Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

Locked
User avatar
davidthecreator
Member
Posts: 452
Joined: Mon Aug 18, 2014 19:48
GitHub: daviddoesminetest
In-game: DavidDoesMinetest
Location: Lithuania

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by davidthecreator » Post

1) wait... People are actually making some paid MineTest content?

2) is that content even good?

MoNTE48
Member
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:58
GitHub: MoNTE48
In-game: MoNTE48
Location: Internet

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by MoNTE48 » Post

1) non paid. Just proprietary (you cannot modify and/or distribute it without the permission of the author.)
2) well, I am writing some proprietary mods for my subgame. Also, some textures that my artists paint have a license prohibiting on modification and/or distribution. According to reviews, my game is not so terrible, rating 4.5/5 stars.

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by Wuzzy » Post

Bad example. F-Droid is only for free software. No proprietary software allowed. I like this idea, and this strictness is also very justified, it's a much-needed contrast to the “official” app-stores in which proprietary software absolutely dominates.
You are wrong.
Oh crap. :-(
Seems like F-Droid isn't that strict then.
Also nonfree content tends to be of higher quality because people are scared to put effort into work that anyone can use.
That's a bold claim, and you didn't show evidence for your claim. I don't believe you.
well, I am writing some proprietary mods for my subgame. Also, some textures that my artists paint have a license prohibiting on modification and/or distribution.
If you're not in for the money, then what can you possibly gain by insisting on your copyright monopoly rights? You only make everyone else miserable, and you gain nothing from this behavior. This is something I will never understand. :-(


Final notes: Given that it was rubenwardy who implemented the penalty policy in the first place, rubenwardy still did not justify this decision at all … Rubenwardy, what do you have to say about this policy?

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by PolySaken » Post

Wuzzy wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 23:51
Also nonfree content tends to be of higher quality because people are scared to put effort into work that anyone can use.
That's a bold claim, and you didn't show evidence for your claim. I don't believe you.
I posited that nonfree content is usually of higher quality. This is an opinion, and I don't need evidence for it.
I also asserted that a possible cause for the higher amount of nonfree works is because people are scared to lose rights to their work. This is baseless speculation, and is also an opinion. There's nothing to believe or disbelieve about this, it's entirely subjective.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

MoNTE48
Member
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:58
GitHub: MoNTE48
In-game: MoNTE48
Location: Internet

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by MoNTE48 » Post

Wuzzy wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 23:51
well, I am writing some proprietary mods for my subgame. Also, some textures that my artists paint have a license prohibiting on modification and/or distribution.
If you're not in for the money, then what can you possibly gain by insisting on your copyright monopoly rights? You only make everyone else miserable, and you gain nothing from this behavior. This is something I will never understand. :-(
Well, I paid the artist $1,000 and I want to believe that the painted textures belong only to me. This is such a nice feeling of owning exclusive content.
Same thing, why not use CC0 and WTFPL? Just free the world from copyright. For some reason, no serious development uses this true-free license...

User avatar
Linuxdirk
Member
Posts: 3218
Joined: Wed Sep 17, 2014 11:21
In-game: Linuxdirk
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by Linuxdirk » Post

MoNTE48 wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 09:25
why not use CC0 and WTFPL?
Because CC0 is not valid in jurisdictions that do not have a concept of deliberate public domain (in those jurisdictions CC0 works as general business terms and not as a license), and because according to the author WTFPL is a parody on GPL and not a real license.

u18398

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by u18398 » Post

Wuzzy wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 23:51
Bad example. F-Droid is only for free software. No proprietary software allowed. I like this idea, and this strictness is also very justified, it's a much-needed contrast to the “official” app-stores in which proprietary software absolutely dominates.
You are wrong.
Oh crap. :-(
Seems like F-Droid isn't that strict then.
No it is not and that is why I think it is a very good example to show how things could be
handled. Freedom is not to say you have to do this and that or you get punished.

And there are many good mods with free licenses here, so there has to be no fear of them being
vanishing from the top positions. And even if so. Do it better than. Competition is a good thing to
develop quality.

Oil_boi
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 13:12
GitHub: oilboi
IRC: oilboi
In-game: oilboi
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by Oil_boi » Post

PolySaken wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 01:45
Wuzzy wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 23:51
Also nonfree content tends to be of higher quality because people are scared to put effort into work that anyone can use.
That's a bold claim, and you didn't show evidence for your claim. I don't believe you.
I posited that nonfree content is usually of higher quality. This is an opinion, and I don't need evidence for it.
I also asserted that a possible cause for the higher amount of nonfree works is because people are scared to lose rights to their work. This is baseless speculation, and is also an opinion. There's nothing to believe or disbelieve about this, it's entirely subjective.
Ooooh you're just trolling, damn I can't believe I didn't see it
This account is no longer active

User avatar
FreeGamers
Member
Posts: 650
Joined: Sat May 25, 2019 00:15
GitHub: is proprietary I use NotABug
Location: United States
Contact:

Re: Content database for in-menu installer - add your things!

by FreeGamers » Post

LMD wrote:
Thu May 21, 2020 08:37
As I have already explained, being free is an advantage and thus deserves to be rewarded. Allowing commercial use is an advantage as well and also deserves reward. This is indisputable: the more rights the author grants the users, the better for the users. Well, users nowadays like to have the "best" content at the top. And accordingly, free content gets a score bonus.
Well put. I'm sure that is the rationalization of the compromise for non-free assets and restrictive copyright licenses.

Some of you have included licenses that restrict user freedom and the freedom of your software. You are imposing strict copyright on people. However, you are misrepresenting yourselves as victims here. You will argue that free (as in liberated) software restricts *you*. But it doesn't. It only restricts you from restricting others. You don't acknowledge that your software brings significant restrictions users and other creators.

There are even ridiculous claims that proprietary and closed software implies superior quality of software. But this doesn't acknowledge the full context of what drives the development of high quality software. Monetary profit can incentivize the creation of complex software that can be high in quality, in fact quality makes software more marketable. But it's not true to say software being closed and restrictive of users is what drives quality. There are poor-quality examples of proprietary software. There are high-quality examples of free and open source software. Its obvious that quality of software is not tied to its license. Rather, its correlated to the design and amount of work put in to the software. Good quality programming leads to a quality program itself. Also, the funding of development is also not directly related to the licenses themselves, but rather a business model that can support development. I'm being verbose here because people are not completely honest with claims that are being made.

A penalty is imposed on your software if it is non-free. That seems fair. Personally, I would like stricter standards against restrictive licenses. Its not my decision. But I think it's better for the users in the community, other content creators, and sharing mods in general.
runs wrote:In other words, bullshit discussions that don't lead to anything. Meanwhile the Ottomans at the gates of Constantinople. They ended up falling.
In this case, the Ottomans are allowed inside Constantinople, but they are just taxed (penalized) for being here. However, the city should restrict them from entering. It's better for the interest of the city's community. The Ottomans wish to impose restrictions on the lives of the people living there (perhaps by blade). The Ottomans want access to the citizens of the city to enact their restrictions and to give their conquest purpose, meaning, and profit. Do you understand the analogy? I think it is quite clear.

Yes, I think the wolves should be given equal access to the sheep. After all, they said they just want to improve the farm and field for the sheep. The wolves are actually being oppressed by being restricted from entering the sheep's field. Those poor wolves. :( If the wolves are just going to be fenced out from the sheep, they might not even come to the field anymore! How tragic. Those poor wolves.

If content creation from a developer depends on restricting people in certain ways, I would prefer them to just not create their content or create it to be free for yourself but then just don't distribute it with non-free licensing. You're making our community less free and more restrictive, no matter how pretty your textures or code is. You can claim that people care more about textures and code than they do their freedoms, but I don't really believe that is true. I think it just relies on people being ignorant about computers, copyright, licenses, and penalties under law. That is why you tend to see developers and computing enthusiasts arguing about these things. Your rationalization depends on ignorance or apathy from end-users. Its usually people that don't value software freedom that use non-free software. Then when it spies on them or restricts them, you see people start to wake up about the practical meaning of these things. The implications of the software licensing becomes very real then. So, no, its not "bullshit discussions that don't lead to anything".

If subjugating people's freedoms is your only way to to create things, please stop distributing them. It's ironic to create something beautiful but have it be used for the ugly purpose to bind or control people and communities that use it.
FreeGamers.org has moved to MeseCraft.net | FreeGamers on this forum is now MeseCraft

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by PolySaken » Post

Oil_boi wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 18:28
PolySaken wrote:
Mon May 25, 2020 01:45
Wuzzy wrote:
Sun May 24, 2020 23:51

That's a bold claim, and you didn't show evidence for your claim. I don't believe you.
I posited that nonfree content is usually of higher quality. This is an opinion, and I don't need evidence for it.
I also asserted that a possible cause for the higher amount of nonfree works is because people are scared to lose rights to their work. This is baseless speculation, and is also an opinion. There's nothing to believe or disbelieve about this, it's entirely subjective.
Ooooh you're just trolling, damn I can't believe I didn't see it
I'm not. I am serious about wanting more people to be able to make content for minetest, and I think forcing it to be free if the owner wants recognition is a good way to scare potential devs away.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

Oil_boi
Member
Posts: 139
Joined: Mon Jan 28, 2019 13:12
GitHub: oilboi
IRC: oilboi
In-game: oilboi
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by Oil_boi » Post

Mhm mhm mhm, I have thought this through. In fact every one against it is RIGHT! It should not be penalized at all. BUT it should have a NON-FREE label next to the name in the CTB browser :D
This account is no longer active

User avatar
PolySaken
Member
Posts: 817
Joined: Thu Nov 09, 2017 05:18
GitHub: PolySaken-I-Am
In-game: PolySaken
Location: Wānaka, Aotearoa
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by PolySaken » Post

Oil_boi wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 02:22
Mhm mhm mhm, I have thought this through. In fact every one against it is RIGHT! It should not be penalized at all. BUT it should have a NON-FREE label next to the name in the CTB browser :D
I agree. Users need to know that there are potential dangers with nonfree content. I think perhaps a change in wording might be useful however, since most people would likely assume non-free means they have to pay for it.
My version:
PROTECTED MEDIA --for mods or games which have free code but non-free textures, sounds or models
RESTRICTIVE LICENSE --for anything with partially or wholly non-free code.
I think this distinction is important, as code by nature is adaptable and can be written by anyone with practice, but art is unique to the person who created it and can't be adapted in the same way code can. It can be modified, but then you're just drawing something new.
Guidebook Lib, for in-game docs | Poly Decor, some cool blocks | Vision Lib, an all-purpose library.

cuthbertdoublebarrel
Member
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 16:03
GitHub: cuthbert

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by cuthbertdoublebarrel » Post

Oil_boi wrote:
Tue May 26, 2020 02:22
Mhm mhm mhm, I have thought this through. In fact every one against it is RIGHT! It should not be penalized at all. BUT it should have a NON-FREE label next to the name in the CTB browser :D
whew !! you had me worried with your previous comment . i see rationality has prevailed .thankyou for that . the toxicity of those with the misguided notion that thier ideals were somehow bieng undermined needs to stop .no one here was attacking those ideals the almost religious fevour shown here is unhealthy . the petty penalizing is also unhealthy there is no rhyme or reason for it other than to bully others in the community to except an ideal . there is no legitimate reason at all as to why free and non free content can not coexist equally . of course they should be clearly labelled to make the user aware of the differences as that is extremely important but thats all .
your input here is very important too as i believe crafter is going to be a big influence and i feel it is going to attract a lot of new users to the minetest community in the future .
Project BrutalTest...hide your Petz

u18398

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by u18398 » Post

Sounds like my suggestions found some ears. Ruben Wardy is managing and developing the ContentDB if I am
not wrong. So it is up to him. What does he say about penalizing or not ?

ShadMOrdre
Member
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 08:07
Location: USA

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by ShadMOrdre » Post

Penalizing anything that is good and adds quality is the wrong message to send to developers and limits the content available to the platform.

We must remember, FOSS does not mean non-proprietary. It means that you are allowed access to. Whether or not you pay for a product is irrelevant. This debate frequently confuses the two.

M$ actually allows others inside access to the code. Yes, you have to pay money. Or buy MSDN subscriptions. By that fact, M$ actually kinda fits the FOSS definition. While for the average consumer, the PC is a "black box", the same is true of every mechanism out there, for those who don't understand it.

Just because I "choose" to protect my rights as a developer does not mean I intend to infringe upon the rights of my users to modify. It simply means that I choose to protect my investment in my creation. The only user right that is "infringed" is the limitation against profiting from my work, without attribution or perhaps compensation.

This isn't to reignite any FOSS debates, but I do in fact choose to prevent others from profiting from work that I release freely and openly. If you choose to use a work, you should have no issues with submitting to the license that the developer chose to use.

If you want content, be open. Proprietary does not mean no access. It means limited access.

All of the major Linux distros include the non free sections. The only "penalty" that those packages get is that they are included in the non-free section. They are not otherwise penalized.

Why should MT or the CDB act more strictly than the very definition of an open source product?

User avatar
Wuzzy
Member
Posts: 4786
Joined: Mon Sep 24, 2012 15:01
GitHub: Wuzzy2
IRC: Wuzzy
In-game: Wuzzy
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by Wuzzy » Post

Sigh.
We must remember, FOSS does not mean non-proprietary. It means that you are allowed access to. Whether or not you pay for a product is irrelevant. This debate frequently confuses the two.
No. FOSS means Free and Open Source Software. Both free software and open source software are by definition not proprietary.

Open Source Definition: https://opensource.org/osd
Free Software Definition: https://www.gnu.org/philosophy/free-sw.html.en

We use the word “proprietary” to mean “not FOSS”. Proprietary vs FOSS has nothing to do with money.

This debate is not going anywhere if the other side can't even get the most crucial basics right. :-(
It means that you are allowed access to.
No. The term you are looking for is “source-available”. Which is much, much less liberal than FOSS. Source-available differs from FOSS in that you get access to the source code (and maybe other source files) but that's it. You don't get any or only very limited rights, copyright is usually fully retained. And if you decide to do anything with the code, you can expect to be forced to pay hefty fines.
Just because I "choose" to protect my rights as a developer does not mean I intend to infringe upon the rights of my users to modify. It simply means that I choose to protect my investment in my creation. The only user right that is "infringed" is the limitation against profiting from my work, without attribution or perhaps compensation.
If you truly mean to not reduce the user's freedom, you wouldn't insist on your copyright. You can't have it both ways. Either you're pro-freedom, then you have to abandon your exclusive copyrights, or you're anti-freedom, then you get to keep your exclusive copyrights. But you can't be pro-freedom and still keep all your exclusive copyrights.
That having said, attribution is pretty much universally accepted in FOSS circles (including Minetest).
M$ actually allows others inside access to the code. Yes, you have to pay money. Or buy MSDN subscriptions. By that fact, M$ actually kinda fits the FOSS definition.
Again, this is just source-available, not FOSS. Most of the important MS products are definitely NOT FOSS, not even close. They have lengthy EULAs, which include a huge list of things they don't want you to do, including sharing, reverse engineering, etc.
If you choose to use a work, you should have no issues with submitting to the license that the developer chose to use.
I dare to question that authority. :P

cuthbertdoublebarrel
Member
Posts: 348
Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2020 16:03
GitHub: cuthbert

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by cuthbertdoublebarrel » Post

*yawn*
celeron55 hates FOSS zealots
Project BrutalTest...hide your Petz

User avatar
Mantar
Member
Posts: 585
Joined: Thu Oct 05, 2017 18:46
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by Mantar » Post

That's an argument from authority. Whatever his personal feelings may be, they're not an argument one way or another.
Lead dev of Exile, git repo: https://codeberg.org/Mantar/Exile

User avatar
LMD
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 08:16
GitHub: appgurueu
IRC: appguru[eu]
In-game: LMD
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by LMD » Post

cuthbertdoublebarrel wrote:
Wed May 27, 2020 16:59
*yawn*
celeron55 hates FOSS zealots
Citation needed (despite this being irrelevant as Mantar said)

I wouldn't consider us FOSS zealots, BTW
My stuff: Projects - Mods - Website

ShadMOrdre
Member
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 08:07
Location: USA

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by ShadMOrdre » Post

FOSS is a term, hijacked by a rabid fanbse, that means nothing more than they want stuff for free.

The corporations love you. Your insistence that ALL code should be FREE and Open Source feeds right into their philosophy. You provide the goods. We'll take the profit. Argue this all you want. It will not change the facts, no matter how hard you avoid the truth or hide from reality.

MT is licensed with a GPL license. FOSS would actually mean that you cannot release any mod under any different license. I love how the FOSS folks pick and choose which parts of the license to upold, and whose opinion they put forth. I dont really care how Rick Stallman defines open source. The very broad term he initiated has been bastardized into a rabid, hypocritical debate. This debate divides, which is part of the purpose. The other part of the purpose is to freely obtain the work and effort of others.

I write code. I am the sole decision maker as to the contents of the code, and the license under which I choose to release said code. According to FOSS, I should work for free. According to Wuzzy, I should just give all my efforts away, without compensation or without attribution. According to Wuzzy, I should not place ANY limits on my creation.

What's the agenda? There can only be an agenda, a purpose, for insisting that people who create content release that content under only your definition of a proper FOSS license. Do you run a for profit server? Do you sell code? What is your agenda?

Instead of providing links to support your claims, how about using your words. Put the arguement into YOUR words, so that we can see where you actually stand, instead of pointing to the same rhetoric that does not actually answer the questions of YOUR interpretation. I can point you to a host of manufactured opinions as well, but you'll never really understand MY positiion, unless I use MY words. Which I've just done.

Why does the FOSS community insist that developers freely give away their work? Do you expect your mechanic to fix your car for free, or the farmer to provide you with free steaks?

This one question is more important than anything else you may respond to, so please state clearly and definitively.


Do you honestly expect developers to give you stuff for free. According to your definition of FOSS, I'd argue that this is in fact what you argue. So what's the agenda?

MoNTE48
Member
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:58
GitHub: MoNTE48
In-game: MoNTE48
Location: Internet

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by MoNTE48 » Post

Well, FOSS zealots are proving something and are ready to continue holiwar forever. While more intelligent people just do what pleases them, or money, or popularity (not important).

You will never convince me to use FOSS just because it is free and open sourced. I'd rather use a free proprietary program, or even pay 10 bucks, but I will enjoy the quality.

Do you want me to use your FOSS? Then make the item
+ free and open source
was not the only plus in the huge list of minuses.
---
If there is a choice to go to a free theater for beginners, or a cool blockbuster with a very expensive ticket, I will not doubt for a second. And 99% of my friends also. (Well, there is always that strange guy who is unclear how he got into our company).

MoNTE48
Member
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:58
GitHub: MoNTE48
In-game: MoNTE48
Location: Internet

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by MoNTE48 » Post

Adherents of the religion of Richard Stallman live in begging. They (like some developers here, I will not poke a finger) think that they are saints. Because they make free software.
And others MUST give them donations for it! They do not work anywhere, but they are not ready to face the truth - they make money on FOSS. A donation is a charge, but after the provision of services!
Who thinks I owe him money? Come on, I'll pay any active MT developer who asks for $100! Bitcoin, PayPal?
Last edited by MoNTE48 on Wed May 27, 2020 19:24, edited 1 time in total.

User avatar
LMD
Member
Posts: 1386
Joined: Sat Apr 08, 2017 08:16
GitHub: appgurueu
IRC: appguru[eu]
In-game: LMD
Location: Germany
Contact:

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by LMD » Post

It's Richard, not Rick. Is this some kind of joke I don't understand?
My stuff: Projects - Mods - Website

ShadMOrdre
Member
Posts: 1118
Joined: Mon Dec 29, 2014 08:07
Location: USA

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by ShadMOrdre » Post

Hey MoNTE48,

I won't ask for donations. I enjoy coding. I enjoy making a cool game better for me and son. I enjoy GIVING it all away. Why? MT is a great game for kids, and is FREELY available.

As for the FOSS debate, let's be clear. FREE AND OPEN SOURCE means public domain, by it's very definition!

I make mods. I choose to give the work away. But if someone wants to compensate me, why should I be judged. If I expect compensation for my efforts, why should I be penalized. If I make crappy, dangerous, or otherwise questionable content, even if FOSS, why should I be LESS penalized than someone who made a high quality mod that is proprietary?

Do I ask for money? No.

But hey, if you got some money to give, maybe I should say hey, I'll take some. ;)

My WHOLE point is that MT suffers if the community chooses to exclude content, regardless of the terms of the content.

MoNTE48
Member
Posts: 323
Joined: Sat Apr 06, 2013 11:58
GitHub: MoNTE48
In-game: MoNTE48
Location: Internet

Re: Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

by MoNTE48 » Post

Hi, ShadMOrdre,
tell me honestly, is there any difference to your son (I will assume that he is a child) what is written in license.txt?
If some game/mod is free and his father installed it for him, he will try it. And he will play it only if he likes it, and not because the author has refused the copyright, or asked to use the game only as-is, and not use its textures elsewhere.

Locked

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests