Re: Secret Chronicles Music...
by Chris Jacobsen
Okay, thanks for clarifying on the Pangeo soundtracks. We won't use them without your permission.
We'd definitely be up for more music if you can compose it. A similar sound to the Pangeo soundtracks sounds like a good idea. If you are composing a replacement for the Mario tracks, just be sure to make sure the new music should work as a replacement. I'll continue to discuss the other songs on soundcloud with the team and see if we can reach agreement on some more posted songs we can use in the game. Some of the team members have been out, so when they are available again, it will help with this discussion.
By the way, we may have found a replacement for the Bob-Omb battlefield song. We already have a replacement for the Mario dying music, though we can't get a license confirmation at the moment in order to use that one. We have a possible submission for a Vanilla Dome replacement, but it was composed as an underground song whereas the Mario remix was used above ground. Thus we may have to seek out another replacement --- we're still discussing that one. The remaining two of the original 5 songs are still open for replacements.
We'll also gladly accept new music that does not consitute a Mario music replacement -- it will help build our story and game experience.
Yes, I think the forums are the best way to submit music if you can. It turned out I wasn't suggesting the best license for email confirmations. Using the forums avoids confusion like this. We'd be glad to work with you, though, to find an easy solution to confirm licensing.
-datahead
On Monday, February 2, 2015 8:29 AM, Brett Cahill <icsoundtracks(a)live.com> wrote:
#yiv3716028067 #yiv3716028067 --.yiv3716028067hmmessage P{margin:0px;padding:0px;}#yiv3716028067 body.yiv3716028067hmmessage{font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv3716028067 Hey,
Unfortunately I can't let you use the Pangeo soundtracks, but the others you mentioned are fine. I can also create something with a similar sound if that's what you want. I'll give the permission to use the music via the forum link you posted.
Regards,
Brett
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2015 05:31:07 +0000
From: cjj_009(a)yahoo.com
To: icsoundtracks(a)live.com; tsc-devel(a)lists.secretchronicles.de
Subject: Re: Secret Chronicles Music...
Brett,
We've been discussing your music that is posted on soundcloud. Here are the ones that the team is interested in using:* Steady Tension - A suspenseful interlude for a cinematic scene -- we don't have direct support for cinematic scenes, but getting some music in the game would pave the way for this* Cinematic Entrance - This could work for a cinematic scene with a major villain approaching
We also liked these songs. They are already used in the Pangeo game, so we will need to talk some more amongst ourselves before adding them (assuming you are good with this).* Pangeo Winter - We could use another ice level song* Pangeo Water - Either underwater music or underground music. We don't have support for underwater levels, but adding music might encourage some programmers :)* Pangeo Toxic Biome - Might work well for an enemy fortress where there is a bit of a covert mission feel
As I said, your music has a good style. More requested songs should come out of further discussions. Some of the team members have been unavailable for these discussions recently. Combat and General Fischer are examples of songs I'm interested in. Let us know if you you compose any new replacements. We just got a submission from Patrick Friel for a possible Vanilla Dome replacement, but it probably will end up being used as a brand new underground song instead (because the Vanilla Dome music is used in overworld levels).
In order for us to use any song, you must confirm that we have permission to use it and state the license. We usually use CC-By-SA-4.0 now, but you can also request that only we use the song with an exclusive license. Alternatively, you can post on http://forum.secretchronicles.de/forums, in which case it will default to a CC-By-SA-4.0 license unless you state in your post that you are not giving us the music for the game or that you want to use a different license. I know licensing can be a pain, but copyright issues have caused us problems before (even though we're an open source game).
--datahead
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 11:31 AM, Chris Jacobsen <cjj_009(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Okay, thanks Brett.
On Saturday, January 17, 2015 5:32 AM, Brett <icsoundtracks(a)live.com> wrote:
Hey again, Just to clarify, all of the pangeo uploads play through the loop twice so you do hear it repeat from the start about half way through with all of them. It's just that I didn't want them to end abruptly on soundcloud. I'll let you know later which song I pick. Sent from my Sony Xperia™ smartphone
---- Chris Jacobsen wrote ----
Okay, that'd be really good. If you can let me know which song you choose to work on, it'll really help to coordinate with the team. I'm looking forward to hearing it.
The Pango Introduction (Loop) seems to have an ending, playing a last note and fading out. This doesn't seem to be a loop, though it's a little hard to tell because soundcloud jumps to the next song when it finishes.
Thank you,
Chris
On Friday, January 16, 2015 7:49 AM, Brett Cahill <icsoundtracks(a)live.com> wrote:
#yiv3716028067 #yiv3716028067 --.yiv3716028067ExternalClass #yiv3716028067ecxyiv9861888265 body.yiv3716028067ecxyiv9861888265hmmessage {font-size:12pt;font-family:Calibri;}#yiv3716028067 Hey there,
Thanks for the response,
If it would work for you, I could go over one of the mario songs from the list and come up with something more orchestral sounding, but influenced by the particular mario song. That way, you still get the same feel and hopefully triggers a connection between the two. Obviously though, it will be a different song and not a copy.
In terms of making loops, I don't have a problem with that. If you look at this playlist: https://soundcloud.com/in-contrast/sets/pangeo
All of the compositions there are loops, so I should be able to make more loopable music for you :)
Let me know if this sounds good to you,
Regards,
Brett
Date: Fri, 16 Jan 2015 05:13:27 +0000
From: cjj_009(a)yahoo.com
To: icsoundtracks(a)live.com
CC: tsc-devel(a)lists.secretchronicles.de
Subject: Secret Chronicles Music...
incontrast, I had replied to you on Game Jolt, but I figured I should reply by email, too.
Usually Secret Chronicles doesn't really use a retro style for music. Even the 2D images tend to try and simulate 3D lighting in some way. Your orchestral sound could work really well in the game. We've been working on a new draft of the story and are wanting to eventually add cinematic scenes (using sprites) to the game. Cinematic orchestral music will really work well with these goals. I especially enjoyed your combat piece -- it was well composed. We actually do a have a military theme song task (https://github.com/Secretchronicles/TSC/issues/239). The big priority right now is, of course, knocking out the Mario remixes for the release. Ideally replacements would have the same feel or elicit the same reaction from people when they listen to them but would not sound at all like Mario music. Generally level music needs to be loopable.
If you start on something, let us know if you could so that we can keep track of work being done. Someone else just responded to the game jolt posting and created a dying music replacement, but the other songs are still pending at the moment. We also could try an iterative approach, listening to each version as it's further developed, but it's up to you what work style works best for you.
-Chris (I also go by datahead)...
4 years, 10 months
Specifying list licensing rules
by Quintus
Hi everyone,
it just occured to me that there is simply no reason why we have a
licensing clause on the forum rules and none on the mailinglist,
although the subscription process is very similar. When you subscribe to
the list, you first receive an informational email you have to actively
reply to (double opt-in). In this first email, such a clause can easily
be included and the active reply is an acceptance.
Therefore I don’t see why we should make it harder for people to
contribute through the ML than through the forum. If people send
something to the ML, it should be just as usable the same way it is as
if posted through the forums.
I suggest to add the following rules section to the first email:
1. Any post you make to the mailinglist is licensed as CC-BY 4.0
(see <https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/>).
2. If you spam the mailinglist or otherwise troll it, you can be
excluded from its use for a period of time or permanently
by the list administrator.
3. “Trolling” includes sending illegal or obscene messages.
4. The list is under German jurisdiction.
5. These rules may be changed by the list administrator at any time
after a public announcement has been posted to the mailinglist
two weeks in advance to the change.
This is short and understandable and should do no harm while giving the
ML the same licensing safety as the forum.
As I can’t force rules on you that you have subscribed already, a short
confirmation that you agree with these rules would be nice if you intend
to send graphics or other assets to the mailinglist. Once done there’s
no need to redo this.
Of course, if anyone thinks my above suggestion is nonsense, I’m open to
modifications.
Valete,
Quintus
--
Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu
I will reject HTML emails. | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
|
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
http://www.gnupg.org | http://gnupg.org/index.de.html
4 years, 11 months
Emailed Patrick...
by Chris Jacobsen
I emailed Patrick...
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 1:01 AM, Chris Jacobsen <datahead8888(a)gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris Jacobsen <datahead8888(a)gmail.com>
Date: Tue, Feb 24, 2015 at 12:59 AM
Subject: Re: patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com has sent you a file via WeTransfer
To: "patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com" <patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com>
Patrick,
Thank you for creating songs with increased volume -- we really appreciate it.
I was just about to send you a couple videos of the old songs (before the volume increase) so that you could see how they sound in actual levels and also evaluate the volume for yourself. Here are the videos we had made.
Keep in mind that both songs show multiple music tracks (or levels) so as to compare different music and compare your tracks against sound effects:
Bob-Omb Battle Field Replacement Song In Game -> http://team.secretchronicles.de/~quintus/stuff/sound-differences.ogv
Vanilla Dome Replacement Song In Game -> https://cloud.openmailbox.org/public.php?service=files&t=24fa29af494b281d...
--There was some disagreement in the team over whether or not to increase the volume on this one. It is intended to be a mellow song, obviously. We were going talk about it in the team some more.
In order to use the 2 new versions, we'll need you to either submit them on the forum again, or make a license statement by email. We normally use CC-BY_4.0 for licenses.
-datahead
On Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:34 PM, WeTransfer <noreply(a)wetransfer.com> wrote:
| | | |
| |
| | | |
| |
| patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com
sent you some files |
|
| | Download | |
|
| |
|
| | | |
|
| |
| Files (3.41 MB total)
Overground_Music.ogg
Vanilla_World.ogg
|
| Will be deleted on
2 March, 2015 |
| |
| | Get more out of WeTransfer, get Plus | |
| | | |
| |
| |
| About WeTransfer | Contact | Legal | Powered by Amazon Web Services |
| |
4 years, 11 months
Fw: Fwd: patrickfriel@hotmail.com has sent you a file via WeTransfer
by Chris Jacobsen
Patrick just sent me copies of the Vanilla Dome and Bob Omb replacements with increased volume. I had not yet sent him videos of either in the game.
We will of course need these submitted on the forum or a license statement to use these.
-datahead
On Tuesday, February 24, 2015 12:44 AM, Chris Jacobsen <datahead8888(a)gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: WeTransfer <noreply(a)wetransfer.com>
Date: Mon, Feb 23, 2015 at 2:34 PM
Subject: patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com has sent you a file via WeTransfer
To: "datahead8888(a)gmail.com" <datahead8888(a)gmail.com>
| | | |
| |
| | | |
| |
| patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com
sent you some files |
|
| | Download | |
|
| |
|
| | | |
|
| |
| Files (3.41 MB total)
Overground_Music.ogg
Vanilla_World.ogg
|
| Will be deleted on
2 March, 2015 |
| |
| | Get more out of WeTransfer, get Plus | |
| | | |
| |
| |
| About WeTransfer | Contact | Legal | Powered by Amazon Web Services |
| |
4 years, 11 months
Re: [tsc-devel] Backward compatibility and 2.x / 3.x series
by Chris Jacobsen
Here's a little bit different option than what we've discussed:
A Different Possible Work Flow:* Sydney works on the moon replacement. We would focus on just getting something reasonable -- shading, shape, etc. Speed is important here.
* Bugsbane works on a Turtle Boss replacement. We ask him to just come up with something "that works" for now and do the really good replacement later. This is done in parallel.
* He also might look into resizing some of the existing army SVG sprites into Army boss sprites. There may not be a 1:1 correspondence, in which case gaps would need to be filled.
* We continue following up on Johan's licensing and anything else deemed critical or high priority in parallel
* A better moon replacement is done later.* A better army boss replacement is done later.
Before this effort is started, we'd have to get:* Time estimates for both the Army boss and moon replacements. It should take less time if we use a quick replacement option.* Availability estimates - how much time do Sydney and Bugsbane have now, and when is it likely to be completed (we won't hold them to the fire at all of course -- it's all volunteer)?
I think it's worth asking this question before dropping the turtle boss from release 2.0. I'd like to be done with the release, too, but I think we really should ask these questions before purging long standing features that were in SMC 1.9.
It's also worth asking what the likelihood of a Nintendo lawyer or Linux distributor complaining about the existing turtle boss or moon sprite graphics are.
We really should post this discussion in a ticket in github - not everyone uses the mailing list (ie Bugsbane does not use mailing lists). People may not check IRC logs, either. github seems to get more responses right now than the other venues we use.
-datahead
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:56 AM, Chris Jacobsen <cjj_009(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
Two corrections:
"datahead wants to make 2.0.0 a really good release with lots of new features." --No, I don't want to add new features to release 2.0. I was concerned about removing existing features such as the turtle boss in the release. We should think carefully before doing this. I also had reasoned we'd want to be reasonably deMarioized before the release as much as feasibel (and not look over-buggy). This release is the first in 5 years and the first TSC series release -- this is why I thought this is worth considering.
"Luiji wants to take the opportunity to wipe out the backward compatibility code right now."--As I understand it, he had last suggested having .smclvl files use the old data format and .tsclvl's use the new format, which would not break compatibility. Before suggesting this, yes, he did suggest breaking compatibility in release 2.0. Luiji can correct me on any of this as needed.
--datahead
On Sunday, February 22, 2015 4:42 AM, Quintus <quintus(a)quintilianus.eu> wrote:
So this discussion has come up on IRC again, with the additional aspect
of what to make of 2.0.0 at all. and I would like to sort it
out properly. So far, I have seen the following positions:
* datahead wants to make 2.0.0 a really good release with lots of new
features.
* Luiji wants to take the opportunity to wipe out the backward
compatibility code right now.
* Bugsbane would like to have a larger time frame to submit more
graphics for 2.0.0
* I want a release as soon as possible so we have something to show.
I repeat we are already in beta phase for 2.0.0 and I’m strictly against
introducing new code features. How would you manage to do this? The
devel branch has been changed by Brian heavily (in very good ways!), so
it is unfeasable to introduce that into 2.0.0 as it’s lots of unstable
development code. Also, allowing new features albeit we froze the 2.0.0
version earlier already would delay the release probably somewhere into
2016 or later. That can’t be really the goal. Breaking the beta plan we
had out there also looks inconsistent.
On the other hand I don’t want to have all the previous SMC users
refrain from switching to TSC, so some degree of backward compatibility
to at least 1.9 seems warranted.
Expanding the time frame even more doesn’t seem useful to me neither. We
have been in beta phase for several months now, and we ought to release
something now. We can’t roll on in beta eternally. After the 2.0.0
release, we have the window open again for any new features, and may be
able to do some more or less quick series of followup releases.
Luiji suggested doing prereleases, but thinking about that, how is this
different from beta releases actually? In fact, beta releases _are_
prereleases, thus we have beein doing prereleases all the time already.
As far as I am concerned, I would like to confirm licensing with Johan,
replace the moon with something else, and then do the release, probably
removing the turtle boss as I have suggested on IRC. There are no
critical code bugs left that would prevent that.
Please, followup on this. We really need to come to a conclusion.
Valete,
Quintus
Quintus <quintus(a)quintilianus.eu> writes:
> Hi everyone,
>
> I have noticed we have some problem with regard to our backward
> compatibility conception. Last evidence was in ticket #354[1].
>
> We are in the beta phase of 2.0.0 already and I don’t want to throw it
> all around and introduce major code changes now while we are bugfixing
> mainly (and replacing Marioesk music). The 2.0.0 release is basically
> the completion of the SMC series, and for our first release I think it
> is important to allow users of the old SMC game to easily “upgrade”. Old
> SMC is, as far as I can tell, still pretty commonly used so I think it’s
> better if we take those people with us without having them to guide
> through some level format conversion tool for now.
>
> I don’t think the 2.x series will last long anyway. Our tracker is full
> of feature requests[2], some of which require breaking existing code,
> and we still have too much legacy code in the codebase as too just
> shifting it around with us. After the 2.0.0 release, I imagine we’re
> going to implement features for 2.1.0 quickly, and simultaneously start
> a 3.0.0 development branch in which we implement the
> backward-compatibility breaks. Under this conception we probably only
> have some few releases in the 2.x series.
>
> We will also probably suffer from a credibility damage if we stopped
> beta and went back into development again. Who has ever seen such a
> thing?
>
> Valete,
> Quintus
> (whose email signature is becoming far too long)
>
> [1]: https://github.com/Secretchronicles/TSC/issues/354
> [2]: https://github.com/Secretchronicles/TSC/labels/Feature
--
Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu
I will reject HTML emails. | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
|
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
https://www.gnupg.org | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GnuPG
My key fingerprint: | Mein Schlüsselabdruck:
B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20 | B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20
8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F | 8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F
4 years, 11 months
On how to license Johan's title (and credits) music...
by Chris Jacobsen
We can't use a special license because it doesn't allow Linux distributions.
We're hesitant to use CC-BY-4.0 because then it can easily be used in completely different games (even without Johan's permission).
Why not just request a custom license that give us permission to use it, all TSC distributors permission to use it, and people who directly fork our game into derivative games permission to use it (this helps us meet the open source definition)?
It would then just be a question of the best way to phrase this question to him.
-datahead
4 years, 11 months
Codifying the voting rules
by Quintus
Hi everyone,
as I have announced some time ago I think that the voting rules should
be cofied in a way so that nobody complains about the voting being
unfair when it comes to that. Still, voting should ever always be the
last resort in a discussion where no consent is possible anymore.
The draft has grown a little larger then I intended it to be, but I
think I have outlined all possibly important aspects, including a
possibility to complain that the voting procedure has been
violated. Please find the draft document at the following URL:
http://team.secretchronicles.de/~quintus/stuff/voting.pdf
Any feedback is appreciated. Feel free to fiddle with the document
yourself, here’s the LaTeX source (it has been written for LuaLaTeX):
http://team.secretchronicles.de/~quintus/stuff/voting.tex
Valete,
Quintus
--
Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu
I will reject HTML emails. | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
|
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
https://www.gnupg.org | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GnuPG
My key fingerprint: | Mein Schlüsselabdruck:
B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20 | B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20
8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F | 8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F
4 years, 11 months
Fw: Fwd: Dying Music Just Opened Up as a Needed Replacement...
by Chris Jacobsen
I just heard from Patrick again and responded to him. See below.
On Saturday, February 14, 2015 12:16 AM, Chris Jacobsen <datahead8888(a)gmail.com> wrote:
---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: Chris Jacobsen <datahead8888(a)gmail.com>
Date: Sat, Feb 14, 2015 at 12:16 AM
Subject: Re: Dying Music Just Opened Up as a Needed Replacement...
To: Patrick Friel <patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com>
Ok, no problem.
By the way, we noticed that the 2 music tracks we added have a lot softer volume than the other tracks and sound effects.
You really need to see it to get a feel for it, so we're going to try to make a video of it so that you can better assess it. It's not something that's obvious until you're playing the game.
Thanks for all your hard work - I look forward to hearing the dying track!
-datahead
On Fri, Feb 13, 2015 at 4:57 PM, Patrick Friel <patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
Hi Chris,
Sorry for the delay in responding, I've been snowed under recently. Will try to carve out time to have a go at something early next week.
Hope all's well,Patrick
Date: Tue, 10 Feb 2015 23:21:00 -0500
Subject: Dying Music Just Opened Up as a Needed Replacement...
From: datahead8888(a)gmail.com
To: patrickfriel(a)hotmail.com; quintus(a)quintilianus.eu
Patrick,
We've been unable to get a confirmation that we can use the dying music replacement another musician wrote. We've finally concluded we need to see if someone else can write it.
Would you be up for doing this song? It needs to be approximately 4 seconds in length to work seamlessly with the game. If you submit the song through the forum, there will be no doubt we can use your replacement.
This is the download link for the current Mario song we are replacing:
https://raw.githubusercontent.com/Secretchronicles/TSC/release-2.0.0/tsc/... - Super Mario World player dying music
-datahead
4 years, 11 months
Fw: [tsc-devel] Signing-off commits on legal questions
by Chris Jacobsen
Sorry, I sent this discussion on the licensing for Bugsbane's graphics to Quintus only...
On Tuesday, February 3, 2015 3:47 PM, Chris Jacobsen <cjj_009(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> You shouldn’t do that -- forget about the old SMC contribution license
alltogether. Apart from its confusing wording, it is not referenced from
any of our pages as the current license in any way.
Actually, looking back again, I didn't change the license at all on the settings files for Bugsbane's fruit graphics. These still have no license marked.For the derivative stone fruit graphics, I marked these as GPLv3+. I would assume this is wrong because Bugsbane's fruit graphics were not submittedthrough the secretmaryo.org forums. Thus his graphics are under a special license. Thus my fruit stone graphics, being a derivative work, fall under the samespecial license. The stone shell is a derivative of another author's work and falls under different rules. We should probably go back and mark the license onBugsbane's original fruit graphics as special as well, or it will be extremely confusing to future contributors.
I can open a ticket on this issue for now and mark it as a Blocker, since it's a legal issue.
> Therefore, I draw from the circumstances that we have a right to use the graphics in the game
This seems reasonable to me. If we don't use the graphics, we'll be back to using the old mushrooms, which are an obvious derivative work of Nintendo's Mariomushrooms and far more likely to get us in trouble.
> I think so, yes. And that’s very bad. I want to avoid this nasty
“special” license tag as much as possible, because it gives great
headache to distributors.
For my understanding, what problem does this cause for distributors? I don't doubt you are correct; I just want to understand the implications.
I'm a bit worried about people who fork the project to create something new (much like we forked SMC). Technically, I assume this special license meansthey have to find new power up graphics before they release a new game. This violates the whole intent of our project being open source. Honestly,if I were forking, I'd probably figure it wasn't worth worrying about, since Bugsbane wanted the graphics to be a contribution and forgot the licensing.I would have viewed it as a technical legal matter. The title theme of the game probably really should be changed if someone forks the game.
> That’s a good rule for the future. No inclusion without the SVGs under a
usable license. That was how it was with the old SMC anyway, so it can’t
be too hard to get this enforced.
We may run into a situation where someone makes a case that something has no need for layers in Inkscape and that a PNG "is good enough" In this instancewe could just ask them to dump the PNG file into Inkscape and make a simple SVG, though. At the very least, people need to get our explicit approval(with some level of team agreement) before omitting PNG's.
-datahead
On Monday, February 2, 2015 5:53 PM, Quintus <quintus(a)quintilianus.eu> wrote:
Chris Jacobsen <cjj_009(a)yahoo.com> writes:
> I would have assumed Bugsbane's graphics fall under the old, default
> SMC license, but I may have been making the mistake of applying the
> forum rules for secretmaryo.org when these were submitted through
> github.
You shouldn’t do that -- forget about the old SMC contribution license
alltogether. Apart from its confusing wording, it is not referenced from
any of our pages as the current license in any way.
The problem with GitHub contributions that are not covered by the GPL is
as follows. While the GPL only allows you to publish modifications if
you license them as GPL, the graphics we have are — at least in my
interpretation — not part of a combined work under GPL license. That is,
they constitute works of their own. If Bugsbane or anyone else now forks
the repository, the code is forcibly GPL, and any modifications he makes
to the code would be GPL. However, the graphics are unaffected by
that. Even more, if he _creates_ a graphic from scratch, he gains the
sole and exclusive rights on that new graphic. On our forums, you have
to actively click “I accept the forum rules” when you register, and the
forum rules include a clause that says you license anything you post as
CC-BY 4.0. Thus we are safe if somebody submits through the forum. On
GitHub, there’s no such clause. GitHub has its own Terms Of Service, but
they explicitely say that GitHub does not make any claims or even
assumptions on the licensing of the contents you post on GitHub. This
means that for any content that is not based on our GPL’ed codebase we
receive through GitHub, we have to ask for whether we are allowed to use
it. Best if authors state it’s CC-BY 4.0.
Luiji has correctly spotted that we do not have such a statement from
Bugsbane. Strictly speaking, he’s correct with that, and thus including
or even worse modifying Bugsbane’s graphics constitutes a copyright
infringement. What I can argue against this is that the graphics
Bugsbane created are obviously meant for inclusion into the game,
because 1) the entire repository is a fork of it, 2) he contributed a
great number of graphics already and 3) he already properly contributed
the PNGs, and exlcuding the SVGs would be a contradictory statement as
it wouldn’t benefit the very same project he wanted to benefit by
supplying the PNGs. Therefore, I draw from the circumstances that we
have a right to use the graphics in the game, while, as Luiji correctly
states, probably nobody else has (→ this is a “special” license tag in
our terms). However, I claim that we also have the right to create
adaptions from the graphics he contributed. The reasons are basically
the same as above, with the additional one that giving the graphics as
an unmodifyable entity to the game contradicts the development process
Bugsbane was very well aware of as he was even part of the team for some
time.
Of course, apart from a statement from Bugsbane himself there can’t be
absolute safety in this regard.
> Quintus - do you think maybe these graphics need to be moved
> to an exclusive license (and by extension the derivative stone
> graphics)?
I think so, yes. And that’s very bad. I want to avoid this nasty
“special” license tag as much as possible, because it gives great
headache to distributors. Ideally, we have a uniformly licensed
collection of graphics (and other assets). My goal is to have the code
GPLv3 (is already) and all the assets under CC-BY 4.0. However, that’s
some way to go. There’s Johan’s song already tagged as “special”, but as
that is the _title_ theme, I was willing to make an exception to that
rule so that other games are not allowed to use that one. For basically
all other assets, there’s no justification to have them licensed in such
an awkward way.
> It does serve as a challenge to us. We should not push
> graphics changes to github if they do not have SVG's. We need to ask
> the author for the SVG's immediately.
That’s a good rule for the future. No inclusion without the SVGs under a
usable license. That was how it was with the old SMC anyway, so it can’t
be too hard to get this enforced.
Valete,
Quintus
--
Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu
I will reject HTML emails. | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
|
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
http://www.gnupg.org | http://gnupg.org/index.de.html
4 years, 11 months
Backward compatibility and 2.x / 3.x series
by Quintus
Hi everyone,
I have noticed we have some problem with regard to our backward
compatibility conception. Last evidence was in ticket #354[1].
We are in the beta phase of 2.0.0 already and I don’t want to throw it
all around and introduce major code changes now while we are bugfixing
mainly (and replacing Marioesk music). The 2.0.0 release is basically
the completion of the SMC series, and for our first release I think it
is important to allow users of the old SMC game to easily “upgrade”. Old
SMC is, as far as I can tell, still pretty commonly used so I think it’s
better if we take those people with us without having them to guide
through some level format conversion tool for now.
I don’t think the 2.x series will last long anyway. Our tracker is full
of feature requests[2], some of which require breaking existing code,
and we still have too much legacy code in the codebase as too just
shifting it around with us. After the 2.0.0 release, I imagine we’re
going to implement features for 2.1.0 quickly, and simultaneously start
a 3.0.0 development branch in which we implement the
backward-compatibility breaks. Under this conception we probably only
have some few releases in the 2.x series.
We will also probably suffer from a credibility damage if we stopped
beta and went back into development again. Who has ever seen such a
thing?
Valete,
Quintus
(whose email signature is becoming far too long)
[1]: https://github.com/Secretchronicles/TSC/issues/354
[2]: https://github.com/Secretchronicles/TSC/labels/Feature
--
Blog: http://www.quintilianus.eu
I will reject HTML emails. | Ich akzeptiere keine HTML-Nachrichten.
|
Use GnuPG for mail encryption: | GnuPG für Mail-Verschlüsselung:
https://www.gnupg.org | https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/GnuPG
My key fingerprint: | Mein Schlüsselabdruck:
B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20 | B1FE 958E D5E8 468E AA20
8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F | 8F4B F1D8 799F BCC8 BC4F
4 years, 11 months