This high volume of replies surprise me, really! And it\'s nice to see the discussion are rolling. I\'ll be doing the clean up and summary, then
Note:If you are in a rush, before replying, please, at least read the first and the last paragraph of the summary to get the idea.Summary---Must read for participators---The topic is started by me, and
my motion is as follows:
1)Since the game is not completely open source, where
the program is GPL and
the game content is under Atmoic Blue License, we should
state this clearly on the web site, and move the passage that mentioned this in the info page to the top of the page.
2)The
game content license has gone into the extreme of protecting itself
(over-protective) in that it
scares away potential contributors since the Atomic Blue team get all the rights, and
more importantly, it is selfish to the public by
even not allowing any creatively made derivative work.I suggested to
lessen the restriction by
allowing creatively made derivative work.---End of must read for participators---2a) Further development of the idea suggest a more transparent process of suggesting possible improvement to the game content.
What follows is
some misinterceptions, including thinking I thought the whole game is GPL, and thinking I want to make them all open source. This are all wrong.
However, the discussion does progress, the
major objections are:
1) The level of
protection for artwork is a must, any
lessening on the restriction will cause trouble, since there exist bad people in the public that wanted to spoil it.
2) The restrictions should not be lessened because
people will just mess with the content and spoil all the organisation, lowering the quality, breaking the structure and cosistence of the game.
3) The license stated that you cannot do this and that, so you can\'t do this and that.
I countered their arguments with the followings:
1) This
defeats the propose and ideology of open source development, since if you
distrust the public, you
shouldn\'t be giving this game to the public at all.
2) When we make the license
more open, we will welcome anyone\'s comments, suggestions, proposal for modification, etc, but still have organisation and filtering, contrary to the belief of many who think
open source = no organisation and a mess, this is wrong again.
3)That\'s what we\'re discussing, the
possibility to change the license to close the unreasonable part of it.The discussion then
degraded as
Kiva assumed me of bad faith(thinking I have conspiracy).
I defended myself by stating that
I want the project to success, even if I can\'t do much with it.
---Must read for participators---After that, the
discussion forked into three fontlines:
1)My original motion, see the beginning.
2)Whether the
development process for game content should be more open, by allowing people to
contribute freely, but
with a filtering and organising process.
How should the filtering and organising be done is still a
major undiscussed area.
3)
How is decision made in Atomic Blue organisation, and
if they want to
change the license, does it need
a- All members and contributors to agree
b- Only all members in the Atomic Blue Organisation agree
c- Only the three master(acraig, Vengeance, Talad) in Atmoic Blue Organisation agree
---End of must read for participators---That\'s the end of the summary.
