Understanding Open Source

by Quin on 06/21/2012 10:20, 29 messages, last message: 07/14/2012 08:12, 10532 views, last view: 05/05/2024 04:35

From: http://qreeves.blogspot.com.au/2012/06/understanding-open-source.html

As the developer of the Open Source first-person-shooter project, Red Eclipse, I have come across many different types of personalities; some are good, some are bad. Quite often, I will have someone looking to contribute to the project who is so convinced that their point of view is so important that it only ever ends badly. Unfortunately, you can’t control this kind of thing, but in the past I have attempted to guide these people along the right path, albeit unsuccessfully most of the time.

I believe there is a misconception surrounding the phrase “Open Source”, that many people bang against and wonder why they’re met with such hostility. When a person decides to release their creations with an Open Source license, their desire is most often always to share it with the public in many ways, including allowing everyone to use and/or modify it for free.

You’ve probably heard the expression, “Free as in beer, not free as in speech”, but maybe don’t quite understand the implications of that. The creator of Open Source content is looking to give you something for free, and quite often allows you to take it and do whatever you want with it; the most beneficial part of which is the ability to study, modify, and play with it. This creator already has their own ideas, their own opinions, and their own way of doing things.

Every so often, you have an individual come along who has their own ideas and opinions, and they are so fixed on the concept that their way is the right way, they end up having a complete disregard for the creator, and the community behind that creation, if one exists. These people will enter a community, demand that everyone conforms to their vision, and when they discover the creator and/or community are resistant to it, blames everyone else for the fact that they failed. This often ends with the person declaring something along the lines of: “I should have known better, you don’t appreciate me, I’ll go elsewhere and get my way there.”

The problem is, these people don’t ever try to integrate with a project naturally, they appear to expect instant results as soon as they come along, and assume they know everything they need to know. This is mostly untrue. Throwing a tantrum and refusing to share your toys is the best way to ensure that everyone will instantly dislike you. To them, they were doing just fine before you came along trying to shake the tree and making demands of them, and they will continue to do just fine without you.

Open Source is a democracy of one. Someone, somewhere up the chain, came up with the idea and executed it. They built it, and they own it. Just because they have given something to you free of charge, does not entitle you to start telling them how to do their “job”. You’re not paying them, in fact, they’re giving up their free time to follow an idea that they are passionate about, and it is just a side effect of generosity that they released it for everyone to enjoy. Too many people think that Open Source bestows a right of ownership on them, but if you ever read one of these licenses carefully, all a creator is giving you is the right to use, distribute, and/or modify it.

So, if you’re looking to contribute to an Open Source project, now or sometime in the future, try to remember this: You are a guest in someone else’s home, please respect them and the work they have done. Try to understand their vision and their rules, get to know the way they operate, find out if they’re even interested in your ideas. If you approach them with a good understanding of their work, you’re more likely to get the result you are after, or maybe even find some other way you can fit in.

   Board Index   

#10: Re: ..

by suicizer01 on 06/26/2012 23:21, refers to #9

Yep and we thank you for creating the bots, Quin.

They still don't get how weapons work though, but they can aim and move better as the monsters.

reply to this message

#11: Re: ..

by ultrasemen on 06/27/2012 00:00, refers to #9

>or using content when they don't have permission
But what's the point of allowing using content only in original Sauerbraten and not even forks which can have really small differences and are also non-commercial and open-source?
Why not allow use it only on Wednesdays then, or when you're wearing red shirt. People who do it just lost their mind and are ruining conception of open source.

reply to this message

#12: Re: ..

by tempest on 06/27/2012 00:53, refers to #11

"People who do it just lost their mind and are ruining conception of open source."
Oh, yeah? Well, let me tell you something: those people lost their mind in such a way that they decided to contribute their work to Sauerbraten, for free, and allow other people to use it (within Sauerbraten) because they liked the game. I don't think you're in any kind of position to complain about that, and it's not their job to provide you with assets. And guess what: if you ask nicely, I guess most of them wouldn't mind allowing you to use their stuff in your mod.

reply to this message

#13: Re: ..

by ultrasemen on 06/27/2012 01:37, refers to #12

OK, simple analogy.
Someone saves one guy's life, but then decides he doesn't like him and kills him. Painfully. And everyone says "Well, this is his right - he can do whatever he wants with this guy, if it wasn't him he would be dead anyway". The same logic.
And proprietary is saving people for instant money - not good, but at least honest. And open source is saving them for free without any consequences (maybe only you ask him to save other people too, like you did).
>if you ask nicely, I guess most of them wouldn't mind allowing you to use their stuff in your mod
Yes. But finding and asking such a lot of people, finding licenses for everything might be a problem. I'm talking not only about Sauerbraten, but all people who behave like that. What's the problem is someone will modify your content or use it somewhere else, if it's also free and they will write you in credits? Creators often don't mind, but just write it anyway.

reply to this message

#14: Re: ..

by Quin on 06/27/2012 03:06, refers to #13

You seem to fail to understand. The only thing that is Open Source in Sauerbraten is the engine/code - the license is clear in this regard, so there really can't be any misconceptions about it.

Seriously, it isn't /that/ hard to find libre assets and use them in your own game. Either that, or you're free to make your mod as a drop-in to the main Sauerbaten game - I did this originally with SauerBot/SauerMod, these things are not hard to do.

In a way, I suppose you're the exact kind of person that this article is aimed at. You seem to think you have a right of ownership bestowed upon you, when this is simply not the case. You can go a long way if you simply understand the rules and work within those confines, and it isn't up to you to decide what those rules are, it is the people who created these things in the first place.

reply to this message

#15: Re: ..

by Dratz-_C on 06/27/2012 04:06, refers to #9

I just want to say that I am enjoying this thread. More often than I like to admit, I fit into the description,

- People with starry-eyed ideas and either never follow through with them, or expect other people to do the work for them.

Occasionally I do some actual work, but not as much as I ask other people to consider doing stuff. :/ I guess I am just in the learning phase.

Cheers

reply to this message

#16: Re: ..

by ultrasemen on 06/27/2012 04:36, refers to #14

Yeah-yeah, I get it - "we can do whatever we want with what we created, it's ours and not yours, and giving it up free doesn't mean anything".
But the reason I get butthurted is not only subconscious feeling of "half-freedom" (but mostly it, I must admit), but also just not understanding why. For all non-commercial freeware too. Why would one put some restrictions on anything he doesn't get money from? Nothing will get better for him (still no money), nor for others (can't use it in their projects). So, what's the point of doing so? Can you explain?

reply to this message

#17: Re: ..

by ultrasemen on 06/27/2012 04:41, refers to #15

Yeah. I have this problem too, that's why I'm arguing here and not actually improving source code :)
Anyway, I can just make fork with no sauer content and just something to replace, but with easy way to import it for player at his own risk. I call this distribution model "soapware".

reply to this message

#18: Re: ..

by Quin on 06/27/2012 04:48, refers to #16

As developers, we can't control the terms under which people release their content. Sauerbraten has many assets from people who have chosen only to allow that specific project to use them. You can either say "thanks" or you can deny that content being included because it doesn't fit your scheme. Sauerbraten chooses the former (whereas Red Eclipse chooses the latter).

Artists are hard to come by, and they are even harder to keep (there are other problems too which I won't get into here). Sometimes a project will just take what it can get so it can accomplish its goal. The Sauerbraten engine/code is Open Source so you can use it yourself, but the "game" is locked down by its content.

The other side of the issue is this: It is easy for people to complain about these things, but it is another thing entirely to fix it. Unless you can constructively and sufficiently contribute something better, you have no right to complain. I think this is basically summarised as "Be part of the solution, don't add to the problem." - I think I've done this with Red Eclipse already, so the point is rather moot. I've collected a decent amount of free to use assets there, that any person can use as a starting point for their own projects.

reply to this message

#19: Re: ..

by Quin on 06/27/2012 04:51, refers to #17

I keep coming back to my own experience here, I'm sorry if this sounds like a bunch of advertising. You can actually play Sauerbraten maps in Red Eclipse so long as you have it installed, it isn't hard to offer import ability and it doesn't technically violate any licenses, as everything is sourced from and happens on the end-user machine.

reply to this message

#20: Re: ..

by ultrasemen on 06/27/2012 05:38, refers to #19

I meant ability to replace everything to that from sauer - guns, sounds, playermodels, particles, etc - just make game look identical. What about RE, I'm sorry to say it, but it doesn't look good, its only my perception and I didn't play for long though. Yes, and also nobody plays it - much bigger problem for single gamer.
Yes, soapware doesn't violate licenses. I got this idea is from GTA, you know, it's so expensive to license cars to use them in game, so they just made their own clones of every real life car - but modmakers added real cars back to the game, so we can play it with real cars and R* don't have to pay car makers for licensing. Well, modmakes would have to - but who cares about them? This is like "don't steal anything from shop, just leave door open for the thief".

reply to this message

#21: Re: ..

by Zamwa on 06/27/2012 10:40, refers to #20

The moral justification for licensing content is to make it eassier for people to take stuff off there own hard drives and to share it so others can improve upon better than what the source has!
It's the kind of people that spend hours working on something that otherwise with no licensing would carry it to there grave with no obligation for others to know or share it unless without the fear of someone else taking credit of working the hours!

So as one can see it's not a hassle but an incentive to share and profit commercially that which would otherwise be too feeble in cost alone or not be in existence due to the big business copyright extremism system!
No matter what the original person decided for there own source! Understanding why respect should be considered for the level of work even if laws in your country does not is for one with good intellect about the details of the workmanship!

all in all it's just another brick in the wall unless you make your own jewel!

reply to this message

#22: Re: ..

by suicizer01 on 06/27/2012 20:49, refers to #19

Too bad Red Eclipse is supporting models slightly different as Sauerbraten (and way more things), so it won't feel the same.

Don't think the speed of movement and such are the only thing which makes Sauerbraten different from Red Eclipse, it's way more than just that.

reply to this message

#23: Re: ..

by Razgriz on 06/27/2012 20:49, refers to #21

I don't know why, but every time zama writes a reply i have a very hard time understanding what he's trying to say.

reply to this message

#24: Re: ..

by suicizer01 on 06/27/2012 21:56, refers to #23

Not your fault Raz, as neither I am able to understand what Zamwa tries to say (seems like just the opposite what Quin is stating?).
Anyway, neither do I get ultrasemen's last comment, where he suddenly talks about a payed game instead of an non-commercial open-source game (engine).

reply to this message

#25: Re: ..

by baby~rabbit on 06/28/2012 00:38, refers to #20

> This is like "don't steal anything from shop, just leave door open for the thief".

If you can't draw a distinction between the two cases in your example then either it's a poor analogy, or you have a serious problem.

reply to this message

#26: Re: ..

by ultrasemen on 06/28/2012 07:20, refers to #24

Yeah, I might jump from one subject to another. I just tried to say there is no point in talking about that because there is no fork now anyway, and if I really want to do this, I should do this and don't waste time on speaking, but I'm too lazy.

reply to this message

#27: Re: ..

by ultrasemen on 06/28/2012 07:23, refers to #25

Emm, don't really understand what you're saying. Do you mean "piracy is not a theft"? Or that leaving the door open is not bad?
Sorry, that's morning and I always want to sleep in mornings and my mind is not clear. Maybe it will be hard to understand these two posts.

reply to this message

#28: ..

by Arth86 on 07/14/2012 08:02

People who develop open source projects may feel insulted when consumers come along and try to push a vision on them, but it's important to recognize the positive side of that consumer wanting to step into the production world.

Also, I develop software for free, but people do have to pay for it. They pay with the time it takes to actually use it (whether because it's good or- more likely :D- because it sucks less than something else.) I also think that's an important thing to remember.

reply to this message

#29: Re: ..

by Arth86 on 07/14/2012 08:12, refers to #9

I wouldn't say AssaultCube is a "shining example" of what open source offers.

Too much rambling on about stopping the players people (sometimes including me, but still) don't want around and too infrequent of a [stable] release schedule.

Once the masterserver's policy is set in stone a bit and a libbed version of a semi-functional anti-cheat is released, maybe I'll feel differently. Of course, that's just me being nosy- I haven't played for almost two or three years.

Just my $0.02.

reply to this message

   Board Index