Oolite Bulletins

Lestradae wrote:

The problem with this is - I've already thought about it before, more than once, btw - that this would defeat the whole purpose of an "extended" Oolite. Some oxps need to be tweaked to work together like this at all (they don't do that well if 200+ of the originals are singularly used in the AddOns folder btw), and some things in the OSE/OE Ooniverse only make sense (are not too uber) with those tweaks in place. So, I am afraid, for me, this would not be a solution to realise what I would like to realise.

It doesn't defeat the purpose. Rather it allows it to progress as a cooperative arrangement, rather than the confrontational one it exists in currently. Some OXP's do need to be tweaked - Which could be done by the original author and it could leverage an API within OSE. Again, this is what I'm doing with SR2. I don't change the work of others, but I am providing a mechanism where their OXP can influence the way mine behaves if they decide to include code to accommodate it. As for having 200+ OXP's in an AddOn Folder - I don't know. I know my 115-ish work fine. And if I provide an API framework for the troublesome bits, they can keep on going. As I said, have the stuff that requires the smaller bits to become "not too uber" be secondary functions that require all the sub-components present or those bits don't activate. I realize this may not be the way you WANT it to progress, but this would be a way you CAN make it progress. The proverbial ball is in your court.

Lestradae wrote:

Comparing linux (essence of copyleft) with M$ (essence of copyright) is not very convincing, either.

Microsoft isn't the "big bad evil". Give up the fucking bashing already... It was "cool" 10 years ago. Now it's just sad. Microsoft has made a massive attitude shift over the last 5 years in regards to open-source. Even contributing drives to the Linux kernel, publishing materials under various open-source licenses (MS-PL, MS-RL, GPL, and a host of others).

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

Microsoft isn't the "big bad evil". Give up the fucking bashing already... It was "cool" 10 years ago. Now it's just sad.

No bashing meant. Simply saying you can't seriously compare the attitudes of linux and Microsoft when it comes to open source.

Cmd. Cheyd wrote:

Microsoft has made a massive attitude shift over the last 5 years in regards to open-source. Even contributing drives to the Linux kernel, publishing materials under various open-source licenses (MS-PL, MS-RL, GPL, and a host of others).

Very cool ... didn't know that. A Microsoft debate could be started at this point, though, I guess we better don't competely derail the one going on here atm.

Concerning possible solutions, the best one yet (from my point of view) is ClymAngus' "oxp constitution" idea.

I would like to see how that one is received next.

For me the debate really boils down to if a way can be found for Oolite that enables people, like it is in most other open source, public modders' projects, to use each other's stuff without having to get permits and beg for waivers etc.

The current way of deliberately restricting stuff stifles creativity and will give away this game's potential when the point comes that there are 500 oxps and no way to get a game going with all or most of them short of downloading / updating the whole half-thousand bunch one at a time (there are already ~ 270 oxps out there, if you think I'm exaggerating).

If no solution into the direction of CA's suggestion is found, I won't storm off annoyed again (been there, done that), and will continue dropping by, but probably no longer contribute to the game.

Lestradae wrote:

For me the debate really boils down to if a way can be found for Oolite that enables people, like it is in most other open source, public modders' projects, to use each other's stuff without having to get permits and beg for waivers etc.

There are 2 types of OXP, ones that people are happy for you to use, and ones they are not. People should either use an appropriate license or, if for whatever reason they cannot, they should include in the readme a few lines requesting that people do or do not use their OXP to create derivatives.

Where it isnt clear, you should email or pm the author to understand if they are happy for you to use their stuff.

y'know, this whole licence debacle is just a complete and total buzz-kill. it's time to give it a goddamn rest. PLEASE.

i don't care what OSE is or how it's implemented, the only overriding caveat of it should simply be what i said many posts back : you ASK now that if anyone wants their OXP removed from it to speak now or forever shut up. if they want it out, you take it out, no questions. if it's left in, it's between you and the creator to come up w/ a maintenance strategy. Put up a thread, give it a week, then start work when you have replies in. silence would be taken as a permission.

this whole problem was about respect and courtesy and dragging the goddamn licence into it to justify an action has just made the whole thing unbearable.


ASK.
then get to work and please, let's let this damn thread get locked.

Hear hear on the above two posts.

Bottom Line: OXPs should NOT contain modified versions of anyone else's OXPs without their permission.

Lestradae wrote:

Asking the Creative Commons board about their opinion is not an evil act, it's common sense. Oolite is not a living room project of a few people, it's a public open source project. The issue at hand is such that both positions summed up above seem to have some merit.

Yet again Lestradae is hiding behind the Creative Commons License. When is it going to sink in that the licensing is NOT the issue - it's about RESPECT. It's about ASKING to use someone else's stuff. Nothing in my own house is protected under a creative commons license, but I still ASK if it's OK to use something that doesn't belong to me, because IT'S POLITE AND RESPECTFUL.

Simple question to Lestradae: in future are you going to ASK to use someone else's OXP work, and if they say NO will you respect that decision? OK, that's technically 2 questions. Think carefully.

If not, then this argument is never going to end.

Selezen wrote:

Hear hear on the above two posts.

Bottom Line: OXPs should NOT contain modified versions of anyone else's OXPs without their permission.

Lestradae wrote:

Asking the Creative Commons board about their opinion is not an evil act, it's common sense. Oolite is not a living room project of a few people, it's a public open source project. The issue at hand is such that both positions summed up above seem to have some merit.

Yet again Lestradae is hiding behind the Creative Commons License. When is it going to sink in that the licensing is NOT the issue - it's about RESPECT. It's about ASKING to use someone else's stuff. Nothing in my own house is protected under a creative commons license, but I still ASK if it's OK to use something that doesn't belong to me, because IT'S POLITE AND RESPECTFUL.

Simple question to Lestradae: in future are you going to ASK to use someone else's OXP work, and if they say NO will you respect that decision? OK, that's technically 2 questions. Think carefully.

If not, then this argument is never going to end.

I do despise the fact that you have tried to turn this into a legal/moral question. The reality is the legality of open source license should represent the moral argument BSD does it GPL does it...I suspect CC does it.

As for polite and respectful asking for code; I use an entire OS made up of a multitude of licenses; bundled together and nobody including me has needed to POLITE and RESPECTFUL. They just use the licence...including myself.

Trying to use POLITE and RESPECTFUL as an argument rather than the licence is disgusting. I am appalled that anyone would *CHOOSE* a license and that use that kind of subterfuge, it is simply not acceptable behaviour flamey comment removed

Go easy on the coffee, guys...

tupe666 wrote:

As for polite and respectful asking for code; I use an entire OS made up of a multitude of licenses; bundled together and nobody including me has needed to POLITE and RESPECTFUL. They just use the licence...including myself.

I fear that you miss the point. Much of the work incorporated into RS/OSE was not distributed with a license at all.

Where someone has given a license, of course people are free to use the work according to the conditions. This is really a moral question right now, there is some of stuff, which was never properly licensed, which is being used in ways the authors do not like -- what should be done.

It may also be true that some of the stuff in question was CC licensed.

@ tupe666: I am no moderator, but I don't think that your comment is helpful.

On topic: I have carefully considered my opinion on an "includes all" OXP, and my feelings about two distinct types of derivatives. My reasoning can be found here. The bottom line is that I don't think that an "includes all" OXP is useful, or even feasible, if the "all" part is taken seriously.

I am also tired of this debate, and would very much like to move away from it, and do constructive things.

As far as RS/OSE/OE is concerned, personally I think the logical step forward would be to make it into a branch of its own. The players who want to follow Lestradae's vision of Elite would install and play "Oolite Extended", fully knowing that it is not the same as Oolite. It could even get its own bulletin boards.

Lestradae would be free to release the unique features of RS/OSE/OE (the things he added on top of combining OXPs), as a stand-alone OXP (or possibly a couple of stand-alone OXPs) for inclusion into Oolite's OXP collection. But he wouldn't be obliged to do so. After all the unique features are what distinguishes "Oolite Extended" from Oolite, and from OE's perspective they are the added value over "vanilla" Oolite.

The players who want to play Oolite and use its expandability via the OXP-system, would continue to do that, installing or de-installing different OXPs according to their personal preferences. No need to step onto each other's toes.

For me this would be the most honest, most practical, and most logical solution. I (and the other OXPers/scripters) wouldn't be responsible for anything that happens in the OE universe. And Lestradae would retain full control of his project.

Technically I think OE doesn't even need to be distributed as an OXP. It could come as an executable of its own, with all scripts etc. inside the app, instead of an AddOns folder. Considering its current size, the additional 30 or so MB for Oolite itself don't really matter. This would give Lestradae the additional advantage that he could even change the code itself, and wouldn't be restrained in his vision by the scripting system.

I think this could make everybody happy, and give them what they want.

Please, guys and gals, play nice.

Argue all you want about licenses, and the best practices for playing with them.

But please keep it above the belt and directed at the argument rather than the people concerned.

There is a place for flames - it is not here.

Commander McLane wrote:

For me this would be the most honest, most practical, and most logical solution. I (and the other OXPers/scripters) wouldn't be responsible for anything that happens in the OE universe. And Lestradae would retain full control of his project.

Technically I think OE doesn't even need to be distributed as an OXP. It could come as an executable of its own, with all scripts etc. inside the app, instead of an AddOns folder. Considering its current size, the additional 30 or so MB for Oolite itself don't really matter. This would give Lestradae the additional advantage that he could even change the code itself, and wouldn't be restrained in his vision by the scripting system.

I think this could make everybody happy, and give them what they want.

Why yes, in a nut shell we're talking about encouraging effort without sacrificing individual control. This "go getter" programme could work in conjunction with a mirrored library, giving the players almost a check box interface, effectively automating the oxp aquisition process. It could be made to sit in the background and check for updates against version and system type. As long as the oxp library information is kept standard and the version vs op system vs conflicts are well documented then it might be possible to as you say get the best of both worlds.

It would be a bloody boring bit of coding however.

I agree with the people who say that this debate either must end or make a positive direction. I also think it's first about respect and the you can always put a license in your OXP.

But IMO this thing went wrong atm Lestradae introduced the Aaaall of it idea.

while the underlying Realistic shipyards (extended or not) was already good enough. So instead of debating this thing to death it's better to get creative again. I'm not sick of debate but debate must serve a purpose.

@aegidian & Rxke:

Thanks for trying to inject some reason into the debate. This issue can only be solved by talking to each other, not flaming & accusing on and on.

@anyone else:

We are discussing a problem here that is factual. Neither I nor any other person is the problem here. The problem is that when the oxp system was created and later the CC-3 license chosen, a situation like this was not forseeable or at least not forseen.

No one here, including me, has the right to claim some sort of "moral high ground". The licenses problem is inseparable from the "moral" question involved. The question is, what should the social rules of oxp-making be? And this is inseparable from the legal/licensing question.

As tupe666 formulated it: "The reality is the legality of open source license should represent the moral argument ... As for polite and respectful asking for code; I use an entire OS made up of a multitude of licenses; bundled together and nobody including me has needed to POLITE and RESPECTFUL. They just use the licence...including myself."

My moral stance is clear: I will not continue or re-publish this project before the questions at hand are solved. It will not be possible to make everyone happy. But I will also not deliberately hurt people. So either a solution is found or OE goes away.

I, for one will, if the outcome of this is that people have to go beg if they want to use/re-use/alter the code of other people concerning oxps, not continue contributing. That's my personal decision. Why? Because this stance would have nothing to do with (mutual) respect, but with sheer petty control-freakery. (Sorry, but that is how I see it. Would aegidian or Ahruman put up the copyright stance, everyone probably could pack up their oxps and go.)

At the moment, I see four possible options people have suggested to continue with OE, two of them incidentally from ClymAngus:

1) ClymAngus' oxp constitution would allow to do it in a meaningful way.

(I am afraid, though, that the "keep control" faction won't be able to live with that one, perhaps I'm mistaken?)

2) Killer Wolf's idea of publicly asking: "... if anyone wants their OXP removed from it (OE) ... speak now or forever shut up. if they want it out, you take it out, no questions. if it's left in, it's between you and the creator to come up w/ a maintenance strategy" ... for a week and take silence as a permission.

(I fear with that one that in the current climate, a lot of people would say no to spite me or for fear of pressure from others who might be angry at them if they allow their stuff in. That is not paranoia: It has happened in the past, and more than once!)

3) Commander McLane and someone else have come up with the idea of forking/branching the game into an Oolite and an Oolite Extended version. Then, responsibilities would be clear, and also players would know what they get if they use "vanilla" Oolite with oxps or Oolite Extended that gets automatically updated with all oxps into one installer.

(The problem there is that, again, this would mean that the work of oxp creators would be used inside another, if parallel, game. The licensing and "moral" issues would not automatically go away from that. And, I would need a lot of help from other people to get this to work - my skills are not even close to attempting to create an installer & alter the Oolite engine itself.)

4) ClymAngus idea number 2: "a mirrored library, giving the players almost a check box interface, effectively automating the oxp aquisition process. It could be made to sit in the background and check for updates against version and system type. As long as the oxp library information is kept standard and the version vs op system vs conflicts are well documented then it might be possible to as you say get the best of both worlds"

(Now that idea is so good that I would actually be ready to rip apart OE again for it. Because: What I want to achieve is that someone including myself can have all oxps in one go working together. With ClymAngus's library idea, I could take out from OE all options unique to it and issue them as separate oxps, and the library itself could have an "OE" setting: Give me all oxps in one go and update automatically!

Only backdraw: I couldn't create such a library, I'm not a coder. Someone else would have to do all the work, and I would have to work for two months+ to rebuild the unique OE options to function with something like that.)

I have not typed so much stuff into a forum my entire live. Please, guys & gals, stay on topic and make it worthwhile. Because the problem that happened in the debate with Sung and that happens now with me will not go away even if I was silenced:

It is the (moral & legal & social) rules of the oxp-making that had not been defined - and they have to be now, or history will repeat itself. And that would be a shame for this great game.

L