Black hole?

[Speaker]

Hi,

I have just discovered a black hole on this board. Today in the morning I posted a topic about (legally) free sky boxes made by using TerraGen. Around noon I checked and there was no reply. Now I just logged in and surprise: my topic is not here any more. Must have crossed the event horizon of a hidden black hole in this forum :-)

So WTF is happening?

Anyway, here it is again:

There are 18 free sky boxes available for download at http://www.3delyvisions.com. The author created these by using a paid, licensed copy of TerraGen (i.e. any work created by him using this program may be legally used in commercial projects). He granted permission to distribute these sky boxes under the GPL. Seeing the poor selection of sky boxes in the present OA package, this could be very useful for anyone making new maps.

OA administrators, please, make a statement whether these sky boxes are suitable for inclusion into Openarena or not?

[fromhell]

I moved it to club nub because I said No on the subject. I will not risk taking any more non-Free "shortcuts" from the use of proprietary programs.

[epicgoo]

I moved it to club nub because I said No on the subject.

rename club nub to blackhole

[Speaker]

I moved it to club nub because I said No on the subject. I will not risk taking any more non-Free "shortcuts" from the use of proprietary programs.

So according to you my post was a spam that had absolutely nothing to do with OA, and might have seriously damaged the mind of whoever read it (quote from the description of 'club nub'). Well, I wonder...

Anyway, the arguments in your reply are quite wrong:

1. There's no source for these --> There are the TGA/JPG texture files. What other kind of source is there?

2. Terragen's usage terms restrict to non-commercial only --> Only work done by the free version is restricted. Read the license carefully.

3. Editing and rendering new ones would require to obtain a full version of Terragen which is not free --> These sky boxes are ready for use. There is nothing to render.

4. Windows only product that's also not Free Software --> You do not distribute TerraGen, so it is irrelevant whether is is free or not.

5. You do not understand the OpenArena mission --> That may be so, but it's irrelevant again.

As far as I am concerned the topic is closed. I regret to say that most probably I am not going to contribute anything to the OA project. I have better things to do than waste time by arguing over licenses.

[fromhell]

What other kind of source is there?

The script file used to generate the skybox. Do you do any research or do you take and accept things for granted? Have you read the GNU GPL?

2. Terragen's usage terms restrict to non-commercial only --> Only work done by the free version is restricted. Read the license carefully.

And who is going to buy the tool to edit the same skyboxes?

4. Windows only product that's also not Free Software --> You do not distribute TerraGen, so it is irrelevant whether is is free or not.

I can not use TerraGen on Linux
I am not licensed to use TerraGen
I can not modify skyboxes without source that can
TerraGen isn't open source
TerraGen isn't free
TerraGen isn't Free
You might as well tell me to do all my 3d models in 3D Studio MAX or Maya and the sound effects in Adobe Audition, and music in FLStudio and Acid Pro too and then switch to Creative Commons BY-NC just to suit your agenda.

As far as I am concerned the topic is closed. I regret to say that most probably I am not going to contribute anything to the OA project. I have better things to do than waste time by arguing over licenses.

Suit yourself, but you've only really contributed nothing but suggestions of scavenging non-Free works and changing the core game anyway.


I should also note that the original game only had space skyboxes. The engine has a neat 'skydome' feature which does not require skyboxes, and is animated, and saves lots of disk space.

[pulchr]

You might as well tell me to do all my 3d models in 3D Studio MAX or Maya and the sound effects in Adobe Audition, and music in FLStudio and Acid Pro too and then switch to Creative Commons BY-NC just to suit your agenda.

what's wrong with creating something in another program (3d studio max, maya or audition) as long as the sources and the resulting material can be opened in other free programs?

i'm wondering cause i'm playing around with a simple model in maya in school and would like to use the md3 in openarena when it's done.

[Cacatoes]

I think the main thing is "to be able to edit it in a free software", that's what the GPL tends to : you have to be able to edit the material.
The goal is not that much to "only use free softwares", otherwise no contributor would use windows at all.
In fact, it's more about file formats than about softwares themselves ; as far as your file can be edited/viewed/is open, that's fine.
When the file has an open format, chances are there is a free software to edit it.

[Speaker]

I think the main thing is "to be able to edit it in a free software", that's what the GPL tends to : you have to be able to edit the material.
The goal is not that much to "only use free softwares", otherwise no contributor would use windows at all.
In fact, it's more about file formats than about softwares themselves ; as far as your file can be edited/viewed/is open, that's fine.
When the file has an open format, chances are there is a free software to edit it.

As far as I understand the GPL (yes, I have read it several times), it is about freedom to obtain the source code and modify/use/redistribute it as you see fit. The only restriction is that if you give the work to someone else, he/she automatically receives the same rights and is entitled to obtain the full source code of the (possibly modified) work. But the GPL definitely does not say anything about how you do whatever you do with the stuff, and does not require that only free software should be used for creating the work. Neither does it require that you use only open file formats to store your stuff (sometimes it is not even possible).

My interpretation is this: You use whatever program you can obtain free (or can afford to buy) to make your stuff. You give the recipient an editable file and it is up to him/her to acquire the means by which it can be edited / modified. If he/she cannot, that's too bad -- you did what the GPL requires and have no further obligation. The GPL is not about free beer.

fromhell wrote:

Suit yourself, but you've only really contributed nothing but suggestions of scavenging non-Free works and changing the core game anyway.

I resent that, it is rude and unwarranted. I never said that I had contributed anything, I just said that I was not likely to do so under the circumstances. I don't want to create something that would probably be flatly rejected. Friendly advice: You will not attract many developers to work on OA unless you change your style a little.

[dash9]

Speaker,

The point here is that those files could be owned by somebody else. Meaning the rightful owner is somebody else and those files have actually been stolen. And you can prove this is not true only by getting the "script" used to generate the file. And those scripts are not available.. you get the idea.

Suit yourself, but you've only really contributed nothing but suggestions of scavenging non-Free works and changing the core game anyway.

Could use more tact, "ability to deal with others with skill, sensitivity, and finesse. Tact implies propriety and the ability to speak or act unoffensively."

My 4 rappen.

[Neon_Knight]

In case of images, the source is .xcf or .psd files. Files which can be edited with GIMP, in this case, to be improved.

[Speaker]

Speaker,

The point here is that those files could be owned by somebody else. Meaning the rightful owner is somebody else and those files have actually been stolen. And you can prove this is not true only by getting the "script" used to generate the file. And those scripts are not available.. you get the idea.

This is a valid argument, actually the first convincing one I have seen in this discussion. In the case of simple photography or textures, however, there is no such source. So ultimately, either you are paranoid and make everything yourself, or trust the contributor until he/she is proven to be cheating.

I have to admit that sky boxes are a different matter. However, I am not going to irritate the guy who produced free stuff for the community by asking to spend time digging up his old scripts just so that some GPL lovers get satisfied.

All these arguments show that the GPL is a terrible license to use for artwork. It is fine for computer programs (I have also released a couple of progs under the GPL myself), but for artwork a more flexible license (e.g. some kind of Creative Commons) should have been used.

@Armageddon_Man:
I don't really understand your remark about XCF and PSD files. In case of images they are the source themselves, and you always get them in a standard editable file format. Does it really matter if it is a BMP or JPG or whatever? Even GIMP (if you prefer it) can open and edit all these standard formats.

[Neon_Knight]

I just commented what is understood here by image sources. In the SVN there are some of these sources.