Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
Author Topic: SVN Sourceless Audit  (Read 27897 times)
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #25 on: December 23, 2007, 12:53:32 pm »

Quote
Example: if I open Blender, model something, and make a screen shot of Blender with that model, but never saved the model as it was just for demo purposes, I can still distribute the screen shot under the GPL (e.g. as texture for computer screens on some OA map). The .blend file that you people may want to see NEVER EXISTED.

Thats also like if I create a program compile it & then delete the source code. Its doesn't mean it didn't have a source it just means there isn't one now. Therefore sourceless. You'd be better of creating a new source.

Without a source the whole point of the GPL is mute.
Logged
divVerent
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 11


« Reply #26 on: December 23, 2007, 05:35:02 pm »

"Thats also like if I create a program compile it & then delete the source code."

Nope, because then the source code actually EXISTED once. Media is often created "ad hoc", without any possible concept of source. If one tries to "make up" one, it will be absolutely not practicable (like, video editing - a 2 minute DVD resolution video scene would have already 3.5GB of uncompressed "source" footage... now if it was actually cut, that's easily 10GB of source. You can't expect anyone to distribute that for free, or even to keep it at all - there simply are better uses for disk space).

"Without a source the whole point of the GPL is mute."

Agreed, and the lack of source is the reason why GPL and media don't work well. With the problems we are discussing here. We actually need a license that is copyleft like the GPL, compatible to the GPL (or game content couldn't be linked into the game), and treats media the right way.

Also, a bug of the GPL is that it doesn't require distributing binaries together with source. I mean, what if the source code simply gets lost in a HD crash? That is, author A gives binary to person ccool who gives it to C. Now C requests source code from B (granted by GPL), B contacts A for it - and gets as response that it got lost. Now B would be liable for A losing the source!
Logged
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #27 on: December 23, 2007, 10:26:58 pm »

We actually need a license that is copyleft like the GPL, compatible to the GPL (or game content couldn't be linked into the game)

Tremulous, seems to do alright with CC content and we all know that isn't compatible nor even copyleft.

Quote
Also, a bug of the GPL is that it doesn't require distributing binaries together with source. I mean, what if the source code simply gets lost in a HD crash? That is, author A gives binary to person ccool who gives it to C. Now C requests source code from B (granted by GPL), B contacts A for it - and gets as response that it got lost. Now B would be liable for A losing the source!

You need to think that through a little more.

Quote
Media is often created "ad hoc", without any possible concept of source.

In your mind only.  Every worthwhile program in use has the ability to save a project file.  If you don't want to share those as source, or refuse to see them as source then the problem is yours.
Logged

kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #28 on: December 24, 2007, 03:42:06 am »

Quote
Nope, because then the source code actually EXISTED once. Media is often created "ad hoc", without any possible concept of source.

The thing is tho to get a final output of a texture or "binary" as you say. You'd first need to have a source. Input >> Process >> Output. Without the Input you cant process therefore no output.
Just because the User didn't save it in an appropriate format for later editing does not mean there was no source.

Your explanation could also be applied to 3D modeling, tho any sane person would first save it as an editable file before exporting it to another format. The same should & does apply to any other media creation.

Just because you can save it as a .jpg before you save it as a .xcf means jack shit.

Quote
it will be absolutely not practicable (like, video editing - a 2 minute DVD resolution video scene would have already 3.5GB of uncompressed "source" footage... now if it was actually cut, that's easily 10GB of source. You can't expect anyone to distribute that for free, or even to keep it at all - there simply are better uses for disk space).

And if you decided to release your Birthday Party Bash with the annoying gran under the GPL then yes you would. But who in there right mind would do that? Wink
However if you want an example: www.elephantsdream.org
Also studios keep all there source for everything they do. You don't throw source away just because it's not useful at that time.
Logged
w1zrd
Member


Cakes 2
Posts: 582


Give to life what you expect back


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 24, 2007, 04:09:43 am »

However if you want an example: www.elephantsdream.org
Also studios keep all there source for everything they do. You don't throw source away just because it's not useful at that time.
That's CC though Smiley

I tend to do quite a lot of video editing myself and it's rather quickly the raw footage grows up to 30-40gb for a simple sequence. However, when you save your files (in my case Adobe Premiere Pro), the actual premiere file is yet but a few kb large, and if that one is the 'source' since I then can prove that I made the cuts/video/effect, then it's not a problem. Then that the actual file contains links to every asset (media) that you have used in your project, that's a different story.

In short, with that I can provide the source (the project tracker file + the final composite) but not include 40gb of raw footage and other media, only problem is that the file is useless unless you have the linked media I used, on your system.
Logged

'Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.'


kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #30 on: December 24, 2007, 04:29:33 am »

Quote
That's CC though

Yeah, it was to show that people are and do release GB's of source files.
Logged
stroggi
OA SUCKS BECAUSE IT "SCAVENGES SHIT" LIKE MY SHITTY MAPS
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 26



« Reply #31 on: December 24, 2007, 07:23:59 am »

gpl sucks lol.
Without it you wouldn't play Open Arena for free.

thats some poor reasoning, not to mention i dont play openarena as it it, because it sucks lol.
Logged
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #32 on: December 24, 2007, 08:15:51 am »

Quote
thats some poor reasoning, not to mention i dont play openarena as it it, because it sucks lol.

lmao. I so hope you meant to contradict yourself when you started talking about reasoning.
Logged
divVerent
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 11


« Reply #33 on: December 24, 2007, 03:34:04 pm »

"In your mind only.  Every worthwhile program in use has the ability to save a project file.  If you don't want to share those as source, or refuse to see them as source then the problem is yours."

You often do edits that basically throw away previous information. For example, the filter I mentioned, or the Resynthesize filter. Artistic processes are MANUAL processes - and unfortunately, GIMP provides no real "source" of the image. So either, images made using GIMP can't be used in GPL projects (would need to use that image editing program that actually stores all the editing steps and the original data, and doesn't ever require you to flatten the image or apply a filter that changes the data permanently), or the GPL can't consider that edit list "source code" of an image.

BTW, I'd consider audacity project files useless too. You often do destructive edits there too (every filter is...). Apply a simple fade filter to a selection, save it - and look at the resulting .aup file. What do you see? You see that the original source got LOST. It only saves the faded sample in the project.

So basically, the big question is - does the GPL require source for media content, or just source CODE? If it requires the former, a corollary would be that destructive editing applications (like GIMP, Audacity) cannot be used for GPL content, and that the GPL requires non-destructive editing (that Windows app whose name I forgot for image editing, cinelerra for video, for example), because otherwise it is impossible to have "source". If the GPL really requires that, I'd bet that EVERY SINGLE game under the GPL violates that.
Logged
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #34 on: December 24, 2007, 04:26:42 pm »

Quote
You often do edits that basically throw away previous information.

The same happens with source code. However you arent required to record every modification for later on. The same goes for media creation.

If you have the original sources (ie images used, sound etc) & the editors format that holds extra information layers etc.

Thats good enough.
Logged
ailmanki
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 17


« Reply #35 on: December 25, 2007, 09:08:40 am »

If your source code is 8gb, and your binary only 100mb.. you still have to distribute the source code. I guess thats almost impossible to achieve.
What I wonder is, for souce code you can exactly define how to use it. Also GPL defines it pretty good.
I suppose one can even describe it mathematicaly. Special is, its a habit to distribute source code, while media you distribute the final product. So programs, webpages and everything supports that. It would be nice if same would be for media (As with source code, I think source media would be good to learn.).
While sound or images is quite more difficult. If I make a photo and release under GPL , whats the source? the negative? or the scenery?
And do I have to write down, how and with which camera I made the photo?
I think it boils down to the requirements, If this photo will be used in fashion where it is required to have additional info or media, then I should definitely provide it. Now funny, what if I make a photo of a person.. now there it becomes clear the real source cant be shipped with the photo..


Logged
divVerent
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 11


« Reply #36 on: December 25, 2007, 03:04:19 pm »

And this is the big problem of the GPL... it states "source CODE". So clearly, it doesn't require shipping the person who's on the photo Tongue

And what we are discussing is: what if there is no such thing as source CODE? Does the GPL then require something similar, some "source"? I'd immediately agree that distributing whatever you think is source is ENCOURAGED by the GPL... but not really required. However... it wouldn't be so far-fetched to say that something which isn't program code can't be covered by the GPL, as the source code requirement can't be fulfilled.

However, IMHO the act of making a game and bundling the engine with game code and content is some sort of "linking", and thus covered by the GPL: the game code uses engine functions, and thus links to the engine. The game code that loads a model and then assumes something about its size actually LINKS to the model. The bsp file that calls spawn functions with some parameters actually LINKS to the game code, but it also LINKS to the shader scripts, which then LINK to the textures (they assume some things about the size and color of the textures, so this actually qualifies). Thus, by the "infective nature" of the GPL, if the engine is GPL, the game code has to be too, consequently the bsp files have to be too, consequently the textures have to be too. Thus, I don't see any legal way to make a game with GPL engine, but non-GPL content (that certain games do exactly that doesn't prove that it's legal).

Conclusion: if the GPL is actually interpreted in a way that everything - even non-software parts - must have some sort of source CODE... then it follows that no GPL game can contain any media, unless of course it's procedurally generated. As this would be absurd, it follows by contradiction that the GPL doesn't require "sources" for files that were not automatically "compiled".

For this, we could actually look at quite some open source projects... specifically: their ICONS. Where do you actually see some source code of the icons of software (especially in the pre-SVG era)? If you get a SVG, does it actually match the icon? Hint: no, they usually get manually retouched a bit (especially the small variants) after the conversion from SVG to a bitmap format.
Logged
w1zrd
Member


Cakes 2
Posts: 582


Give to life what you expect back


WWW
« Reply #37 on: December 25, 2007, 03:40:02 pm »

It simply comes down to this:
Quote from: FSF
Can I use the GPL for something other than software?
    You can apply the GPL to any kind of work, as long as it is clear what constitutes the "source code" for the work. The GPL defines this as the preferred form of the work for making changes in it.

    However, for manuals and textbooks, or more generally any sort of work that is meant to teach a subject, we recommend using the GFDL rather than the GPL.
Logged

'Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.'


dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #38 on: December 26, 2007, 12:34:21 pm »

what if there is no such thing as source CODE

The fact that all sound and image files are essentially nothing more than groupings of 1's and 0's aligned in such a way as to reproduce what you consider to be an image or a sound when opened in the proper program negates this argument of yours.

You are also ignoring the spirit of copyleft by not sharing editable source, by doing this you are most certainly not improving anything within libre gaming, which, to be blunt, is the weakest link of any of the alternative OS's on the desktop.

Quote
it follows by contradiction that the GPL doesn't require "sources" for files that were not automatically "compiled".

<eyeroll>see above</eyeroll>

Quote
Where do you actually see some source code of the icons of software (especially in the pre-SVG era)?

See attached.
Logged

fromhell
Administrator
GET A LIFE!
**********

Cakes 33
Posts: 14500



WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 31, 2007, 02:56:10 pm »

so what should i do about it

delete the entire textures folder, go for fxGen generated stuff?

At least for my next project i'm shooting for that, strictly. Even for the model textures.
Logged

asking when OA3 will be done won't get OA3 done.
Progress of OA3 currently occurs behind closed doors alone

I do not provide technical support either.

new code development on github
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #40 on: December 31, 2007, 03:28:44 pm »

Quote
so what should i do about it

Well for textures, I think a .xcf or .psd or the default format the package uses. And if used the original images used, for example if some one created a grass texture by going out and taking a picture of grass then editing it to suit.

The source would be the .xcf/.psd/whatever & the grass picture.

Sound is pretty much the same basis.

I think that should be suitable enough.
Logged
w1zrd
Member


Cakes 2
Posts: 582


Give to life what you expect back


WWW
« Reply #41 on: January 01, 2008, 09:02:34 pm »

On the other hand, if I go out and take a picture of the lawn, then use some of the many programs that tile .jpg's, then we'd have my original grass picture, straight from the camera, but nothing else than a .jpg.
Logged

'Toto, I've a feeling we're not in Kansas anymore.'


dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #42 on: January 03, 2008, 12:32:32 pm »

so what should i do about it

delete the entire textures folder, go for fxGen generated stuff?

Define what the editable source is for textures and sound like you've done for music and add that information to the wiki so that there is no confusion about what is expected from anyone that contributes.

Moving to fxGen requires a non-free OS and is basically telling the majority of your players that they can't contribute to the project.
Logged

dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #43 on: January 11, 2008, 02:30:42 am »

Ignoring the issue won't make it disappear.
Logged

fromhell
Administrator
GET A LIFE!
**********

Cakes 33
Posts: 14500



WWW
« Reply #44 on: January 11, 2008, 06:34:10 am »

Ignoring the issue won't make it disappear.

That's because there is no issue. This is your own smoke and mirrors of an issue you're dealing with. The only "100000% free" solution would to be go totally procedural for everything, and I doubt that will ever be an option, but it at least wouldn't lead to retardedly recursive binary source!=source arguments for artwork.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 06:36:29 am by leilol » Logged

asking when OA3 will be done won't get OA3 done.
Progress of OA3 currently occurs behind closed doors alone

I do not provide technical support either.

new code development on github
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #45 on: January 11, 2008, 01:17:23 pm »

That's because there is no issue. This is your own smoke and mirrors of an issue you're dealing with. The only "100000% free" solution would to be go totally procedural for everything, and I doubt that will ever be an option, but it at least wouldn't lead to retardedly recursive binary source!=source arguments for artwork.

There is an issue if someone wants to create high-quality derivatives of the content in this project.  Besides, its consistent with your excuse for the music removal.
Logged

fromhell
Administrator
GET A LIFE!
**********

Cakes 33
Posts: 14500



WWW
« Reply #46 on: January 11, 2008, 01:52:00 pm »

Besides, its consistent with your excuse for the music removal.

it is not

goddamnit do i have to remind you that music assets differ from sound effect assets and textures and maps

how are you going to make melodies and improve them and correct notes on raw waveform?
Logged

asking when OA3 will be done won't get OA3 done.
Progress of OA3 currently occurs behind closed doors alone

I do not provide technical support either.

new code development on github
kit89
Member


Cakes 6
Posts: 637


Shoot him..


« Reply #47 on: January 11, 2008, 02:39:47 pm »

Quote
mprove them and correct notes on raw waveform?

Get the sheet music. Smiley
Logged
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #48 on: January 11, 2008, 04:40:22 pm »

how are you going to make melodies and improve them and correct notes on raw waveform?

How are you going to create a high-quality image or sound when all you have to work with is a flattened jpg or wav?
Logged

fromhell
Administrator
GET A LIFE!
**********

Cakes 33
Posts: 14500



WWW
« Reply #49 on: January 11, 2008, 10:08:25 pm »

how are you going to make melodies and improve them and correct notes on raw waveform?

How are you going to create a high-quality image or sound when all you have to work with is a flattened jpg or wav?

Resampling, filters, paintovers and touchups.
« Last Edit: January 11, 2008, 10:15:12 pm by leilol » Logged

asking when OA3 will be done won't get OA3 done.
Progress of OA3 currently occurs behind closed doors alone

I do not provide technical support either.

new code development on github
Pages: 1 [2] 3
  Print  
 
Jump to: