OpenArena Message Boards

OpenArena Contributions => Development => Topic started by: fromhell on December 12, 2007, 08:48:40 AM



Title: So I've removed the current music
Post by: fromhell on December 12, 2007, 08:48:40 AM
From now on, it's strictly going to be tracker music (.mod, .it, .xm, .s3m)that gets rendered to .ogg for the release; no exceptions. I'm sorry Psymong and Sahchandler - but this had to be done sooner or later.



Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 12, 2007, 08:56:26 AM
From now on, it's strictly going to be tracker music (.mod, .it, .xm, .s3m)that gets rendered to .ogg for the release; no exceptions. I'm sorry Psymong and Sahchandler - but this had to be done sooner or later.
Were they made with Adobe products?


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 12, 2007, 12:09:43 PM
Were they made with Adobe products?

http://cia.vc/stats/project/openarena/.message/72c0a

What's wrong with Adobe?  Because if there is something wrong with using full + legal version's of photoshop or any proprietary product to create textures (and I see nothing in my ps license or paintshop pro license that prevents licensing textures under the GPL.x) that means there will be next to no textures in 0.8 and very few skins.

We all know Evillair used photoshop, I use photoshop, anyone used photoshop, crayon used photoshop, tw3k used photoshop, kick52 used photoshop.

And because this is about US Export laws, how are you stopping anyone on the DPL or the Entity list from playing the game? 

http://www.bis.doc.gov/dpl/delimiteddplinstructions.html#dataspecs
http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/744spir.txt


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 12, 2007, 01:08:59 PM
Were they made with Adobe products?

http://cia.vc/stats/project/openarena/.message/72c0a

What's wrong with Adobe?  Because if there is something wrong with using full + legal version's of photoshop or any proprietary product to create textures (and I see nothing in my ps license or paintshop pro license that prevents licensing textures under the GPL.x) that means there will be next to no textures in 0.8 and very few skins.

We all know Evillair used photoshop, I use photoshop, anyone used photoshop, crayon used photoshop, tw3k used photoshop, kick52 used photoshop.

And because this is about US Export laws, how are you stopping anyone on the DPL or the Entity list from playing the game? 

http://www.bis.doc.gov/dpl/delimiteddplinstructions.html#dataspecs
http://www.access.gpo.gov/bis/ear/txt/744spir.txt
I was refering to Adobe Soundbooth CS3 for the music. I bought the Creative Suite which includes Soundbooth and today I found a license part which said something like: contents created with Soundbooth is the intellectual property of Adobe...or something that way (can't be bothered to look it up right now). Photoshop hasn't got any problems, it's one of the better software products in recent years..


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 12, 2007, 01:36:39 PM
Could you upload the license.txt file of Soundbooth?

Still waiting to know how many domains have been banned from the svn and the uploaded release packages due to US export laws and how that is being reconciled with the no restrictions on individuals/groups/countries of the GPLv2.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: fromhell on December 12, 2007, 01:53:03 PM
Still waiting to know how many domains have been banned from the svn

None

it's not about OA needing to comply with US export laws, it's about those particular song files. The usage rights of Acid Pro and its prefabricated loops  does not play well with the GPL.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 12, 2007, 02:34:56 PM
Then help me understand, why the removal of psymong's music when we have accepted other things as sourceless (most notably the textures from Nexuiz).

I'm just trying to understand the inconsistency in accepting some things as sourceless but not others.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: fromhell on December 12, 2007, 02:36:06 PM
Becuase Psymong's music isn't editable in a human-readable format.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 12, 2007, 05:05:08 PM
I don't see the difference between editing psymong's finished music in any sound editor and editing evillair's finished textures in any image editor.  Can you explain it or provide a link to where it is explained?


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: SAHChandler on December 12, 2007, 05:10:29 PM
I'm a sad panda. :(


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 13, 2007, 12:45:31 AM
Could you upload the license.txt file of Soundbooth?

Still waiting to know how many domains have been banned from the svn and the uploaded release packages due to US export laws and how that is being reconciled with the no restrictions on individuals/groups/countries of the GPLv2.
I put the license here (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=1393.0) because it went off-topic from the original topic.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: fromhell on December 13, 2007, 06:47:00 AM
I don't see the difference between editing psymong's finished music in any sound editor and editing evillair's finished textures in any image editor.  Can you explain it or provide a link to where it is explained?

"Human-readable":
(http://openarena.ws/crap/notation.jpg)
(http://openarena.ws/crap/trackermusic.png)

Not "human-readable". I can't see how you can edit music like this
(http://openarena.ws/crap/waveform.png)


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: Taiyo.uk on December 13, 2007, 08:09:02 AM
Some open source music and audio apps:

http://www.jokosher.org/
http://www.rosegardenmusic.com/
http://ardour.org/
http://wired.sourceforge.net/
http://jackaudio.org/ - Low-latency audio server used my many open source audio programs. Check the apps list there.

HTH


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 13, 2007, 11:22:55 AM
I can't see how you can edit music like this

It can be done with the caveat that the audio quality will be lessened, exactly the same way the visual quality of a sourceless texture will be lessened.

If you aren't willing to accept one as sourceless, you shouldn't accept the other.  Be consistent.

Also it should be pointed out that many of the best musicians couldn't read sheet music and played by ear (e.g. waveform) which kinda makes your human-readable example only human readable if you understand sheet music.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: kit89 on December 13, 2007, 12:51:13 PM
Music is one of those grey areas... Its all in the ear rather than the eye.

Though if you remove wave form music would that mean you'd have to remove sound effects? As they are usually not human readable.

As long as you have the original .wav I see no-problems.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 13, 2007, 02:34:42 PM
Music is one of those grey areas... Its all in the ear rather than the eye.

Psymong's music was removed from the project because it was sourceless but sourceless textures still remain, and not all of them are evillair originals from Nexuiz.  This would appear to violate the definition of what defines source for the textures.

I don't care about "grey areas," I just want consistency with accurate definitions as to what source is so people that wish to contribute to the project can do so without any confusion and without worrying about what may or may not be removed from the project at some later date.



Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 14, 2007, 01:51:18 AM
Then we have the problem what a sourceless texture is. A multi-layered photoshop/GIMP sourced where as a .jpeg/.png/.gif/.tga which are flattened, isnt'.
It is possible to re-create a flattend image, but it takes time.
Same way it is possible to re-create a .wav file, but it takes time.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: Cacatoes on December 14, 2007, 06:55:57 AM
It's possible to recreate any artwork, but without the "source" it takes time ;)
The source allows a qualified person to reproduce the final product in a process similar to the one used by the original author, thus offering a degree of freedom when the copy is made.
The problem with artworks is when we create some, we don't necessarily keep a trace of what has been done (it's a rather destructive process), whereas a software keeps every revelant key stroke in its code (mistakes made while typing or previous versions of the code are not really revelant).
This is because we don't always use a medium language when we create an artwork, it can be rather raw.
A C++ code offers the possibility to edit any step, whereas there could be no step in artwork creation.
So you could ask for artworks to give their sources, but that would only mean those which really have, which have been made with a language, and it sounds restrictive to me. Fuck languages in art, I'd say.
Of course, it is good to have the possibility to rearrange some music, or textures, editing intermediate steps when they really exist. But artworks have the big advantage of being editable even in their final form, which makes secondary. the necessity of sources.
So we could translate "give me the source" by "make it editable", and as any artwork would contain its own source, we could accept any ;)
If i'm not wrong, that was the point when asking software sources, "feel free to adapt", and not that much "see and explore my verbose creation, now, even you can understand the intermediate steps I followed to make it".
I don't see where the smiley list is on this forum, a shame.
Kiss :cool:


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 14, 2007, 12:00:26 PM
Quote
You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it,
under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of
Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

    a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable
    source code
, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections
    1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

    b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three
    years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your
    cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete
    machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code
, to be
    distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium
    customarily used for software interchange; or,

    c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer
    to distribute corresponding source code.  (This alternative is
    allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you
    received the program in object code or executable form with such
    an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)

In order to satisfy the GPLv2 with non-code works the source must be defined.  I see no definition as to what source is anywhere within this project other than varying conversations on this forum.  Those source works need to be defined.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: iLeft.bye on December 14, 2007, 03:37:14 PM
please dont confuse textures with music


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 14, 2007, 04:54:56 PM
Please don't assume that I am.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 14, 2007, 08:50:51 PM
I ventured off towards textures, even though topic is about music, but it would rather be what we can, and what we can't use I guess.
We all know that Aggressor comes from Nexuiz, and that it uses Evil Lair's great texture set. So I went to his site (http://www.evillair.net) in search of the E7 package (which is used for Aggressor for instance) for an upcoming GPL project, and on the site, before downloading the package, it says:
Quote
[Copyright/Permissions] -You may not edit, modify any textures within this archive unless given permission to do so by the author. -You may not use these textures as base for your own. -You may convert these textures to other game formats but only with the author's permission. -You may rename the textures. -You may use these texture in your maps/mods/tc's as long as you give me credit. -I encourage you to edit the .shader to suit your needs.
This would be the direct link: http://www.evillair.net/v2/index.php?option=com_remository&Itemid=0&func=fileinfo&id=7

It confused me a bit (doesn't take much) so I downloaded the pack/s (a few actually) to check the actual ReadMe files, but included was:
Quote
[Stuff]
If you use any of the textures it would be cool if you emailed me with the url to some screenshots if possible.
I really would like to see what uses mappers have made of them.

[Copyright/Permissions]
-You may use these texture in your maps/mods/tc's as long as you give me credit.
-You may not edit, modify any textures within this archive unless given permission to do so by the author. 
-You may convert these textures to other game formats but only with the author's permission (me).

and no copy of any GPL license included.

So the question is, can we use these sets for GPL projects, or not?
I would honestly make the assumption that his textures are not GPL since there are no copies of the license, nor mentioned on his site that they are GPL:ed.

Not only for the sake of our upcoming project, but for Open Arena, Nexuiz and other GPL projects also, what can we really use?

[edit: Updating with what I just found on Evil Lair's site:
Quote
Quake 3 and Quake 4 game textures.
These texture are copyrighted and cannot be used in any commercial game.
If you'd like to use these textures in a commercial game please contact me for contract details.
So by that it would mean that Nexuiz from the start used 'illegal' textures in their maps here (http://www.alientrap.org/nexuiz/newmedia/2.jpg), here (http://www.alientrap.org/nexuiz/public/11.jpg) and here (http://www.alientrap.org/nexuiz/public/new/5.jpg) and for us it would be the E7 and E8 packages, which would mean Aggressor, and Hydronex, including everything else based on E1-E8.]
I really hope that I have misunderstood something here...


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: beast on December 15, 2007, 12:04:21 AM
Doesn't look like a misunderstanding to me... The license info from the site is not compatible with the GPL, so... It looks like ( IMHO) the textures should be removed...


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: iLeft.bye on December 15, 2007, 03:47:37 AM
the textures in nexuiz is GPL
however the same textures you can find on evillair's  site is CC

so dont use the ones on the site, get them from nexuiz
(evillair let them release his textures under GPL)

lol-situation


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 15, 2007, 08:26:50 AM
the textures in nexuiz are GPL

But he never bothered releasing any source which leaves his textures in the same league as blobs within the kernel, packages with "missing headers," etc.

A violation of section 3 of the GPL depending on your interpretation of what source is.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 15, 2007, 08:58:28 AM
I wanted to investigate this further so I went ahead and downloaded Nexuiz.
In the whole package there is only one copy of the GNU GPLv2 license but it fails to mention that any, or all, of the evil lair textures are actually GPL material.
It is true that they are omitted by the license since they are included in the same distribution, but they would be void since there is no clause anywhere stating that the author has released the work under GNU GPL license, not even CC.

[edit: found this on this site: This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-No Derivative Works 3.0 License.[/edit]

I also dived in to Nexuiz SVN on icculus: http://svn.icculus.org/nexuiz/trunk/data/
and there ain't much more useful info as to licensing there, so the real question is:
How did these textures become GPL, and when, and by who?

There are no source documents pointing to any of this, not even references. The only thing documented is that Evil Lair textures are copyrighted as stated on his site, unless someone knows where to find the actual file which grants use for this material under GNU GPLv2 or later.

As it stands now, I would assume that this is in breach with the license clause of Nexuiz, and even Open Arena, since the textures are distributed under GPL license even though it's not clear that the work is 'free' or copyrighted.
Unfortunately simply 'assuming' that they are GPL isn't quite enough.

[update: I don't like to second guess e.t.c so I sent a mail to Yves asking him where it stands in the GPL issue with his textures in this matter; waiting for reply]


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: iLeft.bye on December 15, 2007, 11:30:19 AM
the textures in nexuiz are GPL

But he never bothered releasing any source which leaves his textures in the same league as blobs within the kernel, packages with "missing headers," etc.

A violation of section 3 of the GPL depending on your interpretation of what source is.
uh oh so how would you release the source code of your pixel art?


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 15, 2007, 12:21:50 PM
uh oh so how would you release the source code of your pixel art?

How would you?

Source needs to be defined for everything, preferably before someone makes it an issue with the distributions with policies against sourceless items. 

I was under the impression that the layered image files act as source for multi-layered images with single layer images acting as their own source.  In the case of rendered images the .blend was the source (if using blender).

There is at least one rendered image in OA without a .blend (that I know about) and quite a few obvious multi-layered images with no layered image files acting as source.

If the above is the case than it needs to be defined officially and the policy needs to be followed, which means removing the sourceless images OR the original artist must provide source for the images and these must be added to the svn.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: iLeft.bye on December 15, 2007, 05:27:40 PM
source of an image is the what original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

but there is a problem if he/she uses commercial images that avoid the final product to be released under GPL

I believe that is what happened to the music:
editable or not
It doesn't say anything about how they are created?
Sound samples used in the music don't allow GPL?


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 15, 2007, 08:04:55 PM
source of an image is what the original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

So you have no problem with sourceless items that any derivation results with lower quality?


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 15, 2007, 08:52:14 PM
source of an image is the what original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

but there is a problem if he/she uses commercial images that avoid the final product to be released under GPL

I believe that is what happened to the music:
editable or not
It doesn't say anything about how they are created?
Sound samples used in the music don't allow GPL?
There are for instance plenty of layered .psd files on the Internet, for use in tutorials and whatnot. With such a file it doesn't matter whether there is a 'source' (as in multi-layer) or not, the original author can still not be determined without documentation.

Theoretically it would mean taking a random picture from the Internet, adding a layer and then release it myself as GPL work which I have authored. Then who would have the stronger hand in court, the one who actually made the picture but doesn't have it layered and as source, or me who in fact didn't do it, but I have the layers in it and use that as my 'source'?

I don't think there is any way to legally let images act as their own sources, regardless of layers, or not to avoid that piece of license, a document would still be needed.

GPL license requires the source to be available for modification and both a layered, and flattened image, are modifiable. Same with sounds, it's just a matter of how easy it is to modify them.

It is very diffuse with both images and sound since it not possible to include a copy of the GNU license with every image or sound-file, but if you don't; how can you then say where the media belongs? And again, even if you do, how can you prove it's your work? Only chance is with the original tracker for music, layered image for pictures, but how do you then go about when releasing a .bmp as GPL for instance?

Quote from: GPLv2 Section 3
3. You may copy and distribute the Program (or a work based on it, under Section 2) in object code or executable form under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above provided that you also do one of the following:

a) Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

b) Accompany it with a written offer, valid for at least three years, to give any third party, for a charge no more than your cost of physically performing source distribution, a complete machine-readable copy of the corresponding source code, to be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange; or,

c) Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)
On of the real problems is most likely that GPL isn't really embracing the use of images/sound.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: Taiyo.uk on December 16, 2007, 04:29:56 AM
I think that all of this highlights the fact that the GPL is a license that was specifically designed for software (i.e. machine-executable binaries and their human-readable sources) and not specifically for content such as images and sound. However, according to the FAQ, the GPL can be applied to such works. The issue now becomes a clear definition of the "preferred form of the work for making changes in it".

Quote from: http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware
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.

For some images the "root source" is a plain raster format image. For example if I created a brick wall texture using a photograph that I took (in JPEG format for example) of a brick wall and some trivial gimpage to make it tile, which is not necessarily a layered operation, then both the "source" and "binary" will be JPEGs.

This can be a little more simple for music, whereby the source is the format used by the production/sequencer app. What if the music is a recording of an actual band or musicians? Then the only source is the notation and lyrics used.

Perhaps we should write some definitions of "preferred format" for OA content?


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: iLeft.bye on December 16, 2007, 05:13:49 AM
source of an image is what the original author gives you (IMO)
(ie defined by its initial author)
so even if he used some layered image to create the final image
if he releases the final ( flattened ) image under GPL He/She doesnt need to give its source
because the final image will be the source.

So you have no problem with sourceless items that any derivation results with lower quality?
did you mean layered image sources? yeah that would be better. but there is no way to know what the original author used.

so source is what the original author released
( any form is fine as long as it doesn't violate copyrights of the sources used to create the source image )
( he need to show his/her source; "I made everything" or "I used blah" )

( Irrelevant but what if I hex edit the openarena game.qvm, what should I release? or how to know if the qvm is compiled from the source or hex edited from the original )


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: dmn_clown on December 16, 2007, 12:00:12 PM
did you mean layered image sources? yeah that would be better. but there is no way to know what the original author used.

No, some images are quite obviously layered images that have been merged.

Quote
( Irrelevant but what if I hex edit the openarena game.qvm, what should I release? or how to know if the qvm is compiled from the source or hex edited from the original )

Who in their right minds would hex edit a binary when the source is available and easily compiled?

Quote from: Taiyo.uk
Perhaps we should write some definitions of "preferred format" for OA content?

That is not up to "us" that is up to fearless leader who doesn't seem to be taking any interest in solving this.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: w1zrd on December 20, 2007, 07:09:22 AM
Still no reply from Allaire, secondary e-mail fired away.
In the meantime, when people upload their work to for instance a wiki, then you never see sources such as .psd files, only the final, flattened, .jpeg or .gif. Even for k/ubuntus own media. http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Tenorsaxophon.jpg is an example of this.
Again, how do we deal with these 'sourceless' images/textures?
As it seems, they can be 'sourceless' but still include a copy of the GNU GPL and be therefore subject to that license.

[update]
Received an e-mail from Allaire and this was the contents:
Quote from: Yves Allaire
Hi,

I granted them the rights to use them and made them GPL for those they chose to use.
If you want to use/modify them that is fine. I grant you the rights to use them under a GPL license.
I just ask that you can include me in the credits.

Yves Allaire
So with that reply it's clearly stated that he allowed Nexuiz to use his textures in their project and they are subject to GPL.
However, it fails to say that they originally was subject to GNU GPL since there was no license information included.
The problem that arose here was that if you got the textures from Nexuiz, then they would be GPL. If you got them from his own website, then they would be copyrighted. So how to distinguish where what comes from?
Anyway, with this we can relax on the issue of the evillair textures if they come from Nexuiz.


Title: Re: So I've removed the current music
Post by: divVerent on December 21, 2007, 04:27:39 AM
Indeed, you just pointed out a small mistake we made in Nexuiz... IMHO all included image files should carry a license comment, even if it just contains "GPL". Just to clarify which license applies to the files... do you know a program to batch edit JPEG or TGA comments?