Open source project startup

Error message

Deprecated function: implode(): Passing glue string after array is deprecated. Swap the parameters in drupal_get_feeds() (line 394 of /var/www/pied-piper.ermarian.net/includes/common.inc).

Pages

Author	Topic: Open source project startup
Kelandon Off With Their Heads Member # 4045	written Thursday, June 7 2007 12:25 Profile Homepage #25 Jeff has indicated that he's probably going to change the license, for this very reason. -------------------- Arancaytar: Every time you ask people to compare TM and Kel, you endanger the poor, fluffy kittens. Smoo: Get ready to face the walls! Ephesos: In conclusion, yarr. Kelandon's Pink and Pretty Page!!: the authorized location for all things by me The Archive of all released BoE scenarios ever Posts: 7968 \| Registered: Saturday, February 28 2004 08:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Thursday, June 7 2007 12:36 Profile #26 quote: Originally written by Kelandon: Jeff has indicated that he's probably going to change the license, for this very reason. Thank you for the info - so I hope that he is reading this topic :) I will meanwhile keep working on the project (mostly the engine), and then publish everything (in a way or another) - but it would be great to start well setup since the beginning Edit: I have read his post. Thank you very much mr Vogel! [ Thursday, June 07, 2007 12:39: Message edited by: Daniele C ] Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00
Arancaytar Law Bringer Member # 2984	written Thursday, June 7 2007 22:47 Profile Homepage #27 quote: Spiderweb Software, Inc. Reserves the Following Rights: - Right to place any and all applications, game scenarios, and derivative works created in whole or in part from or by the Blades of Exile game/editor source code for download on our web site without prior approval of the author. - Right to place any any all applications, game scenarios, and derivative works created in whole or in part from or by the Blades of Exile game/editor source code on 3.5" disks, CD-ROMs, or similar media for distribution and sale, without prior approval of the author. Fees charged for said media will not be part of or be construed as part of any shareware fees set forth by individual authors. All fees are for production and distribution of the media only. IANAL, but shouldn't a "non-exclusive" qualifier be in both of those clauses? Right now, it sounds almost like only Spiderweb is allowed to publish these derivatives. I know that this doesn't make sense in relation to the rest of the license, but I hear that stating and restating the obvious is the lawyer way... -------------------- Encyclopaedia • Archives • Members • RSS [Topic / Forum] • Blog • Polaris • NaNoWriMo Look on my works, ye mighty, and despair. I have a love of woodwind instruments. Posts: 8752 \| Registered: Wednesday, May 14 2003 07:00
Reve Apprentice Member # 6924	written Thursday, June 7 2007 23:37 Profile Homepage #28 quote: Originally written by jg.faust: quote: Spiderweb Software, Inc. Reserves the Following Rights: - Right to place any and all applications, game scenarios, and derivative works created in whole or in part from or by the Blades of Exile game/editor source code for download on our web site without prior approval of the author. - Right to place any any all applications, game scenarios, and derivative works created in whole or in part from or by the Blades of Exile game/editor source code on 3.5" disks, CD-ROMs, or similar media for distribution and sale, without prior approval of the author. Fees charged for said media will not be part of or be construed as part of any shareware fees set forth by individual authors. All fees are for production and distribution of the media only. IANAL, but shouldn't a "non-exclusive" qualifier be in both of those clauses? Right now, it sounds almost like only Spiderweb is allowed to publish these derivatives. I know that this doesn't make sense in relation to the rest of the license, but I hear that stating and restating the obvious is the lawyer way... If he is relicensing under the GPL, as he says, he doesn't need to worry about specifying either of these, as the license explicitly allows you to do both. Basically, the GPL allows you to redistribute any works under it, and charging a fee for doing so is also allowed under it. Here's the bit from the GPL3 on the fee bit for example: "You may charge any price or no price for each copy that you convey, and you may offer support or warranty protection for a fee." On a side note, hopefully the GPL version will be "GPL-going-forwards" (i.e. GPL(any version), GPL2+ or GPL3+) - being able to use it under the GPL version 3 means we can merge in any code under the fairly popular Apache 2.0 license in the program, which GPL2 is not able to do so. Also as an aside, I'd like to thank Jeff for listening to the community here and taking time to help make his wonderful contribution of code as valuable to us as possible. Posts: 30 \| Registered: Friday, March 17 2006 08:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Friday, June 8 2007 00:04 Profile #29 quote: Originally written by Reve: On a side note, hopefully the GPL version will be "GPL-going-forwards" (i.e. GPL(any version), GPL2+ or GPL3+) - being able to use it under the GPL version 3 means we can merge in any code under the fairly popular Apache 2.0 license in the program, which GPL2 is not able to do so. I think that if he would release it under the current GPLv2 http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl.txt it would be just fine; when GPLv3 will be out people might be able to put the code under GPLv3. quote: Also as an aside, I'd like to thank Jeff for listening to the community here and taking time to help make his wonderful contribution of code as valuable to us as possible. I would like to thank him too. Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00
Reve Apprentice Member # 6924	written Friday, June 8 2007 00:11 Profile Homepage #30 With regards to code hosting, if it's under the GPL, Google's code hosting might be an option. With regards to development, the consensus seems to be the logical: - Make it work on new versions of Windows/MacOS - Fix bugs After that, the following are definite options, in ascending order of difficulty (in getting agreement mostly :) ): - Linux port, or cross-platform code base - Extensions to the interface, to make it easier to use, without changing the game - Support for more things in scenarios (e.g. new forms of scripting) Posts: 30 \| Registered: Friday, March 17 2006 08:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Friday, June 8 2007 00:48 Profile #31 quote: Originally written by Reve: With regards to code hosting, if it's under the GPL, Google's code hosting might be an option. I am sure they give a faster service than SF.net, I have already used Google code in the past and I remember it was "not bad". quote: With regards to development, the consensus seems to be the logical: - Make it work on new versions of Windows/MacOS - Fix bugs You are right, these are the topmost priorities, but I would like to start since the first version with a cross-platform maintanable codebase. A question of purity, if you want, but my real goal is to minimize future waste of development (a thing that might kill the project, think about a different fork for each OS...). For now I am developing an OO barebone engine (no code yet taken from BoE) which works with wxWidgets; I am shaping it so that it will offer a generic API that a BoE game engine plugin will hook to make the game really working. It's not as complex as it seems...I will soon let you see a sample. quote: After that, the following are definite options, in ascending order of difficulty (in getting agreement mostly :) ): - Linux port, or cross-platform code base - Extensions to the interface, to make it easier to use, without changing the game - Support for more things in scenarios (e.g. new forms of scripting) As I was saying above, my intent is to move the BoE source into various well-defined "units" of code that could be hooked to the generic engine that I am writing. The generic engine will of course be designed while individuating those "units" in the BoE code, and that's why I will not study the BoE source before the re-licensing. Note: by "generic" I do not mean that the engine has to be another reinvented wheel to support any other kind of game, I mean that it will not have design constraints (so it will be enough "generic") for the future extension of the BoE game engine. Basically, the goal is to provide the same playability since the first versions, but - having an OO redesigned codebase - allowing faster forking, customization and extension. Note: by "units" I mean the classes (C++), that still have to be designed (I have designed only those for the "generic" game engine up to now). Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00
Andrea Babelicious Member # 39	written Friday, June 8 2007 14:31 Profile Homepage #32 That list of reserved rights is invalid and legally troublesome enough to render the code dangerous to use, even without the CPL. It's certainly incompatible with every known open source license, because it puts restrictions on the end user's right to license his or her own creations as he or she sees fit. -------------------- Pygmalion \| Desperance \| Djur Posts: 1074 \| Registered: Wednesday, October 3 2001 07:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Friday, June 8 2007 15:07 Profile #33 quote: Originally written by Andrea: That list of reserved rights is invalid and legally troublesome enough to render the code dangerous to use, even without the CPL. It's certainly incompatible with every known open source license, because it puts restrictions on the end user's right to license his or her own creations as he or she sees fit. Sadly agreeing... :( Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00
Reve Apprentice Member # 6924	written Monday, June 11 2007 01:04 Profile Homepage #34 quote: Originally written by Daniele C: quote: Originally written by Andrea: That list of reserved rights is invalid and legally troublesome enough to render the code dangerous to use, even without the CPL. It's certainly incompatible with every known open source license, because it puts restrictions on the end user's right to license his or her own creations as he or she sees fit. Sadly agreeing... :( These added restrictions don't appear to be in the third release of the code, so yay for Jeff for doing that. Also, I see from looking at the license (see the readme) that he released it as GPL "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" rather than the less flexible GPLv2 only which is excellent news, as I was worried it would be stuck as GPLv2-only. So another big thank you again to Jeff for that, you've really listened to the community here. For those of you who don't know that much about open source software licenses, this means that once the GPL3 comes out we will be able to freely use Apache 2.0 licensed code in the project as well, which gives us a bigger pool of existing open source code to potentially utilize in the project. Posts: 30 \| Registered: Friday, March 17 2006 08:00
Spidweb Board Administrator Member # 1	written Monday, June 11 2007 10:12 Profile Homepage #35 "These added restrictions don't appear to be in the third release of the code, so yay for Jeff for doing that. Also, I see from looking at the license (see the readme) that he released it as GPL "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" rather than the less flexible GPLv2 only which is excellent news, as I was worried it would be stuck as GPLv2-only." Both of these are correct. - Jeff Vogel -------------------- Official Board Admin spidweb@spiderwebsoftware.com Posts: 960 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Monday, June 11 2007 11:13 Profile #36 quote: Originally written by Spidweb: "These added restrictions don't appear to be in the third release of the code, so yay for Jeff for doing that. Also, I see from looking at the license (see the readme) that he released it as GPL "either version 2 of the License, or (at your option) any later version" rather than the less flexible GPLv2 only which is excellent news, as I was worried it would be stuck as GPLv2-only." Both of these are correct. - Jeff Vogel Thanks! Thank you very much! I think the whole community is and will be deeply grateful to you for this choice. Open source project I have re-submited the oboe project (with GNU/GPL license) to the SourceForge.net staff; that does not really mean that the project has to be there...I will also try Google code and see if it offers all the needed services for a small/medium sized project Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Monday, June 11 2007 13:59 Profile #37 quote: Note: by "units" I mean the classes (C++), that still have to be designed (I have designed only those for the "generic" game engine up to now). Remember there is a fine line between elegance and readability. While the BoE code as is can be a hack at times, try not to go overboard with your classes as to make the whole thing unreadable by people without lots and lots of C++ experience. If in doubt, err on the side of readability. It is not a crime to use procedural logic if it is simpler for others to understand. Also, we should probably distinguish between the efforts in OBoE, which I see as a broad class to describe the various efforts going on. I'm currently making changes to the source code, more in the actual game side of things. If you deal with that at all, make sure you keep things distinct between the two efforts. OBoE specifically is not meant to be forward compatable. In other words things created in BoE will work with OBoE, but not necessarily the other way around. Anything that is still compatable in every way with the old BoE, should just be a subsequent release of BoE. If you want to do something different, I would ask (nicely) that you select some way to distinguish your OBoE project from the one I am doing. It's likely the two would be combined eventually. Since there are compatability issues already in OBoE, (things created in it will not work in BoE) we should distinguish or plan to combine or something. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Monday, June 11 2007 14:05 Profile #38 Test. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Monday, June 11 2007 21:45 Profile #39 quote: Originally written by i: quote: Note: by "units" I mean the classes (C++), that still have to be designed (I have designed only those for the "generic" game engine up to now). Remember there is a fine line between elegance and readability. While the BoE code as is can be a hack at times, try not to go overboard with your classes as to make the whole thing unreadable by people without lots and lots of C++ experience. If in doubt, err on the side of readability. It is not a crime to use procedural logic if it is simpler for others to understand. Great advice that I will absolutely follow; note: I am more a C programmer than a C++ programmer, this might be the the 2nd biggest object oriented project in C++ which I contribute to and I am firmly of the opinion that everything has not* to be necessarily object oriented. Singleton instances are nice but sometimes overkill. quote: Also, we should probably distinguish between the efforts in OBoE, which I see as a broad class to describe the various efforts going on. I'm currently making changes to the source code, more in the actual game side of things. If you deal with that at all, make sure you keep things distinct between the two efforts. Keep going on, when I will begin plugging in BoE code I will document my work through SVN: 1. commit original code snippet from BoE 2. modify it to fit into the new engine, where necessary - and that's done (with enough comments on the final modified code) quote: OBoE specifically is not meant to be forward compatable. In other words things created in BoE will work with OBoE, but not necessarily the other way around. Anything that is still compatable in every way with the old BoE, should just be a subsequent release of BoE. Perfectly logic. quote: If you want to do something different, I would ask (nicely) that you select some way to distinguish your OBoE project from the one I am doing. It's likely the two would be combined eventually. Since there are compatability issues already in OBoE, (things created in it will not work in BoE) we should distinguish or plan to combine or something. Good that we start to talk about this; as I wrote on the first post, I would like to act fairly since you had already chosen this name and I am absolutely not going to increase confusion. Here's what I propose: I work with the original BoE source to put it into the game engine which uses wxWidgets (it's almost done, luckly!); I will of course ask you and/or I hope you will take some part in the development, because I will need help and since you have already worked with the BoE source that will be useful (we might fix since the beginning some wrong things in the original code). In parallel (and maybe on the same SVN repo? at your option) you will continue working with that modified codebase that you have now, so at some time in future (near, future!) when we have a "pluggable" well-defined BoE-style game engine, it will be easy to plugin your version of the game engine (that would be the actual new OBoE game engine, different from the original one). Here is a question that might arise: Q.: Why to waste all this development integrating first the original version of BoE? Because the base version will have as goal full backward compatibility and original BoE playability, while the proper OBoE new engine on which i is already working will be our extension* to the game engine. It is a matter of having one thing which is classic and one which will be better and not live with backward compatibility constraints. Edit: and I think it is not a waste since it is the only way to have the original BoE in OBoE I really hope we will end up collaborating and I am open-minded to change any of my choice, if we get an agreement :) [ Monday, June 11, 2007 21:50: Message edited by: Daniele C ] Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Monday, June 11 2007 23:50 Profile #40 Google Code's services are now much better than when I originally tried them (about ten months ago); plus, considering that is much better in interfaces than SF.net and that there are not ads, I think that it is the perfect place for OBoE (SF.net might still be better for huge projects, but I think I will be moving a lot of my projects from SF.net to Google Code in future, SF.net usability of user interfaces is getting worse and looking again at Google Code I felt like looking into future). The Google Code project which I started is available at: http://code.google.com/p/oboe/ I will wait i's answer and other people discussion to define further details. Edit: SF.net's still scores for its integrated web,shell,database services (I do not consider their forums feature usable at all), but Google Code is enough to manage the development side of the project, we might talk about other aspects later (I would like to keep using these forums and maybe later have a proper website for the project, but it does not matter now - if not for organizational purposes). [ Monday, June 11, 2007 23:57: Message edited by: Daniele C ] Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00*
CommonGenius.com Apprentice Member # 9297	written Saturday, July 14 2007 12:06 Profile Homepage #41 I am interested in contributing to development on the Windows side. I agree with Danielle that it seems like a terrible waste for development to be happening on the Mac side (where the community seems to be a little stronger) that the Windows side can't take advantage of because there is no integration. I am not sure that the project really needs formal direction, but having a way to get updates from development happening on both platforms, as well as somewhere to go to find out what others are working on, would go a long way toward increasing my motivation to work on this project. Danielle: I would be interested in seeing what you are doing with the rewrite of the engine itself. I agree that it could definitely stand to be object-ified, although up to this point I have hesitated to go down that road out of respect for the size of the task. But maybe with two working on it, it would go faster? I will take a look at your google repository. Posts: 7 \| Registered: Wednesday, July 11 2007 07:00
*i The Establishment Member # 6	written Saturday, July 14 2007 12:19 Profile #42 This hasn't been posted to in over a month. Right now there is some work going on Desperence for a more centralized thing. Contact Djur about that. -------------------- Your flower power is no match for my glower power! Posts: 3726 \| Registered: Tuesday, September 18 2001 07:00
Daniele C Apprentice Member # 8823	written Saturday, July 14 2007 17:40 Profile #43 I have already written the skeleton classes and started to re-format some code, sorry for not updating the community :( I will try my best to cleanup the current work and show a proof of concept as soon as possible Posts: 22 \| Registered: Monday, May 28 2007 07:00