Search the Community
Searched results for '/tags/forums/license/' or tags 'forums/license/q=/tags/forums/license/&'.
-
Help Wanted: Beta Testers -- "The Terrible Old Man"
nbohr1more replied to Ansome's topic in Fan Missions
Welcome to the forums Ansome! And congrats on making it to beta phase! -
"...to a robber whose soul is in his profession, there is a lure about a very old and feeble man who pays for his few necessities with Spanish gold." Good day, TDM community! I'm Ansome, a long-time forums lurker, and I'm here to recruit beta testers for my first FM: "The Terrible Old Man", based on H.P. Lovecraft's short story of the same name. This is a short (30-45 minute), story-driven FM with plenty of readables and a gloomy atmosphere. Do keep in mind that this is a more linear FM than you may be used to as it was deemed necessary for the purposes of the story's pacing. Regardless, the player does still have a degree of freedom in tackling challenges in the latter half of the FM. If this sounds interesting to you, please head over to the beta testing thread I will be posting shortly. Thank you!
- 6 replies
-
- 10
-
-
You can try msbuild command to build from command line. Perhaps it won't ask you for updated MSVC license. It should be like: msbuild DarkRadiant.sln /p:Configuration=Release -
Something I was thinking of: Even if some assets are non-commercial, are all assets at least accounted for to make sure they're credited accordingly and can be distributed? I ask following an issue in another great project I work with called Red Eclipse: They don't have NC assets but did have a few texture packages they had to remove because they later found out their clauses were incompatible with the project. If this hasn't happened in well over a decade it's very unlikely anyone would complain today and request removal for any reason, but if any resource had its license misunderstood that could destroy existing FM's unless perfect replacements were found. Obviously I presume the team never included any asset randomly found on the internet without verifying their explicit requirements in detail, but it doesn't hurt to check. I think the best that can be done otherwise would be to have a list of which assets are libre or have the NC clause: That way a map can choose to use those models and textures that are free if the author wants their FM to be fully libre, albeit this would handicap an author in what packages they can use. If core assets like character models or textures are also NC, the idea is likely pointless as you can't make a FM without those, at best you can skip a few texture packages... not sure about other things like core scripts or defs, since they're technically code I presume those are GPL?
-
TDM Latch Pack (Beta) By Frost_Salamander and wellingtoncrab with special thanks to Dragofer Tired of picking another lock or hunting for that missing key? Imagine The City is itself an elaborate lock, and you are the key. Embrace progression through careful exploration and navigation of the environment. Embrace the latch pill: Included is a new entity type and scripting for a door mounted toggle lock, or "latch", as well as new CC0 assets and prefabs. https://github.com/thedarkmodcommunity/test-latch/wiki Example Video Asset Pictures All models and textures in this pack are released under CC0 license and may be used freely without need of attribution. We waive copyright to the extent that possible, but aren’t lawyers. Latch Lock Features Supports single and double doors across all cardinal directions, as well as trap doors Uses the location system to handle context sensitive frob highlighting of the latch and the doors Automatically determines the correct latch state on map start based on the targeted door's "locked" spawnarg Options for rotate, translate, or both with unique sound slots for each Supports any model or func_static To get started head over and grab the latest release (available with or without demo content) and read the getting started guide. This is a beta release - so your feedback is appreciated!
- 6 replies
-
- 17
-
-
-
New script for mappers: my flavour of a fog density fading script. To add this to your FM, add the line "thread FogIntensityLoop();" to your map's void main() function (see the example in fogfade.script) and set "fog_fade" "1" on each foglight to enable script control of it. Set "fog_intensity_multiplier" on each info_location entity to change how thick the fog is in that location (practically speaking it's a multiplier for visibility distance). Lastly, "fog_fade_speed" on each foglight determines how quickly it will change its density. The speed scales with the current value of shaderParm3, using shaderParm3 = 1000 as a baseline. So i.e. if shaderParm is currently at 1/10th of 1000, then fade speed will be 1/10th as fast. Differences to Obsttorte's script: https://forums.thedarkmod.com/index.php?/topic/14394-apples-and-peaches-obsttortes-mapping-and-scripting-thread/&do=findComment&comment=310436 my script uses fog lights you created, rather than creating one for you. Obsttorte's script will delete the foglight if entering a fogfree zone and recreate it later more than one fog light can be controlled (however, no per-fog-light level of control) adding this to the map requires adding a line to your void main() script, rather than adding an info_locations_settings entity with a custom scriptobject spawnarg in my script, mappers set a multiplier of fog visibility distance (shaderParm3), while in Obsttorte's script a "fog_density" spawnarg is used as an alternative to shaderParm3 smaller and less compactly written script fogfade.scriptfogfade.map
-
I'm thinking existing maps are kept as they are today, and keeps using the same assets as today. This so they can stay the same as today and won't deviate from how their author intended them to be. The existing missions won't be libre, but it is quite possible that the authors don't want them to be libre. If an author of a mission said "this mission itself is libre, but it relies on NC assets" then it would be possible to replace the NC assets to libre assets and the entire mission would be libre. Yes. If a mapper wanted to create a libre mission they would need to restrict themselves to only using libre assets. In this post, I suggest that Dark Radiant should allow mappers to search/filter media/gamedata by license (if DR does not already do this). Such a filter functionality would help facilitating the creation of a libre mission.
-
Here's my first FM. A small and easy mission, inspired by Thief's Den and The Bakery Job, where you must find and steal a cook's recipe book in order to save a friend from going out of business. Download: Mediafire (sk_cooks.pk4) TDM Website's Mission Page The in-game mission downloader Thanks to: The people who helped me get this far, both in the forums and on Discord. The beta testers: MirceaKitsune, Mat99, Baal, wesp5, Cambridge Spy, jaxa, grodenglaive, Acolytesix ( Per the author in the beta testing thread. ) Skaruts has given permission to the TDM Team to add Subtitles or Localization Strings to this mission. (No EFX Reverb.) If anyone from the Community or TDM team wishes to create these we will gladly test them and update the mission database.
- 55 replies
-
- 25
-
-
-
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.
