LittleBear wrote:You made very clear to me by PM that you did not ask my permission because you could not be expected to contact 200 authors before rolling up their work in OSE. That really is the problem I have with the OSE project. You wish to control all the OXPs by OSE. I don't want to write for a fun project under those conditions. And I'd simply ask that you respect my wishes on that point.
If you have the time to finish Random Hits, please feel free to include it and finish it. I'd like to see a finished version too! But please don't ask me to write for it, when you have made it very clear that you won't respect the wishes of other writers and will use anything anybody writes in OSE. You didn't ask me the first time you copied everything I had written into OSE and released it, so why do you think I would be interested in continuing to write when you don't respect the orginal author's wishes?
You really can be hard work, man. Do you actually wish to find a win-win solution of this debate? Just, as our talks progress, I seem to get this "I or you" vibe and it doesn't go away or peter out.
I also want to remind you of the fact that when you last were close to quit Oolite, it was in the debate with Sung, and back then - to 100% - you backed my side of this discussion. Think about it. What changed?
If you do not want to find a solution that can make both of us happy, please say so and spare both of us the energy to continue this debate.
Cmd. Cheyd wrote:Maybe the way forward, and yes Les - it means massive recoding, would be to break OSE into it's component parts, each usable independently, but all together form the OSE universe.
It would work like this - You release OSE - Combat Computers.oxp, OSE - Player Stations.oxp, OSE - New Worlds.oxp, Realistic Shipyards 4.oxp (using exclusively Shipdata-overrides.oxp)... This way, the OSE "Meta-Oxp" is created by including all the different components of OSE, but if a player wants just one part, they can get that ONE part. It also means all the RH, Ionics, etc OXP's would NOT be included.
The problem with this is - I've already thought about it before, more than once, btw - that this would defeat the whole purpose of an "extended" Oolite. Some oxps need to be tweaked to work together like this at all (they don't do that well if 200+ of the originals are singularly used in the AddOns folder btw), and some things in the OSE/OE Ooniverse only make sense (are not too uber) with those tweaks in place. So, I am afraid, for me, this would not be a solution to realise what I would like to realise.
ClymAngus wrote:Ok we need some ground work here. A constitution if you will.
1) One of the intrinsic rights of any player is to make oxp's
2) This right extends to maintaining OXP's that said player has written.
3) The free nature of oolite on which these embellishing and alteration programs run make ownership and reverse-reengineering a matter of open and vibrant debate.
4) Any one player, or group of collaborative players do not have the right to order the removal of another players oxp even if they have altered it significantly for the better.
5) The only way to assure choice, maintaining (and expanding) the diverse way of experiencing this game whilst extending the ease of use; is to maintain an atmosphere where by oxps can exist in several forms.
6) IT IS THE DUTY of any oxper to provide well structured documentation with their oxp and the duty of ANY reverse-reengineerer to document their alterations to the variations they create.
Does this sound reasonable for openers?
For me, this does sound very reasonable. I would agree to this any time! Let's see what others have to say.
Cmdr James wrote:Who is going to enforce this. And what happens if I dont provide documentation for my OXP?
Its a nice idea, I just dont see that it will work.
No one would have to or even be able to enforce this. It could simply be a community agreement about how to handle situations like this that could/should be made very visible to anyone who starts doing oxps (announcement/sticky?). Perhaps an "How-To do oxps" guide could be made and have ClymAngus' "constitution" on the tin?
What happens if someone doesn't provide documentation? Well, what happens now, that's what happens.
Cmdr James wrote:Copyleft does not involve theft of other peoples work.
Snide remarks like that don't help, do they? Comparing linux (essence of copyleft) with M$ (essence of copyright) is not very convincing, either.