Pages: [1]
  Print  
Author Topic: A map  (Read 7666 times)
kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« on: May 04, 2009, 06:42:38 am »

Here it is, my latest and greatest (and first and probably last) map:

http://www.4shared.com/file/103339886/61e397bf/foxhill2.html


No screenshots, a video instead!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LoCGdOkqtps

 : D

EDIT: By mistake, in the first link I posted, I left out of the pk3 a text file with some notes about the music, textures, compilation switches and what have you. Now it's updated. Here are the notes alone just in case.

http://www.4shared.com/file/103340883/dea1f0aa/some_notes.html


« Last Edit: May 04, 2009, 08:31:48 am by kernel panic » Logged
Cacatoes
Banned for leasing own account
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 73
Posts: 1428


also banned for baiting another to violate rules


« Reply #1 on: May 04, 2009, 06:56:45 am »

Aha, there was a lack of this kind of map in OA Wink
Seems you've got skill, too bad if this is your last ..

Is it GPL ? And what is the background music on that video ?
Logged

Todo: Walk the cat.
kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« Reply #2 on: May 04, 2009, 07:46:16 am »

Hahah, I can't believed you framed me this quick...

Yeah, the map would be licensed under the GPL...except that the music, although an original work, can not probably be distributed under this license. If you remove it from the pk3 everything should be fine, as far as I understand. The reasons for this are: a) there's no 'source' for it, that ogg file is all that exists; b) I don't know what programs were used to create it (I think one of them was Adobe Audition), therefore I have no clue as to what restrictions the licenses of those packages may be. Everything else was created from scratch by me except the portal shader and its textures (taken from some OA map) and three models, made by hyperfocus in Blender.
Logged
Peter Silie
Member


Cakes 2008
Posts: 610



« Reply #3 on: May 04, 2009, 12:37:33 pm »

IMPRESSIVE!
Logged
JESUS SCOUSE
Half-Nub


Cakes -2
Posts: 89



« Reply #4 on: May 04, 2009, 12:53:47 pm »

Really like that map.
very well done.
I think you should try to make another you obviously have the skill to do it.
Logged
Cacatoes
Banned for leasing own account
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 73
Posts: 1428


also banned for baiting another to violate rules


« Reply #5 on: May 04, 2009, 08:47:51 pm »

I like the music, almost sounds like Krautrock :p

I didn't see there were notes inside your pk3 (attached here), so my questions were useless Wink
Logged

Todo: Walk the cat.
bill-----
Half-Nub


Cakes 8
Posts: 60


« Reply #6 on: May 04, 2009, 09:12:16 pm »

Looks pretty good.  Lighting in particular shows a lot of attention, which you mention in the
file 'some_notes'.  Anybody who goes to the trouble to get 'natural' light sources
to work gets extra props from me.  Also, I like the scale better than the scale of, say, the PAD maps.
  


The GPL thing isn't as hard as it looks.  You've done some good work, and since it
looks like you'd like for the OA project to accept it, and I think the project would
like to have it, would you mind doing a little more so that foxhill2 can be GPL v2?

If so, please make a pk3 without the music file.  Also, have your model maker,
hyp3rfocus, release his models under GPL v2.  You and hyp3rfocus should
each create a notice file like the first example under
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/old-licenses/gpl-2.0.html#TOC4.  Of course, a
map and its assets aren't a program, so the line
"one line to give the program's name and an idea of what it does."
would be, for your work,  the name of the map and a description of
the assets (the other files), along with what it is used for.  hyp3rfocus' version of the file
would name the three model files and a short description of what
they're used for.

You could name these files somthing like LICENSE.foxhill2 and LICENSE.md3s
respectively, and put them into the pk3 also.  The GPL v2 license itself is
usually in a file named COPYING.txt, which you would also put into the .pk3.


The above would be a good start.   The final
decision, however,  will be made by the ever-vigilant fromhell.



For other readers, I have described how the map and assets could be
packaged in a 'stand-alone' zip/pk3 file that would fit the requirements
for GPL v2 as I understand them.  Perhaps there are different
requirements for the OA project.  Pointers to wiki articles, forum posts,
etc. that are relevant would be helpful.  The subject of packaging maps
for GPL is a bit fuzzy, seems to me, and now is as good a time as any
to develop a standard for acceptable packaging.





Logged
kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« Reply #7 on: May 05, 2009, 04:12:29 am »

Ah, that was a constructive post. Yes, to be honest, I too think that it's not clear what is the right way to submit work to OA. Also, I didn't make extreme efforts in this direction because I always thought that the map would not fit within the (not very well defined) style of the game, so I focused in just producing a working pk3 we could upload to our servers if considered worth enough.

I can do what you mention, I'm sure hyp3rfocus won't have any problem regarding the licensing.
Logged
Cacatoes
Banned for leasing own account
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 73
Posts: 1428


also banned for baiting another to violate rules


« Reply #8 on: May 05, 2009, 07:04:26 am »

On Tuxfamily we only host files under a free license, so if your map doesn't make it into the game for some reason, we could still host it Wink
OA doesn't have to include every map, there could be some separate GPL maps aside ...

You may submit your work on the SVN commit thread
You may state you GPL it in your post.

For licensing issues, it's difficult to be certain some work is fully made by the author, because practices of getting textures here and there are too common. For expl your alpaca photo could be one gotten from the internet :-/ (I'm not accusing, I simply point to some elements where there is doubt, your alpaca is sweet btw)
Licensing artwork is a pain for everyone, it requires to be strict, and receivers always have to make a inquiry as if they were policemen :-/

Copyright implies too much rigidity, whereas creation is the contrary, that's a sufficient reason to get sick with intellectual property Cheesy
Logged

Todo: Walk the cat.
kernel panic
Lesser Nub


Cakes 6
Posts: 114


« Reply #9 on: May 05, 2009, 07:33:32 am »

Quote
For expl your alpaca photo could [...]

You don't stop amazing me with your random shots...they are just so spot on. If you do that in the arena you could play with your eyes closed...Because, well, almost. I could've taken that pic from the internets, but I actually asked for it to the only person I know that could possibly have a picture of an alpaca AND have it licensed under the GPLv2. Serious. This guy exists. And I know him : )

As for the other pics, they are mine, as in, I bought them in real life.
Logged
pulchr
Member


Cakes 34
Posts: 626



WWW
« Reply #10 on: May 05, 2009, 11:13:41 am »

This guy exists. And I know him : )


yeah... right... and did the alpaca approve of this license?

i should think not!
Logged
bill-----
Half-Nub


Cakes 8
Posts: 60


« Reply #11 on: May 05, 2009, 08:21:55 pm »

Yeah, we'll have to have photo releases signed by the alpacas' legal guardians.
Can't skip over the two in the background.  :-)


Associating a copyright notice with a non-print 'asset' like a computer file is a problem,
that's for sure.

What's the target of the copyright?  The collection of bits?  No, it's something about
what appears on a display device, or causes a speaker to make a noise.  This is
why how the asset was created is important.  But even that's not enough. 

Consider Andy Warhol's images of Marilyn Monroe, which use copyrighted
photos as a 'reference'.  For fun, check out Warhol's production techniques. 
I wonder how much less 'Warhol filter' would have been required before
the images would have been in violation of the photograph rights owners'
copyright?  Finally, Warhol's images have copyrights also! <slaps forehead/>

A little closer to home, suppose someone makes a sound file that when
played *sounds* just like, say, a Q3 weapon.  Even if the asset creation
doesn't involve the original sound file (other than via the sound file
creator's brain's memory), you have trouble.  See Warhol just above.

So, not only do you have to be able to show how the thing was created, it
has to be different, though it can be derivative, to avoid copyright trouble.

How different?  I suppose one could decide this based on one's appetite
for gambling, but when it comes to section 7 of GPL v2, the stakes are
very high and involve a potentially huge number of people.  I don't think
anyone who understands the GPL and whose mind is working properly
can presume to gamble at all with the rights of downstream users of
GPLed stuff.  Those users are depending on the upstream licensors to do the
right thing.  Zero tolerance is a virtue when it comes to the GPL.  Section
7 doesn't permit anything less.


And then there's 'Fair Use'.  Suppose a photograph of a copyrighted image
is used, in, say, a map. :-)  IANAL, but such use may fall under Fair Use and
be OK.

Enough.  Like Cacatoes, I'm of the opinion that thinking too much about this
subject will make you ill!







Logged
Pages: [1]
  Print  
 
Jump to: