|
Title: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on December 18, 2007, 06:32:08 PM Textures without source:
Code: textures/base_floor: Models without source: Code: models/mapobjects/out: Sound bites without source (some may be simple recordings in which case they should be removed from this) Code: sound/items: - no definition as to what constitutes source (voice recordings not included) There may be more, these are just the obvious ones. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: iLeft.bye on December 18, 2007, 09:13:16 PM remove everything lol
you need to decide on either one of the following a) accept any kind of media as long as it is free to modify and distribute b) require gpl (so you assume that source is what the original author gave you) c) require gpl with some acceptable form of source (so for md3 he needs to provide blend, for jpg/png/tga -> xcf or psd ...) d) stop the development of openarena Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on December 18, 2007, 09:51:52 PM you need to decide on either one of the following a) accept any kind of media as long as it is free to modify and distribute b) require gpl (so you assume that source is what the original author gave you) c) require gpl with some acceptable form of source (so for md3 he needs to provide blend, for jpg/png/tga -> xcf or psd ...) d) stop the development of openarena a + b + d are bad ideas, a suggests cc, b is lazy d is just assinine c I can agree with. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: fromhell on December 20, 2007, 12:24:41 PM we're already doing c for it already, when available.
this is preposterous when the matter is sound and texture. If you think this is a huge problem then go witchhunt Nexuiz because that's where this 'evillair' problem stems from. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on December 20, 2007, 03:19:03 PM we're already doing c for it already, when available. Really? Where are these definitions? They aren't on the wiki, they aren't on the website. Quote this is preposterous when the matter is sound and texture. Bullshit. Every image editor in use today has the ability to save a layered image and every sound editor has the ability to save a project when editing a recording or are you saying that your insinuation in http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=1388.msg10401#msg10401 is incorrect? All of the rendered images were rendered in programs that have the ability to save projects, yet no source project for the rendered images. Quote If you think this is a huge problem then go witchhunt Nexuiz because that's where this 'evillair' problem stems from. Just because someone is willing to point out a flaw in your reasoning doesn't mean they are on a witch-hunt. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: w1zrd on December 20, 2007, 06:18:06 PM Updated the thread here (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=1388.msg10515#msg10515) in regards to evillair licensing.
Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: Dave on December 20, 2007, 06:31:06 PM Bullshit. Every image editor in use today has the ability to save a layered image and every sound editor has the ability to save a project when editing a recording or are you saying that your insinuation in http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=1388.msg10401#msg10401 is incorrect? All of the rendered images were rendered in programs that have the ability to save projects, yet no source project for the rendered images. Why is having a Photoshop psd such a big deal in terms of textures? The output of an image is completely viewable unlike source code. Because you cannot add a drop shadow to an existing layer? Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: w1zrd on December 20, 2007, 06:57:33 PM Bullshit. Every image editor in use today has the ability to save a layered image and every sound editor has the ability to save a project when editing a recording or are you saying that your insinuation in http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=1388.msg10401#msg10401 is incorrect? All of the rendered images were rendered in programs that have the ability to save projects, yet no source project for the rendered images. Why is having a Photoshop psd such a big deal in terms of textures? The output of an image is completely viewable unlike source code. Because you cannot add a drop shadow to an existing layer? One of these terms is that the source of the material should be available to anyone, that's why it is important. Source code is perfectly viewable, it's another story if the read can understand it or not.. What needs to be defined is what is the source for an image for instance, there is no way determining an artist creating a single-layered file in multi-layer program, or a multi-layered image which is flattened to one layer before releasing as (for instance) .psd files. In my opinion, and with research I've been doing lately, it seems to me as it would be enough to include a copy of the license the media will be licensed under but again, this needs to be properly checked and consistent throughout. Most of the media I have found, both sound and images, does not contain any layered sources, trackers, not even meta-data. Still they are released under GNU GPL, even included in official Linux releases world-wide. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 on December 20, 2007, 07:28:23 PM When it comes to media creation in general it is extremely difficult to define a source.
What should be defined is what classifies as a source file. For textures & Sound. Textures: Source files will vary. If there is a .psd or .xcf format for a texture then it would be classified as the source file. However if it doesn't have a layered format(for reasons that vary, ie it didn't need it). Then the next highest quality source should be classified as the source file. Any images used in the creation of a texture should also be noted as a source file. Sound: Sound formats vary greatly from what package you are using. However with sound you are more likely to have the source files. Sound formats like .ogg & .mp3 are compressed and rarely the original file unless at a high bitrate & are recordings. Individual files used to create the final sound should be classified as source files. Midi files & Midi like formats should also be classified as source files. In short the original sound/music files used to create the new sound/music file should be the source files. This is my view on the subject. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on December 20, 2007, 09:06:58 PM Updated the thread here (http://openarena.ws/board/index.php?topic=1388.msg10515#msg10515) in regards to evillair licensing. I read that, thanks. Unfortunately, that doesn't cover the rendered images that should have the saved project file with them. Individual files used to create the final sound should be classified as source files. Midi files & Midi like formats should also be classified as source files. In short the original sound/music files used to create the new sound/music file should be the source files. I agree, usually the saved project file does this, as an example when adding channels to an existing wav file in audacity you can save this information in the .aup format and meet the requirements of the GPL. It's not that difficult nor is it preposterous. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent on December 21, 2007, 04:23:56 AM Okay, so let's see what the requirements actually are.
"The source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it." It isn't as clear as you think. For example, a PSD file and preferred? I'd need to pay lots of bucks to be able to even OPEN it so I can edit it. Note that GIMP's PSD support is very poor... also, textures... they usually need some manual step at the end (retouching, cloning pixels, resynthesizing) that can't be properly represented in most layer-based image editing apps. I remember this one Windows image editing app that let you work on a low-res image all the time, but remembered everything you do (like a huge undo history) and in the end could apply all these changes to the original image in high quality... I forgot the name of that program. If a texture was made with that program, the undo history file would be the source... but if it wasn't, the image you get with "Save as..." in a portable format (JPG, PNG, TGA, whatever) would be the source. That JPG is lossy doesn't matter here - the GPL can't be interpreted in a way that saving an image as JPG and closing the app means the image would be undistributable. Same goes for video files - if you make a video file of, say, 2 minutes 1024x768 30fps as intro movie for a game... you can't be required to provide 8.1GB of "source code", possibly even more original footage. It's very acceptable to delete it when you are done, and IMHO not in the conflict with the GPL. However, the case of the video is more questionable than the JPGs... everyone can open JPG files in anything and edit them, contrary to for example TGA, so one could say that a high-quality JPG is "the source code for a work means the preferred form of the work for making modifications to it.". Also, note that opening a JPG, doing nothing and saving again with the same quality factor doesn't reduce its quality, if the converting app is correctly programmed. BTW, speaking of image editing apps - very often I need to "flatten image" or "merge visible layers" in GIMP before I can apply a filter, so it applies correctly to the result of merging some layers. Because of this, the resulting image is often single-layered... and it would be pointless to provide an XCF file. Now to the MD3 files... why can't these BE the source? Lots of modeling apps open and save MD3. Nothing prevents you from modeling something from scratch and saving it as MD3 only, thinking that if you want to do any changes, you can just open the MD3 again, change it and save it. Case closed. WAV files... here it gets philosophical. What is the "source" of a wav file sound effect? Sometimes it's easy... like "Freepats Bass Drum, pitched up by 10 halftones". In other times it's easy too... "this .IT file" (but here it gets recursive, as .IT files contain samples that are just like sound effects...). What's the source of an audio file that was created by mixing something in audacity, exporting to WAV (to collapse everything to one track for the subsequent steps - see image editing, basically the same issue), open it in mhwaveedit, apply dynamics compression, some reverb and an equalizer manually, and finally a fade-in and a fade-out? Okay, now we have the problem with multitrack editing software described - what about the original sound effects/samples? What's their source? The hardware (microphone, table, bottle, whatever) used to make the sound? Do we have to sell the announcer person as a slave to someone who asks for source? Obviously not. So we can assume the WAV files ARE the source... especially sound effects often need some manual steps AFTER collapsing it to one track. Obviously, you guys don't know much about audacity if you really thought you can avoid that step before doing extra effects... In case of music, there are often good reasons to not distribute and keep the WAV file - namely, their size. Also, you can't do much with the WAV file anyway that you can't do with the Vorbis file. The "interesting" part got lost during regular editing, namely when the file got collapsed to a single track to be able to properly apply some effects. The Vorbis file thus is just as good as the WAV, and there's nothing better that can be regarded the source. Now let's see if the GPLv3 clarifies this a bit - it was made by the same people, so maybe it clarifies it... and indeed: "The Corresponding Source for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities." Now, the files you specified aren't "generated" from another file, but there were manual steps to them. In other words: either the aforementioned files already ARE the source, or source doesn't EXIST AT ALL for that TYPE of files. In the latter case, open source projects would be restricted to script generated textures and sounds and could not use anything photographed/recorded... and I doubt that's the intention of the GPL. EDIT: this forum software sucks and cuts off at the " of the GPL. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent on December 21, 2007, 04:28:58 AM Now reusing this post for an addition...
the issue is that the GPL isn't really made to apply to media. And the GFDL is not compatible to the GPL. Basically, what we'd need is a clarification of the GPL to include media as their own source, or require source in some cases: images: file IS the source, as long as it's in a quality setting that allows further editing (a badly compressed down JPEG would then not be okay any more) sounds: same rule, but sound files typically aren't compressed that badly as it would hurt the ears music: depends on the type of the music - recorded from orchestra the "classical" way: score (no matter in which format, as long as it can easily be viewed - good formats include JPG, PDF, TIF, MID, and files by free music notation or tracker software; commercial formats like Cakewalk should NOT possible as only provided source code, but in that case it would be ideal to bundle BOTH the proprietary format AND an exported MID or PDF). Note that this source file does not allow you to reproduce the music in the same way - much of it is up to the interpretation of the conductor and the orchestra. Also, note that the score does not need to follow a specific format, but should be exactly what the orchestra used - even if it's just written instructions in a foreign language, doesn't matter. If it was all improvised, of course the source requirement can't apply and the source may be left out. In any case, the names of the performing people, including the conductor, need to be listed. Anonymously recorded orchestra music can't be allowed. - exported from free MIDI synthesizer or tracker software: the input file for that software, of course. - exported from non-free MIDI synthesizer or tracker software: the input file for that software, plus a file readable by similar free software that contains score even if it means a quality loss in that file (example: Cakewalk project -> MID file, or even PDF). Here, BOTH files are required. - exported from MIDI synthesizer or tracker software, but added manual steps in the end (fading, dynamics compression, etc.): see orchestra (that is, ANY file that allows you to view the score with free software suffices, even if not machine readable) The PDF files required by these points need not have a source code on its own, as it already IS considered the source. I think this interpretation would fit with the existing GPL (both v2 and v3), and just clarify it - but it's a bit more restrictive than I interpret the GPL. Maybe GPL v4 should contain such a requirement. No idea how to write it in legalese, but as an algorithm... Source code of a file F is: 1. if F is a derived work of files F1, F2, ..., Fn, the source code has to additionally include sources of F1, F2, ..., Fn if applicable to them 2. if F is generated from input I using a free generating software G, then I with G(I) = F is the source 3. if F is generated from input I using a non-free generating software G, then I with G(I) = F, accompanied with an approximation I' for a free generating software or a manual generating process G' where G'(I') ~ F. Input files for a manual process must be human readable, and viewable using free software 4. if F has been generated by a process G manually using input I, then I with G(I) ~ F is the source. Input files for a manual process must be human readable, and viewable using free software 5. if F has been made by a process G manually without any pre-written input (so G is actually the artistic process), the source requirement does not apply Any file that has a source code can be left out, as its own source code has to be distributed (so only "leaves" of this tree are required). Now let's apply this to a texture. Textures typically are made in image editing apps. Typically they are made without any pre-written input, so there is no source requirement (rule 5). What about a sound effect? Basically, the same applies. For orchestra music, either 4. or 5. is the case, depending on whether there has been a score or whether it's improvisation. Let's provide the score as PDF. This PDF is human readable using free software (xpdf), and thus fulfills the requirement. For tracker or MIDI music, either 2. or 3. is the case, depending on the software being used. Additionally, for tracker files, samples must provide source if applicable, according to 1. For manually "finished" tracker music, I'd assume that 5. applies, as an artistic process happened in the end. I'd additionally make 1. apply, as the result would be a derived work of the input file. Here, we'd get some sort of "incomplete" source, just like with the approximation requirement of 3. Actually, here we see that the rules can probably be generalized and simplified, as the case of the finished tracker music can be constructed in multiple ways - for example, you can go over 1. to get the tracker file, but you'd also get it via 4. For a library or an executable, 1. applies. For the .o files the library consists of, source code has to be provided due to 2. If a non-free compiler was used, an approximation to the source has to be provided that either can be processed by a free compiler (this can be the very same source, if the program was compiled using Visual Studio but also would compile in GCC), or is human readable (well, source code in most languages fulfills that anyway, so it counts). For a Word document, I'd say rule 3 applies and requires you to supply an approximation that can be read by free software. Typically, this is the Word Document itself, as long as some free word processor can at least approximately read it, and if not, this would be a text or a PDF file. Are there any loopholes in this? Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on December 21, 2007, 09:51:01 AM Note that GIMP's PSD support is very poor... That is misleading, the problem with opening a psd in the GIMP comes from the lack of support for layer styles and the various layer effects and can be mitigated by converting layer styles to individual layers, unless of course there is a serious problem with your particular version of the GIMP, in which case you need to file a bug against your version of the GIMP. Inexpensive older copies of photoshop can be picked up on ebay, last time I checked full version Photoshop 7 was selling for ~$50US. Hardly a lot of money, within any reasonable budget, and its not the GIMP. Quote they usually need some manual step at the end (retouching, cloning pixels, resynthesizing) that can't be properly represented in most layer-based image editing apps. That depends on how the texture is made but I have no problem with: filter > other > offset or ctrl + shift + o and cloning/blending when working with someone else's image files. Quote very often I need to "flatten image" or "merge visible layers" in GIMP before I can apply a filter, so it applies correctly to the result of merging some layers. Because of this, the resulting image is often single-layered... and it would be pointless to provide an XCF file. You are using a poorly written filter, file a bug against it. There is no technical reason why that filter requires the absence of an alpha channel beyond poor design. Quote Same goes for video files - The intro roq has a .blend file, I'm not particularly worried about it. Quote What's the source of an audio file that was created by mixing something in audacity, exporting to WAV (to collapse everything to one track for the subsequent steps - see image editing, basically the same issue), open it in mhwaveedit, apply dynamics compression, some reverb and an equalizer manually, and finally a fade-in and a fade-out? Okay, now we have the problem with multitrack editing software described - what about the original sound effects/samples? What's their source? The hardware (microphone, table, bottle, whatever) used to make the sound? Do we have to sell the announcer person as a slave to someone who asks for source? Obviously not. So we can assume the WAV files ARE the source... especially sound effects often need some manual steps AFTER collapsing it to one track. If mhwaveedit allows you to save a project than the source would be the mhwaveedit project file(s) and not the wav itself. Quote Now to the MD3 files... why can't these BE the source? Last time I checked the blender md3 import plugin did not import tags or animation's properly which would be counter to the spirit of what software libre is supposed to be (e.g. someone being able to have full access to everything that you did without having to recreate, code wise this particular situation would be exactly the same as someone providing a completely working binary but missing a header file). Quote Now let's see if the GPLv3 clarifies this a bit - it was made by the same people, so maybe it clarifies it... and indeed: "The Corresponding Source for a work in object code form means all the source code needed to generate, install, and (for an executable work) run the object code and to modify the work, including scripts to control those activities." Except that you can't apply any of the terminology, definitions, or clarifications from v3 to anything licensed under v2, you have to move to v3 to use those clarifications and definitions and I don't see that happening within this project no matter how much I would like to. Quote the GFDL is not compatible to the GPL. The FDL is also a non-free license when used with the invariant sections clause (search the debian-legal archives for the full explanation). It's a bad license, avoid it. Quote Basically, what we'd need is a clarification of the GPL to include media as their own source, or require source in some cases: images: file IS the source, as long as it's in a quality setting that allows further editing (a badly compressed down JPEG would then not be okay any more) You are showing your inexperience working with images by being willing to accept single layer images as their own source, it is far easier to work with a multi-layered image when creating a derivative than it is to work with a single layer image and you get higher quality results (you already know that but sometimes it never hurts to restate, plus it allows you to check the legality of textures i.e. no non-free basis for the texture most people will never do that but there is always one that will attempt it). Quote sounds: same rule, but sound files typically aren't compressed that badly as it would hurt the ears Again: If mhwaveedit allows you to save a project than the source would be the mhwaveedit project file(s) and not the wav itself. Reason: what if all I want to do is tighten your reverb without affecting any other portion of the sound bite a tiny smidgen? I can't do that with just your wav I have to recreate it from scratch. If all you have is a recording then .wav obviously acts as its own source, once you add channels, reverb, etc. to the wav then the project file(s) from the last program you used to edit the sound bite should be the source, possibly including the original recording (there are very few GPL compatible sound libraries so it is not a bad idea to do that anyway). Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent on December 22, 2007, 03:35:29 AM "You are using a poorly written filter, file a bug against it. There is no technical reason why that filter requires the absence of an alpha channel beyond poor design."
No, not that, and it isn't the alpha channel. Let's for example look at the edge detect filter. Assume a light grey image with a dark grey filled circle layer on top of it. Edge detect applied to the layers individually does nothing. Edge detect after merging the layers emphasizes the circle. Basically, for many filters, filter(mix(layer1, layer2)) is NOT the same as mix(filter(layer1), filter(layer2)). This is not a bug in the filters, but comes from what the filters do - see my edge detect example. For audio, the very same holds (a typical filter where this isn't the same is dynamics compression). "If mhwaveedit allows you to save a project than the source would be the mhwaveedit project file(s) and not the wav itself." mhwaveedit is a single-track audio editor. There is no such thing as a project file in it. And I do prefer it for many tasks, simply because it is much less annoying to use than audacity (like, trying to find a range that loops well, or simple fading). "Last time I checked the blender md3 import plugin did not import tags or animation's properly which would be counter to the spirit of what software libre is supposed to be (e.g. someone being able to have full access to everything that you did without having to recreate, code wise this particular situation would be exactly the same as someone providing a completely working binary but missing a header file)." That's a Blender bug then. MD3 is really a usual format. "Except that you can't apply any of the terminology, definitions, or clarifications from v3 to anything licensed under v2, you have to move to v3 to use those clarifications and definitions and I don't see that happening within this project no matter how much I would like to." Not quite. The part I cited is just an explanation of a term that should be obvious anyway. Source code is the input for a compiler, that is, a program that automatically generates the resulting "object code". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=source+code&x=0&y=0 would also tell you the same. Basically, what I am saying is that the way from source code to object code is an AUTOMATIC one. Manual image editing is NOT a way to convert source to object code. Even worse for you, source and object code have to be executable by a computer... and I've never seen a computer execute an image or sound file (unless there's a buffer overrun exploit with shell code inside...). So basically, one can argue - and I suppose lawyers would do so - that the GPL's source requirement can't apply to media files AT ALL. "You are showing your inexperience working with images by being willing to accept single layer images as their own source, it is far easier to work with a multi-layered image when creating a derivative than it is to work with a single layer image and you get higher quality results" Of course I know this. But the ORIGINAL AUTHOR may have been forced to flatten the image ALREADY, by the problems I stated above. Just like a music or sound effect author may have been forced to render the music to a wav before further processing. In these cases, the multilayer image would NOT be the source of the result, but an intermediate step of the artistic process. And the GPL requires no such intermediate steps to be provided. The GPL is not there to let the original author jump through hoops just to make "source code" from nothing. If he codes a .o file in a hex editor, he isn't forced by the GPL to write a corresponding C program for it (but to convince a judge that he REALLY made it in a hex editor ;)). Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on December 22, 2007, 07:40:27 AM No, not that, and it isn't the alpha channel. Let's for example look at the edge detect filter. Assume a light grey image with a dark grey filled circle layer on top of it. Edge detect applied to the layers individually does nothing. Edge detect after merging the layers emphasizes the circle. Basically, for many filters, filter(mix(layer1, layer2)) is NOT the same as mix(filter(layer1), filter(layer2)). This is not a bug in the filters, but comes from what the filters do - see my edge detect example. For audio, the very same holds (a typical filter where this isn't the same is dynamics compression). I see what you are saying in this example (I was thinking of the poorly designed texturizer plugin which will not work if there is an alpha channel) but you can also emphasize the circle in other ways that do not require flattening the image, give better results, and would allow saving a high quality xcf (see below). Quote mhwaveedit is a single-track audio editor. There is no such thing as a project file in it. And I do prefer it for many tasks, simply because it is much less annoying to use than audacity (like, trying to find a range that loops well, or simple fading). That's a personal preference, but you could still save the audacity project (see below). Quote That's a Blender bug then. MD3 is really a usual format. From what I understand it's a limitation in python, there are very few free modeling programs that will completely import all of the meta information contained in an md3 (one that I know of). Quote Not quite. The part I cited is just an explanation of a term that should be obvious anyway. Source code is the input for a compiler, that is, a program that automatically generates the resulting "object code". http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=source+code&x=0&y=0 would also tell you the same. Basically, what I am saying is that the way from source code to object code is an AUTOMATIC one. Manual image editing is NOT a way to convert source to object code. Even worse for you, source and object code have to be executable by a computer... and I've never seen a computer execute an image or sound file (unless there's a buffer overrun exploit with shell code inside...). So basically, one can argue - and I suppose lawyers would do so - that the GPL's source requirement can't apply to media files AT ALL. <snip> The GPL is not there to let the original author jump through hoops just to make "source code" from nothing. If he codes a .o file in a hex editor, he isn't forced by the GPL to write a corresponding C program for it (but to convince a judge that he REALLY made it in a hex editor ;)). You're missing the point, releasing media source in a project such as this is so that others may use and expand upon it, either in this project or in projects of their own without loosing sound/image quality. You can't keep the same quality if all you have to work with are "finished" sound files and flattened images. So it really boils down to, are you doing something so someone else can build upon it or are you just copying the commercial attitude with a less restrictive license? I would hope that it is the former and not the latter because libre gaming is seriously lacking content that can be used to create something without making yet another clone. You'd be very surprised about what isn't obvious when it comes to software licensing. Joerg Schilling's Cdrtools comes to mind as an example. He felt that his name needed to be spammed throughout the console (and practically embedded in every cd burned that used his programs) because of his interpretation of the GPLv2. Also, in the American Legal system where it is not so much what the license says but how well the lawyer can explain to a judge that knows next to nothing about software licenses what the license means and how it would apply (Effectively individuals are paying their copyright lawyers to educate the judge, giving Americans the best justice money can buy :) ). Besides, if you don't want to distribute source, but want to use the GPL, you can always use v3 and write your own restrictions/definitions as part of the license (the license allows that). Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent on December 22, 2007, 02:50:17 PM "I see what you are saying in this example (I was thinking of the poorly designed texturizer plugin which will not work if there is an alpha channel) but you can also emphasize the circle in other ways that do not require flattening the image, give better results, and would allow saving a high quality xcf (see below)."
There are many more filters this applies to. Of course, for a simple circle, it would be ridiculous to use edge detect for it. But my example still stands - what is the "source" of the resulting file? The two layers are not the source, as it can't be "compiled" to the resulting image. The final product isn't the source because you say it. So an image made that way would be impossible to use in a GPL project? A music file that got a manual dynamic compression after flattening would be impossible to use in a GPL project? For sure not. "You're missing the point, releasing media source in a project such as this is so that others may use and expand upon it, either in this project or in projects of their own without loosing sound/image quality. You can't keep the same quality if all you have to work with are "finished" sound files and flattened images." Of course. But the GPL simply does not define what source is for media files, and there is not even a clear definition. IMHO it would be great if the GPL could get the necessary extensions/explanations to be able to fully work for media files. But currently, it doesn't, and "lives" in the world of software. Some people are even so radical and say that the GPL can't apply to media files AT ALL, which would render ANY media file GPL-less - and not distributable as part of GPL software. Feel free to write a license that also fulfills the requirements of free media, and not just free software. But inevitably, it will be GPL incompatible, but it may once REPLACE the GPL. Or, tell the FSF about these problems, maybe they'll be addressed in GPLv4. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 on December 22, 2007, 04:33:39 PM Quote Of course. But the GPL simply does not define what source is Code: 1. any thing or place from which something comes, arises, or is obtained; origin: Which foods are sources of calcium? Source is defined in the Dictionary, as the origin of something. It doesn't matter what it is, be it code or media. In short source is the foundation, if you create a texture that uses 5 different images then those 5 different images are the source. How they are implemented to create the final output is also the source. The definition of source is very clear. What we classify as source is unclear. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent on December 22, 2007, 05:17:28 PM "How they are implemented to create the final output is also the source."
Herein exactly lies the problem. This step is often a MANUAL one. And I doubt the GPL then requires the author to teach anyone who asks about, e.g., image retouching. Neither is it humanly possible to "describe" that process exactly. The GPL also doesn't require you to work as slave for anyone who asks, as YOU are the source of the image file :P A line has to be drawn somewhere, somehow. And IIRC there have been no court decisions on that yet. A strict way to interpret the GPL would be that it requires source CODE - and anything that has no code form thus can't be covered by the GPL, and therefore is unlicensed (i.e. warez) when part of a GPL project. That would basically mean that GPL games can use procedural textures/content ONLY. BTW, trick question: which license is the file COPYING (with the GPLv2) under? Can it really be included as part of free software? Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on December 22, 2007, 10:10:39 PM The GPL also doesn't require you to work as slave for anyone who asks, as YOU are the source of the image file. Actually this is flat out wrong. The GPL does require you to be a slave to someone else. The analogy goes something like this, I scratch your back, you are required by the terms of the license to scratch mine. I release source, you use parts of my source in your project, you are forced to release your changes in a similar format to mine. If you don't want want to release source, help out the state of libre gaming, etc. then don't use the GPL as a license use cc-by-nd or something equally stupid. Quote BTW, trick question: which license is the file COPYING (with the GPLv2) under? Can it really be included as part of free software? Amusing, here's one for you: which license is the only license to be truly free? Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: iLeft.bye on December 23, 2007, 01:15:17 AM The GPL also doesn't require you to work as slave for anyone who asks, as YOU are the source of the image file. Actually this is flat out wrong. The GPL does require you to be a slave to someone else. The analogy goes something like this, I scratch your back, you are required by the terms of the license to scratch mine. I release source, you use parts of my source in your project, you are forced to release your changes in a similar format to mine. If you don't want want to release source, help out the state of libre gaming, etc. then don't use the GPL as a license use cc-by-nd or something equally stupid. does he mean "if you are the original author and released your artwork under GPL and if someone asks you for the source you dont need to dig your computer for the every single file you used to create the artwork" so if someone releases a md3 model under GPL, he doesnt need to give you the blend, max, or maya source files. .... he is not violating anything. but he is an ass I want my blend file! I can use md3 importer but what if it is animated I will lose all bones ,pretty useless. this is against the spirit of the GPL Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: stroggi on December 23, 2007, 04:55:15 AM gpl sucks lol.
Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: w1zrd on December 23, 2007, 11:08:09 AM gpl sucks lol. Without it you wouldn't play Open Arena for free.Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent on December 23, 2007, 11:33:04 AM does he mean "if you are the original author and released your artwork under GPL and if someone asks you for the source you dont need to dig your computer for the every single file you used to create the artwork" so if someone releases a md3 model under GPL, he doesnt need to give you the blend, max, or maya source files. .... he is not violating anything. but he is an ass I want my blend file! I can use md3 importer but what if it is animated I will lose all bones ,pretty useless. this is against the spirit of the GPL I meant neither of these. I meant: if the file has a source, given from how it's made, the GPL entitles anyone (who has the "binary") to get the source. If the file was made in a process that doesn't necessarily produce some "source code", the GPL can't require any. 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. IMHO the problem is just that the GPL fails to enforce things it should enforce. A bug in the license... :P but OA is doing nothing wrong. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: iLeft.bye on December 23, 2007, 12:00:44 PM I am waiting for some q3 engine mod that will have a diff(against openarena.exe) file as its source
author may pretend he/she hexedited openarena.exe Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent on December 23, 2007, 12:41:22 PM Hehe... if the diff is small enough, we'd have to believe him. If every second byte of the executable changed, no chance :P
Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent 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 B, 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! Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown 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 B, 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 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? ;) 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: w1zrd on December 24, 2007, 04:09:43 AM However if you want an example: www.elephantsdream.org That's CC though :)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. 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: stroggi 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: ailmanki 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.. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: divVerent 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 :P
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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: w1zrd 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: fromhell 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: w1zrd 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.
Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on January 11, 2008, 02:30:42 AM Ignoring the issue won't make it disappear.
Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: fromhell 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: fromhell 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? Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: kit89 on January 11, 2008, 02:39:47 PM Quote mprove them and correct notes on raw waveform? Get the sheet music. :) Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown 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? Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: fromhell 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. Title: Re: SVN Sourceless Audit Post by: dmn_clown on January 12, 2008, 06:21:52 AM Resampling, filters, paintovers and touchups. That result in a lower quality end product then what is possible if the original artist would simply provide a project file as editable source. |