Tremulous Forum
General => Announcements => Topic started by: khalsa on August 02, 2009, 06:43:30 pm
-
Under developer direction, DavidSev and Wireddd are working on an official map repository for Tremulous.
Unlike other repositories we are going to allow uploads. How this will work is that a mapper will upload their pk3 and some automated code on the website will check to make sure it meets certain criteria. Then the map will be put into a moderation queue and a moderator will have to look at it and approve it.
Additional things that the repository will have:
- stats collection: play count, downloads. a rating system
- user comments
- levelshots (the picture of the level that you see when loading the map)
- additional upload for map source zip file
- a short description of the map by the mapper
This is what the map validator currently checks/looks for:
- a levelshot
- a single .bsp
- no files that overwrite anything in any of the default maps or data/vms-1.1.0.pk3
- the bsp file must contain the proper entities for player spawns etc.
- no potentially dangerous files, ie no .exe etc
- no qvm/dll/so/dynlib
- a filename that conforms to the map-mapname-version.pk3 naming scheme
- a "message" entry in the world spawn (this is what Tremulous uses to get the full name in the loading screen)
Some other things that we would like feedback on:
- Should we allow maps with no lightmap (fullbright)?
- Should we standardize on a pk3 naming scheme for versions? map-mapname-1.pk3 map-mapname-2.pk3 or something?
- Is everyone OK with having to put a file named 'COPYRIGHT' in their pk3 so we know what the terms are?
- Is there anything else that you would like to see?
More details about the project can be found on the [wiki=Official_Repo]Repository Wiki Page[/wiki]
The code for this will be open source as well and can be found in the mercenariesguild git repository. It is licensed under AGPL. Bug reports, patches, and the repository are viewable at the MG Projects center (http://projects.mercenariesguild.net/projects/tremrepo).
If you are interested in helping with the development of this contact wireddd on irc (http://tremulous.net/forum/index.php?topic=9268.0) or reply in this thread.
-
So a lot like how tremcentral does it.
And copyright? Huhwut?
-
So a lot like how tremcentral does it.
well the upload part anyway.
And copyright? Huhwut?
There really should be some copyright terms in the pk3. For example cc-by-sa or w/e.
-
Lightmap should be a compulsory thing. Maps without it look terrible. There should be atleast some sort of quality control.
And as for maps i'd like to see on the main page of the repositry, a New map, with thumbnail, a popular map with thumbnail.
And maybe a most discussed, with thumbnail.
-
Im with your_face on the "Huhwut"? front in regards to copyright. Unless by that you just mean a little note saying "pm me when you steal all thats not nailed down".
DEFINATELY
- A standardized naming system.
- Levelshots
- NO FULLBRIGHT MAPS, pleze? :)
Thanks :)
(great idea by the way)
-
if you can make sure all the maps uploaded has ALL of the textures in the pk3(minus ones that came with trem) one thing i hate is maps that are missing textures because the mapper decided to use a texture from another pk3 i haven't downloaded yet
also no crap maps like paint highrise mission 1 *cannon etc etc
-
Filtering on (non-technical) quality is a mine-field we don't want to get into.
Texture checking could be cool, although requires parsing of shaders and particle scripts and all that jazz. But doable.
For copyright, I vote default to CC-BY-SA like 1.2 will be.
Whatever the copyright, we need to remember to make them agree a "I have permission to upload" thingy./me looks forwards to the DMCA complaints arriving :s
-
I've been wanting something similar for Tremcentral for a long part of time. Talk to me, I've got a proposition for you.
-
It looks great idea. IMHO must be a rule about map names.
Have Fun !!!
-
That's a great idea!
Just what is fullbright, the effect with r_lightmap 1? In that case, I think we shouldn't because that's fugly.
Maybe a client built-in map downloading feature, so that you don't have to either go to a server to download it or start your browser again?
@David: non-technical quality won't be that much of an issue. If they're going to implement a rating system, then maps with only low ratings could be filtered.
-
fullbright is where there's isn't any lightmap for r_lightmaps to show. Basically there are no lights to everything is fully lit. Looks like shit, but IMO kinda pointless filtering for, as people can just add a single dud lightmap somewhere to get around the filtering.
-
That's a great idea!
Just what is fullbright, the effect with r_lightmap 1? In that case, I think we shouldn't because that's fugly.
Maybe a client built-in map downloading feature, so that you don't have to either go to a server to download it or start your browser again?
@David: non-technical quality won't be that much of an issue. If they're going to implement a rating system, then maps with only low ratings could be filtered.
So, you are to lazy to start up a browser to download the map, but you also don't like downloading from the game server you are connected to?
-
excellent idea.
# Is everyone OK with having to put a file named 'COPYRIGHT' in their pk3 so we know what the terms are?
you probably cant expect people to do that. You could use some heuristics on included readmes (dont bother trying to enforce a standard here, either ;)) though, or just display them next to the download.
* All maps should be named map-name-version.pk3
* One mapper owns the namespace to their map, on a first-come-first-serve basis
* Location names (1.2 HUD will be displaying these so might as well)
* No pornography (good reason to have a human look at the map prior to including it)
* No "Acid" maps (Insanely bright textures that have animmaps intended to cause seizures)
* No Variable/Cvar changing? (Eg. cg_humanbuildpoints 999, g_gravity 0)
too strict for my liking.
-
Why? Which bits?
If you don't like it now is the time to get it changed.
-
* All maps should be named map-name-version.pk3
* One mapper owns the namespace to their map, on a first-come-first-serve basis
* Location names (1.2 HUD will be displaying these so might as well)
* No pornography (good reason to have a human look at the map prior to including it)
* No "Acid" maps (Insanely bright textures that have animmaps intended to cause seizures)
* No Variable/Cvar changing? (Eg. cg_humanbuildpoints 999, g_gravity 0)
too strict for my liking.
[/quote]
I agree with this all! but the * No Variable/Cvar changing? (Eg. cg_humanbuildpoints 999, g_gravity 0)
because thats the mappers decision! it could be in space or somthing?
-
That one has already been dropped, ATM the script just prints it out so it's easy for the human checker to see what's changed.
Now I've looked into it more, the list of cvars that maps can set is *extremely* limited, and all the controversial ones (bp) can be and routinely are overridden by mapconfigs, which makes them mostly useless, but also mostly harmless.
Nether the less, we still need to decide if a map setting bp to 100000 should get in, the servers that don't override it are the ones that want default BP.
-
For copyright, I vote default to CC-BY-SA like 1.2 will be.
Whatever the copyright, we need to remember to make them agree a "I have permission to upload" thingy.
I don't understand. Are you suggesting that all maps without a COPYRIGHT file will be listed as CC-BY-SA?
-
Yep. Make them agree to it when they upload it, unless they specify something else.
-
I strongly agree with streamlining map names.
Currently every mapper seems to have his own scheme:
mapname.pk3
mapname-1.1.0.pk3
mapname-alpha-1.1.0.pk3
mapname-1.1.0-alphav2.pk3
mapname_alpha5.pk3
map-mapname-1.1.0.pk3
Etc... It is a mess.
I would like something along the lines of:
map-mapname-alpha/beta/final(optional)-1.1.0.pk3
-
That one has already been dropped, ATM the script just prints it out so it's easy for the human checker to see what's changed.
Now I've looked into it more, the list of cvars that maps can set is *extremely* limited, and all the controversial ones (bp) can be and routinely are overridden by mapconfigs, which makes them mostly useless, but also mostly harmless.
Nether the less, we still need to decide if a map setting bp to 100000 should get in, the servers that don't override it are the ones that want default BP.
make a limit of 250 max bps
-
If the mapper doesn't respect the "standards" of a map (buildpoints, gravity, fullbright(?)...), I think you could add a text area where the mapper could explain his choice (like somewhere in this topic, "I put no gravity cuz its in the space"), and then the moderator will decide or not to let the map be in.
+1 for the standardised name.
(Sorry for approximative english. :/)
-
@David
* All maps should be named map-name-version.pk3
People are unlikely to bother changing the names of their maps (even to get on your thing ;)). So this will stop some maps being listed.
* One mapper owns the namespace to their map, on a first-come-first-serve basis
Its not clear what you mean by namespace or own here. But the way I interpreted is as suggesting that someone with "atcs" would be able to stop people uploading (posing as mapper for?) "atcs_zero" and "atcs_sex", which seems like a restriction on creativity.
* Location names (1.2 HUD will be displaying these so might as well)
Again, people wont do this just for you, so this will cut out some maps.
* No pornography (good reason to have a human look at the map prior to including it)
* No "Acid" maps (Insanely bright textures that have animmaps intended to cause seizures)
* No Variable/Cvar changing? (Eg. cg_humanbuildpoints 999, g_gravity 0)
these appear to be limiting creativity in order not to offend people. I guess thats your choice but it is not mine.
Making mappers upload their own maps (know about it, register, wait, etc, etc) is also going (IMO) to stop lots of good maps getting on your system.
-
Well mapper should want to have reliable no-dead-link hosting. And if it's going to be "official" well promoted repository, then someone would be stupid if he doesn't want to spend additional few minutes to help his hard work spread much faster.
As for standardizing: What I'd love to see is some kind of well promoted auto mappacker tool, that prepares your map's pk3 automatically after filling a form. This way it will be much easier and faster for maps, and it will keep pk3's naming/content standards quite well. Still I'd have to be well promoted.
-
The intention in making this Official map repository is to be able to create and maintain some standards that mappers can optionally adhere to for Tremulous maps. The official download repo will be the default for servers in 1.2 (though they are more than welcome and able to change it) and will create a single place servers and players can use to discover new maps. This means that server owners can easily and readily add new maps to their servers, with reliable, future-proof http downloads.
The fact that this is official, rather than third-party will drive acceptance and usage, and allows us to place certain standards on what is accepted. This also means that mappers will have a much higher chance of seeing their maps played if theirs is in the Official repo. The fact that there is going to be commenting, rating, reviews, descriptions, and some standards is just bonus in my book.
This thread, and the [wiki=Official_Repo]wiki page[/wiki] exist so we can continue to get feedback from the community as to what they think is acceptable, and we appreciate any comments you may have. Please continue doing so up until, and beyond this project is launched.
Khalsa
-
People are unlikely to bother changing the names of their maps (even to get on your thing ;)). So this will stop some maps being listed.
They don't have to change the name of the map, just the pk3. And it's simple requirements that most people will agree makes sense.
Its not clear what you mean by namespace or own here. But the way I interpreted is as suggesting that someone with "atcs" would be able to stop people uploading (posing as mapper for?) "atcs_zero" and "atcs_sex", which seems like a restriction on creativity.
Under the above mentioned naming scheme, it would be map-$name-$version.pk3. So if I "own" atcs, then you can't release map-atcs-2.pk3, but you can make map-atcs_shitty_boxmap-1.pk3
Again, people wont do this just for you, so this will cut out some maps.
The locations will be on the hud in 1.2, so it's a lot more visible. Although the lack of them probably shouldn't be a blocker. (esp for alpha's etc).
these appear to be limiting creativity in order not to offend people. I guess thats your choice but it is not mine.
Making mappers upload their own maps (know about it, register, wait, etc, etc) is also going (IMO) to stop lots of good maps getting on your system.
We don't want to host porn. It'll make it hard to get mirrors, cause legal issues and generally isn't what we want to be doing.
"Acid maps" aren't something I've seen, but again with the don't want to host something that can cause harm. (Same reason no .exe or .qvm in maps)
As mentioned above, the cvars being changed won't block anything, but the whole point is playable maps. I guess most things will get through if they "work".
-
Filtering on (non-technical) quality is a mine-field we don't want to get into.
Most nontechnical things (such as the definition of "playable") should be left up to server operators. I.e., accept based on technical criteria and ignore everything else. You could go with nontechnical criteria for official servers, when and if there is such a thing, but that is separate.
Potentially seizure-inducing maps fall under "nontechnical things" for a number of reasons, not the least of which being that untreated photosensitive epileptics probably should not be playing video games like Tremulous.
We don't want to host porn. It'll make it hard to get mirrors, cause legal issues and generally isn't what we want to be doing.
Can you possibly ensure that everything is legal in every jurisdiction where the site is accessible? That applies to pornography ("I know it when I see it.") and intellectual property misuse and anything else that someone somewhere thought was a good idea to outlaw.
People are unlikely to bother changing the names of their maps (even to get on your thing ;)). So this will stop some maps being listed.
Assuming some form of consistent naming between maps from a single mapper, there are a tonne of programs for renaming them automatically, if mappers are too lazy to do it themselves. Perhaps the submission stuff could suggest a name itself.
-
I'm no mapper, but I agree with David on almost all points - I'd see the point of having an official Repository in ensuring that maps downloaded are of certain quality, and not just a waste of a users time and bandwidth. All the rules I've seen proposed here reflect that - and that includes the "no-porn" and "no-acid". (I can hardly imagine a scenario when a map with either of these is of high quality; and regarding the restriction of "creativity" argument - please, noone is forcing you not to make maps like this, they're just not going to be on the official server)
.
And the argument that restrictive rules for uploading will reduce the number of maps uploaded - I would think this is only valid for low quality maps in any case. Someone who puts a lot of time and effort into making a decent map is not going to shirk from going the last yard to get it onto the official server, I don't think. Exceptions for "alpha" maps might make sense to me, though!
(And in that vein, I would support enforcing location names, as they are a potentially highly useful (even essential) tool to playing.
I also think making licence/copyright information compulsory makes sense.
-
So, correct me if im wrong, but are you suggesting that if a map where to have a default of bps that does not fit your criteria, you would not accept it?
If thats the case, I think that is severely the wrong way to go. Instead, you should allow the server owner to decide whether hes going to allow that map to be played on his server, not for you to decide. I believe that all maps should be on the main server. You are not uploading directly to the server, and it still requires the server owner to download the map in order for it to be played on his server. Therefore, your 'criteria' for whether a map should be allowed on a server should be one simple rule: Is it playable to any extent? If yes, upload. If it causes issues with a server/has viruses/etc - then no. This is what Tremcentral has run off of, and it has worked very well. We even have an option in which you can subscribe to recieve all of the maps uploaded directly to your server via FTP, and then you can block any maps you dont want. I can see moderating that portion, but moderating what can and cannot be uploaded? Thats just plain foolish and, I see it as in a way, socialistic.
Regards,
Confess/Meow11
-
Yep. Make them agree to it when they upload it, unless they specify something else.
I can't see a system like this working very well to be honest. Someone might forget to include the copyright file or accidently screw it up so the server doesn't read it and suddenly they've released their work under a potentially incompatible licence or worse a licence they don't agree with. Why not simply list the licence type as unknown in that case or refuse to upload the map?
I'd be wary of putting too many restrictions on such a system however or you might find very few people using it.
-
Yep. Make them agree to it when they upload it, unless they specify something else.
I can't see a system like this working very well to be honest. Someone might forget to include the copyright file or accidently screw it up so the server doesn't read it and suddenly they've released their work under a potentially incompatible licence or worse a licence they don't agree with. Why not simply list the licence type as unknown in that case or refuse to upload the map?
I'd be wary of putting too many restrictions on such a system however or you might find very few people using it.
We're legally obliged to get permission to redistribute you map. If you don't let us, then we can't host it without breaking the law.
cc-by-nc-nd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) is basically that, we can redistribute it and use it however we like, but no selling or derivatives. Make them agree to that so we and other server owners can legally use it, and then they can add a licence file if they want to offer it under other terms.
-
Avoid NC, it's not clear what 'non commercial use' is.
-
4.b. You may not exercise any of the rights granted to You in Section 3 above in any manner that is primarily intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation. The exchange of the Work for other copyrighted works by means of digital file-sharing or otherwise shall not be considered to be intended for or directed toward commercial advantage or private monetary compensation, provided there is no payment of any monetary compensation in connection with the exchange of copyrighted works.
So 'non commercial use' is anything where making money isn't the aim. I think.
-
Yep. Make them agree to it when they upload it, unless they specify something else.
I can't see a system like this working very well to be honest. Someone might forget to include the copyright file or accidently screw it up so the server doesn't read it and suddenly they've released their work under a potentially incompatible licence or worse a licence they don't agree with. Why not simply list the licence type as unknown in that case or refuse to upload the map?
I'd be wary of putting too many restrictions on such a system however or you might find very few people using it.
We're legally obliged to get permission to redistribute you map. If you don't let us, then we can't host it without breaking the law.
cc-by-nc-nd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) is basically that, we can redistribute it and use it however we like, but no selling or derivatives. Make them agree to that so we and other server owners can legally use it, and then they can add a licence file if they want to offer it under other terms.
that doesn't really help since most maps are likely to use textures that don't allow redistribution under cc-by-nc-nd (including the stock trem textures).
-
AFAIK everything in 1.2 will be under CC.
And cc-by-nc-nd just says you can redistribute and use it, nothing more, if the licence doesn't allow that then we can't host those textures in the first place.
-
We're legally obliged to get permission to redistribute you map. If you don't let us, then we can't host it without breaking the law.
cc-by-nc-nd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) is basically that, we can redistribute it and use it however we like, but no selling or derivatives. Make them agree to that so we and other server owners can legally use it, and then they can add a licence file if they want to offer it under other terms.
I understand that but why not just have a little box that you have to tick that says something to the effect of "By uploading this map you agree to give permission to Tremulous to re-distribute your map blah blah blah" instead of using a licence that adds even more restrictions and may be incompatible with the maps licence. Also this doesn't escape the fact that someone could upload a map that has a COPYRIGHT file that prohibits distribution which leaves you in the same place as you were before.
AFAIK everything in 1.2 will be under CC.
Maps may still be using old 1.1 textures or more likely third party textures that aren't released under a compatible licence.
And cc-by-nc-nd just says you can redistribute and use it, nothing more, if the licence doesn't allow that then we can't host those textures in the first place.
You may be able to host and re-distribute the textures/content legally but be unable to legally change the licence. Flickr, photobucket, mediafire, etc, etc don't require you to change your licence or host your content under a compatible licence. All they require is that you give them permission to host that file (and that you can legally give them that permission). In my opinion that's a much better way of going about thing.
-
You may be able to host and re-distribute the textures/content legally but be unable to legally change the licence. Flickr, photobucket, mediafire, etc, etc don't require you to change your licence or host your content under a compatible licence. All they require is that you give them permission to host that file (and that you can legally give them that permission). In my opinion that's a much better way of going about thing.
To make this map repository useable, the author has to give the permission to distribute not only to the map repository owners, but also to those who download the maps and host them on their servers. As the map author and the server owners may never get in direct contact, a license file in the pk3 is the easiest way to make sure that the maps can legally be used by anyone.
-
If we make our own licence, it'll say they give us, and everyone else, permission to use it for anything and everything anywhere any time. How is that any different? The only difference is that the CC says the same in a way that lawyers can understand and people recognise.
-
To make this map repository useable, the author has to give the permission to distribute not only to the map repository owners, but also to those who download the maps and host them on their servers.
The author may not want the maps to be legally used by anyone. He may just wish for the map to only be hosted at the official trem map repo. If you ask for the right to be able to host and distribute the map then that should be fine. I really don't think it's necessary to do anything beyond that.
If we make our own licence, it'll say they give us, and everyone else, permission to use it for anything and everything anywhere any time. How is that any different?
They may allow commercial usage, derived works and possibly other restrctions such as no one else being able to host the map except without permission.
I honestly don't see why we have to re-licence anything tbh. Asking for the right to distribute the map should be more then enough.
-
The author may not want the maps to be legally used by anyone. He may just wish for the map to only be hosted at the official trem map repo. If you ask for the right to be able to host and distribute the map then that should be fine. I really don't think it's necessary to do anything beyond that.
Then hard luck, we don't want your map. Aside from the point of our mirror network and other map repo's, what's the point in hosting a map that servers can't use? Or do you expect all server owners to disable UDP downloads just for you? The cc-by-nd-nc is *just* permission to redistribute, so exactly the same as us asking ourselves.
They may allow commercial usage, derived works and possibly other restrctions such as no one else being able to host the map except without permission.
If they want to allow other stuff then that's fine. You can stick whatever you want on there, in addition to giving us the permissions we need.
The cc-by-nd-nc gives us what we need and nothing more, so I fail to see the problem.
I honestly don't see why we have to re-licence anything tbh. Asking for the right to distribute the map should be more then enough.
For the exact same reason you have to re-licence it when you upload to youtube or flicker. The licence they make you grant probably signs away more that we are asking.
EDIT: What terms would you suggest we ask for, and how do they differ from cc?
-
Okay, this might be a radical stance (and I'm not very involved here, so I can see I might be pushing it a bit...) - but why not just make it mandatory to licence as CC-by-sa ? I have the impression that with every Open-source game, you have the tendency that at the fringes, the open-source idea always has a tendency to be undermined... (there's similiar with Spring)
I mean, my understanding is we wouldn't be playing this game in it's current form, if it's content weren't licenced CC-by-sa. Or am I mistaken? So if people want to contribute to the game (and that's what I'd view submitting maps to the official download server as, after all maps are a central part of the game), then to me it would be quite natural that it's licenced the same as the rest of the content.
Else down the road, you have the ever occurring problems of "oh, this much played and loved map could do with a revamp/new textures/needs to be fixed for the new gameplay logic. But unfortunately the author is not contactable, and the licence is ND (no derivatives)..."
Please excuse me if I'm being offensive to people by saying this, but I just think it's important to view the broader context.
-
I mostly agree, however lots of people seem not to, and sadly sense we want people to use the repo, we probably have to tone it down a bit.
-
Okay, this might be a radical stance (and I'm not very involved here, so I can see I might be pushing it a bit...) - but why not just make it mandatory to licence as CC-by-sa ? I have the impression that with every Open-source game, you have the tendency that at the fringes, the open-source idea always has a tendency to be undermined... (there's similiar with Spring)
I mean, my understanding is we wouldn't be playing this game in it's current form, if it's content weren't licenced CC-by-sa. Or am I mistaken? So if people want to contribute to the game (and that's what I'd view submitting maps to the official download server as, after all maps are a central part of the game), then to me it would be quite natural that it's licenced the same as the rest of the content.
Else down the road, you have the ever occurring problems of "oh, this much played and loved map could do with a revamp/new textures/needs to be fixed for the new gameplay logic. But unfortunately the author is not contactable, and the licence is ND (no derivatives)..."
Please excuse me if I'm being offensive to people by saying this, but I just think it's important to view the broader context.
that makes it difficult to find textures outside the stock trem textures. (it also prevents licensing the .map under gpl, which may make some sense depending on the mapper's preferences)
-
cc-by-sa3.0 is GPL compatible.
-
I mentioned this to wireddd in IRC today. Wordpress.org has a repo, for their extensions, that is user managed.
The developer uploads and manages their extension via SVN, and makes tags whenever there is a release. Info about the plugin (whats shown on the website) is stored in the README file with special formatting.
A similar system could work for this.
http://wordpress.org/extend/plugins/about/
Some things i also thought of would be a way to integrate this in-game/desktop. If we built an API, we could stick it in game, so people can search for maps directly from the game, instead of just downloading them. Thats all down the road, but it could be very useful
-
Well, I guess it wouldn't have to be just CC-by-sa necessarily, other Free/Open Source licences (eg. Debian approved) could be offered as choices as well (why not GPL, you're right). Though it complicates things a bit if you distribute the maps in a package later, that's not too big a drawback, I reckon.
Can't really comment on the textures issue - I imagine there are far more textures around that either have no licence or a restrictive licence (rather than being freely licenced), so I guess that is a point. (Can't judge how much of a hurdle that would make for map creators - I would think there are good amount more than just the stock Trem textures knocking about though).
Edit: Many of you probably know it, but I find freegamedev.net a good place to start looking http://wiki.freegamedev.net/index.php/Free_3D_and_2D_art_and_audio_resources (http://wiki.freegamedev.net/index.php/Free_3D_and_2D_art_and_audio_resources).
Quick browse came up with this (that seemed semi-promising): http://gpl.imageafter.com/index.php (http://gpl.imageafter.com/index.php)
(Probably pointing out the obvious with those links though...)
-
freegamedev.net is a cool site and it's awesome how much it's grown and branched out over the last few years.
Then hard luck, we don't want your map. Aside from the point of our mirror network and other map repo's, what's the point in hosting a map that servers can't use? Or do you expect all server owners to disable UDP downloads just for you? The cc-by-nd-nc is *just* permission to redistribute, so exactly the same as us asking ourselves.
The Trem devs have said that for most servers UDP *will* be disabled. Not only that but server owners can seek permission to be able to redistribute the map if they wish for UDP downloads to be enabled. The cc-by-nd-nc is not just permission to redistribute. It adds extra restrictions to the map as well as well as removing some as well.
If they want to allow other stuff then that's fine. You can stick whatever you want on there, in addition to giving us the permissions we need.
The cc-by-nd-nc gives us what we need and nothing more, so I fail to see the problem.
It doesn't give the author what he necessarily needs though. What if an author wants all derivates to include a .map or something similiar? Under the cc-by-nd-nc he can't force them to do this.
For the exact same reason you have to re-licence it when you upload to youtube or flicker. The licence they make you grant probably signs away more that we are asking.
The ToS when you sign up to photobucket is here (http://photobucket.com/terms) and the relevant part is part 6.
As you can see they don't re-licence your work (as in apply a new licence to it) but instead seek permission from you to be able to (as well as allowing it's users) view, edit, perform, display, etc, etc your posted work.
EDIT: What terms would you suggest we ask for, and how do they differ from cc?
I'm asking that you only ask for the ability to redistribute the maps (as well as delete them at your sole discretion, terminate their account, blah blah). You don't need anything else for a map repo in all honesty.
-
The Trem devs have said that for most servers UDP *will* be disabled. Not only that but server owners can seek permission to be able to redistribute the map if they wish for UDP downloads to be enabled. The cc-by-nd-nc is not just permission to redistribute. It adds extra restrictions to the map as well as well as removing some as well.
I had always assumed it would be on y default. Where did they say that?
You can't add restrictions to something, as by default it has every restriction possible. So all the cc-by-nd-nc does is not remove some restrictions. And as stated above, it only removes the ones we need.
It doesn't give the author what he necessarily needs though. What if an author wants all derivates to include a .map or something similiar? Under the cc-by-nd-nc he can't force them to do this.
No, but cc-by-nd-nc they can't make derivatives at all. So if someone wants to make a derived work then they have to do it under some other license, such as say cc-by-sa or the GPL.
The ToS when you sign up to photobucket is here (http://photobucket.com/terms) and the relevant part is part 6.
As you can see they don't re-licence your work (as in apply a new licence to it) but instead seek permission from you to be able to (as well as allowing it's users) view, edit, perform, display, etc, etc your posted work.
By displaying or publishing ("posting") any Content on or through the Photobucket Services, you hereby grant to Photobucket and other users a non-exclusive, fully paid and royalty-free, worldwide, limited license to use, modify, delete from, add to, publicly perform, publicly display, reproduce and translate such Content, including without limitation distributing part or all of the Site in any media formats through any media channels, except Content marked "private" will not be distributed outside the Photobucket Services.
So it's a licence. One that lets them do a lot more than the cc-by-nd-nc does.
I'm asking that you only ask for the ability to redistribute the maps (as well as delete them at your sole discretion, terminate their account, blah blah). You don't need anything else for a map repo in all honesty.
The only difference between than and the cc-by-nd-nc is that the cc is transferable to cover our mirrors (both official and unofficial) and server owners.
Which bit of the cc-by-nd-nc do you have problems with releasing your maps under?
-
Do you accept WTFPL? :D
-
sam hocevar is my hero tbh
-
I'm asking that you only ask for the ability to redistribute the maps (as well as delete them at your sole discretion, terminate their account, blah blah). You don't need anything else for a map repo in all honesty.
I think this is starting to get to the point - the real question I guess is what we want the official repository to be.
Yes, for "just a map repo" no more than what you are asking is needed. But then, my opinion (and I think to discuss opinions is part of what this thread is for) is that the official repository should be more than just another map repository that the client happens to point to as default - rather I think it should be a repository hosting maps that can be potentially included in later Tremulous releases/installers. And that is only the case if they are all licenced under a free/open source licence (eg. any of the OSI-approved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OSI_approved_software_licences#OSI_approved_licenses) or CC-by-sa (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)).
-
Well mapper should want to have reliable no-dead-link hosting. And if it's going to be "official" well promoted repository, then someone would be stupid if he doesn't want to spend additional few minutes to help his hard work spread much faster.
As for standardizing: What I'd love to see is some kind of well promoted auto mappacker tool, that prepares your map's pk3 automatically after filling a form. This way it will be much easier and faster for maps, and it will keep pk3's naming/content standards quite well. Still I'd have to be well promoted.
F1 x 9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999 999999999999999999999999
Anyways, All the ideas from the first post make sense to me anyways, but I don't have much of a clue about the various Licenses/Copyright thingys, so It'd be nice to know exactly what gets decided upon and what it will/will not allow.\
Perhaps someone who Does have a clue about this kinda stuff could translate most of the options into standard(IE not Lawyer-speak) English just so those of us(Like myself) could see easily and painfree what each allow/disallows, without having to spend forever and a day trying to figure it out ourselves.
-
the CC licenses already have non-lawyer speak descriptions of what each one does.
-
Links to explanations of various the CC licenses translated into all major languages can be found at creativecommons.org (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/).
-
I had always assumed it would be on y default. Where did they say that?
Probably most servers will run sv_allowDownload 5, so UDP download ("from server") won't be an option.
You can't add restrictions to something, as by default it has every restriction possible. So all the cc-by-nd-nc does is not remove some restrictions. And as stated above, it only removes the ones we need.
What I meant is that compared to a truly open licence it adds extra restrictions other then just permission to redistribute.
No, but cc-by-nd-nc they can't make derivatives at all. So if someone wants to make a derived work then they have to do it under some other license, such as say cc-by-sa or the GPL.
No but you can waive some rights (aka allowing people to make modifications of your work). So what exactly are you proposing? That all maps must be under only the cc-by-nd-nc, that all maps must be licenced under an arbitery list of allowed licences or that all maps must have a licence that allows the redistribution of that map?
Which bit of the cc-by-nd-nc do you have problems with releasing your maps under?
The bit where I can't force people to share changes that they make, where I can only use cc-by-nd-nc textures/content and I'm sure there are other people with different requirements as well.
rather I think it should be a repository hosting maps that can be potentially included in later Tremulous releases/installers. And that is only the case if they are all licenced under a free/open source licence (eg. any of the OSI-approved (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_OSI_approved_software_licences#OSI_approved_licenses) or CC-by-sa (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)).
The problem with that list is that it's just an arbitery list of licences that some people think constitute open source licences. I personally believe it should be a repository that contains as many maps as possible (assuming they adhere to a minimum standard of quality, eg they have spawns, etc) to allow any server owner to just upload a map and not have to mantain their own map repository.
Links to explanations of various the CC licenses translated into all major languages can be found at creativecommons.org (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/).
A few other popular open source licences are also included there such as the gpl.
-
I agree with pretty much everything OP and supporters have suggested.
On the licensing issue: Suggest that the mapper include a LICENSE or COPYRIGHT file with the map. This is standard practice for just about everything open-source. If a mapper choses not to include such a file, make them check a box granting cc-by-nc-nd or refuse the upload. If someone wants to upload a map with a non-cc license, all they have to do is SAY SO in the map pk3. This doesn't seem unreasonable.
-
Wouldn't CC-BY-SA be a better choice for a default option? If the mapper doesn't explicitly specify a license, then assume he doesn't care much about restricting access to his work.
-
Wouldn't CC-BY-SA be a better choice for a default option? If the mapper doesn't explicitly specify a license, then assume he doesn't care much about restricting access to his work.
it would, except every mapper uploading his first boxmap will probably end up using textures that aren't compatible with any cc licenses (if they've actually learned that textures other than those used on atcs exist anyway).
-
On the licensing issue: Suggest that the mapper include a LICENSE or COPYRIGHT file with the map. This is standard practice for just about everything open-source. If a mapper choses not to include such a file, make them check a box granting cc-by-nc-nd or refuse the upload. If someone wants to upload a map with a non-cc license, all they have to do is SAY SO in the map pk3. This doesn't seem unreasonable.
I agree 100% with this. Although just denying an upload might be a better idea.
-
I've been working on the frontend stuff, and have some minor new changes to report:
http://paradox.techquirks.net/
* New things include:
* New voting animation (just a little opacity pulse), for user feedback
* Validator and Debug info is hidden by default on map view page (how many people look at this as it is?)
* Can be shown via a click on the respective header block
* Degrades when JS is turned off.
More coming soon, including lightboxes and shit.
-
It looks like ideatorrent
-
Can you search for a specific map?
-
Except its maps, not ideas, and its coded from scratch, and its not designed to clone reddit or digg
-
Except its maps, not ideas, and its coded from scratch, and its not designed to clone reddit or digg
I can tell.
-
cool! when will it be official?
-
1.2 time, thats when. I added some new shadowboxes, and am redesigning the details page
-
New design/features:
http://paradox.techquirks.net/map.php?id=3
Compared to:
http://tremrepo.techquirks.net/map.php?id=3
Both are using the same database, so both share the same info.
Just my new one looks much prettier.
All the same info is on both, but the new one has more added, and better style.
The description is short now, because it, well, is, but when this service is actually used i suspect that mapauthors will write a lot more (see the maps forum for examples...)
-
Are we going to be able to search for maps?
-
hard choice......
-
Looks good :).
Maybe make the error bar at the top slightly less transparent? It'd hard to read over certain backgrounds.
-
Very nice, but the minimap generator needs to exclude hint brushes (brushes with common/hint and/or skip and/or hintskip shader) and parts of map that entities can't access / which don't get compiled (behind structural brushes) (see arachnid2's minimap). Some indication of depth (and also a bar like on most real maps showing scale) would go a long way in making niveus minimap readable. Oh and someone needs to clean up tremor before 1.2 lmfao.
more edits: looking at nexus6 minimap, seems that patches are not included :( and karith, you should make terrain (shaders with q3map_nonplanar in them) only have fade in/out surfaces, but no lines between faces.
-
the minimaps are generated with q3map2 -minimap, there's not much that can be done about the output.
-
Looks good :).
Maybe make the error bar at the top slightly less transparent? It'd hard to read over certain backgrounds.
The error bar should only be visible if you don't have JS off. It is visible then because I am working on making it say Error: You appear to have JS off. You cannot vote without JS.
Unless this is a different problem. If it needs to be lightened, this shouldn't be too difficult. Few minutes in Kuler
-
It also pops up when you vote without being logged in.
-
Looks pretty damn sweet so far! Nice work
-
Well, i scaled back the Opacity to .8
-
You cannot vote without JS.
Why not?
-
You cannot vote without JS.
Why not?
No real reason, easy enough to make work as it is, but we havn't.
Mainly because vote.php uses post requests, and a href links cannot send post requests.
We could change it to a $_GET, but i believe that leaves more room for abuse. You will have to talk to david and wired about this, they designed the backend.
-
It's 2009. I can't imagine it's a worthwhile concern.
-
It's 2009. I can't imagine it's a worthwhile concern.
Thats what i usually think. And as such, have no qualms in building the site to require it. Its not 100% Ajax, just a nice feature (voting) is. You don't have to use it, but if you want to vote you need javascript.
-
Many people disable Javascript on untrusted sites and requiring them to have it enabled is bad practice. It is 2009; you have a lot of control over the appearance of form fields (use onsubmit to do your AJAX magic).
Even gmail works without Javascript enabled, is there really any reason for this not to?
-
Probably lazyness.
-
Many people disable Javascript on untrusted sites
[Citation needed]
-
I'm a citation!
https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/722 has 57 million downloads. Probably lots of them will be upgrades etc, but still millions of users.
-
If you want to view this site properly, you need to enable javascipt
That is more or less what you will see if you disable javascript.
If you are an old person probably you just visit 5 or 6 sites a day, then I shouldn't be a problem for you.
Gmail is a webmail service so it should be accessible even with a slow connection.
IMHO, Map repository is an entertainment site.
Your business contact wouldn't want you to rate his/her tremulous map.
-
The vast majority of sites I go on work without javascript, as does the repo. Some stuff doesn't, but core functionality does.
I disabled javascript knowing it would break lots of sites, and so I know it's my fault when it does break.
I then re-enable it for the odd bits of functionality I want/need.
-
The problem I have is not that some minor functionality is unavailable to a minority of users. The problem I have is that that minority of users is being actively discriminated against, when the simplest possible implementation of that minor functionality would not discriminate against anyone. Arguments about how minor the functionality is and how small of a minority is affected are missing the point entirely.
Anyone who disagrees is welcome to do so, but it is a known bug that should be fixed and further discussion about it is pointless.
-
Uh oh.
Internet political correctness...
-
minority of users is being actively discriminated against
I nearly cried when I read that...
Anyone who disagrees is welcome to do so, but it is a known bug that should be fixed and further discussion about it is pointless.
That was pretty pointless. It is only your personal opinion/preference not a fact. You should look at the subject from different points of views to totally understand it. Declaring one point of view as superior and others as pointless is pure elitism IMHO.
If you think it is a bug feel free to fix it. After all It is your duty to help the minority as a citizen of The Internet Republic
-
"pm me when you steal all thats not nailed down"
That means that your personal preference is to be labeled as thief?
-
Well, I did more work on the UI this afternoon.
No JS voting has been implemented.
Also, i did some work on the moderation stuff, but most people won't see that.
-
It might be a necro and I'm not sure if it's abandoned anyway, but
http://paradox.techquirks.net/vote.php?nojs&map=5&vote=1 be logged in and click it
CSRF
-
It might be a necro and I'm not sure if it's abandoned anyway, but
http://paradox.techquirks.net/vote.php?nojs&map=5&vote=1 be logged in and click it
CSRF
Paradox, you might want to do something about the spam bots posting on your test-forum. ;D
-
Its not mine, its the other guy's
-
Necro: does anyone still have a copy of the code? If so, would they be kind enough to host it somewhere, possibly on something like github that is somewhat less likely to disappear than the mg site?
Edit: Never mind (http://betaserv.tk/pk3)
-
Necro: does anyone still have a copy of the code? If so, would they be kind enough to host it somewhere, possibly on something like github that is somewhat less likely to disappear than the mg site?
the code (https://github.com/darklegion/tremulous)? or a map repository (http://mirror.kdude63.com/mercenaries_guild/)? or what?
-
the code (https://github.com/darklegion/tremulous)?
No or a map repository (http://mirror.kdude63.com/mercenaries_guild/)?
No or what?
The code for the incomplete "Official Tremulous Map Repository" that this thread is about. i.e., on-topic necro
Edit: Never mind (http://betaserv.tk/pk3)