Minetest Forums

Hi Everyone,

I went through the rest of the worlds that I still have copies of and there's not much else worth posting.

@LMD: you are more than welcome to use any of my creations however you see fit, up to and including altering them, using them on public servers and renaming them. Even people that are not registered members of this forum are welcome to do that. If you feel really bad about the licensing you could always put a little plaque on the wall that says "Warning - unlicensed building. Enter at own risk."

Cheers,

Andrew.

GreenDimond wrote:

solars wrote:

GreenDimond wrote:And yes, everything posted on this topic is free to use. Because anything non-permissive is against the forum rules.

I don't find this point in the forum rules. Where did it say so?

viewtopic.php?f=11&t=1271
This is in the Modding section, and outlines the rules for posting mods, which generally applies to all Minetest content on the forum.

No it dosn't. It applies to the "Mod Releases"-subforum. And even there, it don't say the content is generally free to use even without a license.
It says:

Post must contain at least:
...
License of code ...
License of textures and sounds ...

So, every download in the Mod-Releases forum must be licensed. And the license of the code must be LGPL-compatible.

The license of the World-Edit-Files must not be LGPL-compatible.

And as you wrote in an older post:

GreenDimond wrote:It is of course courteous to credit the original author, but this is not required.

Thats even wrong with the downloads at the Mod-Releases subforum. The LGPL as example requires to credit the original author. And it requires to set forks under the same license.

If you want to allow the users to do what they want with your WorldEdit file, license it under the CC0 license or the WTFPL, or use a license that you like. I for one use for the most things the CC BY SA, a restrictive open source license. For the most people the CC BY should the right thing. At this files, you must credit the author.
In this forum are even licensed maps as download with a non open source license like the CC BY NC. This should be all right too.

I have created an area where everyone can build something on it. The surface must be in the North 627 blocks long and towards the East 586 blocks long. I like to build things and post them on my project.

I found another one.

Strange Building (unfinished)

I’m not exactly sure what this was going to be, but I liked the roof. Maybe one of you can turn it into something.





169 X169
15 high, 2 deep.
Dig down 1 block and mark the one underneath it.

No Mods Required.

Cheers,

Andrew.

solars wrote:<snip>

Licenses are not required on WorldEdit files, and I don't plan to ever license mine or worry about licenses on others.
As far as I am concerned all WorldEdit files are free to use :)

I don't plan to continue this conversation, as we are polluting this thread with unnecessary talk :)

@slobsbucket
This stuff is great, have you ever thought of making a city out of it?

Licenses are not required in this context.
The materials (code & media) used to create these .we files/maps, are already protected by license.

That should put an end to any further doubts on the subject
Have fun, and keep sharing these fantastic builds

@slobsbucket
This stuff is great, have you ever thought of making a city out of it?

That's very kind of you to say, GreenDimond. I've been thinking exactly that, I think I could get the lot into one city on one map and still keep it under 20 megabytes. Making it look like a proper city though....

I'll have a play with it, should be easy now I've made all these mts files.

Cheers,

Andrew.

Thought I'd better give a "heads up" to everyone using my schematic files.

The doors don't work. Trying to open a door crashes Minetest.

Punching a door out and replacing it fixes the problem.

Sorry, but I forgot about this problem. I run a mismatched version of minetest and minetest_game because I hate the newer creative menu, sometime since my version of minetest_game was made the code for opening and closing doors was altered.

Cheers,

Andrew.

EDIT: I find this very embarrassing. I'm compiling a new Minetest right now, over the next few days I'll redo all of those buildings and replace them. I'll leave a note on each of them when it has been updated.

The buildings without doors should be fine.

ANOTHER EDIT: just compiled and ran Minetest 5.0.0 Dev and got a different result again. All the doors work perfectly normally but the torches behave strangely. Most of the torches on walls stick straight out instead of leaning at an angle, but not all of them. See image below. I'm not going to bother replacing torches, there's too many of them.

Please let me know if you have any trouble with my buildings.

Cheers,

Andrew.

GreenDimond wrote:...and I don't plan to ever license mine or worry about licenses on others.

TumeniNodes wrote:Licenses are not required in this context.
The materials (code & media) used to create these .we files/maps, are already protected by license.
That should put an end to any further doubts on the subject

I have thought a lot about it, this weekend.
It looks like I'am the only one here, who thinks, WorldEdit-Files are a intellectual property like code and images. So it looks for me, all other here thinks, there can pirated as you like and are not worthy to be open source, but only for public domain.

Since it is here unopposed, that the CC licenses can be ignored for WorldEdit files, I removed all my downloads. And as long this is the case, I will not upload new files here anymore.

solars wrote: Since it is here unopposed, that the CC licenses can be ignored for WorldEdit files, I removed all my downloads. And as long this is the case, I will not upload new files here anymore.

That's a pity. I consider mine CC-BY-SA, even if not explicitly stated. And I think nobody would worry about people taking the worldedit files, loading them in their singleplayer worlds, taking a good look at them there (that's why they are posted here), getting inspired by parts of them, probably including ideas in their own next building...

Sokomine wrote:

solars wrote: Since it is here unopposed, that the CC licenses can be ignored for WorldEdit files, I removed all my downloads. And as long this is the case, I will not upload new files here anymore.

That's a pity. I consider mine CC-BY-SA, even if not explicitly stated. And I think nobody would worry about people taking the worldedit files, loading them in their singleplayer worlds, taking a good look at them there (that's why they are posted here), getting inspired by parts of them, probably including ideas in their own next building...

Yes, a shame.
Not to worry though, there are plenty of great builders that share their builds with the community, so not a huge loss. I am looking forward to what slopsbucket comes up with :D
I for one, like to let the community use my stuff freely, hence why I license my mods as MIT (use it however you wish, do whatever you want, please credit me but you don't have to).
Yeah, I said I wasn't going to add to the conversation any more, but I promise that was my last comment! xD

Speaking of slopsbucket

slopsbucket wrote:ANOTHER EDIT: just compiled and ran Minetest 5.0.0 Dev and got a different result again. All the doors work perfectly normally but the torches behave strangely. Most of the torches on walls stick straight out instead of leaning at an angle, but not all of them. See image below. I'm not going to bother replacing torches, there's too many of them.
Image

I am going to guess this is a problem of transitioning from versions, as torches have probably changed since the version you were using?
There are 3 registered torches in Minetest, one for each mount type (floor, wall, ceiling), it is possible Minetest didn't handle the conversion very well.
Otherwise, it could be WorldEdit not handling them properly.

GreenDiamond wrote: Not to worry though, there are plenty of great builders that share their builds with the community, so not a huge loss.

Aehem. Solars is an excellent builder. He's creating amazing and huge cities with just mtg default blocks. That _is_ something. Something that can't be said about all creations in this thread.

GreenDiamond wrote: I for one, like to let the community use my stuff freely, hence why I license my mods as MIT (use it however you wish, do whatever you want, please credit me but you don't have to).

That's fine of you, and you're free to do that with your creations.

If I followed the thread correctly, one poster was annoyed about having to add a license. That's understandable - I felt the same when I released my first mods. And yet...these licenses do serve a purpose. Anyone who doesn't really care can select CC0 (source code licenses do not really fit in here) and be done with it. If the structure is used on a server or elsewhere, the CC-BY part might play a role even if the original poster didn't demand it. It just feels wrong to have someone else claim to have created something. On the other hand - anyone posting an ugly cobble structure here really might not wish his/her name to be associated with the blueprint because it doesn't represent any level of creativity and therefore a license seems exaggerated. Read: Can't stick a license on a dungeon created by mapgen or a cobble box with a door and furnace in.

I totally agree with solars on the topic of licensing.
Your worldedit file doesn't have to have a license but then others should use it privately only, or ask for the creators permission to use the we file.
A missing license doesn't mean there are no restrictions but there are no permissions given!
If you allow using your we file in any ways you should add a fitting license.

To give you an idea of what I'd consider not enough for a real license due to the low level of creativity (although some thought went into making this a very minimalistic yet aestheticly pleasing house):

@solars - I'm sorry that you came to that decision, although I haven't downloaded any I have enjoyed watching the progress of Karsthafen.

@Kroukuk - you are right about missing licenses, I still live in a world where people have manners and at least a modicum of common ethics. This should be encouraged. Being told "I have to...." denies me the right to practice my own morality and ethics.

@ Sokomine - in the end I think you're right, I'm possibly going to have to rebuild everything in 0.5.0 and repost it. That's going to take a while, I'll leave the warnings on the problem ones for now. I'll just have to get used to the new unified menu, at least Worldedit gui gets it's own place again now instead of sharing with simple bed.

Cheers,

Andrew.

Sokomine wrote:

GreenDiamond wrote: Not to worry though, there are plenty of great builders that share their builds with the community, so not a huge loss.

Aehem. Solars is an excellent builder. He's creating amazing and huge cities with just mtg default blocks. That _is_ something. Something that can't be said about all creations in this thread.

I didn't say he wasn't an excellent builder. I am saying at least there are many more excellent builders to still enjoy.

Sokomine wrote: If I followed the thread correctly, one poster was annoyed about having to add a license. That's understandable - I felt the same when I released my first mods. And yet...these licenses do serve a purpose. Anyone who doesn't really care can select CC0 (source code licenses do not really fit in here) and be done with it. If the structure is used on a server or elsewhere, the CC-BY part might play a role even if the original poster didn't demand it. It just feels wrong to have someone else claim to have created something.

In my opinion, licenses are rather useless on Minetest schematics. I can freely download them, modify them, and use them, in whatever way I wish.
PLEASE NOTE I am NOT saying claiming something build by another as your own is OK, and I have never said that, nor implied it.

Besides, should someone still want to enjoy exploring solars builds, they are still available in places if you dig enough (as is everything).

And here I am again on this discussion.
Can we like, agree that licensing is not too important for Minetest schematics, but if you would like to license something you gotta say so or we are gonna see it as CC0. And of course the license must be permissive as per everything on the forum.
I feel like that's pretty agreeable.

There are 36 items. Most of them have a turtle shell-like roof.
They are (almost) all of the same style, most of them are one-storied, but always a bit different, so they fit well together to make villages.
The interiors are more or less decorated (beds, chest etc.)

Some buildings come in two sizes: small = a, not so small = b.

- 1 unit house (a & b)
- 1.5 unit house (a & b)
- 2 unit house (a & b)
- 2 unit house oblique (a & b)
- 2 unit house more oblique (a & b)
- 3 unit house (a & b)
- 4 unit house (a & b)
- house with farm (a & b)
- shop (a & b)
- gatehouse (a & b)

- house with conventional roof (for the individualist of the village)
- small round house
- house with porch
- inn
- stable (for 3 horses)
- shack
- kennel
- well (a & b)
- little park

some bigger ones:

- school (or church)
- library
- house with T-shape roof (a & b)

not really fitting to the rest:

- a small and a larger train station

The boundaries of the buildings are marked with glass blocks. The volume of the whole thing is 672x22x22

Sample screenshots:

Spoiler

… Sorry, there's no blacksmith.

I would appreciate if you like and use it, and/or modify it (e.g. adapt the buildings to different biomes).
Or take it just as inspiration.
I recommend to use also mirrored versions.

License for everything in this bundle: CC0

I’m going to start recreating all of my buildings in Minetest 0.5.0 so that they import correctly for everyone, this is going to be a large project.

This first one was done as a quick systems check, plus I think others out there could do better with it than I did. It’s the base floor plan of my Huge Temple that I shamelessly adapted from a map I found on the internet.

I’ll start on Citadel next because it was so popular. It would be nice if people could let me know what they want most and help me decide what order to do them all in. Or even just let me know what ones you don’t want.

From now on I’ll only post schematic files that don’t involve complex mods like Technic. I’ve been informed that the .mts format is not suitable for those. My whole world files are smaller than the .we files so if it involves Technic I’ll post the map instead of the schematic.

templebase.mts



72 X 203
1 high, position 1 is ground level.

No Mods Required

Cheers,

Andrew.

OK, here’s the first of my (very apologetic) rebuilds. I decided to make new posts instead of editing the old ones to save any confusion. Also to avoid confusion I have put the numbers 050 on the end of the filename to signify that it is created for Minetest 0.5.0 and it has been tested and proven.

Interesting to note that Minetest’s debug information identifies it as Minetest 5.0.0



Citadel



281 X 281
50 high, 2 deep. Dig 1 block and mark the one underneath it.

No Mods Required.
Important: disable all mods temporarily while you import.

Cheers,

Andrew

PEAK wrote: so they fit well together to make villages.

So many buildings...that does indeed call for a new village type for mg_villages :-) Would that be ok for you? Ah, CC0, so it ought to be no problem. I'm certain the villagers would exchange the wood types randomly and also might choose between diffrent stone types for the stonebrick and cobble. Question is...village_peak or another name? People might expect a village on a mountain top or something similar in that case.

In general the buildings look very much like in mc style. I wonder weather that's caused directly by the texture pack, indirectly by it (=materials that suit well together), or if it's a style on its own.

GreenDiamond wrote: In my opinion, licenses are rather useless on Minetest schematics. I can freely download them, modify them, and use them, in whatever way I wish.

Well, yes, that's the difference between technically can and legally can and morally can. They do not always go together.

GreenDiamond wrote: Can we like, agree that licensing is not too important for Minetest schematics, but if you would like to license something you gotta say so or we are gonna see it as CC0.

Obviously we can't agree as at least Solars and I do not agree.

CC0 ? No. This would allow all those Android & IOS forks to abuse ALL the GREAT work for their money making purposes...

Sokomine wrote:

GreenDimond* (FTFY) wrote: Can we like, agree that licensing is not too important for Minetest schematics, but if you would like to license something you gotta say so or we are gonna see it as CC0.

Obviously we can't agree as at least Solars and I do not agree.

I see that as almost hypocritical. I was basing that off of what both of you have already said. Go ahead and license your stuff and we will respect the license. If you don't specify a license, there is none to be had. Pretty simple. Almost common sense, even. T'was my attempt to get this "argument" overwith and make everyone happy.
Anyway, there are more important things than licensing some structures made of blocks in a game. Not my problem if people throw fits over a non-specified license.
I will now make a solid attempt to not respond to any further continuation of this pitiful conversation which I am sorry to have participated in.

GreenDimond wrote: I see that as almost hypocritical. I was basing that off of what both of you have already said. Go ahead and license your stuff and we will respect the license. If you don't specify a license, there is none to be had. Pretty simple. Almost common sense, even. T'was my attempt to get this "argument" over with and make everyone happy.

Sounds good, licenses should definitely be respected. Still, people should understand that "no license" means it's not free to use.

Sokomine wrote:that does indeed call for a new village type for mg_villages

In fact I tried to understand how mg_villages works. But I gave up... It would be great, if you include it.
I wonder how it looks with exchanged block types...

Sokomine wrote:Question is...village_peak or another name? People might expect a village on a mountain top or something similar in that case.

You are right. I propose village_turtle because of the roof style.

Sokomine wrote:In general the buildings look very much like in mc style. I wonder weather that's caused directly by the texture pack, indirectly by it (=materials that suit well together), or if it's a style on its own.

It's of course based on the NPC villages in mc. I think the base concept of that is ok (particular the scale), but I wanted more details and individuality for the buildings. Basically the style of the roofs make it different.

The texture pack I used is MysticTempest's REFI_Textures.
I made for my own a TP based on the graphics from the Official Minecraft Wiki. But I'm unsure about the license, so I don't release it. That looks pretty much like MC:

For comparison the MCl2 textures:

I think there's not enough difference between the wood types.

I initially used handle_schematics for placing the buildings (first I made them without plan about the orientation). I encountered some issues with the many upside-down stairs (there is still an error on the library: the stairs beneath the windows should be turned by 180°).
Is that because my version of handle_schematics may be not up to date, or does it not work right with MCl2 -- or even MT?

LMD wrote:CC0 ? No. This would allow all those Android & IOS forks to abuse ALL the GREAT work for their money making purposes...

I can understand your point of view. And it's full ok, if someone uses a different license for his hard work - or even wants money for it.

I choose CC0 because --despite some tedious work-- it was fun for me and I see it as a gift. If you care about what the recipient does with your gift, it isn't really a gift ;)

"If you care about what the recipient does with your gift, it isn't really a gift ;)"
- so true