Search the Community
Searched results for '/tags/forums/license/' or tags 'forums/license/q=/tags/forums/license/&'.
-
Fan Mission: The Accountant 2: New In Town by Goldwell (2016/05/09)
Daft Mugi replied to Goldwell's topic in Fan Missions
With TDM 2.12, after the credits finished, the "Mission Complete" screen did not display. I found that the screen was black and I could hear my footsteps when I tried to move around. I think the reason for the mission not completing successfully was that the "Do not kill or harm allies" objective was never marked as "1 = STATE_COMPLETE" instead it was left as "0 = STATE_INCOMPLETE". Note, I didn't use noclip throughout the mission. Same as: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/18054-fan-mission-the-accountant-2-new-in-town-by-goldwell-20160509/&do=findComment&comment=458491 -
How about using TDM automation framework (and maybe pcem/qemu)? More info see: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/19828-automation-features-and-discussion/
-
Is there something wrong with the forums lately, or is it my browser? I've been having trouble formatting posts, and just now I couldn't format anything at all.
I'm using Vivaldi.
Usually I have to: select text, click bold, nothing happens, select again, click bold, then it works.Â
Same for other stuff, like creating spoilers, bullet points, links. Nothing works the first time.Â
-
I have no problem. I use Firefox. @Zerg Rush also uses Vivaldi. Have you tried without extensions, or in another browser?
(btw. bold, italic and underline have shortcut keys: Ctrl B, Ctrl I and Ctrl U, you could try that)
Â
-
-
Depending what happens with the legal status of content produced by generative AI, some contributors might not only want to but be legally required to distribute their assets under a more permissive license. We have already seen AI generated textures in at least one FM. There is precedent from the US copyright office that all such works are automatically in the public domain and asserting any kind of copyright claim about them is fraud. That includes CC-BY-NC-SA, as all copyleft licenses still depend on asserting ownership over the work in order to set conditions on its use. Even CC0 is not actually the same thing as public domain.
-
Help needed with mapping and models in Tears of St. Lucia
datiswous replied to Fiver's topic in TDM Tech Support
The license.text (you can find it in the root of tdm install) says this: Anyway, I don't really understand what you want. I think enough has been said no? You posted about the stuff that you think needs fixing. Maybe someone picks it up and it gets fixed. -
Help needed with mapping and models in Tears of St. Lucia
Fiver replied to Fiver's topic in TDM Tech Support
OK. Thanks! In my case the issue is moot because I don't know how to do it. Hence my plea for help... If an FM author built their mission using assets that are licensed CC-BY-NC-SA (which I believe all do), if I understand correctly then that means they must license that mission under CC-BY-NC-SA too. Which in turn means anyone can build further on their work as long as they follow the conditions stipulated in the license. It seems odd to release a work under a certain license and then say "but I don't want you to do what the license explicitly grants you to do". "Applying a Creative Commons license to your material is a serious decision. When you apply a CC license, you give permission to anyone to use your material for the full duration of applicable copyright and similar rights." (https://creativecommons.org/faq/) If an author once benefited from the license when they created their mission, why would they not want others to benefit similarly from the same licenses? The license requires their name be mentioned in every remix that follows. At the same time I can understand that some creators more than anything want to create. The desire and drive to create may be so great that they accept conditions during the time of creation, to give them artistic freedom and to use the best available assets; contitions that they regret later when their work is finished and published, and they want to keep control over it. For the OMs I think the project as a whole would benefit from a relaxed and welcoming stance towards changes. -
I understand, and I would distinguish between the two possible cases where * we make money from it, and * someone else can make money from it. As long as we don't make money from it, it should not get us into trouble, right? I also don't see further formalization as as a requirement, so both pillars can remain intact. If they licensed their assets under CC-BY-NC-SA then that licensing prevents their assets to be monetized without their consent. I don't see how a creator can object to which license other creators choose to use, or if others choose to monetize assets they create. Also, even if a creator once licensed their assets under CC-BY-NC-SA, it doesn't prevent themselves from monetizing it. It's their assets. (They can't revoke the CC-BY-NC-SA license, nor is that necessary.)
-
We had extensive discussion of why our license is the way it is, especially when we were going standalone. There are reasons it's CC-NC-etc., and one of the big ones is that anything that tries to link the mod with money and formalization has been trouble for us, like team-breaking trouble. Well the asset license was settled long before that just in dealing with the contributors (and the engine came with GPL3 from the start of course). There would be asset creators that would (rightfully) riot if money were able to flow to some creators and not to them, because they didn't spend 1000s of hours on this mod for some knucklehead to spend 2 hours for some crap whatever and get paid for it. But the debates happening during the run up to 2.0 validated it. But even before that, we've talked a lot about the basic principles for how the team works, and avoiding entanglements with money and formalization are like two of the central pillars that most of us (I understand) wouldn't like to open back up to debate. What I see from this whole line of discussion is that you want to make a branch project with the engine. That's fair by itself. The engine license let's you do that. But it's something that should be a true branch, like you ought to make your own forum for it and develop it there. Then I think it's fair for you to let us know it's happening and even ask if anyone is interested in joining you there, and some people may want to do that. But I think it's best if you branch off and develop it separate from this forum and team if you're going to drop one of our central organizational pillars in what's gotten us this far.
-
Is "assets" synonymous to "media/gamedata"? And are you referring to the 2.3 GB media/gamedata included in TDM at install? If all 2.3 GB media/gamedata were removed from the "TDB-libre" version, then no license change would be needed. Say then we have a small fan mission that is entirely libre, built entirely from libre assets and created to intentionally avoid using any of the current 2.3 GB media/gamedata. If we wanted to play that mission using only the source code, what media/gamedata components would be missing to do that? * GUI graphics and music? * HUD elements? * Any in-game sounds? * Inventory objects? * ... anything else that can neither be included in the mission's own media/gamedata, nor avoided during mission design? I'm assuming here that a mission actually can include its own media/gamedata (textures, sound, models), but I may be wrong and I'm grateful for any explanation that helps me understand. If you ask me, the TDM-installer works perfectly already today, and the instructions are brief and easy to follow. Installation from the Debian repository would be somewhat easier, but I also see other (perhaps greater) benefits which I mentioned earlier.
-
It's much simpler than that: TDM includes numerous 3rd-party assets which forbid commercial usage. Even if every single team member approved of a license change, it would still not be possible without identifying and removing all of those 3rd-party assets (and any derived assets based on them) and replacing them with free alternatives. They do. There are numerous easy ways to obtain and install non-FOSS projects on Debian. You can download and extract a tarball, run a dedicated installer, add a custom PPA from Ubuntu or some other source, install an AppImage, or install a FlatPak. You can even install non-FOSS projects directly from Debian using the non-free repository. At no point do they "force" anyone to do anything. What they don't allow is adding non-FOSS or otherwise restricted content into the main Debian repository, which is their right as a free software project.
-
As I understand the TDM license there are roughly three types of contributions to the TMD project as a whole: 1) Contributions to the source code of TDM: These are licensed GPL or BSD and can therefore be used already today by commercial projects. 2) Contributions to the 2.3 GB media/gamedata included in TDM at install: These are licensed CC-BY-NC-SA and restricts commercial use. 3) Contributions of fan missions that can be played using TDM and are added by the end-user after the install (either by the ingame downloader, website, or other source): These are not part of the core product and the license says "Any missions [...] are the property of their respective authors, and different licensing may apply.". This means the FM creators can choose any license they want, anything between CC-0/PD and strict copyright. Possibly even put additional restrictions on its use (e.g. say "You may only download and play this on regular TDM"), right? It is up to the end-user to abide by the stipulated license. The included missions "Training Misson", "A New Job", and "Tears of St Lucia" appears to fall into category (2) according to "Unless explicitly stated otherwise, all [...] non-software components that are distributed with The Dark Mod are licensed under [CC-BY-NC-SA]". Does anyone know if their license says anything else?
-
To cater to both audiences. I mentioned LibreGameWiki as one example. nbohr1more mentioned other uses. Explicitly allowing reuse and spread will help TDM reach a wider audience and would hopefully attract more volunteers. More volunteers which can help improve both TDM versions. There are several benefits for a project of being in the Debian repo. One is that TDM Debian-users can report defects on any package directly to Debian (no need to register on separate forums). Debian may then fix the issue themselves (in their "TDM-libre" package) and will offer the patch upstream to TDM, who can then choose to accept or reject the patch. I envision "TDM-libre" to have the same capability of downloading any mission as regular TDM. The only difference is that "TDM-libre" would come packaged with the regular engine (which is GPL+BSD) and an included mission that has libre media/gamedata. When I play TDM by myself, I want the unlimited-play and can accept commercial restrictions. But if I were to promote it somewhere, or charge for a stream when playing online, or make a video, I would want a version without commercial restrictions (and can temporarily accept limited-play) to make sure I don't violate anyone's copyright. Perhaps. That's what I'm trying to find out.
-
It is important to honor that. That is why I suggest a "TDM-libre"-version does not include work from anyone who has not agreed to it. Would it not be possible to release regular TDM with current restrictions for commercial use, and "TDM-libre" under a libre license? It must of course be clear which license applies to which version.
-
GPL guarantees end users the four freedoms to run, study, share, and modify the software. It puts restrictions on any derivative work that it must be distributed under the same or equivalent license terms, but it does not prohibits from making money.
-
@stgatilov: You also mentioned some relevant things here: "Maybe start with finding who are these "we" people who want to change the license to assets?..." So far I only know of myself. Others are free to agree or disagree. (It may be worth keeping in mind that the population of current TDM contributors is not a representative sample of the population of all potential contributors. Anyone who has already joined did so accepting the current conditions. If we offer options, more may want to join.) "As a programmer, I definitely do not want to maintain any additional packages." I understand. And since I can't do it myself it will never happen unless someone is willing to help. "And I do not want to get entangled into any kind of licensing questions." The strength of any collaboration can be evaluated by its ability to harness the talents and interests of each contributor. Any open source project, where everyone participates by their own free will, will have a hard time compelling any of its participants into doing something that does not interest them.
-
True. And this is (evidently) not a dealbreaker for current contributors. But some of them may appriciate the option to release some of their contributions under a less restrictive license. That is a valid objection, and it would be too cumbersome to do it manually and file by file. A starting point is to assume all current files are "(default/legacy CC-BY-NC-SA)", and I mentioned "uploads [and licensing] of batches". We may look at how (and if and why) other projects do this. Wikimedia Commons is one example. Even if "TDM-libre" does not happen, the option itself may attract new media/gamedata contributors who only want their work under a less restrictive license. It seems unlikely that anyone would reject working on a project because it offers both options. This is not something I would advise implementing in a haste, but rather that we consider costs and benefits as well as choose implementation wisely and future proof.
-
This is actually a rather old request that we encountered often shortly after going standalone in 2013. Hardcore GNU\Linux folks, especially those who use Debian, think that all open projects should use GPL v3 licenses with full "Libre" licensed content ( Creative Commons ). The goal is that open projects should be a shared resource that no single person or group regulates and can be used for ANY purpose without fear of prosecution or litigation. The primary motivation is "extreme paranoia". Any license restriction is seen as a potential trap that could unintentionally jeopardize contributors or users. For example: Imagine that I create a blog where I review darkmod missions and earn advertising revenue by visits. Through a very convoluted legal premise, the owner of non-free assets used in TDM could claim I owe them revenue since their license doesn't allow "any" commercial exploit of their work. Likewise, the owner of an internet cafe where the game is played might owe the asset owner their revenue. The ISP that made the asset available to it's subscribers might owe them too. The overarching theme is that copyright scope is not clearly defined and can be perverted to sabotage open projects. A fully Libre compliant project is immune to these risks. People who want their favorite projects to be easily available in GNU\Debian evangelize this type of license change. The problem is that most TDM contributors would strongly object to allowing their work to be used by 3rd party commercial projects, especially if those 3rd parties simply rebranded darkmod and sold it as a game in an app store. Even if that were a palatable eventuality, it would also make Embracer Group ( current owners of Thief IP ) more inclined to attempt a legal take-down of our project. A Libre version would need to be a fork that is maintained outside our community so that we can still clearly state that we prohibit all commercial usage. Debian and other similar distros need an easy way to allow users to install projects that are strictly non-commercial rather than forcing all open projects to permit 3rd parties to resell their work.
-
I suggest you use the term "I", to make clear that it is something YOU want, and that you speak for yourself. But, as wesp5 mentioned, I don't really know what this is about, at all. And, I'm also wondering about all the newly registered people lately, who just arrived at this forum, and already want to revolutionize this mod. This is a thing I noticed 2 or 3 years ago, and which hasn't been present in the 15 years I play this mod and frequent these forums now. Really seems like a common thing these days, to not knock on the door, but kick it in, and stomp right in.
-
It is much easier to assume that we have single license for assets and all the contributors agree to distribute under it when they donate their stuff to the project. Otherwise you have to track metainformation for thousands of files, and surely there will be some errors made during tracking. If I don't care about the "TDM-libre" story, why should I bother?
-
Maybe start with finding who are these "we" people who want to change the license to assets?... As a programmer, I definitely do not want to maintain any additional packages. And I do not want to get entangled into any kind of licensing questions. Just that I understand: A license that forbids commercial usage is considered not free (CC-NC). A license that allows commercial usage but efficiently forbids making money from it is considered free (GPL and AGPL). Yes, this is a great distinction Now someone should come and say "but hey, you can sell your support for GPL product!" UPDATE: Well, I think there is also an approach when company provides reduced version under GPL and expanded version under commercial license (like Qt). As long as reduced version is reduced enough, it seems to work fine.
-
When talking about a possible libre version of TDM (https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/22346-libre-version-of-tdm/) it seems we believe all media/gamedata included in TDM is licensed CC-BY-NC-SA. I am not familiar with how the process of adding new media/gamedata works today; I have seen files uploaded to the bugtracker which developers then commit to SVN, but I don't know if there are other ways. It may be a good idea to implement a process that when new components (media/gamedata included in TDM) are added, the contributor is asked to be explicit about the license (a choice which may defaults to their previous preference, for usability). It won't fix the past, but it may help in the future. This will make it easy for contributors to add future data under a more permissive license if they choose. Libre media can be added and its license can be tracked, rather than assumed to be CC-BY-NC-SA. I suggest looking at how Wikimedia Commons has implemented this: the contributor state the source and license at the time the data is uploaded. This can be done either by providing urls or by saying "It's my work and I choose this licsense". The first step could be to add a way to keep track of each filepath in SVN, author, license, sources. Start by setting the value for each file's license to "(default/legacy CC-BY-NC-SA)". Possible implementations for a user interface for new additions are: * Use our own wiki, which runs Mediawiki (same as Wikimedia Commons). I see several benefits of this, but we also need a way to accept uploads of batches, not just single files. * Look at how other open source projects have solved this. There may be more appropriate solutions available. ... but I'll leave the implementation open. Suggestions are very welcome! If the author of each file already in SVN can be tracked, then it may be possible that the author is willing to give a blanket permission for all their past files in one statement, and all their files in SVN can be updated in one commit. A productive contributor willing to release some of their work under a more permissive license could make a big change. If Dark Radiant would support letting mappers search media/gamedata by license (does it already?), it would make it easier for mappers to create a completely libre mission, which would help facilitate a TDM-libre release. If I understand things correctly. This post does not address all details and it may contain misunderstandings or assumptions, but it's a start. Also relevant: * Is there a compiled and maintained list of recommended or deprecated resources for mappers to use? * https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/20311-external-art-assets-licensing/
-
In that case, separating libre components from non-libre components does not seem possible, and like you say we may then have to assume it is CC-BY-NC-SA. That is something we may want to address, but I'll start a new topic for that. According to the TDM license (https://svn.thedarkmod.com/publicsvn/darkmod_src/trunk/LICENSE.txt), both GPL and BSD "3-clause license" apply for the source code: * The portions base on Doom 3 (1999-2011) is GPL * The portions by Broken Glass Studios / The Dark Mod Team (2005-2011) "were"(?) distributed under "revised BSD license". According to the Debian Free Software Guidelines (https://www.debian.org/legal/licenses/): * Both GPL and "modified BSD License" are accepted into the Debian "main" repository * "Non-Commercial License" (it sounds likely CC-BY-NC-SA falls into this category) is accepted into the Debian "non-free" repository ("revised BSD license" and "modified BSD License" are different names for the BSD "3-clause license", see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/BSD_licenses)
-
Nowhere. I don't think it exists. I believe the engine source code and shaders are assumed to be under GPL (except for third-party libraries, which have their license but are essentially distributed in TDM under GPL terms). All the rest is assumed to be CC-by-nc-sa.
-
I'll put it at the top of my queue of missions to play, even if just to see the size of it. Is it explicitly said to be Libre with all its components? Mission story, models, textures, readables, and sound? If it is not, then I don't see that it would work to just change the assets it uses. If there is no mission that is explicitly said to be libre today, I see two options: * Ask if any author(s) would be willing to re-license one of their missions including its assets. * Try enlisting people interested in helping creating a libre mission from scratch. (Assuming it is even possible to play a mission which uses absolutely none of the 2.3 GB media/gamedata.) (Is it?)
-
Freedom is merely a feeling for most. I never understood the coherence with software. A license which allows modification is merely something practical, nothing I'd associate with "freedom" in any way. For some people, this is very political.
