Is intentionally breaking another OXP OK?

[Lestradae]

Have a look here:

https://bb.oolite.space/viewtopic.php?t=5781

I want to know what the community thinks about intentionally breaking another's OXP. Not as an error, not an undiscovered bug, but they don't like it and therefore they damage it with an OXP of their own.

I'm very curious about the replies, as I've had it with McLane now after he explicitly stated in the thread above that this is his intention concerning Realistic Shipyards/Oolite Ships Extension with his Cataclysm.oxp.

I hope that this is not behaviour that will be tolerated in this community. This is Step 1 of my counter-reaction.

I will immediately return to "most friendly" when the intentional oxp-breaking is removed. Until then ... more here on the boards.

[ClymAngus]

Firstly I think the issue needs to be mediated.

Other thoughts:

1) I have tweaked others oxp's in the past but I keep those bastard versions to myself. I consider hacking to be an extention of game play.

2) Sign, shake your head and get a post bookmarked exactly what you need to hack out of said oxp to make it play nice with realistic shipyards. None of us have control over our oxp's once they hit the public domain. (I really disliked the starwars ships so they went) fortunately it was easy to do and you provided instructions.

Maybe even host a "fixed version" of their oxp until said programmer comes to their senses. (just remember that said programmer is perfectly within their rights to do the same).

To hack is to be hackable, to make is not to own, total control is impossible to retain.

With these truths in mind all ego evaporates. A true master of kung-fu, takes his opponents attack and blends it with his own for a more favourable outcome. Programming kung-fu is no different.

[Screet]

Hi,

I don't like the direction into which this is going. I'm quite upset myself about the way this has been done.

At least, the good thing is, that the deliberate breaking of another oxp hit me first, and I quickly found out where to look for the reason.

As to make OSE overriding the cataclysm behaviour, it won't help me at all, as I both play with and without OSE in order to test it and other things thoroughly.

Therefore, I'll just update cataclysm to be compatible again for myself. If anyone want's that modified version of cataclysm (and if it does not work against the licensing rules of it), I'm happy to provide that fix to anyone who also is in the same trouble.

L, I really understand that you as the author of RS/OSE want this solved very soon. So do I. However, I'm not sure if the vote is the best way to do this (except showing others how people think about this behaviour). I'm afraid it fuels the conflict.

I guess the best thing is, if the moderators would have a look at this issue and find an agreement that's working for all of us, so that we won't need this poll or thread at all.

Screet

[Killer Wolf]

so, what's the major gripe here? you wrote an OXP, McLane doesn't like it and put coding in his to counter it. having read through the RS posts, isn't this partially what you've done yourself? You didn't like the way ships were priced so saw fit to change the prices to your own whim. Who decided you could "break" my OXP and reprice my Vampires, out of interest? Or change what tech level i decided they were available at? i put a "sales brochure" on my site etc w/ all the info in, so now i'm wrong about all that apparently?

If McLane doesn't like your ideas, he's fully at liberty to write an OXP how he likes. You're fully at liberty not to install it, or install it, as you please. as far as i'm concerned, as long as McLane put an explanation in a read me as to what effects may be encountered, it's up to him.

[pagroove]

No flame wars here and certainly no .OXP wars. Other boards (for example some simracing forums) are sometimes full of it. I have only 'scanned' the discussion but I do not choose any side. So try to keep this the friendliest board on this side of Riedquat TM.

[Cmdr James]

Its very simple. If you dont want people to use or change your work, then release it under a suitable license.

If people are either unable, or unwilling to use a suitable license, then they should not publish their work.

Lestradae, a few people, including me, thought that what you did with RS was disrespectful of the original works you included in RS. But thats fine, you are free to do as you wish, and I believe many people have got enjoyment out of your work. If someone, choses to make changes incompatible with your OXP, then by the same rules, they too may do so.

Edit: I want to make my view perfectly clear, so that I am not accused of taking sides. RS has every right to exist, and to add, modify, or remove anything. It does not have the right to prevent others from doing the same.

[Kaks]

Ouch, me no like!

I'll quote others for a minute:

However, I'm not sure if the vote is the best way to do this (except showing others how people think about this behaviour). I'm afraid it fuels the conflict.

and

Who decided you could "break" my OXP and reprice my Vampires, out of interest? Or change what tech level i decided they were available at?

Lestradae, I've somehow got the impression that Commander McLane vote on this poll would be absolutely identical to yours, and that this thread could all too easily degenerate into a 'you started first', 'no you started first' thing...

My personal interest here is to see Oolite as a whole doing better.
All of us who dedicated more than a few hours to making Oolite bigger, more exciting, and a nicer game all round have had their fair share of 'wtf' moments.

Others will do things we don't agree with. The really good thing we have here - IMO - is that each of us has got the freedom to make whatever changes we feel would make Oolite the best it can be. It probably is a bit too late to ask for a group hug, but I hope we can at least put down the swords/lasers/Q bombs/sharp mangoes (damn Blackadder quotations!)

[LittleBear]

Hmm. I personally feel that OXPs should be designed to work together to collectively enhance the game. When I've used elements from other's work, I've renamed and re-rolled them all. Eg if you play with Assassins in and chose to do the missions at some point you'll come across some rebels flying Cobra Njxs (Dave's Ship). If you have his OXP installed then you'd figure the rebels bought his ship and equiped it in Iron Ass Config to fight against their govement. Kinda like RL rebels buying the AK-47 as its an efficent weapon, these guys bought the Njx as it was a good ship. If you didn't happpen to have the CobraNjx installed then the ship would just be a new kind of ship to you. Either way, the two OXPs play nicely togther.

Personally, I like the RS concept (although I don't run it myself), but RS if installed does over-write other OXPs by its zzzzz nature (including some of mine - but I don't take a point on it) so that's the nature of the beast. I personally try to write OXPs that will fit in with other's work. If for exmple you play Random Hits with RS installed, you'll find that more Marks get killed by Cops before you reach them than you would if you played without it in. But thats OK as my OXP will give you a "What bad luck Commander, the Cops got him before you could message." if a RS cop blasts the Mark way. I'd say thats a feature rather than a bug. If you chose a Cop heavy Universe with RS then a bounty hunter's job may be a bit harder, but thats your Universe and the two OXPs take account of each other. Anyway guys it is just a game and we're all coding for fun, so lets not take it too seriously!

[DaddyHoggy]

I'm not going to vote because the wording of the responses are there not to gather opinions but to make people consider taking "sides" in something that should have no sides.

Oolite allows itself to be manipulated in many interesting, varied and sometimes unexpected ways.

My only "rule" with any oxp is "don't break the in-built missions". After that, it is, and always has been, a free-for-all.

Killer Wolf raises an interesting point I would be interested to hear your answer L.

Unfortunately I could see the L/McLane war coming.

For me, I never had any intentions of installing RS or OSE and I don't actually play the game enough for Cataclysm to feature in my gaming experience for many years to come.

Put the handbags down and sort this out nicely.

This thread and the poll will not end pleasantly I fear.

[ClymAngus]

Well indeed As I said before this starts with mediation. Our creativity is born from a need to enhance. OXP clashes don't enhance the game.

It is advisable to flow like water, not clash like rocks when you are a guest in someone else's house.......

[Cmd. Cheyd]

Don't look at me, I voted for Pizza for lunch.

[Thargoid]

If McLane doesn't like your ideas, he's fully at liberty to write an OXP how he likes. You're fully at liberty not to install it, or install it, as you please. as far as i'm concerned, as long as McLane put an explanation in a read me as to what effects may be encountered, it's up to him.

With apologies for a partial quote, for me that last line is the main thing that makes me uncomfortable. It is not that Cataclysm removes access to the MASC, MASC Jammer and the "non-mission" cloak per-se, but the way that it's done arbitrarily (there is no mission justification for doing it, certainly not for MASC/MASC Jammer as Thargoids don't use missiles, although the MASC will lessen the chances of Tharglets as none "targetted" at the player will appear) and that it is not documented anywhere, at least that I can see. And by doing it on launch and putting them back at docking (both silently, without visual notification that it's happened), the status screen when docked (when most people will see their equipment) shows them fine. They just aren't there if you look in-flight, and therefore don't work in flight. Having them when you're in a station is rather superfluous.

As has been stated McLane is perfectly within his rights to make his OXP and do that, but it should be documented so people can judge if they want this effect on their system. We have already had someone trip over this and report it as a bug (and RS got blamed as usual initially).

I would state here that I don't have Cataclysm currently installed, for the simple reason that its requirements are beyond my current play commander (if I can call it current, as I've not actively played the game in ages). But if I were to install it, like several others above the first thing to be done would be to remove this "feature" (I can't call it a bug, as it's deliberate).

At the end if people want OSE they're going to have it in and do so on a permanent basis. If they want Cataclysm, as it's a mission OXP then it'll probably be installed, completed and removed again. So the effect is limited to that time by default, and given the (normal) nature of this board anyone here who now knows of but also doesn't want this feature can be assisted to remove it by many people here (ditto for any ship or feature that people don't want in RS, OSE or indeed any other OXP).

But in both OXPs the changes they make and the features they introduce need to be fully documented and visible so the player can make an informed decision as to whether they want to install an OXP or not given all the effects it has. RS/OSE does this fairly well (give or take unintentional bugs) but Cataclysm currently does not.

[Lestradae]

Going to add-in my POV to a few arguments here, or take a position.

@Killer Wolf:

you wrote an OXP, McLane doesn't like it and put coding in his to counter it. having read through the RS posts, isn't this partially what you've done yourself?

No, it's not the same for several reasons.

First of all, if I create a Meta-OXP out of individual ones within a shared framework I have to alter a few things to get it to work. Price and TL, for example.

Second, I find it a bit rich to complain about someone using your work in a de facto, as good as freeware game, if you yourself used the work of others (notably Ahruman, A_C and others) to base your work on and they based it on the work of other people again (B & B) and so on. If you want your work to stand exclusively and unaltered for yourself forever, you will have to enter the gaming industry and create something there.

Third, I have always said that if someone brought out an alternate version of RS, say without the star wars/star trek ships or with ships only up to X LY speed or whatever, I would not complain, but even host and advertise it on the RS site! And why should this be treated differently for a GPL licensed game???

Four, I have created a few problems (there were three or four, actually, not the hundreds those discussions about RS were suggesting) with other oxps or the core game. But they were unintentional, because I was not yet able enough to understand to 100% what I was doing. The moment I became aware of a problem, I fixed it.

But McLane has intentionally created an oxp that does not change some RS settings into other configurations, but that breaks functions of the RS/OSE oxp. If you don't get the difference, I don't know what.

I'm sorry that you didn't get the feeling that your Vampires were presented in a good way in RS, though. I see the ships I build in - any ship - as a homage to its OXP's author. If that didn't come across, I'm sorry. I would keep in mind that with the download numbers of RS 3.02b that stand at 1.660 atm, this amount of additional players has seen your Vampires in action and/or bought them. If you see that as disrespectful on my side, I have to accept it, but have to tell you that I don't understand it.

@Cmdr James:

Lestradae, a few people, including me, thought that what you did with RS was disrespectful of the original works you included in RS.

I sincerely don't get that point of view.

I guess I have to repeat myself to illustrate why:

1. I find it a bit rich to complain about someone using your work in a de facto, as good as freeware game, if you yourself used the work of others (notably Ahruman, A_C and others) to base your work on and they based it on the work of other people again (B & B) and so on.

2. I see the ships I build in - any ship - as a homage to its OXP's author. If that doesn't come across, I'm sorry. I would keep in mind that with the download numbers of RS 3.02b that stand at 1.660 atm, this amount of additional players has seen any ship in RS in action and/or bought them.

@Kaks:

Lestradae, I've somehow got the impression that Commander McLane vote on this poll would be absolutely identical to yours, and that this thread could all too easily degenerate into a 'you started first', 'no you started first' thing...

I really don't get this - hope you're not angry at me if I speak my mind - naivity towards McLane's intentions.

When I started to create special systems for RS/OSE, I discovered that one of them was going to clash with McLane's upcoming Cataclysm.oxp - yes that's the one I have to find out now intentionally breaks functions of OSE! Again: doesn't change something or alters it - I would have no problem at all with that, if done in a consistent way! - but intentionally breaks it!

My immediate reaction was to get into contact with McLane, listen to what he had to say and as a matter of of course move my special system so that it wouldn't clash and overwrite the Cataclysm stuff.

Do you get the difference? I guess so.

My personal interest here is to see Oolite as a whole doing better.

Mine too.

It probably is a bit too late to ask for a group hug, but I hope we can at least put down the swords/lasers/Q bombs/sharp mangoes (damn Blackadder quotations!)

I will do the group hug (including McLane if I really have to) the moment he, me, and this community agree that, as many differences of opinion we might have on where to take this game, there is a minimum of cooperation required and that includes to not intentionally switch off functions of another oxp without a damn good reason!

@LittleBear:

I personally feel that OXPs should be designed to work together to collectively enhance the game.

I agree completely, and this is where McLane has descended into foul play here, as there is a monumental difference between altering some stats of another oxp to enhance them playing together versus intentionally altering another oxp so that it will no longer function correctly.

@DaddyHoggy:

Killer Wolf raises an interesting point I would be interested to hear your answer L.

I hope my answers to Killer Wolf and Cmdr James above have answered your question, too.

Unfortunately I could see the L/McLane war coming.

I honestly didn't.

I have tried to get into contact with McLane a bit, we exchanged a few PM's, and I tried to normalise relations with him. As can be also read in diverse forum statements around here, including the "vanishing equipment" thread up to the point where McLane declared that sabotaging my oxp was intentional. Then I'd had it.

I think there is no way of not choosing sides here:

Is it OK to deliberately damage the functionality of another's oxp because you don't like it?

Is it OK, licensing whatever, to create a game that is based on the goodwill of the creators of this game to be used, but then treating one's own oxps as if they had been written for a company and were under some sort of copyright, and thereby denying others the same freedoms that had enabled the writing of the oxp in the first place?

I'd say it isn't. And if this community doesn't get this, conflicts will no longer be solved by debate, but by bullying and an counter-oxp's arms race. If you want that, just don't take sides or wait until I give up because this game's vision becomes to narrow for me to want to contribute to (which is exactly what McLane is aiming for).

@ClymAngus:

And the most relevant argument of all imo:

OXP clashes don't enhance the game.

Exactly.

Greetings

L

[Ark]

At the end if people want OSE they're going to have it in and do so on a permanent basis. If they want Cataclysm, as it's a mission OXP then it'll probably be installed, completed and removed again. So the effect is limited to that time by default, and given the (normal) nature of this board anyone here who now knows of but also doesn't want this feature can be assisted to remove it by many people here (ditto for any ship or feature that people don't want in RS, OSE or indeed any other OXP).

I agree.
So what is the point of this poll? A trial or something? Because, it looks like one. Well!! I do not like trials and do not expect from me to pick a side in this conflict (because this is a conflict). This incident reminds me of the Sung incident 2 years before and personally I do not fell very conformable when entering this forum anymore.

I have not installed RS and I am not intend to install it in the future because I disagree with the “one oxp to rule them all” concept, but on the other hand I have no idea why McLane did that. From my point of view it seems that everybody involved in this situation are overreacting. I do not intend to repost in this tread and I am not going to vote in this poll unless Lastrate enters a choice like that: “I do not want to vote in this poll I want to see this situation settled down peacefully now!!”

Personally I would advise the members of this forum not to vote in this poll

[Lestradae]

... I want to see this situation settled down peacefully now!!”

I actually agree.

It's not possible to set additional polling options after the poll has started (if a forum administrator can do so, feel free to add Ark's suggestion to this poll's options) but I don't see how a peaceful solution can be reached before the following topic is settled:

... I have no idea why McLane did that.

Me too.

Greetings

L