Transport Tycoon Forums

osignalsw.grf: to be used in conjunction with signalsw.grf or nsignalsw.grf.
replaces the original TTD signal graphics with Michael Blunck's pre-signal and PBS style signal graphics.

Requested by Sacro. (because the original TTD signals are small and don't fit in with the pre-signals, and are hard to see on electric rails)
By BobingAbout.

Did you ask permission to edit MB's sprites?

no, but they are basicly the original sprites edited to make taller. i could have made the exact some thing by editing the originals (i already did for a different project i am working on, see http://www.tt-forums.net/viewtopic.php?t=25766 ), it was simply quicker to remove the pre-signal signs from MB's for this quick GRF, which is suposed to be used with MB's signals anyway.

(also, i wasn't really thinking about that, because in the C&C editing community, of which i am a part of, its ok to edit and distribute other peoples distributed work(like these signals) aslong as you give the original auther credit, which i did.)

(also, i wasn't really thinking about that, because in the C&C editing community, of which i am a part of, its ok to edit and distribute other peoples distributed work(like these signals) aslong as you give the original auther credit, which i did.)

That´s just rubbish. Never heard of a thing named Copyright?

All my .grfs are copyrighted. Read the accompanying donotreadmes.

However, since TTDPatch introduced the joint ttdpbase.grf, I´ve put those of my .grfs which have been included into that .grf (namely signals and elrails catenary) under the GPL. But nothing else.

However, it remains bad style, especially because you hadn´t known in advance from that special situation with those signals being now under the GPL. In addition, you´ll have to take further considerations to fulfill the usual GPL requirements.

in the C&C editing community, of which i am a part of, its ok to edit and distribute other peoples distributed work

Pfff. Never heard of something silly like this, for years.

regards
Michael

michael blunck wrote:

(also, i wasn't really thinking about that, because in the C&C editing community, of which i am a part of, its ok to edit and distribute other peoples distributed work(like these signals) aslong as you give the original auther credit, which i did.)

That´s just rubbish. Never heard of a thing named Copyright?

All my .grfs are copyrighted. Read the accompanying donotreadmes.

However, since TTDPatch introduced the joint ttdpbase.grf, I´ve put those of my .grfs which have been included into that .grf (namely signals and elrails catenary) under the GPL. But nothing else.

However, it remains bad style, especially because you hadn´t known in advance from that special situation with those signals being now under the GPL. In addition, you´ll have to take further considerations to fulfill the usual GPL requirements.

i can't be arsed to read, nor comply with all that(its late, and i should be in bed to get up early for work in morning.), so i just deleted it all and drew them myself. they look simular, but you can tell they change slightly. as for code, i never used any of your GRF code anyway, just the signal part of your graphics, purely because it was faster, nothing more. i meant no offence what so ever.

this is now PURELY my own work.(these are rushed, i could have done better. ok, not purely my own work, but, based from the original TTD sprites rather than MB's)

in the C&C editing community, of which i am a part of, its ok to edit and distribute other peoples distributed work

Pfff. Never heard of something silly like this, for years.

its the code, like i said, i wasn't thinking because this IS the YR practice that people take every single damn day.

bobingabout wrote:I can't be arsed to read, nor comply with all that

You're absolutely begging for a plonking here.

in the C&C editing community,

Which this is not, never has been, and never will be, so what is or is not OK there bears no relationship to what is or is not OK here.

mb wrote:since TTDPatch introduced the joint ttdpbase.grf, I´ve put those of my .grfs which have been included into that .grf (namely signals and elrails catenary) under the GPL.

i just deleted it all and drew them myself.

Why that?

i can't be arsed to read

Aha. Carry on.

Michael

DaleStan wrote:

in the C&C editing community,

Which this is not, never has been, and never will be

i know, but after 4 years, it becomes some kind of instinct, or reflex, and you do it without thinking.

The license accompanying Michael Blunck's Newstations is a classic old-style Freeware agreement (as opposed to Stallman-style Free Software). Copy and distribute, but keep the docs with them, don't change anything and don't use it commercially.

It's not my favourite license, but it's hardly something I am in any way entitled to whinge about. There is nothing else permitting its use, and Hr. Blunck's license does at least permit me to redistribute the grf from my server's web site(s), allowing me to ensure that players have the same version as the server.

In the absence of the license, I have three other options. Do without, do my own original work, or seek alternative permission (possibly with payment). Since doing without sucks, and I'm not currently capable of producing newgrfs, I'm immensely grateful to Hr. Blunck for saving me the effort of approaching him for a discrete license agreement.

I found with the graphics for the Snow In Temperate patch, that Michael was very helpful when approached courteously and with respect to his artwork rights. Many thanks.

i read the GPL today. didn't understand it much though...

bobingabout wrote:i read the GPL today. didn't understand it much though...

OK. A simple explanation.

When licensed under the GPL, an application has its freedom protected by copyright laws.

First of all, you have no right to use any software, in any way, unless you either own the copyright or have been granted a license by the copyright owner. Now, the key to the GPL license is that you have no other rights to use the software. You either agree to the GPL, or you find yourself another solution.

The aim of the GPL is to promote the re-use of good software code, to protect the freedom of all users to to use the software for any purpose, to modify it if they need to, and to protect their freedom to share those modifications.

The GPL allows you to redistribute the software freely (including the freedom to sell it), and it allows you to modify the software and make derrivative works, which you can also distribute freely. It allows you to do this, provided you accept some other provisions. First of all, if you redistribute the application you must also distribute (or be prepared to distribute on request) the source code, in a machine-readable format, for no more than the cost of the medium.

If you decide to modify the application, or make your own application either based on or including parts of it, you may also distribute your modified application, but you may only distribute it according to the terms of the GPL. Basically, GPL software can only be used in the production of more GPL software, except by the original copyright owner.

The GPL is not a totally free license. It can't be, because it has to have the power to protect the rights of others. You're not free to pass other people's work off as your own. You're not free to make modifications and pass those off as the original application. You're not free to make proprietory changes, and then to distribute your modified work without distributing the source code for your changes.

Notice that the prohibitions only apply to redistribution. You don't need to release source code for your changes if you don't plan to share your changes with anybody else.

That's about it. Remember, this is only a clarification - the details are on the license itself, not my post, and I could easily have messed up. This should give you the gist of it, though. If you have any more questions, feel free to grab me on IRC, or PM me. Alternatively, talk to your local free software advocacy group (which includes most Linux user groups).

I like these, shame about the copyright stuff any way,
before i download it, is it compatible with ttdpatch?

m3henry wrote:I like these, shame about the copyright stuff any way,
before i download it, is it compatible with ttdpatch?

Almost certainly. I dont know of any newgrf which is incompatible with Patch.

Brianetta wrote:

m3henry wrote:I like these, shame about the copyright stuff any way,
before i download it, is it compatible with ttdpatch?

Almost certainly. I dont know of any newgrf which is incompatible with Patch.

just checking, this is in the ottd forum tho.
anyway thanks, i must down these now.

yes, it should work in TTDPatch. i just posted here because i use OpenTTD more.

as for copyright, don't worry about it, i think its sorted, i redrew everything myself.(although i feel i didn't need to)

X
wrong.

hmmm, i did exactly what it said in the tutorial, i'll have a look at it when i get home.

bobingabout: the problem will be the first entry in your nfo file. It shows how many lines the file has. OpenTTD ignores this but it is has to be correct for TTDPatch. Use NFO Renum on your nfo file, that will fix it.

updated!
it now includes a a DOS version too.