Downloadable Graphics from servers?

[Moriarty]

Thankyou Bilbo.

So is such a feature going to be created for OTTD?
Or for that matter, should someone create a patch (and it was "good") would it be merged with trunk?

[Bilbo]

Thankyou Bilbo. 8)

So is such a feature going to be created for OTTD?
Or for that matter, should someone create a patch (and it was "good") would it be merged with trunk?

Well, devs were quite opposed to having this feature, so I think even if someone will make a nice patch it won't be accepted probably.

[DaleStan]

the license (which cannot be changed)

The license holder can change it at any time.

Ah. You seem to have a problem here. You are assuming that every GRF has exactly one license holder. This is not the case. Whenever there are multiple license holders, all have to agree to any change in the license. And silence is not "mark of the consent".

1) There must be some way to ensure that GRF is transmitted with its license, and
2) There must be some way to ensure that GRF transmission is followed by a valid offer for the source code (if/when we figure out what constitutes "source code") IOW, the grf cannot be distributed by anyone who does not have (or, at least, know where to find) the source code.

Both of which are resolved by distributing the zip file (originally downloaded from the license holders site)

Negative. The first is, but the second is not. Nothing requires that the source might be *bundled* with the GRF. It just has to be offered.

Not to mention the fact that OpenTTD still doesn't know what to do with a ZIP file.

[csuke]

Why are you lot just going round in circles?

It is VERY simple, all it needs is for someone to code a patch, compile it against the latest version, and distribute it along with all the relevant source code to anyone who wants to use it.
The OpenTTD devs are apparently quite against this so someone would have to be found with the required skill. Perhaps it could be included in an integrated build?

As for the legal issues, nothing a bit of code in the patch can't deal with plus a few new flags in the GRF's for anyone who wants theirs distributed like this. ie:
-Simple yes/no for whether auto distribution is allowed
-Name of accompanying file(s) that have to be downloaded with .grf
-Link to site where source code will be available

As for the patch, any .txt files that must be downloaded are auto displayed when the user joins the server and must be "read and accepted" before the grf is downloaded. The links must also be displayed. No need for zip files.

Anyone who modifies someone elses .grf and redistributes it without/with a changed licence is breaking the original agreement, this problem already exists, and unless someone can write some code which subliminally messages people in order to brainwash them into not breaking the licence agreements then we are not going to fix this...

This is not the fault of the patch or OpenTTD so no problems there.

Any questions?

[Bilbo]

-Name of accompanying file(s) that have to be downloaded with .grf

Ther may be slight problem with files like "readme.txt", since almost every grf author store the readme in readme.txt (and not more intelligently in NAME_OF_THE_GRF.txt), so unless you take care of it somehow (put grf's + txt's in zipfiles or directories ...), there will be many readmes overwriting each other (last downloaded readme wins :)

-Link to site where source code will be available

If the patch is under license with mandatory source distribution (like GPL) ... for most of GRS's I see no source

[csuke]

i only put that in there to keep dalestan happy, he seems to keep harping on about it

and anyone who wants to distribute their grf's like this already has to add the required flags so i am sure it would not be too much bother to have them rename their .txt's

[DaleStan]

-Name of accompanying file(s) that have to be downloaded with .grf

What if the server, for whatever reason, doesn't have those text files?

--Link to site where source code will be available

That is not sufficient. The source offered must correspond exactly to the grf offered. The version on the website might have changed.

Anyone who modifies someone elses .grf and redistributes it without/with a changed licence is breaking the original agreement

This is not the fault of the patch or OpenTTD so no problems there.

Any questions?

Do the words "Grokster" or "enablement" mean anything to you

[Moriarty]

Why are you lot just going round in circles?

I don't want to, but some people don't seem to be taking my points.

I still think dumping it all into a zip and distributing that would be simpler. If you didn't have a container like that you'd need to download to individual directories (for the "readme.txt" reason).
No pointers needed with zips and you're guaranteed to give what the grf makers want to give.

the license (which cannot be changed)

The license holder can change it at any time.

Ah. You seem to have a problem here. You are assuming that every GRF has exactly one license holder. This is not the case. Whenever there are multiple license holders, all have to agree to any change in the license. And silence is not "mark of the consent".

I'm aware of this, but I don't see how it's particularly pertinent to this topic. It can still be changed.

Nothing requires that the source might be *bundled* with the GRF. It just has to be offered.

I'm really not seeing the problem here. We're going OVER the requirements - not only are we offering, it's mandatory if the newGRF creator put it in the zip.

Not to mention the fact that OpenTTD still doesn't know what to do with a ZIP file.

Then whoever codes the feature gets to add the functionality. I'm sure it'll end up being used for other things too.

-Name of accompanying file(s) that have to be downloaded with .grf

What if the server, for whatever reason, doesn't have those text files?

--Link to site where source code will be available

That is not sufficient. The source offered must correspond exactly to the grf offered. The version on the website might have changed.

Both of which are resolved via the zip-file method.

Do the words "Grokster" or "enablement" mean anything to you

I was under the impression that so long as you made adequate provisions and that the given purpose of your program was not to do it against the license, then you're pretty much clear. By this definition our suggested features are in the clear. Or do you know something we don't?


I really don't see why some folks are so averse to this. All the legalistic points have been resolved (and were several days ago), and the technical problems are all quite simple.

[DaleStan]

You are assuming that every GRF has exactly one license holder. This is not the case. Whenever there are multiple license holders, all have to agree to any change in the license. And silence is not "mark of the consent".

I'm aware of this, but I don't see how it's particularly pertinent to this topic. It can still be changed.

No, it can't. Oracle is gone. And 459 isn't much easier to find. And those are just the two I know about.

Nothing requires that the source might be *bundled* with the GRF. It just has to be offered.

I'm really not seeing the problem here. We're going OVER the requirements - not only are we offering, it's mandatory if the newGRF creator put it in the zip.

That wasn't the question I asked. What if the newgrf creator does not include the source, but instead provides two different downloads, one for the grf and the other for the source?

[Moriarty]

That wasn't the question I asked. What if the newgrf creator does not include the source, but instead provides two different downloads, one for the grf and the other for the source?

Assuming the license states the source is required for distribution, and that the GRF is designed to work under OTTD, then I'd say it's their fault for not releasing a properly formatted file.
It's like blaming me for reading a secret document that the gov released accidentally without redacting (removing) the secret bits. They're the ones who screwed up, not me.

[Korenn]

Not to mention the fact that OpenTTD still doesn't know what to do with a ZIP file.

save games are already compressed using zlib. All that's necessary to use .zip files is to write handlers for the archiving directory stuff.

[Rubidium]

That wasn't the question I asked. What if the newgrf creator does not include the source, but instead provides two different downloads, one for the grf and the other for the source?

Assuming the license states the source is required for distribution, and that the GRF is designed to work under OTTD, then I'd say it's their fault for not releasing a properly formatted file.
It's like blaming me for reading a secret document that the gov released accidentally without redacting (removing) the secret bits. They're the ones who screwed up, not me.

The GPL license for example states that the distributor must give the downloader the original source code on request. So when you redistribute an old version and the original author has replaced the version on his website, the redistributor must give the downloader the source code upon request.

It does NOT say that the source and binary have to be in the same package. However, this means that anyone who wants to enable distribution (of a GPLed grf) by OTTD must have the source code of the version he is being distributing.
Or rather, when you fail to produce the source code of the GPLed grf that you are distributing, you are performing illegal business.

Ergo, it is not a problem of the original author as (s)he provides both the binary and source code of the GRF. The problem is really of the redistributor as (s)he has to be able give the source code of the binary when (s)he is (re)distributing the binary.

[Moriarty]

Ergo, it is not a problem of the original author as (s)he provides both the binary and source code of the GRF. The problem is really of the redistributor as (s)he has to be able give the source code of the binary when (s)he is (re)distributing the binary.

I understand the premise, however I'd disagree.
If the distributor knew about the flag (they'd have to to set it!), they'd also know about how the distribution method worked. Thus the problem IS their doing because they're knowingly releasing a package that will break their own license.
I appreciate it's a grey area, but as far as I can see (not a lawyer) it's still the publishers mistake.

[Zephyris]

Surely source code is not an issue with something like newgrf which is freely decompilable... Compare to 32bpp .pngs; these include an image and the embedded text to define offsets. If you were to distribute these under the GFDL then you wouldn't be expected to provide the "source code" of the offsets, as these can be freely extracted from the final product.

[Rubidium]

It does NOT decompile it into "readable" source code; it does a fair job, but it isn't the original source code. For example grfcodec has trouble determining whether something should be shown as a string or not. And remember that comments and indentation are an important factor in especially the source code of newgrfs.

So decompiled newgrf is NOT the source. It's like decompiling the OTTD binary and saying you have got the source of OTTD.

[Bilbo]

Surely source code is not an issue with something like newgrf which is freely decompilable... Compare to 32bpp .pngs; these include an image and the embedded text to define offsets. If you were to distribute these under the GFDL then you wouldn't be expected to provide the "source code" of the offsets, as these can be freely extracted from the final product.

Well, the actual source code may be just the same as you would get from decompile, but with some useful comments added and something done better, like using word/byte "macros" instead of hex code where appropriate, etc ...

technically, same could be said for TTDPatch, as "you can decompile the binary and you get the asm source, minus just few comments and variable names" :)

[DaleStan]

Assuming that ... the GRF is designed to work under OTTD

Ah-ha. "The use of this GRF in OpenTTD is entirely unsupported. Use at your own risk."
Oh. Wait. Was that not the result you wanted? I'm ever so sorry.

Thus the problem IS their doing because they're knowingly releasing a package that will break their own license

No, they're not. YOU are responsible for ensuring that YOU comply with the license. No one else has any responsibility to make it easy, or even possible, for you to comply. YOU are the only one who can be blamed if you fail to comply.

[Killer 11]

Thus the problem IS their doing because they're knowingly releasing a package that will break their own license

No, they're not. YOU are responsible for ensuring that YOU comply with the license. No one else has any responsibility to make it easy, or even possible, for you to comply. YOU are the only one who can be blamed if you fail to comply.[/quote]

I don't really know this legal stuff but if say some author uploaded a grf with a license in a rar file somewhere and i download it only to later see that his license has flaws that make his download site unusable with the grf that i have ALREADY downloaded IMO the guy would be the one to blame as he is the one that made a fundamentaly flawed license with witch breaking laws is UNAVOIDABLE.

Don't know how on topic this is tough.

More on topic stuff...

On the point that people know or don't know that htey're downloading it illegaly there is absolutely NO difference between autodl and ftp with loads of license-less grf's as people who download them don't know that htey are illegal becouse they simply CAN'T find any licenses. Most people don't know a thign about grf's as most of them don't visit this forum, i wouldn't be surprised if DaleStan's tunels are being used in a lot of servers disregarding thel icense completely or if people already have made that FTP thing.
Truth is noone can stop someone to make this patch and make his own compile farm that aplies this thing to the latest nightlies. And people would use it just becouse they CAN.

Main point is that if huge megacorporations can't stop people from breaking copyrights(heck even Steam is cracked ) then so can't we, regardless of a form of distribution be it either manula or automatic...

[nicfer]

Well people, stop fighting and start acting like civilizated people.

As for the trouble, I vote for keeping the actual system, as doing this will be "Too much work for too low benefit". Why not code something better, like new industries, coloured nicks in multiplayer or ability to build lighthouses / transmitters yourself? .

[Bilbo]

As for the trouble, I vote for keeping the actual system, as doing this will be "Too much work for too low benefit". Why not code something better, like new industries

Belugas is working on it. Maybe he will appreciate some help, so 0.6.0 may come out sooner ...

coloured nicks in multiplayer

Not a good idea, I prefer to recognize the company by the player color. It would be too fancy and will make a bit of mess in chat.

or ability to build lighthouses / transmitters yourself? :lol:.

Why build something that is only decorative and can't be removed when you later need to?

Yes, there are many good ideas that can be worked on. Just I don't think the last two are amongst them :)