Official Tremulous Map Repository

[Ingar]

Avoid NC, it's not clear what 'non commercial use' is.

[David]

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.

[kevlarman]

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 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).

[David]

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.

[danmal]

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 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.

[gimhael]

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.

[David]

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.

[danmal]

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.

[David]

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?

[SeanHeron]

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.

[David]

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.

[kevlarman]

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)

[David]

cc-by-sa3.0 is GPL compatible.

[Paradox]

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

[SeanHeron]

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.

Quick browse came up with this (that seemed semi-promising): http://gpl.imageafter.com/index.php
(Probably pointing out the obvious with those links though...)

[danmal]

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 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.

[David]

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 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?

[Colynn']

Do you accept WTFPL?

[Archangel]

sam hocevar is my hero tbh

[SeanHeron]

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 or CC-by-sa).

[A Spork]

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.

[kevlarman]

the CC licenses already have non-lawyer speak descriptions of what each one does.

[gimhael]

Links to explanations of various the CC licenses translated into all major languages can be found at creativecommons.org.

[danmal]

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 or CC-by-sa).

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.

A few other popular open source licences are also included there such as the gpl.

[daenyth]

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.

[Amanieu]

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.

[kevlarman]

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).

[danmal]

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.

[Paradox]

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.

[MitSugna]

It looks like ideatorrent