Hard Light Productions Forums
Modding, Mission Design, and Coding => FS2 Open Coding - The Source Code Project (SCP) => Topic started by: Black Wolf on January 13, 2004, 02:41:10 am
-
Did anything ever get concretely sorted out with GS? Because it strikes me that 3.6, with its expected bug-freeness, would be the ideal starting point for any more serious relationship with GS. We've pretty much established they're not the evil corporate monster people were making them out to be a few months ago, and if that little bit of bad relations didn't destroy any chance we had of getting increased and more direct support, I think we should jump at the chance we have now (or will have soon), to present them with a cohesive product with immediately noticeable improvements. So, err, is anything still happening with them? Or could/should it be?
-
My correspondence with GS (and specifically, Fileplanet) has been on pause while waiting for 3.6 to be finalised. So, things are still happening with them, pending build which is stable enough to put to the public. Errr, the public public. :)
-
So, when is 3.6 going to be ready? ;7
-
*Beats the Rush*
When it's Done! :p
-
When multi is finished. :p
-
I've got the whole package together on my hard drive, and the installer script is all finished up.
When 3.6 comes out all I have to do is throw in the official 3.6 SCP executable and readme (I've only got an early version of the 3.6 readme from the summer), and throw in the latest media VP available, and put in the latest latest launcher.
When the package gets installed it will create links to online resources like the Wiki, the scp, hlp, freespace watch, volition watch archives so that people can see all the resources available. I think the only thing to add would be a link to the HLP forum to show people the mods in development.
That's won't take long at all, and I can put the package up for download from the ftp almost immediately.
Cheers!
-
I'm look forwards to that being online :) Should get us lots of new members :)
-
Fractux, can you also add a link to the FS2 section on the Moddb?
-
Make sure any readme stuff for the launcher is a link to or a copy of my webpage on it. If any data on it is out of date or (just plain wrong as I have seen before) I will get the blame.
-
Hey frax, i could help you out and mirror the full install on an unused webspace i have acces to
-
may I suggest you to ask to Gamespy for a dedicated server or two for FSO?
Probably they will be not very used, but...who knows...
and as soon as some mods are released (I choose one absolutely randomly, the SW conversion:p) they may become useful to attract players...
They may become in future a start for a new squadwar for example (*coff*coff* persistent variables in multiplayer *coff*coff*), and GS may be interested in giving this possibility to their subscribers
-
Originally posted by KARMA
They may become in future a start for a new squadwar for example (*coff*coff* persistent variables in multiplayer *coff*coff*), and GS may be interested in giving this possibility to their subscribers
Interesting Idea... :drevil:
-
Try and make it all for non-suscribers. It's kind of against the point of having and open source program. Don't turn it into a business. >.<
-
SCP will always stay free. The gamespy thing will be an alternative download, never a replacement.
And once the multi code is properly done, i'm sure someone will set up a server. It doesn't really need to be good. Just needs to handle some chat and store the stats, so getting one is pretty easy.
-
..I think he meant for the gamespy-enabled squadwar suggestion.
-
I know. Just don't let Gamespy make it a suscriber thing.
-
...Don't ask me why, but I'm kinda opposed to gamespy having any part of this...
I know, I'm strange...
-
So will the Fractux's install be avalable to download for everyone? And not only for the subscribers?
-
Originally posted by Lt.Cannonfodder
So will the Fractux's install be avalable to download for everyone?
Yes.
Gamespy cannot make it a subscriber only thing, due to a provision in the source code license. This has all been discussed, do a search for the first gamespy thread.
-
Originally posted by kasperl
Yes.
Gamespy cannot make it a subscriber only thing, due to a provision in the source code license. This has all been discussed, do a search for the first gamespy thread.
Ok, thanks. Just making sure :)
-
ANy packages I put together will always be available for download from the FTP i am hosting. There have been offers by some other people here to host the files as well, and once 3.6 comes out, this one will get released.
The version I submit to gamespy (if they are willing to host it, and after we make sure of all the terms they want to host it are clear and acceptable) will be the same one I have on the FTP, it'll just be one ~810MB file instead of being split up into ~25MB .bin chunks it is now for distribution on my FTP.
We can also then add the file to sharereactor's DB and host it on the eDonkey Network as well.
Cheers!
-
Good. I'm also kind of uneasy about the Gamespy thing. I'm afraid they'll try and turn it into cash. Just be absolutely sure you don't let them do a -thing- with the suscriber-only features or pay-for-service. x.x;
-
they can not, i repeat, can not make money from it. it would be illegal to make money from the source code. it says so in te license of the source code, ask a coder to dig it up.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
SCP will always stay free. The gamespy thing will be an alternative download, never a replacement.
And once the multi code is properly done, i'm sure someone will set up a server. It doesn't really need to be good. Just needs to handle some chat and store the stats, so getting one is pretty easy.
who said it will be only a subscriber thing??
And the servers fo stats/chat may be crap, but the machine to run a dedicated server MUST be a good one....
And don't be ipocrit guys, gamespy WILL earn money from this thing, not much and not directly, but gamespy is not a non-profit company.
They will just offer a nice service to subscribers with some privileges (inside the gamespy network) above the others. Even when you download something from fileplanet, subscribers have some privileges. What should we do? move out HLP from Gamespy???
I think it would be in their interest to enrich this service (FSO full install) with some servers for their subscribers, at the same time it will be OUR interest to have some servers for the public.
It's a kind of barter.
What's wrong with this as soon as it remain clear who has control over the thing? Whatever Gamespy will do you will not be limited in what you can do.
And about the opportunity of having gamespy involved in scp, it has already been discussed elsewhere.
-
Originally posted by Lightspeed
When multi is finished. :p
is that all you're waiting for? i just need time to test and TESTERS
masterserver will be hosted by inquisitor
i will write a library for game spy to use to query the masterserver and make them credit me :D
-
Jetstream games would probly host it, if you have a decent link, the guy has a fileplanet account, you can request the file to be on the ftp. Be great for nzers because they can get full speed dsl to it :). Im pretty sure it lets people from overseas download off it, didnt used to.
it would show up on this
ftp://ftp2.jetstreamgames.co.nz
-
Why is it you always find 138 Meg Map packs for UT2K3 days after you've deleted it because you haven't played it for ages? :(
No problem accessing it from here :) A bit slow though....
Anyway...
:welcome:
-
Welcome to HLP, HellToupee (interesting name, btw). ;) We already have an arrangement with GS, they will host and seriously promote our final product, but thanks for your kind offer - we may still take you up on that. :)
:welcome:
-
Setekh, ur avatar's broken ;)
Anyway, about GS: I'm more worried that they'll make the multiplayer servers (and hence our chance at SW) subscriber-only, or worse, make SW subscriber-only.
-
Originally posted by Setekh
Welcome to HLP, HellToupee (interesting name, btw). ;) We already have an arrangement with GS, they will host and seriously promote our final product, but thanks for your kind offer - we may still take you up on that. :)
:welcome:
Well its really just anotehr mirror to hose etc, for those that dont like havin to go through fileplanet, plus ild like it on it because ild get it in about 15minutes vs all day :P
-
The thing about gamespy is that they CAN make it a subcriber only thing. Not saying that people become subscribers just to download that file. Its GS's bandwidth, they can choose who they want to give it to.
Important point: its not the files the subscribers are paying for, its the open bandwidth.
Gamespy=Gayspy
-
deepspace9er: actually they cannot - it is expressly illegal for them to do so
-
Originally posted by Unknown Target
Setekh, ur avatar's broken ;)
Anyway, about GS: I'm more worried that they'll make the multiplayer servers (and hence our chance at SW) subscriber-only, or worse, make SW subscriber-only.
I think your ISP is broken. If this forum is working, my avatar is working. Been like that for years. :D
Ummm, what multiplay servers?
-
With the interplay re-release, have we once again been plunged into hot water?? What a rollercoaster. :/
-
I just double checked HOTU and they removed their download version.
Now I wonder what to do. hmmm. Thoughts, suggestions?
-
...Heh, that's why Interplay is doing it... They've been counting DLs on HotU and now want to capitalize on it. Meh! They suck.
-
i missed UT's post
the multiplayer server code is my code - and i make it express illegal for gamespy to do so [(make it subscriber-only)], [however] GameSpy may be allowed to host a master server. If they attempt to make the master server subscriber only or attempt to modify the protocol i will seek immediate legal action against them.
[]=edit
-
1) Gamespy will do nothing of the sort. Apart from the fact that it would violate the SCP license to produce any commercial product with this codebase, they simply won;t be interested.
2) If Kazan has put code in that has limitations, that code should probably be removed, it's implied that all code in the SCP is under the same license as the SCP itself, if we have to make this explicit (and while i htink about it, it probably should be) then we will.
So basically, if you have integrated code into this project that is not freely distributeable and re=usable at least to the extent that the SCP itself is, it needs removed. If you put code in that varies from the terms of the original SCP license from Volition, that code needs clearly marked and the SCP members need to evaluate its inclusion. And you need to immediately give us the terms of any license outside the original SCP license (I am using SCP to mean the orighinal volition source release).
Projects like this cannot survive if limitations get placed on the code post implementation. I know you mean well by making hte above demand, but that statement that YOU will pursue legal adtion implies some pretty far reaching things. I beg you to reconsider that usage and post the terms under which your code can be used so we can make an informed decision on it's inclusion. Keep in mind that it cannot be a GPL release, as the SCP is not GPL to begin with. If you must release your code with conditions, I strongly recommend a license identical to the one Volition used to release the code. I prefer that the code added to the SCP be released as public domain without limitation.
-
Inquisitor: the client code in the game is under the same license as the game, however the SERVER code is under what ever licensing terms I want.
-
Then make it clear, and let us know what those terms are. You cannot integrate something and expect us to adopt it, then decide later that you have terms and conditions. It's not fair to everyone here. If we're integrating something that is restricted, we're not really any better off than having to rely on PXO.
If you must release your code with conditions, I strongly recommend a license identical to the one Volition used to release the code. I prefer that the code added to the SCP be released as public domain without limitation.
The Volition license means that you can keep your own rights to sell it or whetever, and we're restricted to using it for non-commercial endeavors.
It disturbs me a little that I have to make this case to a supporter of open source software.
-
*agrees with Inquisitor*
Copyright (C) Volition, Inc. 1999. All rights reserved.
All source code herein is the property of Volition, Inc. You may not sell or otherwise commercially exploit the source or things you created based on the source.
It seems to me that the server is something based on the source insofar as it interacts with the SCP clients.
If you want to maintain exclusive control over some aspect of the code, then keep it to yourself and put it in Ferrium, or something. It's implicitly understood that fs2_open coders are working for the benefit of the whole FS2 community. Reserving a particular module for yourself, when the codebase wasn't yours to begin with, violates the concept of open source.
And this isn't even open source. I'm pretty sure that Volition would be within their rights to reassert exclusive claim over the code and incorporate whatever features we added into future games of theirs. It would be good public relations to ask us first, but legally they aren't obligated to.
-
I would hope it doesn't become necessarry to either agree licensing terms or usage contracts with every SCP addition or coder/contributor.....
-
I actually think that Volition would be just as far outside the law in incorperating and using SCP code and selling it as a game as the SCP would to try to burn and sell Freespace 2 CD's. Would that necessarily stop a corperate entity from doing so? Probably not. But it doesn't mean it's within their rights to do so.
Also, doesn't the whole Interplay/Volition schism sort of rule out any sort of problem? It's Interplay selling the game, but Volition who owns the code that is being modified. Not exactly in either party's interest to mess with it. If interplay decides they want to continue the Freespace series, they have to change its name and make it "unofficial", and the same goes for V. What is discouraging is that this "limited run" of Freespace 2 CD's has basically removed the abandonware status from the game and made it near impossible to get ahold of again.
-
No, Interplay/Volition are well within their rights to sell it. . It is a license to US from them, they hold the original intellectual property. Just like if Kazan released his server under a license like that, he retains the right to make money with it.
And I think a statement to the effect of "all code contributed..." will get added, so it's well understood that as a contributor, you're not leaving us with sticky licensing issues. When we started, it was pretty well accepted, the team has grown, so, it neeeds to be clearer on the part of the SCP as well.
I just want it to be clear, the last edict against Gamespy indicated a lack of clarity.
-
YOU'RE MISSING WHAT I'M SAYING
The CLIENT CODE - ie THAT WHICH I STUCK IN THE GAME -- is under what ever freaking license Inquisitor wants --
the _SERVER_ IE FS2NETD [save the parts it has in common with the client code] is under what ever license I want -- so i can restrict access to the server code and prevent people from using it in ways which i find appauling
-
I don't miss the point at all. re-read my posts please. It may be that some of the above have missed the subtleties, but I am not one of them.
You have (generously) gifted us with a component we need for multiplayer FS2 under the SCP. The server code is a seperate binary executeable. The client talks to the sever over a protocol that you implemented in the client (clearly free for us to use). The fact remains that in order to use it, we have to talk to that server.
We're tied to it via the client. Without a free license to it, we're left in the same position we're in with PXO, something that we can't use if the creator deems our purpose "appalling" or otherwise innappropriate. The whole Gamespy issue is paranoid lunacy, but the fact that you can demand that we not use it in any way is totally against the principles of open source development. It's suppose to be free for everyone, yada yada.
So clarify the license. If you are going to bind us in some undetermined way, we won't use it no matter how good it is. Right now, it's under a "Whatever Kazan Wants" License. Which is wholly unnacceptable. What part of that is unclear?
If you are afraid that someone will use it to make money, release it under the terms of the volition license. That preserves your rights to it, and porevents anyone making money from it.
Otherwise, GPL might be appropriate (but I find it too restrictive, believe it or not, that is another argument for another board) LGPL, or whatever. Just not "WKW."
That's the point.
-
Originally posted by Kazan
... so i can restrict access to the server code and prevent people from using it in ways which i find appauling
Like dressing it up in a shiny tootoo and feeding it berries?
In regards to the whole volition/interplay thing and whether who has rights to do what. Volition may have designed and owns the code, but I'm sure they went into agreement with Interplay when they first agreed to the games that whether or not they continue a relationship with Interplay that Interplay has the rights to produce and release sequels to said game. Maybe even including the use of the original code, modified by Interplay at their sole descretion.
-
Kazan, it's clear that we need to talk about this real-time. Ping me please.