we could use an asterisk or something to mark those OXPs...
If it is in the description column then do not need any space in the properly licensed lines, and maybe a "(no license)" can be added to others.
Additionally a red line at the top of the individual OXP pages (like the Broken-OXP template) can say "This OXP is poorly licensed".
I think these two together can earn my goals to:
- motivate the author to attach a license,
- warn all other helpful authors before start modifications.
Good point. The more I think about it, the more it seems like a solution to a problem that does not exist.
I see it as a forced solution to something else. I see it as an effort to deal with the oxps without proper licence. It gives quite a clear singal: "Update your licences or you're not welcome here." I don't think that the main oxp list is the right place for this kind of activism.
I do have a solution. Sort of. How about categories for licences? You could tag your oxp page with something like [Category: CC BY-NC-SA 3.0]. Oxps without wiki pages would naturally be left out. It would require an agreement about the categories used and someone(s) to go through the pages. Considering the late discussion, there will probably be eager folk around to do this.
we could use an asterisk or something to mark those OXPs...
Additionally a red line at the top of the individual OXP pages (like the Broken-OXP template) can say "This OXP is poorly licensed".
I don't know how to make no license template, but this is probably the best idea.
I don't think this is a good idea. The list and corresponding pages are there to help the players of the game to find oxps that might enhance their experience. And as such everything should be as clear and informative as possible. I don't think the licencing issues are of any interest to the players of the game and because of that raising that up as a red/blue/whatever coloured box in the wiki page or marking them with asterisks or moving them into a different group out of the main list is a bad idea. It adds confusion and complexity when order and simplicity is needed. So please don't make an issue out of the licencing.
A more subtle solution need to be found for the oxp writers that want to recycle old oxps. The categories I proposed earlier could be a solution as they are hidden from those only seeking for oxps to enhance their game, but oxp authors can use them to filter the reusable oxps from the mass.
There's this template - http://wiki.alioth.net/index.php/Template:Infobox_OXPb - which can already be found at the bottom of some OXP pages on the Wiki, and has a space for license information. Visible enough to authors and others interesting in licensing, without making a big deal out of it for other users, and contains other useful information as well.
There's this template - http://wiki.alioth.net/index.php/Template:Infobox_OXPb - which can already be found at the bottom of some OXP pages on the Wiki, and has a space for license information. Visible enough to authors and others interesting in licensing, without making a big deal out of it for other users, and contains other useful information as well.
When I fill the "category" field in this template then my OXPs instantly appear in the corresponding category page. So maybe possible somehow to make license category pages from the "license" field of the existing OXP pages automatically?
When I fill the "category" field in this template then my OXPs instantly appear in the corresponding category page. So maybe possible somehow to make license category pages from the "license" field of the existing OXP pages automatically?
Possible yes, but desirable? Already now a lot of OXPs don't have wiki pages, so they would never appear in such list. Someone would need to download all OXPs with unclear license status, look at what is provided, potentially go over forum posts to understand the author's intentions if they are not clear from the download, and then make a decision about the license type to display in the list. The end result is most likely incomplete and in some cases wrong/misleading.
Honestly, it seems like a lot of work for very little gain.
And to underline what Smivs said earlier: someone who would like to modify somebody else's OXP needs to download it anyways. He probably only makes the decision to modify it after having used it and wanting to improve something. So from reading the provided documentation he should know anyways what the licensing situation is. For whom do we need an extra list?
It seems that the "oxps with licencing problems" part has been deleted 8.1.2014. Which is a good thing, imho. Alas, GalNavy was there and DeepSpace ships and hud too, thus they are now gone. Probably a mistake. I'm not very experienced with wiki editing. Do you just press undo to get those back?
I'd PM maik first - he was changing a few things around, I think.
Good point, I'll do that.
Thanks, spara, I just replied. I haven't yet worked on the page, wanted to give it a little while to see if there would be more input forthcoming. Uk_Eliter deleted the section a few days ago but also didn't produce any reaction. The minimum that should be done now is to put those three OXPs back into the main list but I won't find time until next weekend.
I'd PM maik first - he was changing a few things around, I think.
Good point, I'll do that.
Thanks, spara, I just replied. I haven't yet worked on the page, wanted to give it a little while to see if there would be more input forthcoming. Uk_Eliter deleted the section a few days ago but also didn't produce any reaction. The minimum that should be done now is to put those three OXPs back into the main list but I won't find time until next weekend.
I have restored them to the main list. All is well again .
![[EliteWiki]](/images/elitewikismall.png){kind=small}
New Cargoes
.