Share Your WorldEdit Files!

[slopsbucket]

This whole exercise has been educational. Here’s a trap for people to watch out for. If I have “moreblocks” enabled when I import a .mts schematic file then all of my stairs and slabs become “moreblocks:stairs” and “moreblocks:slabs” instead of the default sets, even though moreblocks was not enabled when I made the schematic file. If I then disable moreblocks I get this:



Both of those buildings are the same “apartment050.mts” file that I’ve posted here. The difference is that the one on the right was imported after I disabled moreblocks.

Apartment050.mts



110 X 110
100 high, position 1 is ground level.

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

Cheers,

Andrew.

[slopsbucket]

Community Challenge:

Build a city inside the walls. 8 areas roughly 120 X 120 each to build in.

challenge050.mts



411 X 411
62 high, 3 deep. Dig down 2 blocks and mark the third.

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

Cheers,

Andrew.

[slopsbucket]

The Palace.

Complete with real gatehouses.



201 X 201
50 high, 3 deep, dig down 2 and mark the third.

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

Cheers,

Andrew.

[slopsbucket]

Just another quick problem to watch out for, people.

To see what would happen I loaded my palace050.mts in a map with no mods enabled. It loaded perfectly.

I enbled moreblocks and played it again, then I looked at a stair block to see if moreblocks had claimed it. It had.

Then I disabled moreblocks and played again. Some of the stairs and slabs reverted back to the default sets and some did not. This is what I ended up with:



Cheers,

Andrew.

P.S. I don't believe this is because of anything I have done this time.

Just confirmed it. Repeatable experiment:

Opened a new world - flat mapgen. No Mods. Enabled flying.
Flew around the place scattering stairs everywhere.

Exit game, enable moreblocks, enter game then exit again.
Disable moreblocks, enter game:



Cheers,

Andrew.

[LMD]

Consider opening a new thread on MT Forum and/or opening a GitHub issue - Share your .we files is not the best place for submitting bugs :P

[slopsbucket]

Consider opening a new thread on MT Forum and/or opening a GitHub issue - Share your .we files is not the best place for submitting bugs :P

My apologies.

I read through the post about reporting bugs and searched github, but I don't know if this is a moreblocks problem or a minetest problem and don't know who to report it to.

Cheers,

Andrew.

[slopsbucket]

Huge Temple



72 X 204
20 high, position1 is ground level.

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

Cheers,

Andrew.

[slopsbucket]

The famous Hanging Gardens of Babylon



101 X 101
95 high, position 1 is ground level

Mods required:

Technic (only for the rubber trees)

Important: disable all mods temporarily while you import.

Cheers,

Andrew.

[Shara]

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.

I really hate to even reply to something like this, but by this reasoning you wouldn't care about the licenses on anything else either if you could freely download it and do what you like. This would basically apply to all content in any mods.

Some people put a huge amount of work into the schematics they create and make available, and those schematics are not simply made up of code and textures. Telling someone they can't license a schematic if they choose to is like telling an artist they can't license a digital painting because they used a shade of colour someone else already used. (In other words, ridiculous).

If it's brought to my attention that any mods posted to the forum or ContentDB are using schematics that were provided here without honouring any conditions placed on their use, I will follow up with whatever actions I can. That might be the limit of what I can do about it; however, that also doesn't make other uses okay "just because you can", which is basically the whole core of your argument.

Please show a little more respect for those releasing content here.

[paramat]

Schematics should ideally be licensed, even if you choose CC0. Otherwise there's confusion about if it can be freely used or not etc.
Schematics are obviously licensable, as they are artistic designs made of 3D voxels, just like a texture is an artistic design made of 2D pixels.

If schematics are not mentioned in MT licensing documents or forum rules it's because they are somewhat recent and MT documents and forum rules are often years out of date and we're lazy about updating them. However, it is fairly obvious that schematics are 'media' and are the same as textures, models and sounds so maybe it wasn't seen as essential to mention them in documents and forum rules.

> I don't plan to ever license mine or worry about licenses on others.

Ok, but ignoring licenses means you are breaking community rules and the law.

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

Incorrect.

> 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.

You are stating that ease of piracy means no one should ever license anything. Ok, but if you do this within the MT community you are essentially saying to everyone: "screw you, i'm going to use your hard work and not credit you", in which case others will not respect you in return and if you act you may be banned from the forum.
You've lost my respect for a start.

> 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.

You have immediately contradicted yourself, failure to credit is very close to, and just as bad as, claiming false ownership.

> Can we like, agree that licensing is not too important for Minetest schematics

No.

> but if you would like to license something you gotta say so or we are gonna see it as CC0

We don't get to decide that, the law does.

> Go ahead and license your stuff and we will respect the license.

But you won't apparently.

> Anyway, there are more important things than licensing some structures made of blocks in a game

There are always more important things, this argument can be used to ignore licenses on any artwork.

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

No, permissive does not mean 'no licence' as in CC0. The part of the rules that applies to your 'free to use' schematics is:

> Public domain is not allowed as a license because jurisdiction about what "public domain" means varies between countries. Release your work under CC0 instead (or also).

You are asked to use CC0, solars is correct.

[GreenDimond]

> I don't plan to ever license mine or worry about licenses on others.

Ok, but ignoring licenses means you are breaking community rules and the law.

I suppose I should rephrase:
"I don't worry about what licenses go on what, because if you are posting it here, obviously it is free to use privately. Of course I would respect the license."

> 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.

You are stating that ease of piracy means no one should ever license anything. Ok, but if you do this within the MT community you are essentially saying to everyone: "screw you, i'm going to use your hard work and not credit you", in which case others will not respect you in return and if you act you may be banned from the forum.
You've lost my respect for a start.

If you want to see it as that, go ahead. I did not intend this as the implied meaning.
Again, "If you are posting this here and putting it up for download, I am free to download and use it as I wish privately."
And nowhere did I say I wouldn't credit someone, that would be absurd.

> 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.

You have immediately contradicted yourself, failure to credit is very close to, and just as bad as, claiming false ownership.

Again, never said I would or should claim something as my own.

> Can we like, agree that licensing is not too important for Minetest schematics

No.

Bad on my part, sorry.

> but if you would like to license something you gotta say so or we are gonna see it as CC0

We don't get to decide that, the law does.

As far as I am concerned, if a license isn't specified and it is posted for download, it may as well be free to use?

> Go ahead and license your stuff and we will respect the license.

But you won't apparently.

I think I've already covered this by now.

> Anyway, there are more important things than licensing some structures made of blocks in a game

There are always more important things, this argument can be used to ignore licenses on any artwork.

I didn't mean this to shrug off licensing artwork, poor transition on my part.

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

No, permissive does not mean 'no licence' as in CC0. The part of the rules that applies to your 'free to use' schematics is:

> Public domain is not allowed as a license because jurisdiction about what "public domain" means varies between countries. Release your work under CC0 instead (or also).

I didn't say it meant "no license". If someone doesn't explicitly license their work, but it is put up for download, it is "free to use". Of course, everything on this forum is "free to use" per forum rules(?) within what ever specified (or not) license. And how does the "free to use" thing relate to Public Domain not being a license? I never said Public Domain was a license, and if someone doesn't license their stuff or if they say its free to use, that doesn't make it "Public Domain".

What I am getting from this is: Schematics can be licensed (I never refuted this), and schematics should be licensed (I don't agree with this, but maybe I should comply). Please tell me if this is incorrect.

[slopsbucket]

Licensing:

I was really hoping this topic would die, as it deserves. I'm starting to regret my initial rant.

All licenses should be respected, in full.

Telling me that I "must provide" a license is like jiggling a piece of string in front of a cat. I'm quite proud of myself in most aspects of my life and I believe that I'm a reasonably upstanding citizen. Telling me what I must or must not do will start a fight that you will find very difficult to win. Every time.

When I see someone doing that to a kid.....

I also very much liked Peak's comment:

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

This is the essence of the issue. Some people wish to retain ownership and some don't care. If I give, I give! If I did not want to give I would have either posted under license or not posted at all.

Technically anyone could put their own name and license on anything I have posted here. As there is no license they can claim it for themselves and provide their own license, there is absolutely nothing I can do to stop this.

But in the real world, anyone that did this would make themselves look like complete idiots to regular visitors at this forum.

Final comment: Some people are big fans of licensing and some are not. Don't ever face me with a home made sheriff's badge and start demanding that I act out your world fantasy.

Think about it.

Andrew.

[Chiantos]

Hello,

The problem is that in most countries, at the level of the law, not to license, automatically returns to copyright. The law is very clear in this respect, every work is protected from its creation by the author right. Legally, so if you do not license, it's like saying "Yes, I give it to you, but do not forget it's mine legally." This prevents any use or modification, and I think that's what they wanted to explain to you.

Whether they agree or disagree, most countries define that in order to edit, use or even sell something, the author must indicate by license what can or can not be done with a service or an artwork. We logically respect the laws, not are we anarchists.

It is possible that some people take the definition of the free as a total freedom to do what one wants, but the free is a alternative of distribution and modification, but not an alternative to encourage No respect for the laws. And that whatever the age or the situation.

Even if we thought at the beginning of the internet that we should not respect the laws, because it was not the real life. Internet is the real life, it is a tool of our life. And many people, unfortunately forgets behind their screens, that the law also applies on the Internet, I find it hard to always pay attention. Do not take it bad so if they take you back on whether or not to use a license, it's normal. They are also responsible to the law and must do so, not by choice, but by obligation. Your understand this ?

Good Day.

[LMD]

slopsbucket : I don't want to force you to choose a license. But as Chiantos already mentioned, I'm worrying about whether I'm allowed to use your brilliant work without a license. If you don't care about licensing at all, you could just write in your signature or something like that : "All my schematics are licensed under ...", and from your point of view, I guess you'd choose CC0.

Anyway, I totally take your point; I don't care much about licensing, too. If I think the work I did is nothing great(such as a small mod or so) I usually take CC-BY-SA 3.0/CC0/WTFPL for license. But if I'm quite pleased with my work, I'll most likely license it under GPLv3, even thou I don't know what that license means, at all !
:P

[Shara]

slopsbucket, the whole issue here was the idea someone could do what they like regardless of licenses. I personally don't mind if you use a license or not, but if you don't and someone wants to use one of your creations in a mod, suddenly things are a bit more awkward for them. Chiantos sums it up really well, but maybe you don't care, and that's your choice. I'm not going to bother you over it.

However I can and will flash my shiny little homemade sheriff badge all over the place if people take a schematic with a license and use it in a mod posted on the forum or ContentDB in a way that is against the license.

I doubt many of the schematics here are downloaded for something other than personal use in a private game, so this is rarely ever going to matter (the fact that someone has willingly posted a download link for their own work would, I hope, be enough to make that use quite fine regardless).

So this is really simple: if a schematic has a license and you are going to use it for anything other than this, respect the license. Otherwise, don't worry. (If it has no license at all maybe you should.) But there is really no need for anything beyond this.

[LMD]

The core of my point is : Licensing is not about preventing bad guys from using your stuff, which you barely can, but a bout allowing the ones that respect licenses to use your work properly.

[Sokomine]

In fact I tried to understand how mg_villages works. But I gave up... It would be great, if you include it.

I've tried to explain that some time ago in 6.7 Adding your own village type in the Wiki on Github. Adding the buildings is much easier if the houses are saved using the buildchest from handle_schematics because then data such as "cellar/well/.. reaches x blocks into the ground" and "initially rotated in param2=3 direction" will be stored automaticly. Each building needs its own file. It would help me a lot if you could store your houses into those individual files using handle_schematic.

I wonder how it looks with exchanged block types...

Slightly less good I'm afraid. Most buildings are the product of the textures used. The style mtg uses is very diffrent from the one MC uses. Far less dark and more diverse.

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

Good idea :-) Very nice name for a village type.

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

That's always a problem and grows worse if using in other games. MTG for example has one wood type less than MineClone. But at least replacement of wood types is a basic feature of handle_schematics. All those other nodes cause more work because my list of equivalent nodes is incomplete.

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?

I'm afraid that's an error inside handle_schematics. There has to be a place where I got something wrong in the rotation table :-(

This whole exercise has been educational. Here’s a trap for people to watch out for. If I have “moreblocks” enabled when I import a .mts schematic file then all of my stairs and slabs become “moreblocks:stairs” and “moreblocks:slabs” instead of the default sets, even though moreblocks was not enabled when I made the schematic file. If I then disable moreblocks I get this:

Yes, that's a common problem I encounter most of the time as well. One of the reasons why I love replacements so much.

Again, "If you are posting this here and putting it up for download, I am free to download and use it as I wish privately."

Ah. Private use ought to be covered by people posting their schematics here. Just nothing more. A license may actually allow people to do *more* - not less - with your schematic: They may pass it on to others, modifiy it, include it in mods, fork it on Github, distribute it officially, include it in their games etc. - all this can't be done if you do not explicitly allow it.

Telling me that I "must provide" a license is like jiggling a piece of string in front of a cat. I'm quite proud of myself in most aspects of my life and I believe that I'm a reasonably upstanding citizen. Telling me what I must or must not do will start a fight that you will find very difficult to win. Every time.

Luckily, there are diffrent degrees of "must". Sometimes you have to do one thing if you want to get a certain result. Doesn't help much if you're thirsty and refuse to drink because someone told you that you must drink in order to get rid of your thirst. In this case...people can download your schematics, take a look at them and enjoy them in their private world, but can't re-distribute them because they didn't get the right to do so. As long as you're around on the forum and check your PNs/mails, people can still ask you if in doubt and get permission from you to do further things with your work. But most things in life do not last forever. Forum posters disappear, people and their intrests change, and then your work might actually get lost because nobody knows that it can be kept and maintained. However, stating that people can do what they want with your creations may imply CC0 and thus give the right to keep it alive.

[rubenwardy]

If you don't provide a license, it means the works are all rights reserved. No one has permission to do anything with them. However, downloading for personal use is unlikely to lead to troubles. Using on a server (redistribution) or reselling could be.

[GreenDimond]

I sincerely apologize for participating in this conversation in the manner that I did, though it may have turned up some needed clarification for many of us. Like Andrew, I'd sort of like this discussion to be over by now.

And because we have filled this thread with more text and less schematic, I'll post one.

This is the dragon ice sculpture I built on HOMETOWN during December 2017, I saved it locally and converted it into a schematic. This also comes with a "small" section of terrain, as close as I could cut it, as I built the dragon on a slope. Attached zip file includes a .we and .mts, as well as a tiny mod used for the node I built with (which, in my opinion, works really well for ice sculptures).

+ More images

Daytime (less cool):

Top view:

Full side:

License (because I know someone will ask): MIT (do whatever you want, credit would be nice).

[slopsbucket]

@ Chiantos - You have been very eloquent in a language not your own, and you are 100% correct.

If anyone ever wanted to use any of my work for a "legal term" legitimate purpose they could always do a very old fashioned thing and request a license. It's that easy, ask.

No License (yet) is a perfectly valid legal stance. Granting licenses on a "per user" basis is also a perfectly valid legal stance.

@ LMD - I have already granted you a full license - viewtopic.php?f=12&t=7304&start=200#p324468

It might not look like it at first, but what I wrote there is a legally binding document. Take a copy of that and keep it on your computer and I am unable to rescind it.

@ GreenDimond - Nice!

@Shara, my apologies. I did not mean any of my comments to be directed towards you in any way. You weren't the person with the home made sherrif's badge I was talking about.

Cheers,

Andrew.

[LMD]

Oh, thanks, seems I overlooked it somehow !

[PEAK]

I've tried to explain that some time ago in 6.7 Adding your own village type in the Wiki on Github.

Oh sorry, I missed this -- only read the source code.

I wonder how it looks with exchanged block types...

Slightly less good I'm afraid.

No problem. I think it's sufficient if each village has it's consistent style.

Most buildings are the product of the textures used.

Everyone who uses different texture packs encounters this. I see it as a "feature" of all these voxelgames ;)
In fact high-quality buildings usually need their special textures (see e.g. Ardacraft).

MTG for example has one wood type less than MineClone.

That's one of the reasons why I like MCL2. I wish we had sprucewood in MTG! (Ok, there's "moretrees" but the textures are a little bit too different -- nevertheless I encourage optional use of moretrees for replacements.)

It would help me a lot if you could store your houses into those individual files using handle_schematic.

... See attachment.

[PEAK]

but I don't know if this is a moreblocks problem or a minetest problem

That's because moreblocks registers it's own stairs and slabs -- additional to the ones in MTG and looking completely the same. That's not so good...
For this reason I try to avoid moreblocks.

[slopsbucket]

but I don't know if this is a moreblocks problem or a minetest problem

That's because moreblocks registers it's own stairs and slabs -- additional to the ones in MTG and looking completely the same. That's not so good...

Moreblocks has always done this. After playing and playing to test different scenarios I believe what is happening is not actually a bug but possibly an error of judgement in how permissive minetest is with mods.

In 0.4.15 "default:stairs:stair_sandstonebrick" remained as a node from the default set even if moreblocks was enabled. Now moreblocks claims ownership.

For this reason I try to avoid moreblocks.

I usually try to avoid mods of all kinds in my creations, but I like to play games with Technic enabled and moreblocks is a required component. Sometimes just through playing a game I end up creating something pretty and wish to share it.

The moreblocks problem only seems to affect large buildings, areas of 10,000 nodes or more. And it affects all compatible nodes, regardless of wether or not moreblocks was installed when the buildings were created.

The worry is that someone may decide to try moreblocks one day, just to see what it looks like. Then if they remove moreblocks again, even if they built nothing while it was enabled, everything they have already built becomes a bit of a mess.

Cheers,

Andrew.

[PEAK]

The moreblocks problem only seems to affect large buildings, areas of 10,000 nodes or more. And it affects all compatible nodes, regardless of wether or not moreblocks was installed when the buildings were created.

Hmm, I never encountered this...

It's simply a design fault, I reckon. Also superfluous registration of a lot of nodes.
(... And the placing of moreblocks stairs and slab is different from default ...)




Once there was a good solution: https://forum.minetest.net/viewtopic.php?p=110953#p110953
see: https://github.com/minetest-mods/moreblocks/commit/474d62ac7c6f540318ccba9777f4f2c8d35007ec
but it was removed: https://github.com/minetest-mods/moreblocks/commit/62dd5c9eed2ff1b9de67108bf14e4e57c9fa52d4
Why is it gone??

:_ don't use stairs and slabs (8/16) from the circular saw!