Jump to content

Censorship?


Recommended Posts

You know in reading this it really did get off topic at least from what I can tell. Though most forums posts do.

The original topic was about censorship and it's turned into another qa session so with that it might be good to get back on topic. In all honestly it's nice that others interested in our project but we have our own forums, irc, and game server there really is not much purpose in discussing a project which is not partnered with Net7 on Net7's forums. It is on the topic of Earth and Beyond but these forums are for Net7 and the emulator they maintain.

(Edited wording was horrible)

Edited by Azasha
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It’s sort of sad that the powers that be can’t see this as an opportunity. Having read and participated in the PvP discussions, wouldn’t it be a great idea to have one server PvP, one non PvP and perhaps even the third being a RP server.

Or not.

As for the open source of the project, there was a time that the entire project and db were fully available to anyone. I remember one of the Devs was helping a school set up a multi player server for some teacher’s class project. All this less than a year ago (I could be off a bit but as of Aug. 2009) we could get the full source and current db.

What happened?

We don’t always get along, but for the good of the game figure out a way you can all do this dev thing so that is has the greatest end result.

I know that people being people (Devs included) will sometimes get upset about one thing or another. Wouldn’t it be great if we as a community didn’t lose this individual but allowed them to make a lateral move to one of the other servers? And back?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hey Everyone,

I want to stay out of this but I do have to say a few things. One of the things I hate about posts like this is as a dev I feel like everything I do I get attacked for. Every day I get on here I end up reading about a post where someone isn’t happy with something we are doing. Myself I just want to code and get things working. Once things are working we can release all of what we have and be done with it, but instead I am replying to messages like this and not coding. For the people wanting to get this project done having all of the devs have to defend every move we make isn't going to move us any faster.

Thanks,

David

P.S. Posts like this do not motivate m:):(

Link to comment
Share on other sites

thankz that was an interesting read while I eat my pizza.

I for one am keeping my guys here. I want a game as close to the original as possible...with NO PVP. :)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Certainly there is an explanation at the top of every c++ source file with links included. :) (To summarize, it's a creative commons license, share alike, attribution, and no $ to be made if you take it and modify it)

In regards to that content, with the exception of around 8-10 of our 400+ missions, it is all created by our staff. I guess we could release those few missions, but that would be kind of a stunted database, besides what other OS project (if you have an example) releases their full development database to the public? I have personally never downloaded anything open source that included a full database, usually just enough test data to get it running and display the features, and at that usually things like "lorem ipsum".

There are many open source projects that deploy with a minimally populated database. Examples that come to my mind are:

  • SqueezeboxServer (streaming audio server)

  • Hudson (continuous integration server)

  • Media Monkey (digital jukebox)

  • TikiWiki (CRM software)

The one thing all these projects have in common is a UI that allows the addition of content. This emulator doesn't provide for that. I think it's a reasonable assumption the server isn't complete without the content the database contains. Therefore, I'm of the opinion the scope of the "work" with regard to the Creative Commons License encompasses both the source code and the database, and that means everything should be public. If you can show me another open source project with the same configuration, using the same CC license, with part of the IP closed source, let me know. I might change my mind.

If you're not familiar with that, do a search. ;)

It's snarky comments like this that set people off. I think I'm trying to make an important point in a professional way. Please return the courtesy.

With all that said, I'm beginning to resent the way the staff continues to position this project as a collaborative, open source effort when it's clearly not. Up to this point I've tried using a carrot, and since that doesn't seem to work, I'll break out the only stick I have.

I've been a fairly regular financial contributor since I've been here, not giving as much as some, but more than most players. Part of my motivation for donating is I truly believe in open source development. Since I'm not satisfied this is an open source effort anymore, I've re-evaluated my role as a financial benefactor. I won't make another donation until there's a commitment to making everything open and extensible (again).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In short, they are doing nothing wrong, either by the spirit or the letter of open source licensing that I can tell.

Just because you bold a sentence doesn't make it true.

From the defininition of "open source":

5. No Discrimination Against Persons or Groups

The license must not discriminate against any person or group of persons.

Rationale: In order to get the maximum benefit from the process, the maximum diversity of persons and groups should be equally eligible to contribute to open sources. Therefore we forbid any open-source license from locking anybody out of the process.

Some countries, including the United States, have export restrictions for certain types of software. An OSD-conformant license may warn licensees of applicable restrictions and remind them that they are obliged to obey the law; however, it may not incorporate such restrictions itself.

If the code base is in a closed repository (and this emulator's is), it shuts people out of the process. There's nothing wrong with that unless you want to define your work open source.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The one thing all these projects have in common is a UI that allows the addition of content. This emulator doesn't provide for that. I think it's a

reasonable assumption the server isn't complete without the content the database contains. Therefore, I'm of the opinion the scope of the "work" with regard to the Creative Commons License encompasses both the source code and the database, and that means everything should be public. If you can show me another open source project with the same configuration, using the same CC license, with part of the IP closed source, let me know. I might change my mind.

Have you looked in the tools dir in the svn?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many open source projects that deploy with a minimally populated database. Examples that come to my mind are:

  • SqueezeboxServer (streaming audio server)

  • Hudson (continuous integration server)

  • Media Monkey (digital jukebox)

  • TikiWiki (CRM software)

The one thing all these projects have in common is a UI that allows the addition of content. This emulator doesn't provide for that. I think it's a reasonable assumption the server isn't complete without the content the database contains. Therefore, I'm of the opinion the scope of the "work" with regard to the Creative Commons License encompasses both the source code and the database, and that means everything should be public. If you can show me another open source project with the same configuration, using the same CC license, with part of the IP closed source, let me know. I might change my mind.

It's snarky comments like this that set people off. I think I'm trying to make an important point in a professional way. Please return the courtesy.

With all that said, I'm beginning to resent the way the staff continues to position this project as a collaborative, open source effort when it's clearly not. Up to this point I've tried using a carrot, and since that doesn't seem to work, I'll break out the only stick I have.

I've been a fairly regular financial contributor since I've been here, not giving as much as some, but more than most players. Part of my motivation for donating is I truly believe in open source development. Since I'm not satisfied this is an open source effort anymore, I've re-evaluated my role as a financial benefactor. I won't make another donation until there's a commitment to making everything open and extensible (again).

So I have consistently asked one simple question and I never get and answer from this team. Many sucessful server emulator projects have been created. They all seem to share databases openly and encourage private servers. What makes E&B have to be closed to succeed when these other project flourish? Just some examples,

Everquest:

http://www.eqemulator.org/

WoW:

http://arcemu.org/

Ultima Online

http://www.joinuo.com/

Star Wars Galaxies

http://www.swgservers.com/swgemu-help/swgemu-compiling-help/

By the way, this is an interesting read, looks like the SWGEmu community had a similar spintering and are tryng to find a way to come back together. Some backgrouns on that:

http://www.swgemu.com/forums/showthread.php?t=11609

Finally, to say somehow the databased isn't part of this project is borderline bizare. You could make the same case any source code that is managed is really just "data" too and the JIT engine is the only part of the project that is shared. In the end its all "just data" a processor gobbles and acts on. All of the database is ultimately recreating content originally provided by Westwood/EA. I'd almost buy the argument if the game as it exists today was totally different the the orginal E&B but just used the client and art assets, but its not.

Now I learned there is a third projet! Wow, wonder how long till 4! :-)

Spacegrrrl

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There are many open source projects that deploy with a minimally populated database. Examples that come to my mind are:

  • SqueezeboxServer (streaming audio server)

  • Hudson (continuous integration server)

  • Media Monkey (digital jukebox)

  • TikiWiki (CRM software)

The one thing all these projects have in common is a UI that allows the addition of content. This emulator doesn't provide for that. I think it's a reasonable assumption the server isn't complete without the content the database contains. Therefore, I'm of the opinion the scope of the "work" with regard to the Creative Commons License encompasses both the source code and the database, and that means everything should be public. If you can show me another open source project with the same configuration, using the same CC license, with part of the IP closed source, let me know. I might change my mind.

It's snarky comments like this that set people off. I think I'm trying to make an important point in a professional way. Please return the courtesy.

With all that said, I'm beginning to resent the way the staff continues to position this project as a collaborative, open source effort when it's clearly not. Up to this point I've tried using a carrot, and since that doesn't seem to work, I'll break out the only stick I have.

I've been a fairly regular financial contributor since I've been here, not giving as much as some, but more than most players. Part of my motivation for donating is I truly believe in open source development. Since I'm not satisfied this is an open source effort anymore, I've re-evaluated my role as a financial benefactor. I won't make another donation until there's a commitment to making everything open and extensible (again).

The tools (with the exception of the GM tool since it would allow you to modify other players data) are freely available. I don't know any other projects currently using the CC license, I'd have to do some research. Now, with regards to IP: The author of an intellectual property has exclusive rights, all of EAs data, assets, and art remains their sole property and is as freely available as they make it or if you have your discs, this is why we don't directly provide the game client. All of the content that is in our content database now is a product of someone who's part of this project NOW. The code is fully open source, it can be made to function with the existing database dumps available to the public, but we haven't released any specific packs used to make it run for the less knowledgeable. We commit code to our public svn for use on other people's computers when it is stable. We don't want to damage anyone's PCs or Servers with our code.

The snarky comment you referred to was meant as a lighthearted joke, thus the smiley on it. I was telling you to do a search for lorem ipsum so you'd get a gigantic search page full of sites that use it as default data. :)

Donations are something you give for the advancement of a cause, they are not a carrot on a stick for us to chomp after, nor are they a subscription fee. It seems like a threat the way you put your financial contributions and the cessation thereof. We are doing what we can, but we are fully within our rights to share what we want as an open source license especially with what we're testing is not stable. No one public wants their server crashed or data corrupted if they don't understand how to fix it. We don't offer nightly builds, and for the most part never have. We've pushed some changes to the "play" server because we HAD to test something that required you all playing at once and couldn't test it in private.

This is all I really have to say on the subject because it's obvious this argument can't be won, despite it being brought again and again (repeat ad nauseam).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If I might step in here like David I've been trying to stay out of this.

I am a DEV for the "other group".

We are well aware of the feelings of the devs here at Net-7 toward us as a group. Although we individually may not agree with it, we do understand where it comes from for the most part.

Until we do what we said we are going to do, (which btw is an ongoing process) and can showw Net-7 that we can stand on our own, then nothing can change between the 2 groups.

We thank those of you that have tried to stand up for us it is greatly appeciated, BUT this is NET-7's forums and it needs to be used to discuss NET-7 stuff. If you want to discuss us we have our own forums.

Let's try to remember to be respectful of all the hard work and time this group put into bring us back a loved game.

As part of the other group I personally would like to see this locked.

Lostmind

Dseewild1

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you looked in the tools dir in the svn?

You're right, there are tools to create some content. I apologize for forgetting that. However, since the GM tool isn't available to the public, the server isn't complete and not in compliance with the CC license you're using. (Again, my personal opinion)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, there are tools to create some content. I apologize for forgetting that. However, since the GM tool isn't available to the public, the server isn't complete and not in compliance with the CC license you're using. (Again, my personal opinion)

While I'm not a programmer or anything, having the GM tools available to everyone doesn't seem like a particularly smart idea either way. Open source is good, but too much of a good thing(available GM tools) can be bad. Just my opinion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The staff isn't making it easy to for us to perform our role as testers while we play the game. It's terribly difficult to determine if a bug has been reported, much less to see how many are outstanding and how they may be linked together. I can see how casual players would lose interest if it's so hard to contribute.

There is a group of Beta Testers whose job it is to report bugs and test items. There is an organization for them, and a bug reporting system. General players are not part of the Beta Tester team, so don't have access to the set up. We do want your bug reports (See Player Bug Reports on the forums) but at the same time you can't expect a walk through of the missions to simply see if you're on the right track. Beta Testers would be provided an idea of what is supposed to happen on a mission more so than a player. They would also typically work closer with the team lead or creator of the mission. There is also nothing stopping a player from creating a guide to a mission or missions themselves. The only caution I would add is that as things are still changing fairly frequently, the guide or walk through could be out of date fairly quickly.

Also, as mentioned before (and to remain on the original topic) all forums need "censoring" to some extent. Offensive posts and inappropriate material (we have all age ranges playing and reading) need to be removed. Although I believe in a good discussion and healthy debate, it should also be recognized that some things can't be solved, some posts turn into flame wars, and some will (or would) drag on for a long period of time with nothing gained. I for one also care about the image of the forums, and if there were a thread going on for months, with lots of hurt feelings, bickering and so on, I (assuming I was a new visitor) would not be impressed, nor likely to be interested in spending time in a community apparently enjoying such a thread.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The tools (with the exception of the GM tool since it would allow you to modify other players data) are freely available. I don't know any other projects currently using the CC license, I'd have to do some research. Now, with regards to IP: The author of an intellectual property has exclusive rights, all of EAs data, assets, and art remains their sole property and is as freely available as they make it or if you have your discs, this is why we don't directly provide the game client. All of the content that is in our content database now is a product of someone who's part of this project NOW. The code is fully open source, it can be made to function with the existing database dumps available to the public, but we haven't released any specific packs used to make it run for the less knowledgeable. We commit code to our public svn for use on other people's computers when it is stable. We don't want to damage anyone's PCs or Servers with our code.

The snarky comment you referred to was meant as a lighthearted joke, thus the smiley on it. I was telling you to do a search for lorem ipsum so you'd get a gigantic search page full of sites that use it as default data. :)

Donations are something you give for the advancement of a cause, they are not a carrot on a stick for us to chomp after, nor are they a subscription fee. It seems like a threat the way you put your financial contributions and the cessation thereof. We are doing what we can, but we are fully within our rights to share what we want as an open source license especially with what we're testing is not stable. No one public wants their server crashed or data corrupted if they don't understand how to fix it. We don't offer nightly builds, and for the most part never have. We've pushed some changes to the "play" server because we HAD to test something that required you all playing at once and couldn't test it in private.

This is all I really have to say on the subject because it's obvious this argument can't be won, despite it being brought again and again (repeat ad nauseam).

Last reply, I'm tired too.

  • This project simply isn't open source. There are ten criteria an application must meet to be considered open source. This project falls short in at least one area and as many as three. Prove me wrong.

  • It wasn't a threat. It's truly the only leverage I have. If you want to position yourselves as a quasi-private group of folks sharing a hobby and taking donations to keep the lights on, great. That's a valid approach and I could probably support you in that effort if you were upfront about it. However, one of the reasons I donated money was because I was under the impression the project was actually open, which I no longer believe it is.

Tell you what; Find a person that truly understands how open source licensing works, perhaps someone who has worked with the big kids like Apache, Eclipse, or one of the Linux distros and describe the situation to them. It wouldn't hurt to clear the air.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You're right, there are tools to create some content. I apologize for forgetting that. However, since the GM tool isn't available to the public, the server isn't complete and not in compliance with the CC license you're using. (Again, my personal opinion)

Don't be ridiculous. EVERY tool needed to create content for the game is available publicly; not some; not most; all. The only reason we don't release the GM Tool is so that people can't figure out our auth system and wreak havoc on the server. Your argument that, because we didn't release one of our tools, the server isn't complete is one of the most absurd I've ever heard. I have absolutely had all I can take of this. The most unbelievable part of this is that the people who are arguing the most stubborn and groundless points in this thread are not the staff of the other project, they're people who seemingly just like to argue! If you're going to sit here and give us grief for the rest of eternity, I would rather you leave.

Angry Dev - OUT!

* pulls hair out and runs away screaming *

In all seriousness: all we're trying to do is protect the community; that's all we ever try to do. My question is this: why would we be doing this if not for the community? We don't get paid, we don't get glory, we don't get a thing. All we get is yelled at. If our motives weren't pure, why would any of us be here? Please just take that into consideration before you decide that what we're doing is wrong.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I've been debating on chiming in on this part of the conversation for awhile but in some situations devils advocate has to be played.

Under the Creative Commons License Net7 does have the right to stop all distribution of materials under that license. So they are not breaking their license. Per this section:

7. Termination

1. This License and the rights granted hereunder will terminate automatically upon any breach by You of the terms of this License. Individuals or entities who have received Adaptations or Collections from You under this License, however, will not have their licenses terminated provided such individuals or entities remain in full compliance with those licenses. Sections 1, 2, 5, 6, 7, and 8 will survive any termination of this License.

2. Subject to the above terms and conditions, the license granted here is perpetual (for the duration of the applicable copyright in the Work). Notwithstanding the above, Licensor reserves the right to release the Work under different license terms or to stop distributing the Work at any time; provided, however that any such election will not serve to withdraw this License (or any other license that has been, or is required to be, granted under the terms of this License), and this License will continue in full force and effect unless terminated as stated above.

In short most Open Source Licenses (and there are many) do not require that the source code be distributed but rather "allow" the source code to be distributed. Now, Creative Commons does not very well address this as it is not an Open Source License but rather a free distribution and alteration license most commonly used for Artwork, films, and literary works.

So basically Net7 is not going against their license because it does not require them to distribute but rather allows anyone who is given their works (via http or ftp download, email, or any other form of physical or digital transmittal) to modify and redistribute for non-profit.

The full license can be found here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode

So the debate really isn't if they have violated "their open source license". Who they distribute to after their licensing is not a legal matter but their own decision. They just can't tell anyone who they distributed the source code to what they can do with it as long as the person(s) or organization(s) is not making a profit.

I also agree this thread is pretty done with.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ok I've been debating on chiming in on this part of the conversation for awhile but in some situations devils advocate has to be played.

Under the Creative Commons License Net7 does have the right to stop all distribution of materials under that license. So they are not breaking their license. Per this section:

In short most Open Source Licenses (and there are many) do not require that the source code be distributed but rather "allow" the source code to be distributed. Now, Creative Commons does not very well address this as it is not an Open Source License but rather a free distribution and alteration license most commonly used for Artwork, films, and literary works.

So basically Net7 is not going against their license because it does not require them to distribute but rather allows anyone who is given their works (via http or ftp download, email, or any other form of physical or digital transmittal) to modify and redistribute for non-profit.

The full license can be found here: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/legalcode

So the debate really isn't if they have violated "their open source license". Who they distribute to after their licensing is not a legal matter but their own decision. They just can't tell anyone who they distributed the source code to what they can do with it as long as the person(s) or organization(s) is not making a profit.

I also agree this thread is pretty done with.

Thank you, Azasha. I really appreciate how fair you've been in the face of all this. I will close the thread now, as it seems that everyone involved has pretty much exhausted themselves (myself definitely included) through argument. If anyone has legitimate last words they want posted, PM me and I'll re-open the thread for you, so no one feels censored again.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
×
×
  • Create New...