Zlib License?

by c0rdawg on 09/11/2006 23:30, 77 messages, last message: 09/17/2006 03:03, 24318 views, last view: 05/05/2024 08:28

I'm sorry but I don't have a very good understanding of this Zlib License. Just today someone said that I was breaking the license. I have edited the sauerbraten server's source and recompiled it to add some features that it currently is lacking, but in no way do I ever claim that I created sauerbraten, and I haven't released the source so I can't be implying that the source code is mine. Have I done anything wrong?

   Board Index   

#58: ..

by makkE on 09/14/2006 01:13

Well said, gilt, better than me :P

reply to this message

#59: Re: multiverse-masterserver

by pushplay on 09/14/2006 02:26, refers to #57

>> there is absolutely no reason why a normal and modded server would need to be connected to the same master server. in fact there is absolutely no reason they should be; a normal client will not want to see the modded server list, and vice-versa.

I don't agree with this. The only thing that seperates a pure server from a modded server compatible with the pure client is whose effort it represents. From a technical standpoint neither is priveledged.

Servers which require a modified client are a seperate issue.

reply to this message

#60: ..

by conor1 on 09/14/2006 02:29

..

reply to this message

#61: ..

by conor1 on 09/14/2006 02:30

oh so i cant just do a math prob?


:(

reply to this message

#62: Re: multiverse-masterserver

by kurtis84 on 09/14/2006 02:42, refers to #59

only problem I really see here, is the masterserver is intended for Aards flavor of sauer. I don't think it's so terrible if he wants people with modded servers and clients to serve their own masterserver.

What in the fuck makes all you people think that just because Aard released this game as open source, that he should bow to everyones wish lists?

pushplay: I have to respect your point of view on this, and I instantly start thinking of all the commercial games that allow this type of modding, while retaining masterserver compatability. But, open source or not, this is Aards game, and we should respect his decisions.

Please be cool about this people. If you insist on these kind of mods, find a game that allows it :)

reply to this message

#63: Re: multiverse-masterserver

by StillPeter on 09/14/2006 09:38, refers to #62

The open source thing is ancillary and whether you hate the ideals or not, the masterserver list is a matter of policy. Policy can be changed. No harm would come if it was changed, the world would not vanish in a flash of logic, no kittens would die. Even if one or two kittens did die, you could always, y'know, change it back.

I certainly don't insist it, or demand it. Nor is it a prerequisite for playing, just think it would be ... good ... for sauerbraten. Heck, I don't even think it'll happen yet, with all the political nonsense going on. Once you get past the feeling of people asking as being unfair demands, and underneath the politics of the whole thing, it's a good idea worth at least considering seriously and not calling everyone big whiny girls who demand the moon on a stick over a good suggestion that might actually help.

reply to this message

#64: Re: multiverse-masterserver

by -_Gilt_- on 09/14/2006 17:41, refers to #63

policy is guided by values and practical concerns. you can't seperate them.

I'm repeating the very first reply now, but this policy was created with these things in mind:

* some people want to mod clients and servers
* some of them are innocuous
* some of them are not
* it takes time and energy to judge which are which
* judgements can often be controversial (a very 'slippery slope')

from this, a policy is created which is guided by the values of the people involved.

so while the people involved may not hate opensource or modding, they also don't value it high enough to justify the ongoing price of maintaining such a service.

therefore since these people value simple, robust and decisive solutions, they have come up with this policy. in an ideal world perhaps a more nuanced policy might have been made.

you may value modding enough to be worth that price (or, simply will not be the one who has to pay that price), but that's a value decision on your part. whether you believe that this is a universal value, and that it will ... help (what you value) ... well, so be it. you have many different options to deal with it.

personally I think I'm being rather kind here for even spelling out the reasoning behind this policy; I think I'll probably stop here.

reply to this message

#65: Re: ..

by StillPeter on 09/14/2006 17:52, refers to #64

It's er, pretty self explanatory, the masterserver is a metaserver and open source ideals have practically nothing to do with which servers in particular it points to. What's there to elaborate on?

reply to this message

#66: Re: multiverse-masterserver

by StillPeter on 09/14/2006 17:57, refers to #64

I'm pretty sure I didn't try to separate them, but the insults evident in your condescension ...

Hang on a second.

No insults, no suggestion no-one would use it, an actual explanation, recognition that not everyone wants to destroy Sauerbraten or that a zillion versions would be created, no condescension, concedes that people actually have a pretty good idea.

This is a good post, holy crap, we might actually get to discussing the merits of the argument! I better start again.

reply to this message

#67: Merits based discussion makes me squeeee.

by StillPeter on 09/14/2006 18:10, refers to #64

You've heard of "at your own risk". Well, the idea would be to not support at all anyone not using the official server. The only advice given would be "support is only offered to users of the official game". To state it simply, the idea would be to create less work than now. No time and energy will (hopefully) be spent making judgement calls as the default attitude will be to recommend the official game.

I can understand your position on it though. It is plausible that someone could demand the removal of a "cheating server" or whatnot, and that could well lead to a slippery slope. However, again, simply state that if they don't want that use the official game.

I hope you will, at least, consider what I and others have stated about how it could be possible to get it to work without the problems you mention surfacing, there have been some great suggestions I would have never thought of.

Thank you for explaining the policy and how it came about, it was rather kind of you.

reply to this message

#68: Re: modworld masterserver

by MeatROme on 09/14/2006 21:31, refers to #68

I already posted the relevant lines in sauer code of what the masterserver has to deal with (as http-requests coming in).

You're free to write your own :)

Then Open Source it ...

@bandwidth - that's another issue.
We should at this point give thanks to

Kristian "sleepwalker" Duske for website / messageboard, hosting and master server.

reply to this message

#69: Re: the subject line can be used to for information

by MeatROme on 09/14/2006 22:47, refers to #69

http://cubeengine.com/forum.php4?action=display_thread&thread_id=1&start=6520

reply to this message

#70: damn back-linking

by MeatROme on 09/14/2006 22:50, refers to #69

maybe this will work better.
http://cubeengine.com/forum.php4?action=display_thread&thread_id=1&start=6510

but #6520 and #6521 are the relevant posts!

reply to this message

#71: Re: multiverse-masterserver

by pushplay on 09/15/2006 02:30, refers to #64

But as things currently stand you have no denfense against the malicious mods anyways. Allowing servers to state that they're modded and thereby satisfy the zlib license in no way affects that. It's a fact that that you have to trust the server to be worth playing on in the same way to have to trust players to be worth playing with. You can't and haven't guaranteed that any server is authentic.

If the attempt is simply to keep the masterserver list to pure servers and enforcing the zlib is only a means to that end, IANAL but a welcome message on join indicating the status as a derivative work could be enough.

I don't want to be associated with everyone I appear to be siding with here, but I have to call it as I see it.

reply to this message

#72: Re: MOD and protocol

by MeatROme on 09/15/2006 16:40, refers to #72

Indeed!
fpsgame/game.h:136:#define PROTOCOL_VERSION 251 // bump when protocol changes

reply to this message

#73: Re: ..

by StillPeter on 09/15/2006 20:08, refers to #72

0?

Would make sense I think; and the official ver would never catch up, nor has it been used by the official ver. (I'm guessing here).

reply to this message

#74: Re: protocol version

by MeatROme on 09/15/2006 20:35, refers to #73

well, actually I wouldn't use 0, ... since when you output "different protocol : you : 0 server : 252" this might be confusing ;)

I would suggest going up to something like 700, 800, 900 - and if the MOD catches on you should officially notify the community of your choice. Then we could have a list on the wiki (for example) so future modders can be sure not to cross your protocol range.
You should always assume you'll have to bump your protocol during development. So if you picked 700 initially, you might end up with 723 when finally releasing your "final version" ...

reply to this message

#75: ..

by Max of S2D [Fr] on 09/16/2006 10:50

Quote :

"Modders are players which got a good idea useful for the community.

Cheaters simply destroy the gameplay and the fun of the game."

reply to this message

#76: Re: protocol version

by MeatROme on 09/16/2006 10:56, refers to #75

in most cases it won't simply be an issue of having a different number sent over the network. The protocol-identifier gets bumped every time the protocol changes for exactly that reason - something changed in the way client/server talk to one another.

So if your MOD does stuff differently then it won't be compatible with the original client - you'd get "network error (type)" failure messages and the like and get disconnected from the server.

If your talking about purely server-side mods then your approach would be doable - BUT - I guess if the MOD shows sufficient success then it's best parts would most probably get merged into the main project rather than adding this (very bug-prone) feature to the base.

reply to this message

#77: Re: ..

by c0rdawg on 09/17/2006 03:03, refers to #77

Mods do work over the master server and network... the developers just don't want you to do that. Thats the whole reason I had to get rid of my modded server, thats what this whole thread started as...

reply to this message

   Board Index