Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
Author Topic: A few questions about submiting maps  (Read 20241 times)
Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« on: February 12, 2007, 08:55:41 pm »

Hi there. Some guy, called Humansubhuman, turned up on our level design forum (map-center.com) and sugested we contribute to your project with some of the maps we'd just made for a 1 week contest. Since my map only used 3 of id's original textures, I figured why not. It plays perfectly in OA, it's just missing CTF flags and the tinfx stage from a custom shader (easy to recreate).

Now, I see in your wiki somthign about refusing stuff licensed under creative commons. 2 of the texture sets I've used are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0, 1 texture set has a standard written "non-comercial, please credit" clause, as does the model that I've used.

The map currently carries a standard "freely distributable via electronic means, no comercial use" text although it's not officially licensed at this point. I can put the map itself under any license you like really, as long as it's never used for for profit without my explicit permision (and the individual permissions of the 4 people that own the rights to textures and models!) . As for derivative works of the bsp, sure why not...

Anyhow, will my map be admissable to your project?

Oh, and do you have a strict triangle count for maps submitted to your project? Mine is hitting between 12k - 20k r_speeds.
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
stjartmunnen
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #1 on: February 13, 2007, 02:41:58 am »

Hi all! I dont mean to hijack your thread here amp but I was thinking of contributing as well (if you want me to of course Wink)
My entry from the turtle pack ( http://www.map-center.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=679&highlight=) is technically far from perfect and would need some fixing before it could be released as a final release.
Here
« Last Edit: February 13, 2007, 02:53:52 am by stjartmunnen » Logged
stjartmunnen
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 18



WWW
« Reply #2 on: February 13, 2007, 02:55:14 am »

For some reason I couldnt make the last post longer Sad.
Some screens from that map:
http://www.henrikbjork.se/images/leveldesign/q3/tm/day7_1.jpg
http://www.henrikbjork.se/images/leveldesign/q3/tm/day7_2.jpg
http://www.henrikbjork.se/images/leveldesign/q3/tm/day7_3.jpg

Other recent work:
http://www.map-center.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=28 (Geocomp 4 entry)
http://www.map-center.com/forums/viewforum.php?f=19 (A bunch of speedmaps)

Let me know if I can contribute
Logged
sago007
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 61
Posts: 1648


Open Arena Developer


WWW
« Reply #3 on: February 13, 2007, 04:17:49 am »

Well I'm not really part of the project but I would just mention:
http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=208.0

Explaining the GPL and why it is so important to the project is a longer story and somewhat political decision.

Basically (the most common problems):
The project only accepts GPL contents (or contents that can be converted to GPL)
Source must be included (this includes the .map-file for the map, this is fundamental to Open Source and Free Software)
Must not limit the ability to change or use the map (This forbids the non-commercial clause, this is fundamental to Free Software)
The GPL demands that any work derived from the original must also be GPL.

However if you are willing to release the map source under the GPL we might at some point be able to replace the GPL-conflicting (not a nice word but the best I could find) contents, such as textures (The number of textures are currently low but growing). The models are a little harder.

Posting the map here could be a start. If nothing else I would like to try them.
Logged

There are nothing offending in my posts.
Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #4 on: February 13, 2007, 06:13:59 am »

Hrmmm. On further play of OA, I notice that one of the maps is using textures from the same source as some that I've used (evillair.net) which are licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 2.0. If the team has already reached an agreement with Yves Alair over use of his textures in this project, then that makes things somwhat easier. However most mappers will still be reluctant to produce work if they can't have freedom to use all available media, and all the major texture sites I've seen list their textures under a CC license, or use wording of a similar nature to restrict the use of their work.

Surely though this issue can be worked around simply by releasing the engine on it's own with no maps so that your gpl obligations are met, and then offer a compatable map-pack that is not officially part of the project.
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #5 on: February 13, 2007, 07:34:21 am »

Surely though this issue can be worked around simply by releasing the engine on it's own with no maps so that your gpl obligations are met, and then offer a compatable map-pack that is not officially part of the project.

Yes, they are his textures, but they were nicked from Nexuiz which has no mention of the CC license.  WRT to how people license their art, that is their problem. 
Logged

Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #6 on: February 13, 2007, 08:31:34 am »

WRT to how people license their art, that is their problem. 

Well, I can hardly blame texture artists for using the CC license. Virtually all of them aspire to make a living from their art, so understandably they put in the non-comercial clause so that people cannot create for profit works based on their efforts. If anyone is going to make any sort of profit from their art it should be the artist.

Personally I don't care what happens to my maps, as long as I'm credited for them and lots of people get to play them. However, My aim in level design aside from vanity is to create interesting and beutiful space for people to kill each other within. Without a good set of inspiring textures to work with, I simply cannot do that.

I did also want to submit some music to the project (flag capture jingles) , but the GLP will make that impossible, because although I have paid for a license to use several sample cd's for any comercial/non-comercial work, the samples must be re-distributed only as part of a musical composition. I am strictly forbiden from releasing the source samples of my work, as will be the same for 99% of other musicians on the net.
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #7 on: February 13, 2007, 09:25:32 am »

I think the biggest issue WRT to how people license their works has more to do with their ideals, the GPL was originally written to foment an ideal of sharing knowledge that anyone could use for any purpose, even making money off it.  In effect, building community through the free sharing of knowledge.

A lot of "artists" may think they have this ideal when they use a CC license, but they do not as the CC licenses are not exactly "free" (As in freedom/libre).  Basically they are falling into that ego trip of "I'm an artist and therefore better than everyone else."  This attitude is nothing more than a disguised form of bigotry.  You would (or should) be offended when someone or even yourself is discriminated against because of their skin color, gender, or sexual preference, why not by the licenses they choose to use with their art?  Extend the same freedoms that you enjoy to everyone regardless of who they are or continue in the same attitude that certain people shouldn't enjoy the same freedoms that you enjoy.  It is a choice that everyone has to face, though it is rarely thought of in those terms.  (-:

WRT the flag jingle there are licenses that are compatible with the GPL that do not require the release of source (though leileilol may reject them for the sake of license simplicity) or you could always do something original outside of the restrictions placed upon you and release that under the GPL.  No employer has the right to dictate what you can or can't do in your spare time.
Logged

Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #8 on: February 13, 2007, 10:26:23 am »

WRT the flag jingle there are licenses that are compatible with the GPL that do not require the release of source (though leileilol may reject them for the sake of license simplicity) or you could always do something original outside of the restrictions placed upon you and release that under the GPL.  No employer has the right to dictate what you can or can't do in your spare time.

You seem to have misunderstood my comments regarding my being forbiden to release the source samples for audio tracks I've produced. The reason that I can't release the source for these tracks is that I've paid for a license to use the samples from a CD (drum hits, loops, bass notes, organ notes, etc) that I've used in the production. The license that I've bought gives me the rights to do whatever I like with a finished track containing those samples, but I am not the owner of the original samples, I have merely bought a comercial license to use them. As such I cannot distribute the original samples, only the finished work.

As for gaining license free sounds of this type, I don't own any of the synths used, or own a drumkit and can't afford to pay £2000+ for a session musician and the studio time to gain that many high quality samples. I have been able to afford a few hundred pounds for software, a midi control keyboard and some licensed sample cd's.

License free is nice, but you have to pay for it somwhere along the line with either time or money. With music that will be expensive unless you own and play your own instruments and own or have free access to a studio.

This seems to me to be a problem witht he GPL, in that you have to rely on what you yourself can produce or the works of others within the GPL community for source material, as soon as you want to make somthing using textures/sounds/whatever that's of a higher quality than you can make yourself or can gain from within the community then you only have the option of using licensed content, either free or paid for, but in either situation you can't release it under the GPL, which makes it a very limiting thing for people who want to create Sad
« Last Edit: February 13, 2007, 10:29:03 am by Amphetamine » Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #9 on: February 13, 2007, 12:05:12 pm »

You seem to have misunderstood my comments regarding my being forbiden to release the source samples for audio tracks I've produced. The reason that I can't release the source for these tracks is that I've paid for a license to use the samples from a CD (drum hits, loops, bass notes, organ notes, etc) that I've used in the production. The license that I've bought gives me the rights to do whatever I like with a finished track containing those samples, but I am not the owner of the original samples, I have merely bought a comercial license to use them. As such I cannot distribute the original samples, only the finished work.
License free is nice, but you have to pay for it somwhere along the line with either time or money. With music that will be expensive unless you own and play your own instruments and own or have free access to a studio.

Not necessarily, there are some high quality sound editing tools available under the GPL that are more than capable of synthesizing a decent sounding music track/jingle/sound effect and it is more than possible to record sounds from musical instruments on any PC with a modern sound card, thereby eliminating the need of a studio and possibly the need of instruments (Depending on what you are trying to accomplish).

Quote
This seems to me to be a problem with the GPL, in that you have to rely on what you yourself can produce or the works of others within the GPL community for source material, as soon as you want to make something using textures/sounds/whatever that's of a higher quality than you can make yourself or can gain from within the community then you only have the option of using licensed content, either free or paid for, but in either situation you can't release it under the GPL, which makes it a very limiting thing for people who want to create Sad

That is where persuasive skills come in handy to convince the artists to release their work under the GPL or a compatible license, from the Nexuiz readme file:

Quote
The game's content and source are released under the The GNU General Public License (GPL) is one of the most common open-source licenses and was the license id Software chose to release the Quake1 engine under GPL, meaning it is entirely free and any of it can be used in other free projects, even if modified.

Obviously Mr. Alair licensed his textures to Nexuiz under the terms of the GPL, which grants you the ability to use the textures of his that Nexuiz distributes in this (Or any project for that matter) even if you modify them as long as you follow the terms of the GPL (noting any changes that you make, distributing changed sources, etc.).  If this isn't the case, then Mr. Alair is violating his own agreement with Nexuiz. 

What all of this means is that you can use the evillair textures as long as you use the ones that Nexuiz is distributing and keep within the terms of the GPL.
Logged

Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #10 on: February 13, 2007, 12:29:59 pm »

Ok, that makes some sense.

I have sat and read the GPL today, but couldn't figure out the answer to another question that I have. Coule I use GPL'd content in an unmodified form as part of a project that isn't GPL'd, provided that the GPL'd content is marked and credited as such?
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
sago007
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 61
Posts: 1648


Open Arena Developer


WWW
« Reply #11 on: February 13, 2007, 01:37:06 pm »

Ok, that makes some sense.

I have sat and read the GPL today, but couldn't figure out the answer to another question that I have. Coule I use GPL'd content in an unmodified form as part of a project that isn't GPL'd, provided that the GPL'd content is marked and credited as such?

The GPL is a little vague on this point because it isn't meant for things besides software. I would not consider using textures for linking (more like loose coupling) and therefore you could use them freely, but it isn't well defined in the GPL.
Logged

There are nothing offending in my posts.
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #12 on: February 13, 2007, 02:05:08 pm »

To do what was asked you would have to contact the original author and ask them as per the terms of the GPL (Even unmodified), though depending on the license that the project was using the textures may need to be dual licensed say to the LGPL which does allow the linking (And yes textures are linked to the maps) to non-free stuff but still forces the sharing of source.

Also the GPL can be used to license anything it is just impractical for certain things like novels.  I think it is perfect for textures because it forces the artist to save an xcf or psd of the pattern which helps other artists improve their work or allows them to be improved upon.
Logged

Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #13 on: February 13, 2007, 02:24:09 pm »

What I meant to infer by that, was that say (just for example) I wanted to use the OA Binary and QVM, unmodified, for a project where the textures, sounds, etc were either licensed under CC or for 1 reason or another could not be licensed under the GPL but could still be distributed freely, would I be allowed to release this as a single package making clear that only the binary and QVM are licensed under the GPL?
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #14 on: February 13, 2007, 05:38:09 pm »

Instead of adding to the confusion and in the end, end up not being heard, I'll post this link. It's a page on my game's wiki that is basically lots of 'information' about the subject put together. You'll see links to pages that hopefully make the GPL a lot more clear, as well as two links to Quakesrc with various peoples' interpretation on the subject.

I don't claim that all/any of the information there is true, as I'm no lawyer. I too only understand the GPL applied to software/source code, and therefore can't claim I know about it in other areas, I'm sure leileilol knows more about this himself, I'm surprised he hasn't replied. Hopefully that can give you a better idea though.
Logged
sago007
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 61
Posts: 1648


Open Arena Developer


WWW
« Reply #15 on: February 13, 2007, 06:28:07 pm »

One might also look at http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#MereAggregation and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#FSWithNFLibs and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#IWantCredit and
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLInProprietarySystem

I picked those that seemed most interesting to this discussion. The IWantCredit might be good to have at hand if you want to convince an artist.
Logged

There are nothing offending in my posts.
dmn_clown
Posts a lot
*

Cakes 1
Posts: 1324


« Reply #16 on: February 13, 2007, 06:46:00 pm »

What I meant to infer by that, was that say (just for example) I wanted to use the OA Binary and QVM, unmodified, for a project where the textures, sounds, etc were either licensed under CC or for 1 reason or another could not be licensed under the GPL but could still be distributed freely, would I be allowed to release this as a single package making clear that only the binary and QVM are licensed under the GPL?

In other words create a version of OA with non-free content... ask leileilol.
Logged

Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #17 on: February 13, 2007, 06:49:05 pm »

Amphetamine, you're asking if you could create a game where the binaries are GPL, but the content is under another license? Sure, look at tremulous. If you're talking about doing that with Open Arena (It's content), then I doubt it, or am not sure actually.
Logged
Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #18 on: February 13, 2007, 07:26:34 pm »

Yeah, was asking if it's possible to create a free game using GPL'd binaries and non-GPL'd content, good to know the answer.

I don't want to rip off OA's binaries, that was just an example :p
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
DeathByGuitar
Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 48


« Reply #19 on: February 13, 2007, 07:46:10 pm »

the maps that these people have made look really cool. i REALLY wanna see this in the svn, so for the love of god,  let's figure this out :-D
Logged
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #20 on: February 13, 2007, 08:56:14 pm »

Amphetamine, ethics aside, you are in fact allowed to use the Open Arena source because it's GPL'ed, of course, I agree with you that you about the not ripping them off, just letting you know though, it's the whole idea about GPL. That's why forks exist, someone comes, doesn't quite like the idea, takes it and turns it into a separate direction. Doing this with OpenArena would be very hard though, since it's already well established and they might bash the heck out of you haha; forks don't always fly Smiley Just letting you know though, not saying you should do that, just to give you more of an idea of what GPL is like, at least, as far as I know haha.
Logged
Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #21 on: February 13, 2007, 10:25:35 pm »

If I entered into a project (I would need to find a coder 1st!) then it would be mostly from scratch. We've actually got a wishlist of engine features we'd like to see (purely from a mapping perspective) in a thread over at map-center already. In fairness though if I did start a project it would not be an FPS game. I really want to get into making content for other types of game. The Q3 engine is robust enough and can still produce more than good enough visuals for what I want.
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #22 on: February 13, 2007, 10:37:19 pm »

There's many engines out there that should do what you want, for example, XreaL focuses on the looks and also has many neat things like Lua scripting which allows for some pretty neat things (Example). But yeah, it'd be great if you contribute to games like Open Arena, since, if it's GPL'ed, other games can use it too (Of course also credit you but you don't have to worry about that). Why duplicate the efforts? But you can have your reasons though, some people ask me for example, why I didn't make my game just a mod to ioquake3 or Open Arena, well, I want complete control. I want to be able to change something without having to ask someone if I can or if I'm allowed to. And in my opinion I'm not really duplicating much work, because I add many more things to my game/remove things/etc., since it's what I want it to be. I understand that Open Arena stays pretty much the same because it's meant to be like the Vanilla Q3, just thought I'd say a few of my reasons. Above that though, it's a great learning experience Smiley

Just don't get your hopes up too high, take it easy. I suggest you at least contribute to Open Arena first, get the idea of what it's like. Even then it'll be far from what it really is like. And keep in mind that it's really hard to find a coder most of the times. For that reason I simply suggest contributing to Open Arena, the more that help it the better it'll become.
Logged
Amphetamine
Half-Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 69


Cyberpunk


« Reply #23 on: February 14, 2007, 05:47:58 am »

I've worked on a couple of large mod teams before, so I know the sort of time commitment that any project would be looking at.
Logged

Top 5 tunes last week:
Blaenk
more like blank dumb
Lesser Nub


Cakes 0
Posts: 135



« Reply #24 on: February 14, 2007, 05:31:41 pm »

I wasn't questioning your abilities, and it's different when you're the one 'leading' it, especially since you have to get people to do what you want, you're not just part of a 'big team' where people tell you what to do.
Logged
Pages: [1] 2
  Print  
 
Jump to: