Make Content Creation Package Ready
Moderator: PPS-Leaders
Make Content Creation Package Ready
I think I should open up a ticket for this, but I first wanted to discuss some basics first. We talked about that a bit more generally in this post. I opened a new thread to talk solely about the media. I consider the code practically distributable, since 1337 worked out the new folder structure in our cmake configuration. I hope you can agree, but I may be too optimistic about that.
Nowic explains in the mentioned thread that we have to document the media. That means we have to ensure all meta-data (author etc.) which is required by the license is available and written down somewhere in the media directory.
It's probably going to be a pain in the ass, but we better start now than any later. I see however a problem with some parts of the media. For instance the Lua-code would preferably be released under the GPL instead of the CreativeCommons license. I don't know about mixing licenses in a packet. If we cannot do this we would first have to sort out the stuff we want to release under another license like GPL. It would also make the whole thing cleaner. What are your thoughts about that?
Nowic explains in the mentioned thread that we have to document the media. That means we have to ensure all meta-data (author etc.) which is required by the license is available and written down somewhere in the media directory.
It's probably going to be a pain in the ass, but we better start now than any later. I see however a problem with some parts of the media. For instance the Lua-code would preferably be released under the GPL instead of the CreativeCommons license. I don't know about mixing licenses in a packet. If we cannot do this we would first have to sort out the stuff we want to release under another license like GPL. It would also make the whole thing cleaner. What are your thoughts about that?
"I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite forum on the internet."
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
what is the reason our media content is under ccl and not gpl/lgpl ?
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
As far as I understand GPL/lGPL talks about code and linking of libraries and stuff like this, which is not at all applicable to content. Of course it is a bit for our levels and Lua code, but only a little bit. CC on the other hand talks about artwork like a model or a texture would be. You can also say that a level is art of some kind. Besides that there is not really a difference, that's why we chose CC-sa and GPL as they are quite similar for their supposed application.
"I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite forum on the internet."
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
Well, for people like us GPL means "free" and "open", but in fact GPL is a large text saying what is allowed to do with your CODE and what isn't. And just because "free" and "open" also apply to our media, it doesn't mean you can simply use GPL. In fact it would be completely useless and make absolutely no sense. You could as well use a recipe or "lord of the rings" as your license.
If we separate all text-based media content from the binary (and artistic) files and put them to a new repository (which would be a good idea in my opinion), it could also get a new license. And remember, GPL and CC aren't everything. There're much more lincenses, some of them might be more suitable for those files. But I don't really know the options there.
If we separate all text-based media content from the binary (and artistic) files and put them to a new repository (which would be a good idea in my opinion), it could also get a new license. And remember, GPL and CC aren't everything. There're much more lincenses, some of them might be more suitable for those files. But I don't really know the options there.
Fabian 'x3n' Landau, Orxonox developer
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
Hmm, I disagree. I totally like the idea to separate it (already talked with Beni about that), but I think this would be a great chance to resolve some inconsistencies with media and code. Which is why I would put the text-based media content in a folder in the source repository (about 243 files at the moment, summing up 1.2MB).x3n wrote: If we separate all text-based media content from the binary (and artistic) files and put them to a new repository (which would be a good idea in my opinion), ...
That also saves the trouble of checking out three repositories.
What do you think?
http://www.xkcd.com/
A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
We discussed that already and the problem is that we end up with two media directories and therefore two data paths. This is due to the fact, that during development we'll work with several branches and maybe also the trunk and would still have the media (binary data) outside of those folders and the data path would point to that media dir.
But then in addition we would need a second data path pointing to the other set of media data (text based).
But then in addition we would need a second data path pointing to the other set of media data (text based).
"I'm Commander Shepard and this is my favorite forum on the internet."
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
Or someone gets to have a look at the Ogre resource management, which kind of deals with this path problem... (though I believe files names have to be unique across the media folder, which is not very good, but I haven't really looked into this). You simply give Ogre the filename and it will deliver you the resource. At least in the theory...
Nevertheless I totally see the problem, but it also seems to occur if we set up a third repository. No difference there.
I am mainly interested in putting the text-based stuff into the code repository IF we were to separate it. On the latter I simply say: Split it, but I'm not too much into that, so I'm simply gonna shut up about that
Nevertheless I totally see the problem, but it also seems to occur if we set up a third repository. No difference there.
I am mainly interested in putting the text-based stuff into the code repository IF we were to separate it. On the latter I simply say: Split it, but I'm not too much into that, so I'm simply gonna shut up about that
http://www.xkcd.com/
A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
A webcomic of romance, sarcasm, math, and language.
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
why not make just 2 subfolders in our media repository one for gpl and the other for CC? when it comes to package creation we could easily make 2 data packets. i'm not even sure if it's neccessary to seperate the licenses ?!
There are only 10 types of people in the world: Those who understand binary, and those who don't.
Re: Make Content Creation Package Ready
This would not solve the problem we have with the high traffic we change the text based data and the relatively low traffic we have changes in the binary data part.
If we separate those two parts repository wise we could have the text base data for each branch of code separately and use the binary data for all branches.
If we separate those two parts repository wise we could have the text base data for each branch of code separately and use the binary data for all branches.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest