com/smf/index.php?topic=23915.0
-
Sure, you can download a GPL piece of source which does... nothing. But you can also download a binary package with a GPL thing linked with a non GPL-compatible module to make the whole stuff work.
-
Narita,
There might be a language problem, but module for me as a software developer is a piece of software, like a .dll file on Windows or .so file on Linux. There is no closed source module in Planeshift that is required to make the GPL version fully functional. The binary package is built from the same GPL sources from the CVS repository. Also the server on Laanx is built from the same CVS sources.
Planeshift as a game is not under the GPL license. The game engine is. The game engine is used to make it possible to run the Planeshift game, but it can be used to run any other games. Just make your own art, rules and settings, and you have a new game.
-
Hi all.
First, I have to admit that I love the idea. Then, respecting the devs and GMs opinions seems of the utmost importance to me.
I'll try to explain a bit.
I have big issues with finding my way in games. Friends of mine got good laughs watching me trying to play Descent some years ago. I got lost very quickly in the smallest levels.
On the other hand, some people have a vision of a game and spend their time building it for us. The least we can do is avoid doing something they disagree with.
So, it's a dead end ? I don't think so. If I wouldn't agree with trying to build a mapping system against the will of the people who work on the game, I believe we can try and convince them. Don't start coding something that go against their beliefs. Write specifications, discuss them with players and people from the project, and when you get something mostly everybody agrees upon ... you can code it.
So, what would I put in such a system ?
- cartography skill (maybe you can't draw som protion of a map, or get it wrong ... and if you don't want to get maps, don't train !)
- fog of war (you can map only what you've seen)
- evolutivity (some places may have changed since your last map ... is this world unstable ?)
- points of interest (for real people with a bad memory ... after all, why would they be disadvantaged when people unable to use a sword are not ?)
Would that make everyone agree ?
Marc a.k.a. Gottri
-
I think randomization will have to be done over time, or at least switching things around.
I personally think that would ruin the game. It's quite OOC if you think about it. the real world doesn't "randomize" :P
I do not agree with that. Boundaries change, countries change names, building are torn down and new ones built, they change road names, place names, et cetera. Now, the shape of the North American continent doesn't change very quickly, and the general placement of a city doesn't either, but when I suggested randomizing things I mean just enough to render inappropriately shared spoiler data useless. The devs have been very forthcoming about posting what one is allowed to do with game data. One can argue with me as much as you like, but the real world does "randomize" and if people are going to do things completely against the license that they have been granted ... then you have do work it out with the devs. I am but an incidental ...
*edit*
I just wanna say a little thing to the people saying that it would ruin the game for them. It is for YOU that it would ruin the game. If you reckon it would do so for you, well it is VERY simple, simply DO NOT use that program. If you think that it is cheating, DO NOT use the program, if you think that it is like a map (and they exist all the cultures around the real world in some sort of a form) well use it.
When stealing will be in the game, would everyone be obliged to use it? I don't think so, well it is the same with "spoilers" and especially, "google yliakum"
For the randomnisation of the places where map are, this would be just about impossible to do and totally useless. Image a newcomer going to Oja following there instructions "From the hydlaa Plaza, go under a "house-bridge" and you get in the Library section, continue on that road, pass the gate near the guards and you are on Ojaroad!" And after, when he finally comes to the end of the trip, he realises that it isn't Oja. I must say that this wouldn't be very pleasing.
You are speaking of a system that will totally change the way the game works for people using that system, and for anybody who chooses not to use it. You seem to be arguing about some vague concept of a "right" that you have to a map. This game is under control of the developers who determine the license by which we use the data.
It wouldn't be very pleasing to have everything changing. Nor would it be pleasing if I was a developer and everybody started ripping off my materials and doing anything they wanted to with him. Especially after I have put all my time and effort into releasing an open source version of the engine for anybody to muck around with how they choose. If you ignore the wishes of the developer community that owns PS, then be prepared to be displeased. Once again, I am incidental, and my viewpoints are taken directly from the policy posts by the developers concerning this game.
Not to mention: Nobody has explained how they will get the map data out of PS. I do not think it is possible without abusing the license to the client. So the question is: Where is the data coming from? Is somebody going to manually take notes while running around the PS server and then transfer them into some kind of data file for Google?
Please avoid posting two or more successive posts before others have replied. Just edit your last post to add new information. Thanks! --Karyuu
-
wouldn't know how you would do it anyway, planshift isn't one big round ball, its a large cone with different levels and tunnels that lead to the outside world.
-
There might be a language problem, but module for me as a software developer is a piece of software, like a .dll file on Windows or .so file on Linux. There is no closed source module in Planeshift that is required to make the GPL version fully functional. The binary package is built from the same GPL sources from the CVS repository. Also the server on Laanx is built from the same CVS sources.
Arts are also pieces of the software, even if they're not compilable in C++. Don't release them within the game package if they are useless to make the software to work. See for example the GPL FAQ about merging incompatible licences with GPL, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
Planeshift as a game is not under the GPL license.
Then, it must not containt any GPL part.
-
There might be a language problem, but module for me as a software developer is a piece of software, like a .dll file on Windows or .so file on Linux. There is no closed source module in Planeshift that is required to make the GPL version fully functional. The binary package is built from the same GPL sources from the CVS repository. Also the server on Laanx is built from the same CVS sources.
Arts are also pieces of the software, even if they're not compilable in C++. Don't release them within the game package if they are useless to make the software to work. See for example the GPL FAQ about merging incompatible licences with GPL, http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLModuleLicense
Planeshift as a game is not under the GPL license.
Then, it must not containt any GPL part.
We've had our licensing checked over by legal people, and also by the head of the FSF in Italy I believe, and it's fine :) I can also point out well known projects like Cedega which has some GPL code along with proprietary code, which we don't even have. We can release whatever art under whatever license we like along with the program which is all GPL code. As another example, does every piece of art created using the GIMP have to be GPL ;) I think not. As long as it isn't _needed_ to run the program aka depended upon by the program, then everything is fine.
-
Whatsoever the consistance of your licence set, jurists would tell you it's harmless for you because you won't sue yourself. But you are able to sue someone releasing a package with parts of your engine and no-GPL arts.
Except of this,
- Cedega is not released with non compatible licenced software. The user has to compile and link himself.
- The work you do with a tool (like Gimp) is not covered by the tool's copyright.
-
Sure, you can download a GPL piece of source which does... nothing. But you can also download a binary package with a GPL thing linked with a non GPL-compatible module to make the whole stuff work.
Actually the GPL doesn't allow that. You can't link GPL stuff with things that are not GPL compatible.
Greetings,
-
Planeshift as a game is not under the GPL license.
Then, it must not containt any GPL part.
That's not true. It is legal for GPL programs to load non-GPL data. i.e. many other GPL programs are used to create or use non-GPL stuff (like the GPL C compiler, Blender, GIMP, ...). It is only illegal for GPL programs to link with non-GPL compatible libraries. But that is something that PS doesn't do.
Greetings,
-
Whatsoever the consistance of your licence set, jurists would tell you it's harmless for you because you won't sue yourself. But you are able to sue someone releasing a package with parts of your engine and no-GPL arts.
That's nonsense. The GPL specifically allows usage with non GPL data. i.e. GPL even allows commercial usage. The GPL is *only* concerned about linking code. The GPL doesn't cover the data used by a program. It is totally unrelated and you can't sue someone from using GPL code with other non GPL data.
Greetings,
-
That's not true. It is legal for GPL programs to load non-GPL data. i.e. many other GPL programs are used to create or use non-GPL stuff (like the GPL C compiler, Blender, GIMP, ...). It is only illegal for GPL programs to link with non-GPL compatible libraries. But that is something that PS doesn't do.
It's legal to link, load, create or what anything else for private use, and I've told the copyright owner of the tool you use don't own the work you do with that tool. It's not legal to distribute stuff with two incompatible distribution licences.
Please, read a bit. It's not even legal to package GPL software with GFDL documentation of the software because the licences are not compatible, don't tell me the PS jurists found the way to distribute GPL and proprietary stuff in the same software.
The GPL is about to share things, not only to link executable C++ code with another C++ piece of code.
-
That's not true. It is legal for GPL programs to load non-GPL data. i.e. many other GPL programs are used to create or use non-GPL stuff (like the GPL C compiler, Blender, GIMP, ...). It is only illegal for GPL programs to link with non-GPL compatible libraries. But that is something that PS doesn't do.
It's legal to link, load, create or what anything else for private use, and I've told the copyright owner of the tool you use don't own the work you do with that tool. It's not legal to distribute stuff with two incompatible distribution licences.
Can you show me where the GPL says that please?
Greetings,
-
Can you show me where the GPL says that please?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt Last paragraph: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Clear now?
-
Can you show me where the GPL says that please?
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt Last paragraph: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
Clear now?
And where is PlaneShift being incorporated into a proprietary program? The PlaneShift engine (which is GPL) uses non-GPL data but the PlaneShift engine is NOT incorporated into any proprietary program. The only programs which are included with PS are all GPL.
Read that license again. Also as Xordan already pointed out the PlaneShift situation HAS been checked by lawyers and it was perfectly ok BOTH for PS and for other people.
Greetings,
-
BTW, there are several other examples of the GPL being used like PlaneShift does. For example Doom and Quake engines are GPL but the game data certainly not. Another example is Nevrax which is a commercial game that uses a GPL engine (NEL). In fact Richard Stallman even works for Nevrax (Richard Stallman made the GPL) (check www.nevrax.com).
Greetings,
-
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt Last paragraph: "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs."
And where is PlaneShift being incorporated into a proprietary program? The PlaneShift engine (which is GPL) uses non-GPL data but the PlaneShift engine is NOT incorporated into any proprietary program. The only programs which are included with PS are all GPL.
Read that license again. Also as Xordan already pointed out the PlaneShift situation HAS been checked by lawyers and it was perfectly ok BOTH for PS and for other people.
PS engine (under GPL) is incorporated in a proprietary program (PS game) you can download here and there. A plain english sentence in the licence don't permit this, whatsoever the lawyers have told.
BTW, there are several other examples of the GPL being used like PlaneShift does. For example Doom and Quake engines are GPL but the game data certainly not. Another example is Nevrax which is a commercial game that uses a GPL engine (NEL). In fact Richard Stallman even works for Nevrax (Richard Stallman made the GPL) (check www.nevrax.com).
Please, check your references. NEL offer two licences, one GPL and the released sofware must be under GPL and a closed licence for commercial usage.
RMS don't work for Nevrax, he just did a conference.
Please, stop doing double or triple post, while just edit your previous post is enough.
Also, please, stop asking precise references while giving reference to generic portails.
-
*hook goes to cry in a corner*
-
BTW, there are several other examples of the GPL being used like PlaneShift does. For example Doom and Quake engines are GPL but the game data certainly not. Another example is Nevrax which is a commercial game that uses a GPL engine (NEL). In fact Richard Stallman even works for Nevrax (Richard Stallman made the GPL) (check www.nevrax.com).
Please, check your references. NEL offer two licences, one GPL and the released sofware must be under GPL and a closed licence for commercial usage.
RMS don't work for Nevrax, he just did a conference.
RMS does work for Nevrax: check this url: http://www.nevrax.com/press/board.php
I quote:
As digital entertainment becomes increasingly interactive, massively multi-player games, in which hundreds of thousands of players can participate at any given time, have been at the forefront of enabling truly interactive entertainment experiences. Nevrax's free software approach has sparked the interest of investors including Part'Com and Viventures, the venture capital firm created by Vivendi Universal and 18 other groups. In addition, three prominent players in technology, interactive entertainment and the open source movement will join Nevrax's advisory board -- Michel Teyssedre, vice president, Worldwide Telecom Server Sales, IBM Enterprise Server Group; Jim Wilson, president, Universal Interactive Studios (UIS);
and, Richard Stallman, founder of the Free Software Foundation and the GNU Project.
And NEL is GPL only. Check out http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=116
Also what about Doom and Quake?
Greetings,
-
PS engine (under GPL) is incorporated in a proprietary program (PS game) you can download here and there. A plain english sentence in the licence don't permit this, whatsoever the lawyers have told.
When the GPL talks about a program it means the actual binary which is generated from the GPL source. 'psclient.exe' is compiled from GPL sources and is fully GPL. The fact that it uses non GPL data doesn't change that and is perfectly ok. Thre is no proprietary program. The entire PS game is not GPL of course but the 'program' psclient.exe is GPL. And that's what matters here.
There are plenty of other examples to prove that your wrong. For example, Doom and Quake. Also firefox is GPL but still it can perfectly use non GPL data (browing a web site containing non GPL images for example). Additionally firefox is also distributed with non GPL stuff (i.e. on linux distributions for example which also contain other non GPL stuff).
Greetings,
-
Alright, everyone who is complaining that it will ruin the game for YOU...shuttup. Last i checked, you have control over what you do. If you dont like the program, dont use it, dont d/l it, whatever. If you dont have enough self-control to not use the program, sounds like a personal problem.
I can understand about the devs and GMs saying that it would be illegal and ruin the game for us and stuff. But why not? Considering GE doesnt show caves and stuff the hidden stuff underground wouldnt be a problem. Fog of war would stop someone from going "Hey whats this?!" and finding 100000 trias worth of stuff thats hidden.
I dont know much about law, so excuse me if im wrong. Does it matter about copywright and stuff as long as he doesnt make a profit?
JUst my two trias :D
-
The discussion tells me, that the core of problem is not whether the licence is really violated or not, but that there are always people, which have bad intentions, people which look for small, irrelevant details and use them to destroy happiness of others (I don't mean You, narita, it is general statement). They should have as few opportunities as possible.
So, why not split PlaneShift into 2 packages ? One with game engine and one with art ? There would be 2 installers, each would display different licence, nobody could say, that GPL software is incorporated in non-GPL package. It would be also more convenient for players and developers - there could be rare updates of art package and more often updates of game engine. Linux/Mac users which can compile binaries themselves could download new art at the same time, as Windows users, when new version is released. Does it make any sense?
-
No offence, but that would be a pain in the @$&, delay the devs that much more, and make an even longer period of time before the final game is out. Plus, it sounds like a lot of work for something that has many easier alternatives.
-
The discussion tells me, that the core of problem is not whether the licence is really violated or not, but that there are always people, which have bad intentions, people which look for small, irrelevant details and use them to destroy happiness of others (I don't mean You, narita, it is general statement). They should have as few opportunities as possible.
That's true.
So, why not split PlaneShift into 2 packages ? One with game engine and one with art ? There would be 2 installers, each would display different licence, nobody could say, that GPL software is incorporated in non-GPL package. It would be also more convenient for players and developers - there could be rare updates of art package and more often updates of game engine. Linux/Mac users which can compile binaries themselves could download new art at the same time, as Windows users, when new version is released. Does it make any sense?
You don't need that ...from what I remember when I studied the GPLv2 it's perfectly ok that a binary package includes GPL code together with non-GPL data and art - the only problem arises when the GPL code is packed together with non-GPL code. The only thing that that paragraph limits is that all code that derives or is tied together with the GPL-code has to be the same license. Therefore there's no problem if art or data aren't GPL (frankly, GPL isn't really a good license for art and data). And also it isn't a problem if a non-GPL-compatible plugin exists for that GPL code - as long as it's not packed with the GPL'd code and doesn't include the GPL'd code in itself.
As for PlaneShift's art and data - they're under the PlaneShift licence of which the basic goal is that PS art and data aren't included in other projects (especially other similar games). Atomic Blue (="the PS devs") are the holders of most of the "copyright" rights on the data/artwork made for PS (which is also fine, since the author has to sign the Atomic Blue Contract before his art gets into the game), while granting the authors to still use their work unless they want to move it to another game, and the rest of us to use the data and art together with the (official and non-hacked) client.
In any case there's always the possibility that AB gives you explicity a different license or rights - if you're really lucky, that is ;)
...hope that's clear enough.
BTW, what's wrong with "just" having an in-game cartography skill, that's planned to be included anyway? Why not help the devs make the skill that fits into the setting and game a lot better then a Google Maps mod. ...and probably easier to code as well...
p.s. if you're still so hot on making it and AB allows you to, why not rather tweak the NASA's World Wind code - that's open source.
edit: just made some layout adjustments
-
PS engine (under GPL) is incorporated in a proprietary program (PS game) you can download here and there. A plain english sentence in the licence don't permit this, whatsoever the lawyers have told.
"This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." says nothing about distributing seperately licensed stuff in the same download. That's like saying that it's a breach of license to have a GPL and a non-GPL program on the same cdrom. I realise that in some cases, the overall license of the _project_ can mean this, such in the case of Ubuntu. But that is specific to that project (GNU based). Other distros have no such limitations such as Gentoo. Planeshift doesn't breach "This General Public License does not permit incorporating your program into proprietary programs." either because, using jorrits example of firefox, the art for planeshift is like the macromedia flash plugin for firefox. The art, and the plugin in these examples are _not_ part of the program. The program in both cases is _only_ GPL, and it is just able to use non-GPL content, such as the art and plugin. I have to believe qualified lawyers who are experienced in this field over you who is obviously not one.
-
didnt you people hear, its not going to incorparate with it, it is just going to lay over the top of it to make an illusion!!! I would never edit game code source, maybe a little third party free game that has no publicity, all it is, is a map program now that we striped it down, maybe i could just make a map you can only view outside of PS. It would cause less confusion, and contriversy! But it will still allow sharing over a different network, i might just do a hand drawn map of cities to tell you where shops and other things are...
-
As an oldbie player I still disagree with it - I think it would be too big of a spoiler and too easily help people to just power-level instead of playing their roles.
As a law student I think that even with that you'd be very much on the line of infringing the data - "copyright" or "author's rights" as we call them over here can very much be infringed even without a verbatim copy.
From the technological point of view I still don't understand how you intend to incorporate all the levels of Yliakum and layered 3d world that PlaneShift is made of.
Don't get me wrong - I appreciate your enthusiasm and readiness to make something as complex as that for the PS community. ...I just think it could (and probably would) leave too big negative consequences that maybe you didn't intend or think of at first.
Don't be discouraged to make something else though ...as already stated: the Cartography skill's been planned for a loooong time and if you think you can tackle that, try to implement maps the PlaneShift way - so people can make their own maps in-game (quality according enough skill) and even sell and buy them! If you're that good, I think the PS devs might let you join and write it. :D
-
And NEL is GPL only. Check out http://www.devmaster.net/engines/engine_details.php?id=116
Wrong, check the owner web site: http://www.nevrax.org/tikiwiki/tiki-index.php?page=NeLPackagesDescription
Two licences. Either you use the GPL licence with it, and according the GPL all part of the software MUST but under GPL compatible licence. Either you use the commercial licence and your software may have proprietary content.
(... another comment about firefox licence in yet another article...)
Irrelevant, Firefox is not released under GPL.
(...)
In any case there's always the possibility that AB gives you explicity a different license or rights - if you're really lucky, that is ;)
That's my point. The raw GPL licence don't allow to release other games using the PS engine with proprietary content as PS does currently. This is greatly reducing the potientiality of the engine, and furthermore, it's unfair for other developpers. The licence may be amended to allow exceptions (as it's the case for GPL fonts for example) or another licence may be added (like NEL but it could be free). In the current state, the PS licence set is inconsistent and this may cause trouble.
It's pointless to blindly defend the GPL as the best licence for everything.
-
Narita, I would advise you to give up now- I noticed this very same thing about a year (?) ago, and had a huge arguement about it in the same way you did. I ended up contacting Luca Pancallo who admitted there was some ambiguity but that a solution was at hand; I assume the recent formation of the Atomic Blue organisation has something to do with this. I could dredge up the email I got in response but I cant really be bothered. In the end, we can all argue as much as we want, but the only way anyway can ever have the final say is if this went to court and was argued by lawyers. For example, you would need legal advice as to whether "distributing seperately licensed stuff in the same download" is in fact "incorporating" in a legal sense, regardless of what any of us might think. If the PS dev team have sought legal advice, and they dont see any problem, then let them be. If you really want to prove your point, then steal their artwork, distribute it, and defend yourself in court.
Although I would be interested to know which qualified lawyers in fact gave this opinion, and Indeed what country they are from, considering copyright protection is only afforded by national and not international laws, and thus any infrignment would be subject to prosectution by the laws in the country which it occured, and not the country in which legal advice from "qualified lawyers" was sought. Intrepretations of legal wording can vary within a country even, not to mention in different countries. If someone in China is plagurising your work and you're relying on a very fine line between the exact meaning of the english legal terms "distribute" and "incorporate" to prosecute them, well good luck to you with that.
-
Damnit ram, I thought that for once you would end an arguement, but those hopes were soon shattered with the second paragraph.
-
Two licences. Either you use the GPL licence with it, and according the GPL all part of the software MUST but under GPL compatible licence. Either you use the commercial licence and your software may have proprietary content.
If you read my post before, you'd see that all parts of the code that's integrated need to be under GPL. That doesn't count for art and data in use.
Plus, if you read the their licences page more carefully you'd see that there is no mentioning of having art and data open - or any other content except code for that matter. It is just a standard GPL limitation that allows you to use any content whatsoever with the code as long as your modifications on the code are in complience with GPL.
What Nevrax is doing by that is allowing FOSS projects and development to exist on one hand, while also allowing against a license fee proprietary companies to use the same NeL code and tools as the FOSS projects can, but with added limited support and the license that they don't have to publish their modifications to the code under GPL. Imagine Bioforge being interested in NeL - they probably wouldn't (at least Atari wouldn't!) want to open their source code because of the competition on the market.
Irrelevant, Firefox is not released under GPL.
True, it's not under GPL ...but it's a good example of plugins though.
Or, if you'd rather have Konqueror (the GPL'd KDE browser) for example - it can also use java, macromedia flash and other plugins. Or Xine or Mplayer that you can use with win32codecs, DivX and all the rest of the proprietary non-GPL-compatible gang. The important part is that plugins and codecs are not a part of the code.
That's my point. The raw GPL licence don't allow to release other games using the PS engine with proprietary content as PS does currently. This is greatly reducing the potientiality of the engine, and furthermore, it's unfair for other developpers. The licence may be amended to allow exceptions (as it's the case for GPL fonts for example) or another licence may be added (like NEL but it could be free). In the current state, the PS licence set is inconsistent and this may cause trouble.
Yes, it does! GPL has no restriction whatsoever to disable GPL code being used together with non-GPL-compliant content. Do you think you breach the GPL everytime you load a non-GPL wallpaper on your Linux desktop? What about when you open up a document in OpenOffice.org or KOffice that you didn't publish under GPL (whatever you make is under your exclusive and complete rights automatically, untill/unless you state otherwise!)? Draw pictures in the GIMP or Krita? Or even view a DVD in Xine?? Or even more obscurely - watching non-GPL content on the internet with your GPL'd browser or read e-mails with your GPL'd e-mail client?
With that said, I think it's obvious that the PlaneShift client code is very well able to use the PlaneShift code in order to play. Also you're free to use the code - but not the art and data. What good is the code without art and data? Well ...what good was to anyone that id' GPL'd all their engines when the next game came out? Just search happypenguin.org for FPS that are based on the quake or doom engines ;)
It's pointless to blindly defend the GPL as the best licence for everything.
That I agree with ;)
But it is the best license to make sure the code written is kept open and free.
On the side note: GPL as an idea is a child of Richard Stallman, but as a license it's Eben Moglen's work.
-
Damnit ram, I thought that for once you would end an arguement
Dont humor me... I'd rip this "arguement" to shreds if I could be bothered.
-
Although I would be interested to know which qualified lawyers in fact gave this opinion, and Indeed what country they are from, considering copyright protection is only afforded by national and not international laws, and thus any infrignment would be subject to prosectution by the laws in the country which it occured, and not the country in which legal advice from "qualified lawyers" was sought. Intrepretations of legal wording can vary within a country even, not to mention in different countries. If someone in China is plagurising your work and you're relying on a very fine line between the exact meaning of the english legal terms "distribute" and "incorporate" to prosecute them, well good luck to you with that.
I find it funny how people always question the qualifications of lawyers, but not coders, artists, usability experts and so on. :D
Yes, it is true that copyright is mainly a matter of nationa law, but there are also international converntions like TRIPS, the Berne convention, the Paris convention and the WIPO copyright treaty. The trend is that intellectual property law is being heavily internationalized, also because the problem you just mentioned - the internet provides easy access to and trade with intellectual works with little to no limits between countries and therefore legislations.
Also, since we are talking about license agreements (GPL, PlaneShift, MPL were mentioned already) - and hence contracts - these are not being taken completely litterally. Licenses, just as other contracts (and pretty much all of civil law affairs) are always subject to interpretations in law. Especially contracts (and hence licenses) where even they are not completely directly applicable in their verbatim form, are being interpreted in the way that would be most likely to be agreeable by the signing parties of the contract/agreement and applying that to the valid law. And that's a very short and simple recap of the basics of the interpretation methods of civil law.
Or said even simpler: The lawyers and the court have to interpret the contracts (and thus also licenses) the closes to what the guys who made it and agreed with it wanted.
Oh, and while we're at it, since IP fits under civil law that means that in the license agreement or at least contract you (the clients) can define which court (and thus which legislation) is to prosecute any disputes from that contract.
-
Narita, I would advise you to give up now- I noticed this very same thing about a year (?) ago, and had a huge arguement about it in the same way you did. I ended up contacting Luca Pancallo who admitted there was some ambiguity but that a solution was at hand; I assume the recent formation of the Atomic Blue organisation has something to do with this. I could dredge up the email I got in response but I cant really be bothered. In the end, we can all argue as much as we want, but the only way anyway can ever have the final say is if this went to court and was argued by lawyers. For example, you would need legal advice as to whether "distributing seperately licensed stuff in the same download" is in fact "incorporating" in a legal sense, regardless of what any of us might think. If the PS dev team have sought legal advice, and they dont see any problem, then let them be. If you really want to prove your point, then steal their artwork, distribute it, and defend yourself in court.
It's not about to steal the arts or such, but about to reuse the engine to do another game. the game must then to be under GPL, including the arts because there is no written exception. Atomic blue could then reuse the game content or sue if the sources are not provided. The other game cannot sue AB even if the licence set is inconsistant (well, the judge will probably tell AB to fix this quickly). Also, the other game MUST give the source to all players. In such situation, nobody will do something serious with the PS engine.
There is other licences (like the BSD licence, the perl Artistic licence or even the LGPL) which allow a fair development between AB and others, but for some reason people remains screwed at the GPL.
For the others articles, I'll try to make short sentences. As I already told:
- It's GPL specific, other licence like firefox's one don't have the same issues.
- It's because GPL is used as the only licence, other engine under GPL (like Quake, Doom, NEL) allow commercial usage because and only because they are released with two licences. Please check their owner's websites instead of web articles.
- "The software" means "all the software", but not "only some part of the software".
- The user private datas or the user's original creations are not managed by the licence of the tools used. GPL or not.
- An army of lawyers can be consulted, as far a risk remains for a lawsuit, nobody will use this code.
-
That's my point. The raw GPL licence don't allow to release other games using the PS engine with proprietary content as PS does currently.
I don't see that this is the case. GPL mentions incorporating the engine with a proprietary program. The content under the planeshift license does not count as a proprietary program. Therefore there is no proprietary program in PlaneShift's case. Thus, people who wish to use our engine _may_ use proprietary content (can you point out exactly what says they can't?), but they may not incorporate it with a proprietary program (_code_ which is seperately licensed), which is how it's designed to be. If we had wanted that, we would have used LGPL I think.
Edit: Ok, I see what you're saying. The restriction that their code must be under GPL is designed that way. As for the game content, I see the _very slight_ ambiguity. There is nothing written that says that people may or may not put their content under a seperate license. I am pretty sure that they legally can, but it isn't stated so, doing so would be a bit like having to put a label on a cup of hot coffee saying 'hot'. Personally I would prefer a LGPL license on the PlaneShift code, and have thought this for a while, because using GPL actually restricts us as well, but it isn't my decision, and I think that it was wanted that there's no way the code can have a proprietary part.
Hook: People have been trying to get across the whole discussion that only the GPL'd code has to be GPL, not the art and other content. You're probably wasting your time trying again now ;)
-
the game must then to be under GPL, including the arts because there is no written exception. Atomic blue could then reuse the game content or sue if the sources are not provided. The other game cannot sue AB even if the licence set is inconsistant (well, the judge will probably tell AB to fix this quickly). Also, the other game MUST give the source to all players. In such situation, nobody will do something serious with the PS engine.
Just the code ...the CODE ...*not* art and data ...sheeeeeesh, am I speaking gibbereish?!?? Gaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!! *hook bangs his head into the wall*
....is it soooo hard to understand??? :'(
*hook considers getting his Humongous Hammer of Many Teachings +6 and his Books of Law and start using them together on people*
-
iirc Arianna used Planeshift code in her Virtual Annelov
-
ok you know what, forget it! im ending the project!
-
woot for offtopicness!
-
Just the code ...the CODE ...*not* art and data ...sheeeeeesh, am I speaking gibbereish?!?? Gaaaaaaaaaaargh!!!!!! *hook bangs his head into the wall*
....is it soooo hard to understand??? Cry
*hook considers getting his Humongous Hammer of Many Teachings +6 and his Books of Law and start using them together on people*
Hook, everyone understands what the devs want to be covered under the GPL, and what is in fact meant to be covered: what we're argueing is what Is in fact legally covered, due to the ambiguity of the wording. The devs clearly intended for just the code to be covered by GPL; as you have mentioned. But we're discussing whether the wording of the GPL means that it would inadvertently cover art as well. Dont assume just because we dont have your background in law that we cant read and disect a license- Australian Law is based on the prefix of understanding of the common man, and what an ordinary person would see of a situation- and so a lawyer's opinions are no more valid than an ordinary person provided they fully understand the situation.
As I see it, and tell me if Im wrong here, the simple crux of the matter is whether the Planeshift Program provided by the devs in it's entirety represents a Proprietry product. If, as Xordan says, it does not, then the license is clearly fine and the their is no contradiction. If It does, as narita says, then the license that the art is provided under is in apparent contradicition of the GPL license and we have a very ambiguous situation. From what I've seen no one on either side of this discussion has a lack in understanding of what's going on.
I just read the email from a year ago on this subject, and I understand how they solved it- but Im not going to spoil your nice discussion, so I'll leave you lot to continue. ;)
ok you know what, forget it! im ending the project!
I was going to offer to help you code it... sounded like an awesome project.
-
personally i tink he should try to join the team, atleast if he has enought skill to break the google skill that is..
about map making.. heres something i did 1 year ago for other game i played:
http://img282.imageshack.us/my.php?image=coordinatesv33zk.swf
if anyone wants the source ill be happy to send it
-
Hook, everyone understands what the devs want to be covered under the GPL, and what is in fact meant to be covered: what we're argueing is what Is in fact legally covered, due to the ambiguity of the wording.
It is quite clearly stated what is covered by each license.
"
In the PlaneShift Project we have two different licenses:
1.
The first one is GPL. This license is applied to all our source files except the rpg rules ones. You learn more about that license here.
2.
The second one is PlaneShift Content License. This license is applied to all artwork and texts in this web site and is applied to all art/models/music/texts/names/setting/... present in the game.
"
How much clearer can we make it than that?
-
1) juggalo you shouldnt end the project just because some idiots are fighting over something thats not up to them anyway.
2) exactly: this isnt up to normal players to decide what happens, its up to devs.
3) this guy's just trying to use his time to make stuff better for everyone playing. i think its a great idea and have nothing against his ideas. some of the crap im hearing is still insane! you say it would be too easy and spoil the game. he fixed that by saying he could implement fog of war! how else could it spoil the game for players, answer me that.
-
3) this guy's just trying to use his time to make stuff better for everyone playing. i think its a great idea and have nothing against his ideas. some of the crap im hearing is still insane! you say it would be too easy and spoil the game. he fixed that by saying he could implement fog of war! how else could it spoil the game for players, answer me that.
There's a reason we don't implement a mini-map. I doubt we would allow people to use this anyway.
-
iight thats what i needed. not that coming from some random player lol.
-
Boy these issues sure make for a hot debate!
On the side of having this program:
- Its cool
- It could come in handy for people like me who find games disorienting
- Would be a fun project to contribute to
But then again...
- Some think it ruins the "roleplay expirence"
- There is the chance of a spoiler factor
- It may violate the weird AB License
I understand the reason PlaneShifts art is licensed the way it is. In some ways it makes sense and keeps the "uniqueness" of PlaneShift intact. But I've been here for a reasonably long time and there are things about the game that astound me and things about the game that depress me.
[rant]
Why do we have a wishlist? It seems that Talad has his vision already rock center in place. The wishlist is looked at by few devs who rarely comment. I never post there anymore as I feel like no matter what I say or do I'll never have an idea that is 100% compatible with the "vision" of planeshift. Its like they already know what is and isn't going to happen with the game, so if we don't have ANY input whatsoever, why on earth do we have this forum board? It seems to me that it should feel more honest. The top sticky should say - feel free to waste your time posting something that is going to be completely ignored by every dev because they know it will never get past Talad anyways! No one can really contribute art no matter how good it is if they ever post it in the forums and get a group of people working on it. No one has the time to listen or care.
[/rant]
I feel a bit better. On to the issue at hand more directly - I don't personally have a problem with a map reader. In fact its kind of neat in a unique way. Sure planeshift doesn't have "google earth" but it could easily have a magical display of the charted terrority ingame somewhere. Its not out of the realm of roleplay to have good maps, even maps that turn as you do. When I'm out with a map in real life I turn it to orient myself with it (provided I have a map). I agree it should be a cartography skill ingame, but I don't see whats really wrong with a google map mod. It makes planeshift seem like its own world to me - something independent from earth, which is the way I LIKE to look at it. If people are afraid it will ruin their RP expirence then they don't have to use it. For the rest of us it could be neat! I think the devs and players would both have more fun if they wern't so uptight about some things. Some people will always be exploiters. You don't fix this by making anything that could possibly be construed as a exploit "illegal" as it discurages fun projects and innovation like this one. Already I think he is discouraged and the little Google PS project has died.
Being restrictive about certain things is fine, but you can be a bit too restrictive and the project can suffer as a result. I'd love to see what planeshifts potential would be if random art submissions were managed well and put ingame. All you'd need is one dedicated dev to take care of that process, and have Talad approve the art that the dedicated dev thinks is good enough. That would keep Talad from being bogged down by requests to "Hey look at my leet guildhouse."
And that is something else. Until we have it so you can buy houses and castles, why not have that dedicated dev be allowed to review guild specific art? Guildhouses for instance. Ones deemed good enough could be placed ingame in a certain designated area for guildhouses. This is of course after the dedicated dev takes the time to decide if it is good enough to spend his/her time getting ingame, and then confiirming that it meets Talads stardards for things like architecture styles, etc... The world of PlaneShift would open up into fantastic new realms and new buildings to explore.
But of course why should I bother with such a stupid suggestion? I'll be ignored or ridiculed by olderbies than myself because its not in "Talads Vision" DUH!
Urmmm I guess thats a rant too, so
[/rant]
-
Actually I look at the wishlist quite often and I use ideas in there to plan changes and new systems. Just because I don't comment doesn't mean that I don't look. Same for other devs.
-
... *backs away*
We don't have enough dev members to do that the moment. Talad doesn't have enough time to change links on the webpage - if you think he'll have time to look over fan art a "dedicated" dev approves of, you're not getting a full picture of just how small and busy the team is.
-
We've already tried to have a website for people to post art for us to approve and look at but it failed. (LWW website)
People have short memories :)
-
A lot of people don't know about the Laanx Wheel of Wishes.
What happened to it anyway? It has been online for a very long time with all of the art still on it, untill a few months ago.
It seems to be offline now: http://lww.demon-host.com/
-
I wouldn't mind hosting it to get it up again if people will use it and if someone will give me the website or something similar. It was a good idea.
-
I'm sure people will use it if proper propaganda is applied ;)
I think 99,9% of the community doesn't know about LWW at the moment, so prepare to spam IRC.
And it's nice that you would want to host it \\o//, but now the problem is finding the (ex)hoster, the one with the files.
-
I sent an email to the old hoster. Hopefully I'll be able to get the website at least.
-
The only time I ever heard of the laanx wheel of wishes was in irc and they had told me it was dead :(
Actually I look at the wishlist quite often and I use ideas in there to plan changes and new systems. Just because I don't comment doesn't mean that I don't look. Same for other devs.
Some feedback would be nice, or at least a bit less discouraging. I undertand you can't make a post every time but I think people like to know that their ideas are being considered. The people who post in the wishlist are usually newer players. They eventally quit posting because they think its useless. Thus the wishlist thread is constantly hijacked by new players who think it would rock to have "ARMOR!". if the people who have been here a long time felt like they could make a difference by posting I think you'd have to filter through less repeat or newbie suggestions.
We don't have enough dev members to do that the moment. Talad doesn't have enough time to change links on the webpage - if you think he'll have time to look over fan art a "dedicated" dev approves of, you're not getting a full picture of just how small and busy the team is.
I do spend alot of time in the planeshift-build channel. I'm no dev but I understand how busy the team is! Rolenun and I are working on fixing up the documentation and build guides, as well as trying to handle all the requests for compiling help in the hopes that this will give devs more time to work on what they need to do instead of repeating build tips. Talad has (thankfully :D ) taken the time to review and give me tips on some art we're trying to contribute. I'm sure he is busy, but he is quite quick about it. If someone was handling the brunt of submissions and only giving Talad the best of the best for the final approval it wouldn't be much different than it is now where he reviews art submissions. As time goes on the dedicated dev would get a better and better idea would get past Talad and the minor time commitment Talad would need initially would get less and less.
I wouldn't mind hosting it to get it up again if people will use it and if someone will give me the website or something similar. It was a good idea.
Agreed :D I never knew about it till it was too late.
I think 99,9% of the community doesn't know about LWW at the moment, so prepare to spam IRC.
This was probabily the problem from the beginning ;)
-
I think if the wishlist is to be discussed or debated, that deserves a separate thread.
Regarding the *original* topic, we might/might not specifically ban the use of automappers, depending on how prevalent they became and whether or not they had a significant impact on game balance or game design. The idea of using Google is kind of cool, but also seems very much like overkill (and the problem of data import seems to be tricky..) Personally I think that it is "better" for the game if everyone uses the same client/art in the course of normal gameplay. Trying new things on your own server is completely different, you're pretty much free to do whatever (i.e. forbidding hacked clients is something we can only do in the art license or player agreement).
Regarding the GPL, the proprietary content included with the GPL psclient program is a document opened and/or manipulated by psclient, and hence not required to be under the GPL. "Collections" of software (for instance, a GPL program and a proprietary program, communicating through indirect means) is (I believe) expressly permitted by the GPL.
That is to say, distributing a psclient binary with your own art, with the art under whatever license you want, is completely permissible under the GPL. One characteristic feature of the engine/art separation is that the content of the art files is irrelevant to function of the engine, e.g. any CS map file, and any collection of cal3d models and grey textures would work.