Community Scripting Project

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Rufus

How would they suffer?

Players would go to the other server, and the original server would have less players.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Sure, but the current problem is that there are too many servers.

That is not really a problem. The problem is that all of them suck.

All scripts being available to everyone else does not mean that you get away without development teams. That is a pretty silly conclusion.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Rufus

You would expect that an extremely organized server, with an abundance of development staff would always have a major advantage over a server with no organization or staff, right?

Yes, but that doesn't mean they need the competition of their own content on another server.

Originally Posted by Loriel

That is not really a problem. The problem is that all of them suck.

All scripts being available to everyone else does not mean that you get away without development teams. That is a pretty silly conclusion.

A good server wouldn't, but some servers would just copy and paste exactly from a server.

[LoneAngelIbesu]

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.

Originally Posted by Loriel

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]

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

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.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

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.

[DrakilorP2P]

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

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?

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

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.

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

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.

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P

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.

[LoneAngelIbesu]

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.

[LoneAngelIbesu]

It's all or nothing in the end, Inverness. My argument is centered on development servers, though.

[Inverness]

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

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]

Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P

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.

Originally Posted by DrakilorP2P

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.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by LoneAngelIbesu

I've seen open source and free software be used as synonyms a lot in these kinds of arguments.

Well, they aren't synonyms. Free software is merely software anyone can use for free, they don't release the source (usually).

[Loriel]

Originally Posted by cbk1994

Well, they aren't synonyms.

This is right.

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

This is wrong.

[cbk1994]

Originally Posted by Loriel

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.