Author Topic: making 128 open source - what is left to do (Read 88370 times)

wernieman · « **Reply #140 on:** November 17, 2010, 08:24:04 PM »

Yes ... home move .. from München to Hamburg or Leipzig (but all in Germany)

Spike · « **Reply #141 on:** November 18, 2010, 09:17:05 AM »

Quote from: Zeno on November 17, 2010, 07:54:34 PM

Anyway, I also think that SourceForge is the best option. Moreover it would be consistent with existing open source paksets.

Yes, I'll also give my vote to put the open source pak128 on Sourceforge.

greenling · « **Reply #142 on:** November 27, 2010, 09:51:38 PM »

VS i have here some question.
1 who far it´s the project to transfrom the pak128 set to an openpak128 set ?
2 What passing with the Pakfiles they are be removed out are be exchanede?

greenling

VS · « **Reply #143 on:** March 26, 2011, 04:23:18 PM »

Today is very special - last non-free files have been removed from distribution of any kind. So, 128 is effectively free.

Todo...

1) Clean up svn material folder, where Zeno managed to accumulate a pile of various graphics.
2) Release.
3) Create a public svn with all sources on sf.net and use that.
4) Clean and re-import to translator.
5) Deal with removed stuff - addonize what can be done etc.

Zeno · « **Reply #144 on:** March 26, 2011, 04:35:37 PM »

Absolutely fantastic news!
Tell me please where I can help, if I can.

Quote from: VS on March 26, 2011, 04:23:18 PM

1) Clean up svn material folder, where Zeno managed to accumulate a pile of various graphics.

Oh yes, I'm sorry is my fault

Fabio · « **Reply #145 on:** March 28, 2011, 07:18:33 AM »

Guys! If you wait for me 1-2 weeks, i'll make the biggest changes needed to the Road pakset, so old roads can go away and new roads come in

By the way, I started as well planning the Railtracks replacement set, which hopefully will be faster than Roads to be made, as base ground tracks are ready for a couple of years and bridges + elevated + tunnels will mostly be an adaptation / rework of those for roads. (Don't worry, I'll try to do it in a way which preserves both consistency and uniqueness).

VS · « **Reply #146 on:** April 02, 2011, 02:11:16 PM »

Open question then - do we wait for Fabio, or go NOW?

Zeno · « **Reply #147 on:** April 02, 2011, 02:44:24 PM »

Well, looking at current development status (everything on these roads does look amazing and rather finished) and the 1-2 weeks fabio is asking for, I'd definitely give him this time. His roads will be a fantastic improvement to the pak, and since it affects to the pak base objects (road infrastructure) I'd wait and make the release once he's done.

So, if this takes 1-2 weeks then my vote goes for wait; if things get slower, then go on with the release and the roads update will come later, no problem.

VS · « **Reply #148 on:** April 02, 2011, 04:29:58 PM »

OK. Then... what do I do if I have nothing to do?

Ah well, I can use the time, too

Zeno · « **Reply #149 on:** April 02, 2011, 05:10:10 PM »

Thinking about this again, maybe you could integrate current version of roads, as long as objects will not change themselves but graphics only (fabio's can you confirm this?). Later on graphics might be updated as many times as needed.

Fabio · « **Reply #150 on:** April 02, 2011, 05:44:14 PM »

The objects won't change, nor dats.
Future chages will be bugfixes (misalignments, wrong player colours...) and new icons.
If you think they are now already release-worthy, please go ahead and bugfixes will follow.

Zeno · « **Reply #151 on:** April 02, 2011, 06:04:36 PM »

At least the integration work is worth now, as long as objects/dats won't change later. Graphics updates should be easy once the roadset is into the pak

greenling · « **Reply #152 on:** April 02, 2011, 07:46:16 PM »

It´s be planed to put the old not openscoure pakfiles in a Folder with history addons?
I collecte histroy pakfiles.

greenling

VS · « **Reply #153 on:** April 02, 2011, 10:09:10 PM »

Greenling: yes.

daffi · « **Reply #154 on:** December 26, 2011, 11:42:13 PM »

So pak128 is now fully open source...

DirrrtyDirk · « **Reply #155 on:** December 27, 2011, 11:06:42 AM »

Apart from the things that had to be removed because we could not make them open source (usually because the item's creator could not be asked)... yes.

daffi · « **Reply #156 on:** January 02, 2012, 01:56:55 AM »

Thanks to simutrans development team

agamemnus · « **Reply #157 on:** February 01, 2012, 07:54:08 PM »

I've read and re-read Artistic License 2.0, but I'm still troubled by one key point: if I take the graphics and modify them to create derived versions, the license does not specify who the copyright owner is of the derived version.

Presumably, the modifications in and of themselves are my copyright, and the original graphics are the copyright of the Simutrans community, but an image is both the original and the modifications, combined, so it can't be the copyright of more than one party.

Zeno · « **Reply #158 on:** February 01, 2012, 07:57:39 PM »

Mmmm... aren't you forced to redistribute that work under the same license?

agamemnus · « **Reply #159 on:** February 01, 2012, 08:21:17 PM »

As far as I understand: "kind of". It's very complicated because the license doesn't have any extraneous text.

There's also another complication in that the Artistic License was written for programs, not art, and it doesn't explain what happens when you only use parts of the package. It only gives two scenarios: distribution as a modified "source" and distribution as a modified compiled version. The images are neither a source nor a modified compiled version.

If we assume that images are "source", the license states that I must do at least one of three things. One of these three things is "make the Modified Version available to the Copyright Holder of the Standard Version, under the Original License, so that the Copyright Holder may include your modifications in the Standard Version." -- or, allow the simutrans team to use my images. I would gladly do so, even though my modified images wouldn't really work in Simutrans.

That, however, still doesn't solve the problem of "partial copyright".

PS: Attached is how I am going to modify the images. I've done the steel mill so far. It's refactored to 256x256 + Photoshop blending effects.

neroden · « **Reply #160 on:** May 13, 2012, 04:49:45 PM »

Quote from: agamemnus on February 01, 2012, 07:54:08 PM

Presumably, the modifications in and of themselves are my copyright, and the original graphics are the copyright of the Simutrans community, but an image is both the original and the modifications, combined, so it can't be the copyright of more than one party.

Yes, it can be copyright of more than one party. Legally, it is covered by TWO copyrights. This situation is based on the law regarding translations of books: the translation is copyright of the translator, and ALSO, SEPARATELY, copyright of the original author.

This phenomenon is what creates "copyright thickets" where it is very hard to get permission to do anything because you have to ask every single person who ever worked on it. However, the Artistic License deals with that problem, because in order to distribute the modified version, you have to agree to distribute the "Modified Version" under the same terms as the "Standard Version".

Regarding source code: If you apply the rules in the Artistic License exactly, "source code" is Blender files or something similar, and "compiled version" is the PNG files. If the PNG was drawn directly, or the Blender files are lost, then the PNG is source code.

Author Topic: making 128 open source - what is left to do (Read 88370 times)

daffi

daffi