Graal Forums
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Graal Forums (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/index.php)
-   NPC Scripting (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=8)
-   -   Community Scripting Project (https://forums.graalonline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80831)

Inverness 07-28-2008 07:03 PM
Chris (correct nickname?), you really should give it up and just take our word for it. Loriel, Rufus, and myself are all more experienced in matters such as this. :p Loriel has been right on the money with everything he has said.
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbk1994 (Post 1409345)
Yes it will, it will hurt the original server.
No it wont. People don't play crap copies. And such a server would never make it to classic.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus
Servers which copy Era for example are scripting the same systems, in the exact same way, but they're never going to be accepted into the mainstream server list as they lack originality, thus not creating much competition at all. What it does create is a push for creativity and originality, and in the majority of servers and on Graal as a whole this is very much needed.
Couldn't have said it better myself.

DustyPorViva 07-28-2008 07:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbk1994 (Post 1409345)
Yes it will, it will hurt the original server.
The only thing that can hurt a server from sharing, is levels.

Inverness 07-28-2008 07:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DustyPorViva (Post 1409351)
The only thing that can hurt a server from sharing, is levels.
That sounds accurate, provided the tilesets are the same and the PWA or other people aren't very observant.

I just thought of an awesome script that would allow PWA to check for duplicate levels on different servers :D

LoneAngelIbesu 07-28-2008 08:08 PM
Open source would not work on the Graal the way it works in the rest of the technology world. Graal is not a wide market; operating systems, IDEs, web applications, etc. are all wide markets. On an open source Graal, I would be making a server that's bound to go to Classic. Somebody else would notice, and steal the systems I've made and claim them for themselves. Now, I have to spend even longer creating something better each time my entire server's systems are stolen. The stolen systems wouldn't be "crap copies", because the server where they originated from wouldn't have been released; you wouldn't ever know the difference.

That's not how open source works. If you thinks that's the goal of open source, you've really missed the point Richard Stallman was trying to make. Most open source software is released when its finished, and the goal is that people will improve that software, not to have other people copy the software and brand it as their own.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Loriel (Post 1409302)
Making playerworld creation easier is a good thing.
There's a difference between making a playerworld and making a clone. You don't seem to be able to understand this.

DustyPorViva 07-28-2008 08:10 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409358)
Open source would not work on the Graal the way it works in the rest of the technology world. Graal is not a wide market; operating systems, IDEs, web applications, etc. are all wide markets. On an open source Graal, I would be making a server that's bound to go to Classic. Somebody else would notice, and steal the systems I've made and claim them for themselves. Now, I have to spend even longer creating something better each time my entire server's systems are stolen. The stolen systems wouldn't be "crap copies", because the server where they originated from wouldn't have been released; you wouldn't ever know the difference.

That's not how open source works. If you thinks that's the goal of open source, you've really missed the point Richard Stallman was trying to make. Most open source software is released when its finished, and the goal is that people will improve that software, not to have other people copy the software and brand it as their own.


There's a difference between making a playerworld and making a clone. You don't seem to be able to understand this.
I don't think Graal needs to be open source... but simply more sharing == better Graal.

Like Rufus said... someone simply copying a server isn't gonna make it good.

LoneAngelIbesu 07-28-2008 08:12 PM
That's exactly what's been proposed, Dusty. Open source servers. I wouldn't be arguing about open source otherwise.

And the idea that the copy isn't going to be good is only assuming that the server where the copy came from is up and running (aka, Hosted/Classic). The "Era clone" thing doesn't apply here. Server B copies from server A and is released before server A. Server B gets all the glory with none of the work, and none of it is against the rules.

zokemon 07-28-2008 09:20 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Rufus (Post 1409346)
You're assuming that servers reusing scripts would be carbon copies of the servers that the scripts are from, and while that might be true in some cases, that is not why it is being suggested. Servers which copy Era for example are scripting the same systems, in the exact same way, but they're never going to be accepted into the mainstream server list as they lack originality, thus not creating much competition at all. What it does create is a push for creativity and originality, and in the majority of servers and on Graal as a whole this is very much needed.

If a server like Graal2001 for instance wanted to use the car script Era has for their Go-Karts event, I do not see how this is going to hurt Era at all, because borrowing or not the Karts are going to be scripted. Time is saved, and it would not be creating competition from Era's own content, because it is not Era's content.
The problem is, people do actually play the crappy clone servers which is the sad part.

Inverness 07-28-2008 09:36 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409358)
Open source would not work on the Graal the way it works in the rest of the technology world. Graal is not a wide market; operating systems, IDEs, web applications, etc. are all wide markets. On an open source Graal, I would be making a server that's bound to go to Classic. Somebody else would notice, and steal the systems I've made and claim them for themselves. Now, I have to spend even longer creating something better each time my entire server's systems are stolen. The stolen systems wouldn't be "crap copies", because the server where they originated from wouldn't have been released; you wouldn't ever know the difference.

That's not how open source works. If you thinks that's the goal of open source, you've really missed the point Richard Stallman was trying to make. Most open source software is released when its finished, and the goal is that people will improve that software, not to have other people copy the software and brand it as their own.


There's a difference between making a playerworld and making a clone. You don't seem to be able to understand this.
You don't seem to be able to understand that clones don't go classic.

Having classic servers that are open source would be just fine. Having other types of servers be open source is open to debate. But I'm not budging on the fact that I think open source classic servers is not a problem.

LoneAngelIbesu 07-28-2008 10:13 PM
It's all or nothing in the end, Inverness. My argument is centered on development servers, though.

DrakilorP2P 07-28-2008 10:14 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409358)
On an open source Graal, I would be making a server that's bound to go to Classic. Somebody else would notice, and steal the systems I've made and claim them for themselves. Now, I have to spend even longer creating something better each time my entire server's systems are stolen. The stolen systems wouldn't be "crap copies", because the server where they originated from wouldn't have been released; you wouldn't ever know the difference.
I'd like to note that a copyleft license is supposed to fix this. If someone forks you in an attempt to replace you, you can do the same back to them since they're forced to distribute any changes they make. On a different note, aren't you just assuming that there are thugs around every corner?

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409358)
That's not how open source works. If you thinks that's the goal of open source, you've really missed the point Richard Stallman was trying to make.
Richard M. Stallman isn't involved in the open source movement. You should know that he's picky about names since he believes that names matter. He's strictly active within free software.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409358)
Most open source software is released when its finished, and the goal is that people will improve that software, not to have other people copy the software and brand it as their own.
Actually, that was more common in the old days of free software. The issue is discussed further in Eric S. Raymond's essay titled The Cathedral and the Bazaar. The metaphorical bazaar, where projects are released both early in their life and frequently thereafter, is common these days. The most prominent success story is our favourite kernel called Linux.

LoneAngelIbesu 07-28-2008 10:32 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P (Post 1409392)
I'd like to note that a copyleft license is supposed to fix this. If someone forks you in an attempt to replace you, you can do the same back to them since they're forced to distribute any changes they make. On a different note, aren't you just assuming that there are thugs around every corner?
I would honestly be fine releasing all my scripts under a Creative Commons BY-NC-SA license. That would mean that non-commercial derivative works would be allowed, as long as I receive credit for the original work. I just want my intellectual property to remain my intellectual property. I know that there aren't "thugs around every corner", but there are thugs nonetheless.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P (Post 1409392)
Richard M. Stallman isn't involved in the open source movement. You should know that he's picky about names since he believes that names matter. He's strictly active within free software.
I've seen open source and free software be used as synonyms a lot in these kinds of arguments. x_x

cbk1994 07-28-2008 10:44 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409400)
I've seen open source and free software be used as synonyms a lot in these kinds of arguments. x_x
Well, they aren't synonyms. Free software is merely software anyone can use for free, they don't release the source (usually).

Chompy 07-28-2008 10:51 PM
Sounds.. interesting? :o

Loriel 07-28-2008 11:02 PM
1 Attachment(s)
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbk1994 (Post 1409401)
Well, they aren't synonyms.
This is right.

Quote:
Free software is merely software anyone can use for free, they don't release the source (usually).
This is wrong.

Loriel 07-28-2008 11:06 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P (Post 1409392)
I'd like to note that a copyleft license is supposed to fix this.
You cannot really apply a copyleft license to your playerworld because the copyright of your playerworld belongs to Graal, and not you. So you would need Graal policies that emulate copyleft with respect to different playerworlds instead of licensees or whatever.

cbk1994 07-28-2008 11:11 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loriel (Post 1409405)
This is wrong.
I wasn't talking about actual software that is free; I'm talking about if you split it up like some do to open source, free, proprietary, shareware, etc.

Loriel 07-28-2008 11:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbk1994 (Post 1409409)
I wasn't talking about actual software that is free; I'm talking about if you split it up like some do to open source, free, proprietary, shareware, etc.
No one does that. Free software has a pretty precise meaning and it is not what you think it is.

DrakilorP2P 07-28-2008 11:31 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by cbk1994 (Post 1409409)
I wasn't talking about actual software that is free; I'm talking about if you split it up like some do to open source, free, proprietary, shareware, etc.
Learning aid: free as in freedom, not as in free candy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409400)
I just want my intellectual property to remain my intellectual property.
You mean imaginary property? Sometimes I can't believe how witty and awesome I am.

Loriel 07-28-2008 11:34 PM
This post's previous content is no longer relevant!

Inverness 07-28-2008 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409389)
It's all or nothing in the end, Inverness. My argument is centered on development servers, though.
No it is not, my dear idiot. Quake 3 is open source now, it doesn't mean it has to be open source while its developed. Classic servers are Graal's equivalent to a completed product, meaning you can open source it because its been established that it is the original and PWA wont allow clones.

You'd be allowed to use the source code to help your own project along, not create a clone.

LoneAngelIbesu 07-29-2008 12:00 AM
I'd be inclined to say I agree if you didn't stoop to insulting me for no reason. You make it impossible to argue with you. :rolleyes: But, since I'm the kind of person that attempts the impossible: the argument is about making all servers open source, not just classic servers. ^^

Inverness 07-29-2008 12:32 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409423)
the argument is about making all servers open source, not just classic servers. ^^
The argument just changed.

LoneAngelIbesu 07-29-2008 12:40 AM
We weren't done with the other argument yet. >:[ Making just Classic servers open source would be fine. I'd still like my scripts to be CC-by-nc-sa, though. The GraalOnline policies would have to be changed, though, to allow scripters to license their own scripts.

Inverness 07-29-2008 12:50 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu (Post 1409433)
Making just Classic servers open source would be fine.
Good, that's all I care about.

And we don't need fancy licenses.

Besides I doubt anyone would want to use your scripts anyways. :p

You still have much to learn.

Loriel 07-29-2008 12:51 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Inverness (Post 1409428)
The argument just changed.
Making only classic servers open source would not be very useful because most servers do not get to be classic ever. :(

LoneAngelIbesu 07-29-2008 12:52 AM
But, it prevents a clone from being more successful than the original. ^^

Inverness 07-29-2008 01:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loriel (Post 1409437)
Making only classic servers open source would not be very useful because most servers do not get to be classic ever. :(
I think the classic servers would have the more well-developed script content anyhow.

And it prevents a non-classic server from taking a script from another non-classic server and achieving success from something that was never theirs to begin with.

Classic servers being open source means that everyone for the most part already knows where the original came from so they can't just clone it and achieve success.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Loriel (Post 1409421)
This post's previous content is no longer relevant!
He should have changed it to rootbeer instead of candy.

Loriel 07-29-2008 01:19 AM
This is the best derail ever.


All times are GMT +2. The time now is 08:11 PM.
Page 4 of 4 123 4
Show 40 post(s) from this thread on one page

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.11
Copyright ©2000 - 2025, vBulletin Solutions Inc.
Copyright (C) 1998-2019 Toonslab All Rights Reserved.