Transport Tycoon Forums

Time for a new version/update - 3.0b. Lots of diesel smoke when locomotives are stresses and a bit more steam smoke right up till max_speed.
Anyhow here are the files (r16422 - original release revision and updated r16435 and up, 0.7.1 Release):

SirkoZ wrote:And of course, updaters should not use my name-style for my patch if it's updated and changed. It's NOT _sz_ and it's not 3-0.

funnily, the GPL does not allow you to make that kind of restriction (and you may not release patches under any license that is more restrictive than the GPL)

You should notice the should therein my statement, it should prevent confusion. Another such element would be that and - an updated and changed patch is not the same as "sz" (=my), version 3.0. Comprende?

Eddi wrote:

SirkoZ wrote:And of course, updaters should not use my name-style for my patch if it's updated and changed. It's NOT _sz_ and it's not 3-0.

funnily, the GPL does not allow you to make that kind of restriction

Funnily, that's not a restriction. It's merely a request. Were it a restriction, it would read "must not".

you should know better than to ride on language subtleties in a forum where a majority has a different native language.

i understood it the same way as Eddi.
people name their files the same way as yours SirkoZ, in order to show that their work is related to your file, and as you can see, they added some more stuff to the file name.
+ i could go, take your file, rename the sz to dih and upload it again, without modifying any single part of your patch - not something i'd do, but i'd be allowed to!

Ignorance of subtleties is no excuse when formulating statements that are intended to have legal ramifications.

This is why we use GPL, or the MPL, or insert-other-software-license-here, rather that trying to roll our own. If you are exceedingly lucky, your reinvented wheel will manage to be square. More likely, you'll have a trapezoid with both axles within delta of one of the vertices, and not the same one.

DaleStan wrote:[...] rather that trying to roll our own. [...]

"than"

dihedral wrote:"than"

"Sthan"

dihedral wrote:i understood it the same way as Eddi.
people name their files the same way as yours SirkoZ, in order to show that their work is related to your file, and as you can see, they added some more stuff to the file name.
+ i could go, take your file, rename the sz to dih and upload it again, without modifying any single part of your patch - not something i'd do, but i'd be allowed to!

Well - it's all to avoid confusion, dih. So your hypothetical, only updated, not changed, "dih" file would perhaps mean to someone that there's something changed in there (at the first glance of the title, without looking at the file). That's why the "and".

DaleStan wrote:

Eddi wrote:

SirkoZ wrote:...

...

Funnily, that's not a restriction. It's merely a request. Were it a restriction, it would read "must not".

and also

DaleStan wrote:Ignorance of subtleties...

Thank you for clarifying that for the good people here on the Forum (absolutely no pun intended).

DaleStan wrote:Ignorance of subtleties [...]

ok, so you want to discuss subtleties. then i must tell you that i learned in school that british people have a tendency for understatement, so they would use "you should not" in places where a german person would say "it is forbidden", and a new york person would say "have you f*** lost your mind?!?"

this is the way i read the statement, which made me reply in a clarifying manner, that this statement cannot mean what i read into it.

Eddi: /me nods

SirkoZ wrote: and also

DaleStan wrote:Ignorance of subtleties...

Thank you for clarifying that for the good people here on the Forum (absolutely no pun intended).

Talking of subtleties

SirkoZ wrote: Well - it's all to avoid confusion, dih. So your hypothetical, only updated, not changed, "dih" file would perhaps mean to someone that there's something changed in there (at the first glance of the title, without looking at the file). That's why the "and".

How is a change of name an update and not a change? Yes, the file is identical - but the name has changed. Surely that means the hypothetical file has been changed?

Or to go further:

SirkoZ wrote:You should notice the should therein my statement, it should prevent confusion. Another such element would be that and - an updated and changed patch is not the same as "sz" (=my), version 3.0. Comprende?

How do you update a patch without changing it? Surely if you change nothing, then the patch is identical and has not been updated...

Of course whether said change is noticeable is a different matter


Anyway, my actual point is what the hell does GPL discussion have to do with more diesel smoke? (although admittedly this post is furthering this diversion somewhat.... wooops).

Again for those who just want to play endlessly with semantics:
a) different line positions (and descriptors for certain parts, like the recent u.rail -> tcache that is without any behaviour differences) = update to higher revision (of trunk),
b) change -> changed behaviour no matter whether it is for higher revision of trunk or not, with changed behaviour, i.e. with change that is worth mentioning, version of a patch is incremented.

Now, as John after some ramblings finally realised perhaps it's time to come back on-topic. Although we'll see if the usual suspects can resist their temptations...

just cannot resist

updated to r16458 + made the diff from the top most dir instead of src/

That's nice! Thank you dihedral.

One thing though - what's with 1059+ times downloaded? Been asking for favors

or maybe A LOT of patience while hitting the download

haha - that's funny - totally did not expect that - never really changed anything in that patch either

dihedral wrote:haha - that's funny - totally did not expect that - never really changed anything in that patch either

You didn't answer my question.

New version - 3.0c - I've finally taken into account the new station stopping behaviour (stop near the entrance/in the middle of station/at the far end - as it used to be). With {near} and {mid} stops there is less smoke now, comparable to {far}, although this one is still my favourite setting.
Also added the patch for 0.7.4 release here.
Trunk compatibility: r19355+