Penalisation of non-free content in ContentDB [Split]

[runs]

https://github.com/minetest/contentdb/issues/202

I have two complaints:

1) To penalize mods that have not 100% Open Source licenses by dividing them by 10 seems to me exaggerated. This should be reviewed.

2) Putting those mods as NON-FREE in red letters, seems to me exaggerated too, because it is marked with a "scarlet letter" as in medieval times which means it is something bad, or contains pirated content, which is not normal, why in red?

[LMD]

Non-free content needs to be penalized. Dividing the score by 10 is indeed questionable. The warning is appropriate, and red is the perfect color to use for warnings (one could contemplate going with a shade of yellow/orange though, as those are often used for less severe warnings).

[runs]

Non-free content needs to be penalized. Dividing the score by 10 is indeed questionable. The warning is appropriate, and red is the perfect color to use for warnings (one could contemplate going with a shade of yellow/orange though, as those are often used for less severe warnings).

I think it should be decided by a committee of wise men by vote.

[Linuxdirk]

Non-free content needs to be penalized. Dividing the score by 10 is indeed questionable.

Yes, it should not show up a all, neither on common search on in the regular list. Only by directly entering the full and exact name.

[runs]

Non-free content needs to be penalized. Dividing the score by 10 is indeed questionable.

Yes, it should not show up a all, neither on common search on in the regular list. Only by directly entering the full and exact name.

Let me tell you, you're not making any sense.

In any case, it should not be a single person's decision. There is a thing called democracy. :-)

[Linuxdirk]

Let me tell you, you're not making any sense.

Let me tell you, I don’t care if you don’t understand what I write.

[runs]

Let me tell you, you're not making any sense.

Let me tell you, I don’t care if you don’t understand what I write.

I don't speak English, I'm purebred Spanish. A decadent, romantic Spaniard.

[PolySaken]

Y'all wilin. It has absolutely no effect on you whether non-free content is allowed, stop trying to get rid of it. Dividing the score by 2 seems appropriate.

[Wuzzy]

Why are you defending non-free software, tho?
I thought the point of Minetest is that it's free software. It makes sense to expect that the games and mods surrounding it are free as well. Minetest is nothing without these games and mods. I do NOT want Minetest to become another Minecraft with restrictive EULA. If we let this happen, then we have failed.

Even if we treat non-free software equally, it would simply miss the whole point of Minetest. If you want to push your own proprietary software so badly, I'm afraid Minetest is just the completely wrong community for you.
Note that by the simple act of hosting non-free software, we are indirectly supporting and promoting it. This, however, goes against the goal of advancing free software. The fact that it is allowed on ContentDB at all is already a concession. You are of course free to copyright all your work (this is your legal right in most countries atm), but then you're in the wrong community, which is about sharing, not keeping things for yourself.

Thankfully, the vast majority of our community does want free software, and releases their work as free software, thus contributing to the commons. Most people in here see no problem in giving up their copyright monopoly, and this is a good thing. Having a large (and libre!) mod database at your fingertips is what makes MT great. People who insist on their copyright are rare, and they aren't really successful either.

It's better for Minetest in the long run when you contribute to the commons instead of insisting on your exclusive monopoly rights. It's not surprising the community is offended when you do insist. Copyright only benefits the copyright holder, at the expense of everyone else.

From this discussions it always seems that the exclusion of proprietary software is like a huge deal in this community, as if there would be a large amount of people who actually want to release their proprietary stuff on minetest.net. This is totally not the case, it's a tiny minority. I really don't understand why this comes up again and again, when in reality only a handful even considers to go proprietary anyway.

Also, let's remember the video games in general are starving for free software games. Almost all of the big titles are proprietary. Free software games are, in the grand scheme of things, are an absolute rarity (sadly).
Heck, even many games that come at no cost (=“freeware”) are proprietary. Almost all commercial video games are also proprietary. I fully believe this needs to change. Yes, many (not all!) free software games right now suck, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't at least try. We have to start somewhere, and challenge the notion that you can make good games only if you turn to the dark side. :-) That it is possible to create games without lootboxes, DRM, online-only restrictions, huge EULA walls, ad infestation, etc. etc. etc.

So, is the policy of “punishing” non-free stuff OK, at least in the way it's currently implemented? I don't know. But I do know that any non-free media and software isn't really in the right place in this community either way. We have lotsa mods that depend on each other, and it would suck if one critical mod is proprietary and we start to depend on it. Things would go South quickly. When you build a community on the premise of freedom, and let proprietary stuff sneak into your dependency tree, that will create problems. Thankfully, this is not a problem we have right now, but it's a thing we should watch carefully.

However, in the long run I believe we would all we better of if copyright as a whole is abolished, or at least severely reduced in length and power. Current copyright length is insane (often >100 years; most of the artwork created today will not enter Public Domain in your lifetime, which is really frustrating for stuff like fanart, remixes, etc.), and all of this ugly software license mess (license incompabilities even between FOSS licenses) is an indirect result of this copyright system. A strong copyright system is a big reason why proprietary software is so powerful right now. But this is a different topic.

[cuthbertdoublebarrel]

[quoteWhy are you defending non-free software, tho?]

why are you making the same arguments over and over for years ?
non-free content is allowed end of ,
all you can do is whinge about it . nothing more .
how petty the team is to penalise a licence when the content is allowed .
its pretty clear to an outsider that more effort is spent just going round and round in circles here with the same old tired arguments. than moving foward .

[Wuzzy]

And the arguments are invalid … how?
And what would “moving forward” mean to you? What, in your opinion, should be done and why?

[cuthbertdoublebarrel]

And the arguments are invalid … how?

the arguments are invalid because you have no power to remove the content hence you resort to the pettiness shown here .
how about using https://www.moddb.com/ to promote minetest and showcase content for starters or does the team fear losing control ?

[LMD]

why are you making the same arguments over and over for years ?

Because they are still valid

non-free content is allowed end of ,
all you can do is whinge about it . nothing more .

That's not the case, we have already "done something about it": non-free content is penalized on CDB and warnings are shown, on top there are filters to hide it completely (if desired)

how petty the team is to penalise a licence when the content is allowed .

This argument is ridiculous. Licenses can be penalized despite being allowed. Allowance does not imply endorsance. There are more options than the boolean yes/no.

its pretty clear to an outsider that more effort is spent just going round and round in circles here with the same old tired arguments. than moving foward .

"Outsiders" probably don't have an idea of what non-free content means for development. We are not going "round in circles" just because valid points are repeated (granted, Wuzzy could also have linked other posts he wrote, but you should rather appreciate that he invested time and effort to write another past in regard to this specific situation).

We are moving forward: The engine is getting lots of contributions, mods, games, texture packs & other content is thriving.

[LMD]

And the arguments are invalid … how?

the arguments are invalid because you have no power to remove the content hence you resort to the pettiness shown here .
how about using https://www.moddb.com/ to promote minetest and showcase content for starters or does the team fear losing control ?

"Pettiness" ? You call a 90% penalty "petty" ? Everybody who's had his content penalized can tell you that it definitely isn't "petty" and rather significant.

Switching from ContentDB, which was designed for Minetest and is focused on MT content, to some ad-powered 3rd party service is not a good idea and definitely not worth the effort. How about you make an optional PR?

[rubenwardy]

Wuzzy is not being petty, and I agree with most of what he said

Allowing non-free content but penalising it is a compromise in an attempt to please both parties. I would prefer to not have any non-free content whatsoever

[cuthbertdoublebarrel]

No one said anything about swapping to https://www.moddb.com/ but to use it as a platform for promotion to reach out to a wider audience including coders.
yes pettiness for including a penality system due to you not getting your own way
but that only applies to CDB and not to a wider audience elswehere on the net
i believe celeron55 has the final say on what content is included is that correct ?

[runs]

Why are you defending non-free software, tho?
I thought the point of Minetest is that it's free software. It makes sense to expect that the games and mods surrounding it are free as well. Minetest is nothing without these games and mods. I do NOT want Minetest to become another Minecraft with restrictive EULA. If we let this happen, then we have failed.

A few things:

- Minetest is one thing and mods are another. Don't mix it up.

- I don't stand for anything. I'm just saying that because my mod has some sound files labeled NC (Non-Commercial) I think it's exaggerated that it penalizes itself so much. My mod is not totally free by the definition of freedom but it's free to use and distribute, nobody can sue you for it, only if you make money out of it. But you can still delete those sound files and that's it, that's it. Besides, my mod has nothing to do with Minetest, in the sense that it doesn't come with it. If you use it you know what to do: do what you want but don't get any money involved.

What I mean is that it's not all black and white. There are tones in between, which are the greys.

Anyway, I'm going to replace those sounds little by little, because I see that people are very Taliban and they get nervous easily.

[runs]

What's more, Open Source is one thing and Morality (Christian, Muslim is another). Why is sexual content not allowed? Hot content is perfectly admitted in any Open Source license... ContentDB should admit it, because p0rn is 100% FREE, is GPL, is FREEDOM :-) Who knows, maybe I belong to a satanic cult and I'm super cool with it...

I don't want to say with this that I am in favor of it, of course, but it serves me as an argument to refute. What I mean is that if you make rules, you have to be a little flexible.

[rubenwardy]

Because having sexual content results in certain difficulties to the person that hosts it. I don't want to run into those difficulties, and I don't think that it's in the community's best interest to allow such content

[runs]

Because having sexual content results in certain difficulties to the person that hosts it. I don't want to run into those difficulties, and I don't think that it's in the community's best interest to allow such content

Watch out, I don't agree either. It was just an example of FREEDOM as definition.

[cuthbertdoublebarrel]

so content is bieng penalized for a non Commercial licence .
so you do not have the freedom to make money from that content
but you are free to use and distribute
so it only goes agianst those wishing to make a profit from the content .?

[Linuxdirk]

so it only goes agianst those wishing to make a profit from the content .?

The problem is: what is “making profit”? Are advertisements before YouTube videos showing the content “making profit”? Or is promoting the content on sites where advertisement is installed “making profit”?

Uploading a mod showcase on YouTube and having your videos monetized could be against the license if the license has an NC clause even if your literal income from the video is not profit at all and does not even cover your costs.

[cuthbertdoublebarrel]

so it only goes agianst those wishing to make a profit from the content .?

The problem is: what is “making profit”? Are advertisements before YouTube videos showing the content “making profit”? Or is promoting the content on sites where advertisement is installed “making profit”?

Uploading a mod showcase on YouTube and having your videos monetized could be against the license if the license has an NC clause even if your literal income from the video is not profit at all and does not even cover your costs.

for a non profit vid its fair use of non comerical content youtube automatically checks the creative commons and matches the content to the licence .

[runs]

so it only goes agianst those wishing to make a profit from the content .?

The problem is: what is “making profit”? Are advertisements before YouTube videos showing the content “making profit”? Or is promoting the content on sites where advertisement is installed “making profit”?

Uploading a mod showcase on YouTube and having your videos monetized could be against the license if the license has an NC clause even if your literal income from the video is not profit at all and does not even cover your costs.

At this moment only music, not effects. They just don't monetize you. Anyway it's a Youtube thing, making game reviews is allowed or gameplays. Otherwise they would have to delete all the gaming videos that had ambient or musical sound.

So it's very bad that certain commercial songs within the games, screw up your Youtube video. Youtubers often protest about it.

[PolySaken]

I defend proprietary software because I value the author's right to free speech, and also to own their work, more than I value your self-entitlement to free stuff.
Art such as writing, graphics, code, and sound design is one of the few things a person can actually create, and to quell their work because they'd like to be recognized for it is immoral.
That said, I'm still going to publish my software under a free license simply because It's a hobby, not a job.