PlaneShift
Gameplay => General Discussion => Topic started by: enderandrew on March 16, 2009, 08:39:34 pm
-
Mod's Note: Thread split from here: http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=34553.msg401731#msg401731
Which brings me to another point. It occurs to me that as I often browsed Morrowind and Oblivion forums and sites that I saw countless resources created by the community, offered up freely as resources for others to use. Many of these include bump and glow maps. They were offered up specifically as resources for modders to use in those games, but a game like Planeshift no doubt requires a good deal of art resources. Perhaps someone could ask authors of various resources for Oblivion or Morrowind if they'd be willing to also let their models and textures to be used here. You'd find textures for caves, roads, foilage, houses, weapons, armor, sundry items, etc. etc.
Planeshift will certainly look more unique if it features 100% original art, but if someone made a model and texture for a lantern so that others can use it in an Oblivion mod, would it be some great sin to reuse that model with permission to ease the load on the Planeshift art team? I imagine this would be most useful for sundry items like barrels, crates, plates, lanterns, etc. Importing existing resources for clothing would be nice to add a huge variety of clothes that people could wear in game.
(I do understand that the Gamebryo engine uses NIFs, but there are tools to import NIFs and export them to other formats).
-
as has been posted before PlaneShift has their own license for art and content, that means that you cant just pick up art for _anywhere_ and put ingame, the artist MUST agree to the ps license and sign it before we can use their art. Also the art has to be in the correct format that the engine can use it correctly.
-
as has been posted before PlaneShift has their own license for art and content, that means that you cant just pick up art for _anywhere_ and put ingame, the artist MUST agree to the ps license and sign it before we can use their art.
It might be useful to enderandrew to explain to him why that's the case. It will probably be his next question.
-
I'm aware the game assets aren't open source, and I imagine that is to protect someone from cloning the entire game. It doesn't help to have 15 servers with fractured development each with a dozen players.
That being said, if you ask an artist who already gave up their resources to be used freely with no restrictions, they might agree for the art to be used in PS with the specific art restrictions. It doesn't hurt to ask, and there are plenty of model and texture resources out there in the Oblivion and Morrowind community. However, only some of the Morrowind textures are bump and glow mapped, and the Oblivion ones are probably more recently posted, which means you'd have a higher chance of contacting the author.
-
I'm aware the game assets aren't open source, and I imagine that is to protect someone from cloning the entire game. It doesn't help to have 15 servers with fractured development each with a dozen players.
That being said, if you ask an artist who already gave up their resources to be used freely with no restrictions, they might agree for the art to be used in PS with the specific art restrictions. It doesn't hurt to ask, and there are plenty of model and texture resources out there in the Oblivion and Morrowind community. However, only some of the Morrowind textures are bump and glow mapped, and the Oblivion ones are probably more recently posted, which means you'd have a higher chance of contacting the author.
More than that, the way it was explained to me was that the dev team doesn't want people to change their minds after submitting art or code to the game. It would be very disruptive to have to remove content or reverse fixes.
-
I've seen some childish moves like that. I'm not questioning the need to keep art assets closed up. But thanks for trying to clear that up.
-
Also keep in mind that the ps team being 100% volunteer lacks the time to track down assets to use, they would rather the artist come to them and volunteer their work to the team. Also by signing over your art to Atomic Blue it can NOT be used by anyone else, so taking assets from other games is not an option.
-
ahem.
I understand, and have read about the PS licenses probably about as much as any non-dev, as well as looked into many other licensing schema....
I politely disagree with the philosophy though. I believe PS has such a great community and commitment to settings and RP that they do not need to limit the artwork to the degree that they have. I could understand a desire to, perhaps, have the character models and the quests and settings under the license, and maybe even some of the Mobs, but everything? Talk about re-inventing the wheel, literally.
I have faith that PS could maintain a unique look, feel and experience without such punitive licensing agreements. No reason some art could not be as open as the source code, IMO. Would it destroy the game experinece if some of the houses looked a lot like the houses in other projects? and since this is a philosophic discusion on something that won't be changed, consider that question as rhetorical, please. :whistling:
-
One day I would like to see someone who thinks the PS content license is hurting us to show us an open source, open content game with more and better content than we have. If our proprietary art scares artists off, what are all those artists contributing to?
I'm happy to be proven wrong on this but I've never seen a free project with better art than this which is open art. Who has a link?
-
Hello
I think you dont understand the "game" is the game but the "art part" is another thing !
Think about tomorow if you can found a dwarf from planeshift on the cereal box ( Corn flakes ) you use every morning ?
Thiink about the people who have working hard and who NEVER take money from this work if somebody use it !
i know you can have manny license whit a lot of "free thing " you can do whit the work of other but
(like this one http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.0/fr/deed.en_US )
i understand why so mutch of the "art part" what no "free"
-
One day I would like to see someone who thinks the PS content license is hurting us to show us an open source, open content game with more and better content than we have. If our proprietary art scares artists off, what are all those artists contributing to?
I'm happy to be proven wrong on this but I've never seen a free project with better art than this which is open art. Who has a link?
Alien Arena (http://icculus.org/alienarena/rpa/)
World of Padman (http://www.worldofpadman.com/)
Warsow (http://www.warsow.net/)
Nexuiz (http://www.alientrap.org/nexuiz/)
Open Arena (http://openarena.ws/)
Tremulous (http://tremulous.net/)
UFO: Alien Invasion (http://ufoai.sourceforge.net/)
Battlestar Galactica: Beyond the Red Line (http://www.beyondtheredline.net/)
Spring (http://spring.clan-sy.com/)
Glest (http://glest.org/en/index.php)
Warzone 2100 (http://wz2100.net/)
TORCS (http://torcs.sourceforge.net/)
Urban Terror (http://www.urbanterror.net)
ManiaDrive (http://maniadrive.raydium.org/)
Secret Maryo Chronicles (http://www.secretmaryo.org/)
Battle For Wesnoth (http://www.wesnoth.org)
Flightgear (http://www.flightgear.org/)
Wing Commander Privateer: Gemini Gold (http://priv.solsector.net/) (Some of the graphics intentionally look old-fashion in the vein of the remake, but the ship models are rather nice)
Scorched 3D (http://www.scorched3d.co.uk/)
Neverball (http://neverball.org/)
Sauerbraten (http://sauerbraten.org/)
Cube (http://www.cubeengine.com/)
Assault Cube (http://assault.cubers.net)
VegaStrike (http://vegastrike.sourceforge.net/)
Excalibur (http://emr.excaliburworld.com/emr3/index.html)
Bos Wars (http://www.boswars.org/)
Danger from the Deep (http://dangerdeep.sourceforge.net/)
Vdrift (http://vdrift.net/)
NetPanzer (http://netpanzer.berlios.de/)
Oolite (http://oolite.org/)
FooBilliard (http://foobillard.sunsite.dk/)
Eternal Lands (http://www.eternal-lands.com/) - This is a MMORPG that is completely GPLv2. The GPL didn't hurt them. The game never forked.
The only OSS MMORPG to ever fork was Crossfire (http://crossfire.real-time.com/index.html) forking into Daimonin (http://www.daimonin.com/), and in that case the fork made a whole new setting, new graphics, new sounds, etc. Heck that fork happened 8 years ago. Crossfire has been around a long, long time, and it only once did someone else use Crossfire code for an OSS MMO project, despite for the longest time, Crossfire being the only OSS MMO project. Project Diaspora (http://www.nighsoft.net/) is also an OSS MMORPG, and no one stole their art assets. Regnum Online (http://www.regnumonline.com.ar/) is GPLv2, and no one stole their art assets.
I believe that all material should be GPL, however I am fine with assigning copyright to a parent organization who can oversee the need for future license changes as necessary. And while many are concerned that a contributor might walk and want to take their contributions with them, once they are initially offered under the GPL, those versions under the GPL stay under the GPL. The copyright owner can change the license for futher revisions, but the existing contributions remain open. However, again, I'm not totally opposed to signing over copyright to avoid those scenarios, even though the project still doesn't lose anything with the GPL.
A MMORPG is only as strong as the community that fosters it. Players will want to play where there is an active server, and the best content is available. If one developer decides to leave and attempt to fork PS, they won't be able to keep up as an individual, or small team with what the larger team continues to produce. Furthermore, they have to start with a new server and no existing players. Players don't want to play on an empty server.
So I don't believe we lose anything by a pure GPL license for all content. I do believe however that we lose with restrictive licenses, because it makes it harder to get developers who will be turned off, or open resources that aren't compatible with the license. For instance, There are hundreds of models and faces we could be using that authors have offered up freely as resource in the Morrowind and Oblivion community. Because we demand all original, proprietary content, we can't use those. Instead we offer a game to our players where most races don't have a single model.
While I would prefer a pure GPL license across the board, what I'd like to see is at least a small compromise. Lift the restrictions on art, so that we can reuse other open art resources, so long as the author offers them to use freely. Why should it matter if that art is also used in an Oblivion mod? So long as the overall art direction is original and consistent, and we only use resources that fit within that consistent style, I don't think it will take away to use some armor, clothing, or face textures that are offered freely.
The GPL allows a fork, but protects the code at the same time. If another team forks the entire project, they must also keep the GPL for their derivative project, and we'd have access to all of their changes. Even as a fork, they are still working to improve the overall project.
Perhaps as a compromise, the setting itself could be proprietary, while opening up art restrictions.
-
No.
We've made the progress we have made with the system we have in place and are quite content with the pace of development as it is. I have no desire to see homogenized art and I don't think many of the above links are superior, I've played several of them. This argument has been hashed over so much it's silly.
Sure some people don't want to commit under our license, and that is fine. We don't need the help of anyone who thinks donating their work to, or integrating personally with the PlaneShift dream in any way diminishes their own artistic/moral/ethical/philosophical vision. While we're not trying to change these people's minds, we'd like our idea of how to make a game to be respected reciprocally.
-
I'm not sure people think donating their art to PlaneShift diminishes their work... it also doesn't seem like a "respect" issue to me. It seems more like people want to donate their work to PlaneShift, but also have it available for other projects which are in need of art.
I agree that there isn't a necessity to change the license. Crates and torches seem like easy models to create. From talking with artists on the dev team, the challenge is producing maps and character models, and those are models PlaneShift absolutely does not want to borrow from other games.
I'm curious about who's actually complaining about the license. Are these usually artists who feel disenfranchised? Or are they more often players who want to see a faster rate of development?
-
I didn't really want to get into this thread hijacking conversation, but oh well. If you want to make a fork, better do it to this thread.
Eternal Lands (http://www.eternal-lands.com/) - This is a MMORPG that is completely GPLv2. The GPL didn't hurt them. The game never forked.
Eternal Lands is not completely GPL, only the source of the client is (not the server), and either way I can't get it to compile. Plus it's considered one of the worst MMOs ever made.
The only OSS MMORPG to ever fork was Crossfire (http://crossfire.real-time.com/index.html) forking into Daimonin (http://www.daimonin.com/), and in that case the fork made a whole new setting, new graphics, new sounds, etc. Heck that fork happened 8 years ago. Crossfire has been around a long, long time, and it only once did someone else use Crossfire code for an OSS MMO project, despite for the longest time, Crossfire being the only OSS MMO project.
Crossfire is not an MMORPG, it's a 2D Gauntlet/Rogue game clone with online capabilities and multiple shards. I tried it out a couple weeks ago with some friends and a customized Java client, and the most active server only had eight or so people, and that is counting the three or so I was with. I actually liked it, but I wouldn't say it's massively multiplayer.
Regnum Online (http://www.regnumonline.com.ar/) is GPLv2, and no one stole their art assets.
I don't get where you say that Regnum is GPL.
I am not saying I disagree with your ideals; I respect that you have an opinion but I am just disputing some of your facts. It is true that there is not a whole lot of high-quality open content available; without counting futuristic games like Nexuiz because we are only interested in fantasy games, none of the ones you listed seem to have open high-quality 3D assets. Most of the Battle for Wesnoth's art team is made up of people who are still in high school.
Also I don't think the PlaneShift codebase is mature or feature-rich enough to the point where people will want to seriously maintain player-ran shards like they do with Ultima Online or even Crossfire. Thus I don't see how opening PlaneShift's content will do a whole lot of good for me as a player. I don't have 3dsmax and .max is a proprietary format that nobody has publicly documented.
-
http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20080525143441370/Regnum.html
That site says the game is licensed GPLv2.
-
Which technology are you using?
We are using our proprietary engine completely developed in-house by NGD Studios called NG3D Engine.
Right now there are no licensing plans but we will probably analyze that in the near future.
bottom of the page
-
http://www.linuxlinks.com/article/20080525143441370/Regnum.html
That site says the game is licensed GPLv2.
I also saw that URL, that is most likely incorrect since the page also says its engine is proprietary. Regnum Online is just another grindy MMO made by another company.
-
I also think you forget about the artists who wouldn't have contributed to PS if we had used a GPL licence on the art, there are quite a few. So it isn't all potentially one way.
-
Enderandrew,
- Alien Arena looks like a GPL Quake engine mod and interchangeable art under no license, much like how fans contribute skins and texture mods for PS to each other. Apples and oranges.
- Padman looks fun but again looks like an engine with a mod community, not a single game with a formally open source art license. Couldn't find a reference to the engine license on it, but that's irrelevant to this conversation anyway.
- Warsow is yet another GPL Quake engine mode with a map mod community.
- Another GPL Quake engine mod. At least this one seems to have some traction and says its art is GPLv2.
- Tremulous looks like a relatively nice standalone self-made engine, so kudos to them for that. Art is mod community, not centralized.
- ...
Obviously there are tons of mod communities out there for FPS's and equally obviously, that isn't what we're talking about here. Before I read through 35 websites in a laundry list, which one of these is most analogous to PS?
-
Tremulous is also based on the GPL Quake 3 engine : http://tremulous.net/faq/
Eternal Lands has its own license (http://www.eternal-lands.com/page/license.txt), which is not GPL. For art it says the following: "You are NOT allowed to take our art (2d/3d files), and use it for your own devious purpose, either commercial or not."
-
Any project that starts with GPLed code must remain GPL itself. So all those projects that started with one of the GPL Quake engines are GPL themselves. Not a one mentions a proprietary art license.
Eternal Lands I was apparently mistaken on. One site listed it as a GPL project, but apparently that isn't the case.
I expressed a view. I think a proprietary art license keeps quality art out of the project, and I haven't seen any evidence (any similar projects) where the art and setting was stolen. Even if everything was GPL tomorrow, and I wanted to fork everything and "steal the setting and art", my fork would also be GPL, and you'd have access to everything I developed. Furthermore, I wouldn't have the man power, nor players to make my project feasible. Thusly, I don't think this project is threatened by the GPL. I stand by that belief. Others disagree. However I'm not going to press or argue the topic.
-
[Suppression of dissent deleted.]
Talad, I like the shaders. Keep the good work up team, some of that stuff beats a commercial MMORPG anyday.
-
I agree with that. THe Devs of PS, Esp Talad have every right to work on PS in any way they like, it is their project.
However, I do not see how discussing the licensing is any more disrespectful than discussing PVP, the death realm, Magic, or even whether players should be allowed to set up afk shops. [Agreed. -Vengeance]
No, they are not going to change any of those based on various positions opined here. So why get all upset about that one category of opinion? <shrugs>
but fact is, people do get upset about it, so if you want to discuss licensing issues, I am sure there are many sites where that is discussed already. barring that, you can go find the thread on licensing on glompzilla.com and discuss it there.
I think PS has an AWESOME community, and their commitment (players and devs) is an incredible asset.
ps. I still get even more curious when I find people getting upset about only some topics... Sure, we understand those who hate all debate, but why is this such a sticking point? Oh well, it is a sticking point, so if you try to leave it out of the discussion, I will do likewise...
-
I agree. I should amend my post "when Talad wants to discuss licencing with the public" in other words "IT AINT HAPPENING, GET OVER IT"
[Ad hominem comment deleted.]
Yes, Planeshift has a slow development rate, possibly due to licencing, but whoopdedoo.
Why do Linux users always think GPL licensing is sent direct from God?
-
I am a Linux user but I dont think the GPL is king, the one thing I love about the Open Source movement is the freedom to choose whichever license one wants.
The board of ABC choose the license for a reason its not going to change so us mere mortals have a choice also either we accept the decision and work with it or we choose not to and allow those who do so to continue.
I'm going to leave this open for a day or so then locking it
-
Why do Linux users always think GPL licensing is sent direct from God?
As I said, I am done discussing the PS licensing. However, on the topic of GPL in general, I greatly prefer the GPLv2 to GPLv3. I am also a big fan of the Creative Commons license. However, I do not believe the GPL is perfect, nor the FSF. In fact, there are times I think Richard Stallman is a nutcase whose zealotry hurts the OSS community.
Stallman loves to blast guys like Linus, Mozilla and Google. He clearly doesn't understand who are his friends and enemies in the FOSS world. He thinks cloud computing is a joke. (Hint, it is already a large growing reality). He has said he would never in good conscience ever sign any license agreement for software as he believed they were evil, and then he went on to create a license agreement that grows in restrictions all the time. He constantly argues that if you don't have lengthy restrictions, then you aren't truly free.
I could go on and on.
-
I agree he is a bit overly much of a zealot, and yet even Stallman acknowledges the need for dual licensing for code vs. content in the way that PS does it.
-
After seeing the topic titled PlaneShift Client (without some bugs and with movierecorder) (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=35425.0) moved and censored "for review due to possible licensing issues", I decided to research the topic of PS license and the claim of it being an "open source game" in detail.
As many of you know, I did not register here just to start some big argument but rather to make some good and thoughtful suggestions, many of which people liked and complimemted on. However, what I found out did not make PlaneShift and Atomic Blue Corporation look good at all. It looks like there are some major issues with PS license. For one thing, ABC calls PlaneShift an "open source game", which evidently isn't true, based on a lot of solid evidence provided in places like this (http://www.mmorpg.com/gamelist.cfm/game/30/view/forums/forum/613/General-Discussion.html) and all over the internet. Why not be honest about it instead and call it a free game with a hybrid license? After all, only the engine is open source but that isn't the game.
Apparently, some people associated with ABC have also resorted to editing and later attempting to delete the Wikipedia's definition of what qualifies as an open source game, after deleting a forum post here that pointed it out. Its original definition being that of a game with an open source engine and open source content, such as OpenArena. PlaneShift's content isn't open source. The Crystal Space 3D engine the game uses has a license requirement to keep it open source, so, obviously, no credit goes to ABC for that part. Also, quite a few people from Blender communities don't think that PS deserves to be called an "open source game". This is, obviously, a major reason why many potential developers don't want to join the project. A big reason for a very slow development instead of it simply being a "hobby in spare time".
I've also found some other major issues with the game and the community treatment. Apparently, anyone questioning the license or the text parser quest system was usually ridiculed and insulted by both staff and "fanboys". Some developers and contributors have left because of that and because the team has refused to improve the quest system. For example, I found out that a poster named Xanacru, who has contributed some of the current PS icons (setup and updater), and also made a popular "Black UI" has left because the team did not want to try a better NPC dialog and quest system. Many other people have suggested a better system and in-game maps and mini-maps (including a little girl, who was insulted on the forum by some people with no brain), and of course now it's suddenly a good thing (http://www.hydlaaplaza.com/smf/index.php?topic=35016.0) but no apology was offered by either the staff or the regulars who tried to ridicule and insult people for suggesting it in the past. It looks like those people were right, after all.
Additionally, the game has been advertised as a competitor to commercial MMORPGs in the past but when that part is taken into account for the game's development cycle and quality in reviews, "fanboys" try to insult the reviewers by saying it's a "non-commercial project" as an excuse. Then there is an issue with spoilers and spoiler policy, while the main site is linking to a PS community, which openly posts spoilers. Yet, the link isn't removed from the site. Yet another issue is the game asking for donations on the main site and to specify which feature you'd like to see the most, as if the money influences its priority. At the same time, ABC claims "0 budget" for the game's development. Then there is an "Alpha" vs "Beta" issue that the team can't make up their minds about.
One site (SA) shows "Talad" saying that "the project is the king!". This is completely wrong! The project is not the king, the customer or the playerbase is the king! Anything from 5-star restaurants to best game developers will tell you that. No customers/players, no game! And if you piss your playerbase off, the negative publicity will spread like a wildfire. No wonder there are so many bad reviews of the game on the net. You can't blame players for your failures. This is like blaming restaurant customers for its bad food when they complain.
Some of the staff often mentions "pessimism" when people speak of near-empty servers, lack of activity, and overalll slow game development but there is also such term as unwarranted optimism. This is where you cannot back up your words with actions in development of the game. In fact, when the "fanboys" are complacent, it's due to their inactions that the game is being damaged. Everything is A-OK, hunky-dory for them, so the game never improves.
Being a "free" game can only work as an excuse to a point. There is also another standard that people will hold you for, and that standard is MMORPG, something that you chose to make, and therefore have taken a certain responsibility that goes with it. You can't possibly hope to retain a playerbase with no active development, regular updates, and open communication with the community. All of this is expected in successful MMORPGs, free or not.
It seems that there's overall a big censorship going on at these forums, a group of complacent "regulars", and not enough respect given to the playerbase overall.
For all the reasons stated above, I don't want to be a part of this, so I'm leaving this game. And even if this post is censored here for some reason, you can't control it being posted on the more independent sites on the net.
-
To explain this in terms of development models:
Mesmer has a good point in that PS seems to be developed (I am speaking of single releases here) in a rather "waterfall"-esque style. Modern wisdom is moving away from the "waterfall" model though towards more iterative techniques, such as agile development and eXtreme Programming (XP). These techniques emphasize heavier, earlier testing; shorter iterations; more frequent correspondence between developers and stakeholders (the latter being the PS community in our case); adaptable designs and refactorable code; designing/modeling on an "as needed" basis as opposed to doing all the design work "up front"; and the production of documentation "as needed" instead of "on a whim".
Further reading:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterfall_model
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agile_software_development
We've already done a lot of work here, so we don't have to throw everything (or anything for that matter) away. However:
* Which would be more acceptable: 1 new feature + a few bugs being released every other week or 10 new features + lots of bugs being released every three months?
* We have a lot of good people in the PS community willing to give suggestions, and I appreciate the work the Devs have done so far to improve communication between the dev team and the PS community. There is still much progress to be made in this area though.
* Obviously, nobody around here is a domain expert. Between that and the steady march of technology, the "business" requirements for PS are a shifting target, and it seems that it's taken a while for PS to pick up on requirements changes in the past.
Finally, a point on PS builds: why have a debug vs. release build at all? Most toolchains in use today have at least some capacity to generate debuggable optimized code... :whistling:
-
As far as the PlaneShift license goes, I like the way things are now. For example, if an artist spends many man hours on a new Diaboli skin, only to find that it's been given a really BAD green paint job, had "naughty bits" stuck on, then posted to some random website, that artist has recourse under the license request that it be removed from said website. If a writer creates a book or quest, only to find that it's been copy/pasted wholesale smack dab in the middle of a sci-fi fanfic, they have recourse. They wrote it for PlaneShift, with PlaneShift lore in mind every step of the way, and they deserve to see it kept in the context for which they designed it.
Regarding these forums, it seems to me that a great deal of frustration arises from the fact that this forum has been around for a long while and has a very, very large number of topics. Folks suggest ideas then team members give responses and the reasons for those responses. Time passes and the idea is suggested again, either by someone not aware of the previous post or by someone *ahem* quite passionate about the idea who is looking to resurrect it. Lather, rinse, repeat two or three times, and you get ill-will on all sides and a whole bunch of redundant conversation. The forum has the "sticky" tag; perhaps there is some way to use this to even better advantage, or perhaps the solution is to have a FAQ section where some of the most common suggestions can be housed (as locked threads) and updated by the team as need be. I will toss the idea around with the team and see what we come up with.
-
Finally, a point on PS builds: why have a debug vs. release build at all? Most toolchains in use today have at least some capacity to generate debuggable optimized code... :whistling:
Off topic a bit, but the reason I build with "--enable-debug" most of the time is so gdb (debugger) output is easy to understand... when I've compiled "optimised" the output has had quite a lot of missing information ("value optimised out"); which sometimes can be the missing piece of the puzzle when trying to track down a bug to its source. You are correct that debugging information and optimisations can be enabled separately; but for released clients it would just be a waste of space... and people that compile themselves, if they don't know what it is they don't need it.
-
I frankly don't care how you label the game, Mesmer. Call it what you will. If you don't like the term Open Source, don't use it. If you have a moral problem with dual licensing then don't play it.
I'm also sorry that there has been so much arguing about this sort of thing surrounding PS. Many fans and others trying to help PS have done 90% of that editing and censoring. I have argued till I was blue in the face with several of them, trying to get them to stop. Many have heard me do it. The only good PR for the game is to make a good game. Splitting hairs about what label goes on what piece doesn't prove anything and probably only hurts our reputation.
Having said all that, I've been contributing code under the GPL for 8 years to this game. 10's of 1000's of lines of code. All open source.
What has been your contribution to the OSS movement? From whence does your sense of moral righteousness come? I'm not questioning it--I'm just wondering why people get so passionate about this when they really have no stake in it whatsoever.