Guest User


a guest
Nov 28th, 2016
Not a member of Pastebin yet? Sign Up, it unlocks many cool features!
  1. Denivarius
  2. #0699
  4. boarddiscussion
  10. Welcome to the beginning of the #boarddiscussion channel.
  11. Vultraz - 10/03/2016
  12. ah, now we just need iceiceice
  13. Vultraz - 10/03/2016
  14. im gonna send another pm to iceiceice asking him to get in here
  15. since discord displays backlog, though, I'll ask a few things now
  16. First off, dave, have you heard from ElGalloGringo recently? I have not seen him on IRC in a while.
  17. I do hope he agrees to work on the port. He seemed invested in it when I spoke to him, but I don't know what last was heard from him after I pointed him to Dave
  18. Either way, I'd like to make a suggestion regarding payment of the new iOS porter, whoever that may become. The current payment swap system as Dave described in his PM last week seems rather unnecessary. I would propose is listed as the payee and our Treasurer be responsible for sending the new porter his cut monthly.
  19. Secondly, about the Treasurer position, I'd like to state for the record that I'll leave it up to Richard (jetrel) or Chris (iceiceice) to decide between them who gets to be Treasurer. While I appreciate the faith Dave has expressed in my abilities, I don't feel I'd be up to the job, so I'll leave it to be between the other two of you on the Board.
  20. Thirdly, as Dave mentioned, the Treasurer position will be a legal one within the company. Will the remaining two of us not have legal/official positions?
  21. If so, why is this?
  22. Denivarius - 10/03/2016
  23. @Vultraz so as far as I know ElGalloGringo is still interested however I asked him to wait. I think we need to discuss as a board whether we want to him to go ahead with the port and if we do if we agree with him getting 25%. I agree with our treasurer sending him his 25%. Also we need to decide if we do this and then remove dailin's port and if so is there anything we can do to not leave purchasers of dailin's port out in the cold?
  24. Vultraz - 10/03/2016
  25. 25/75 seems a reasonable split given the amount of work.
  26. better than 50/50.
  27. that will give us more funds too.
  28. but we'll need to discuss further once iceiceice arrives
  29. October 4, 2016
  30. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  31. hi
  32. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  33. hey there
  34. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  35. so, green light means, currently has the app open?
  36. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  37. I think so...
  38. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  39. cool
  40. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  41. @Vultraz btw, I tried typing some stuff yesterday evening, here, but 1] I'm not seeing it logged in from this location, and 2] the text showed up in red
  42. I'm wondering if that was a voice/permissions setting, or a failure to connect to the server?
  43. I've never seen red (or any custom color) text in discord before.
  45. Discord@discordapp
  46. @cgpwhite ah, got it. Red text means a connection error and wasn't sending. Keep us updated if you run into it agian.
  47. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  48. so, Dave wrote a pretty good message in his wesnoth forum pm, let me comment on some items from there
  49. so i guess the first one i want to ask is about the iphone port,
  50. is there a reason that we do it by contract and not just like, develop it ourselves and / or merge it into the wesnoth git repo?
  51. or, can we try to get ElGalloGringo to commit whatever extra code he writes / project files into the wesnoth repo?
  52. i have never actually made an iphone port, i don't have an iphone
  53. i made an android app once for a project some years ago, which while pretty small, wasn't that difficult
  54. what is the main challenge, is it that getting an acceptable UI takes a lot of practice?
  55. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  56. I think this touches on multiple points:
  57. - 1] having the source code in our source tree - I think this is overwhelmingly desirable.
  58. - 2] having the mobile UI be an alternate display option for the core game, and not a weird, hacked-together alteration of the game's codebase with lots of stuff dummied/disabled out
  59. #2 is honestly the reason both the dailin port and the kyle poole port were not in our source tree - because those developers, in the interest of speed-to-market, both gave up on keeping their codebase running on regular computers - their changes quickly and totally broke the code for the regular display/ui of the game.
  60. kyle did post his publicly at one point, for us, but because by the time he was done, it was so different from our codebase, I think anyone who looked at it gave up. I'm unaware if dailin posted his.
  61. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  62. i see
  63. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  64. - 3] having someone on our team actually do the work of building the mobile version
  65. I think #3 is really quite hard, but it's really just down to the mobile UI stuff. At this point, iPhones are powerful enough that straight-porting the game is only going to be somewhat more difficult than doing a mac build (definitely some work on memory reclamation, which would not be trivial at all) .... but I guess my statement is that it'd be vastly easier than it was back in the dark days of the original iPhones with 128mb of ram (and only really 40-60mb left for your app after the OS)
  66. Like it's no longer mandatory to do an opengl port due to the hardware being so pathetic.
  67. The game could just blit in software; sure, we'd kill the battery, but hardware's pretty beefy these days.
  68. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  69. i mean none of the other ports are opengl ports, right?
  70. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  71. I think kyle's was... but I really have no idea.
  72. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  73. i didn't know that, interesting
  74. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  75. He made it fairly performant on the original iPhone, and I vaguely remember him having done a full-on openGL port.
  76. The nice thing of course is that #3's primary work - doing the UI stuff, would work on android in equal measure.
  77. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  78. yeah
  79. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  80. As indeed would any openGL rewriting, were that to ever happen.
  81. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  82. i mean it seems that a lot of the work in the last year or so has been about fixing problems in wesnoth's gui
  83. so i tend to think that efforts to support mobile ui are not that orthogonal to what has been happening recently
  84. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  85. Aye
  86. I've gotta apologize here - going afk for half an hour or so
  87. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  88. ok
  89. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  90. ttfn
  91. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  92. how long does ElGalloGringo think a port would take?
  93. Denivarius - 10/04/2016
  94. Well we mentioned the figure of 3 months, but I think it's hard to say.
  95. It is a good point that if we could get someone to port it for the good of the project and not take a cut that would be awesome.
  96. I mean, it is true that lots of people (i.e. almost all developers and members of the community) contribute a lot to Wesnoth without expecting financial compensation.
  97. the big reason why I agreed to give Kyle Poole a cut was (1) at the time iPhone porting was a very specialized skill; (2) it was a long and risky endeavor that looked like it had pretty dismal chances of success.
  98. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  99. The truth of the matter is we have less than half a dozen active devs doing active work on the wesnoth project.
  100. As far as I know, none of them have the hardware or skills for app development
  101. So I think the chance of one of them working on a port for the good of the project to be very small.
  102. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  103. I think it's worth paying a cut of the profits to get the port made and out there.
  104. Instead of the usual wesnoth prerogative of "wait for someone to do it"
  105. Denivarius - 10/04/2016
  106. right, that's kind of the reason to pay for it.
  107. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  108. as for ogl/hardware acceleration on the desktop version, we're getting there...very...slowly
  109. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  110. Vultraz, i think they might agree to work on things like, helping to fix gui code that has to work on iphone and desktop
  111. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  112. perhaps
  113. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  114. i guess when you pay for it at least you get some guarantee that its going to happen in some fixed amount of time and work
  115. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  116. as long as the work is necessary for the ios port and not just the desktop version
  117. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  118. vultraz: i think the ogl on the desktop has gotten significantly easier in the last two years or so
  119. in that you can now actually get an opengles2 context on most devices
  120. including os x, and windows,
  121. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  122. the problem is a lot of stuff needs to b e refactored in the desktop version
  123. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  124. where previously you would hvae to have some complicated fallback or use directx or something
  125. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  126. especially getting rid of the custom blitting function
  127. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  128. i should mention that, i tinkered alot with ogl in the last two years or so,
  129. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  130. which i have mostly, except for the gui2 canvas
  131. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  132. when fabi and i were working on game stuff
  133. i was able to get OGL basically working on all platforms, including OS X, emscripten, windows
  134. it's still pretty difficult, i mean, the way i've done it, i just make calls to the opengl api directly
  135. i made a small series of wrappers but i'm not really doing anything advanced....
  136. getting the graphics basically working is a big job though
  137. idk, i think it would be interesting to try to make a port to iphone
  138. but i cant dedicate 3 months to it, thats for sure
  139. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  140. that's why we're paying :stuck_out_tongue:
  141. I think we all generally agree that doing so is a good idea
  142. I think 25% is reasonable
  143. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  144. yah
  145. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  146. if, in the course of implementing things for the ios port, there are some improvements to the desktop version, all the better
  147. iceiceice - 10/04/2016
  148. yah ok, for the record i agree with that
  149. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  150. related to this, we need to get the treasurer position finalized, because that person will presumably be dealing with paying the porter.
  151. I also see one other issue, and that is that dailin might not take too kindly to being essentially told 'shoo, we're gettting rid of your thing for a new thing that we're paying the guy less for'.
  152. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  153. I think I'd probably lean towards iceiceice doing the treasury stuff - I'm a tad strapped for time, here.
  154. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  155. Well, then, that would seem to settle it.
  156. I still would like clarification as to the comparitive "officialness" of your and my positions within the company, as I requested yesterday, since Dave only mentioned that the treasurer would have an official legal position.
  157. Denivarius - 10/04/2016
  158. @Vultraz : I think for now we can get by with only having the treasurer listed as an officer of the company.
  159. @Vultraz my biggest concern with having a new port is that existing customers who paid for it might not be able to get the new version for free? Which sounds like a massive dick move on our part.
  160. I'm not sure if there is a way we could transfer things over.
  161. Denivarius - 10/04/2016
  162. Also, I have the details from Dailin of the iTunes Connect account for his port
  163. does anybody know about transferring this to an account we control?
  164. because if one of you wants to work on doing that that would be great, if it's possible.
  165. account:
  166. password: mmm probably shouldn't post it here. But I can PM it if someone wants to take that on?
  167. also just FYI our accountants are currently preparing taxes for this year.
  168. I don't think we will have to pay any taxes. But we will have to pay our accountants. A lot. :frowning:
  169. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  170. alright. I do think it should at least be publically noted in a prominent location who the board comprises of at all times.
  171. as for this account thing, I'll leave it to (probably) jet, since he's the mac user.
  172. Jetrel - 10/04/2016
  173. @Denivarius @Vultraz I'm willing to do the legwork on the account transfer, although I'll most likely need to have Rotonen guide me through the process (since he's expressed willingness to do so before?)
  174. Vultraz - 10/04/2016
  175. I actually have no idea what iTunes Connect is, ftr
  176. Denivarius - 10/04/2016
  177. @Jetrel: okay will PM you the password.
  178. October 5, 2016
  179. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  180. @Jetrel btw, now that lordbob has returned to the desert elf poritraits, wil you be getting back to the sprites?
  181. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  182. Okay so question: Do we want to ask ElGalloGringo to proceed with his port of the game? Are there any additional requirements we want to put on? Do we want to give him a time frame we expect it to be complete in?
  183. I have been keeping him waiting for some time so we could form the board and such to make a decision. Is this what we want to go ahead with?
  184. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  185. @Denivarius can we post a quick recap of the basic requirements we're stating to him? I mean, I'm pretty sure the answer is yes, but that's kind of a question without firm context.
  186. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  187. re: treasurer stuff, i would be happy to do that. i also would like to look into doing the taxes ourselves as mentioned in forum pm, that sounds like a good thing.
  188. i will be back later
  189. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  190. I don't think it's a good idea to dispense with the accountants.
  191. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  192. Well it depends. If someone can volunteer to do it and understands it all we can.
  193. for this year we will still use accountants, those wheels are in motion.
  194. @Jetrel: so major terms are him getting 25% of revenue. He would complete the port within 3 months and if he doesn't he would give us a status report and we would have the rights to choose a new porter. Also the idea is that he hopefully continues working on, improving, and even promoting it -- worthwhile for him since he gets 25%. The more it makes the more he makes -- but if at any point we are unhappy/think someone else could do better, we can replace him with a new porter, or take the port in-house. However after that point we would continue to pay him 25% of sales for 12 months.
  195. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  196. Okay - the only thing I think is unreasonable is maybe the 3 months thing - that seems awfully short.
  197. Even 9 months seems like a "short but reasonable" schedule.
  198. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  199. That seems rather long.
  200. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  201. nine months? That's crazy short.
  202. We're asking someone to do something very difficult - ISTR kyle taking at least 6+ months to do his original port.
  203. I also believe kyle was extremely above-par, skillwise.
  204. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  205. then again, I've done 0 app development, so i cannot appropriately judge
  206. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  207. Basically I think the 3 months thing is a gambler's fallacy of having someone ridiculously good sit down to do the job - it's a projection of an extreme "best case scenario" where someone with extremely above-average skills for their field comes in, and does something where everything goes as planned and there aren't any major technical surprises or setbacks
  208. If we get either or both of 1] a porter with much more average, normal skill levels 2] any sort of technical setback/difficulty, I expect the timeline to double or triple.
  209. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  210. How about 6 months, initially.
  211. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  212. 6 months still seems dangerously short to me ... in part because I'd be very surprised if this person can justify full-time effort on this, rather than just "side gig" time.
  213. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  214. also true
  215. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  216. we are talking about someone porting the game to the iPhone. Not writing a new game. There should be no memory management/optimization work to do since an iPhone is powerful enough to run the game straight these days. I think 3 months is a reasonable time frame to either (1) have a release; or (2) at least show strong enough progress that we have confidence.
  217. I don't want to get into the situation of asking someone to do it, agreeing on 6 months, then after 6 months "yeah I got nothing"
  218. All told if someone was really committed to doing this and was skilled (plenty of iPhone and C++ experience) and went on it hard and full time they could probably get it done in 3 weeks or less.
  219. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  220. I'm sorry, I just don't believe that - I think your judgement of their prospective skills is colored by how insanely skilled you are, yourself.
  221. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  222. I wonder if perhaps dave is assuming everyone is as efficient and skilled as he is.
  223. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  224. I'm very certain he is. I know he knows he's very good - I think he doesn't realize he's "burying the needle on the odometer" good.
  225. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  226. if 3 months is considered a checkpoint rather than a hard deadline, that does change things, however.
  227. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  228. In dota terms, there's a heck of a difference between ~5k mmr and 8k mmr - and that's what we're looking at here.
  229. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  230. because he's right, we don't want to set a long deadline and then find nothing done (though optimally the porter would keep in contact with the project management ie myself).
  231. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  232. @Vultraz yeah - I think it would be absolutely required that we'd be watching the porter and they'd be putting the code in a repo we can access - we're hiring someone to write code for us; we've got every right to look at it.
  233. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  234. so, if we say by 3 months at least something substantial has to be done, that's more reasonable
  235. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  236. I.e, we don't need to look over their shoulder and ask for status updates on an irritatingly regular basis, but we can at least glance at the repo and notice if they're doing any work or not.(edited)
  237. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  238. I would say this port should live in a seperate repo in our github org.
  239. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  240. The other major thing is "There should be no memory management/optimization work to do since an iPhone is powerful enough to run the game straight these days" -- I'm rather concerned this won't be true
  241. If you run out of memory on an iOS app it just "crashes" (it force-quits, but that's indistinguishable to the user.)(edited)
  242. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  243. ^ to that, dave also underestimates just how mediocre wesnoth's performance is.
  244. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  245. It took Kyle 3 months to get Wesnoth working on the iPhone
  246. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  247. we have 0 hw acceleration.
  248. implemented
  249. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  250. by that I mean 3 months from time of agreement to him getting a beta out
  251. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  252. and even on desktop the performance can be horrendous.
  253. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  254. and most of that time was him optimizing it from taking 5 minutes-to-startup to getting it running at an acceptable speed
  255. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  256. Keep in mind that we were unable to release frogatto 1.3 on the app store because we couldn't solve our memory management problems.
  257. I mean...
  258. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  259. these days that shouldn't be an issue.
  260. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  261. This was on a device with 1gb of ram!
  262. Seriously!
  263. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  264. I say let's make 3 months a major checkpoint, and then see where we can go from there.
  265. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  266. so I'm not saying it might not take longer. But Kyle could do it in 3 months. Kyle was a really good coder, to be fair.
  267. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  268. Arguing over the technical aspects are useless since only the person attempting to do it can evaluate those.(edited)
  269. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  270. I'm not saying we should cut someone loose after 3 months. But I am saying they should show progress after 3 months. If they sit on it for 3 months and no progress that's a big red flag
  271. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  272. I will also say for the record that ElGallo seemed quite competant to me and he said himself our move to SDL2 would simplify things greately.
  273. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  274. right, between SDL2, additional speed of the iPhone, it's a TON easier these das.
  275. *days
  276. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  277. Yes - Kyle certainly was. That's all I'm saying - that this smacks of a "gambler's fallacy" = where we're expecting to have someone with above average skills for a porter and for them to have favorable 'winds at their back'.
  278. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  279. like if someone has it running after 3 months but wants to do some 'fix ups before release' that's fine.
  280. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  281. Yeah - I think that's reasonable.
  282. I think we could expect someone to get it running within 3 months.
  283. I don't think anyone outside of someone extremely exceptional could get it running "okay" after 3 months - I think it's going to constantly have out-of-memory problems (if I'm placing bets, I think that'll be the biggest mess to clean up).
  284. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  285. But if we can get someone who can get the game launching and able to play a ways into a level before it OOM-asserts in 3 months, I think I'd find that quite satisfactory.
  286. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  287. The Lua stuff might add some memory problems, other than that I think it'll be fine.
  288. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  289. Well, do we even have a way in wesnoth to recover memory?
  290. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  291. There's a problem in desktop wesnoth right now where memory is never freed after ending a level or something(edited)
  292. it's not a leak, it just nevr gets freed
  293. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  294. Like, doesn't it just keep guzzling more memory ad nauseum?
  295. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  296. over long session, it starts to eat up more and more resources
  297. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  298. @Vultraz: that's a leak.
  299. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  300. oh?
  301. well i've seen people say it's not a leak :neutral_face:
  302. so maybe I'm describing it wrong
  303. but either way, there are problems
  304. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  305. okay.
  306. Is that in the stable release? Because possibly he should go off the stable release.
  307. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  308. I think it's in any release.
  309. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  310. @Vultraz in any case that sounds bad. :frowning:
  311. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  312. I also think he should work with 1.13, the dev release, since that's the one with sdl 2 :stuck_out_tongue:
  313. 1.12 is from 2014 and 1.13 has an exponentioal number of improvements, both in performance and the internal workings
  314. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  315. @Jetrel and I'm not sure what you mean by your question. As in, the answer to whether something "gives back memory" is pretty technical and we can discuss it but probably not here.
  316. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  317. including but not limited to sdl2 support and the use of modern c++
  318. so working with 1.12 would be useless, especially with 1.14 on the horizon potentially as soon as early next year.
  319. (1.14 will be the next stable series and the one we ship on Steam)
  320. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  321. So on another note, I must admit I found the Wesnoth forum response to the Wesnoth2 concept pretty demoralizing. However, maybe it would be better for us to consider focusing on just making a straight port of Wesnoth onto Anura? If we could fix a lot of problems Wesnoth has by doing that that would be really nice.
  322. the biggest barrier would be when WML+Lua gets into a war with FSON+FFL. But still.
  323. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  324. The notion has been met by significant resistance.
  325. Mostly because it means throwing out everyone's work from the past 13 years.
  326. And would instantly invalidate every single UMC work.
  327. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  328. Well, ideally we'd provide a path to convert UMC's over.
  329. but yes I know there would be a lot of resistance.
  330. We would avoid throwing out work where possible.
  331. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  332. iceiceice has been working on such a potential conversion tool
  333. GitHub
  334. cbeck88/libwml
  335. libwml - A C++ library which parses wml files
  337. I would be the first to admit that a jump to anura would advance wesnoth's tech a decade.
  338. Something that confuses me about this iOS port thing, btw, is the fact that since desktop wesnoth uses 0 hw acceleration, just software rendering, will hw support need to be added for the port?
  339. I know iOS has a game graphics API to work with (Metal), but I don't really understand how one is supposed to take the resource-hungry, non-optimized desktop wesnoth and make it a fast, quick, mobile app :/(edited)
  340. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  341. Vultraz: mostly because all it does is pretty simple drawing so an iPhone can handle it easily in-software. Though it could also be converted to use ogl
  342. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  343. yeah, see, in areas of 'simple drawing', even desktop performs fine
  344. but in cases like the new animated Water terrain in 1.13
  345. it performs abysmally
  346. ogl would be amazing to have
  347. if such a thing were implemented for the iOS port, could that work somehow be applied to desktop wesnoth too
  348. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  349. yes, possibly
  350. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  351. well, then the question becomes whether it would be less work for all parties to do a stright port to Anura.
  352. though, at least, i think that would not be worth it for 1.14. It'd likely take too long and push back our projected Steam release.
  353. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  354. Yeah, I think the performance on the iPhone will be "okay" - in SW rendering, without much work - I think there will be some stuttering and some "advanced features" not working so well, but I think that that really won't be a pain point.
  355. It's the memory stuff that I think is going to is going to be a land mine - something people don't see coming which causes a huge amount of pain.
  356. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  357. yeah...
  358. and that needs to be fixed on desktop, too
  359. i remember playing Fallout Shelter on my old iPad mini gen 1 where it didn't have enough memory and it constantly crashed. It was extremely annoying. If that happens with our port people will be pissed :/
  360. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  361. Yeah.
  362. I mean that was the problem with frogatto 1.3
  363. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  364. did you fix it?
  365. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  366. It ran just fine, but by crashing every 5 minutes or so it was just disgustingly unplayable - it was a huge embarrassment.(edited)
  367. No - I don't have the skills to do C++/OGL memory management.
  368. I'm the closest thing we've got to a "man for all occasions", but that's just .... that's just too much.
  369. Certainly so 3-ish years ago.
  370. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  371. I'm getting a feeling ElGallo will be doing at least as much backend work as actual porting :frowning:
  372. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  373. Hence my pessimism about it taking a while!
  374. I think it's solvable - I just think it's a bit messy.
  375. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  376. You don't know how messy certain bits of the wesnoth source are :neutral_face:
  377. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  378. Jetrel: the good news (for frogatto/anura) is I am planning on making a performance tool for anura memory analysis similar to the timing tool we have
  379. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  380. @Denivarius that'll be water in the desert. :slight_smile: This particular bloom of introspection tools we're growing is something that's really going to give Anura an edge, long-term.
  381. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  382. :frowning:
  383. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  384. I really think these are an asset that'll be unmatched in many other 'game-making-kits'.
  385. Also - for the record, I really support doing a port to Anura of the original wesnoth; I think UMC support is the sort of bridge that can be crossed after the core is ported.
  386. I think any mobile port should be completely agnostic to that and not pretend like it's a thing until well after it's done.
  387. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  388. true
  389. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  390. something Kyle did for the original Wesnoth port was made the port with just basic content
  391. and then would port UMC and release it like a 'big update' with promotion around the theme of the new UMC
  392. and that was really really successful
  393. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  394. Given the likelyhood that ElGallo might have to do a lot of complicated backend work, I think we might want to consider paying him an additional one-time bonus, dependant on a review of work done at time of the port's completion.
  395. as for the umc thing, that'a an idea.
  396. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  397. @Vultraz I don't think we need a bonus - I just think we need to be reasonable and flexible about the timeline as long as he's putting in a good faith effort.
  398. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  399. yes, I agree.
  400. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  401. It shouldn't be needed, no, but in my opinion the option should be kept in mind should the work prove to be a lot more complicated than we expected.
  402. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  403. Also - I agree that kyle's trick with the UMC was a very clever idea and would be good to repeat.
  404. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  405. vultraz: re taxes, yah it's not necessary to do your own taxes. i usually do my own taxes... in the last two years I didn't because I was busy. But in years prior to that I did. If it's $2000 / year it represents a pretty large expense.
  406. usually personal taxes only take a few hours of your time / someone elses time, for my personal taxes it was like $500 to do them. I wonder, if it takes the accountants a long time to do wesnoth inc. taxes, or they just charge a high hourly rate?
  407. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  408. @iceiceice: the thing is that business taxes are not the same as personal taxes. I do my own personal taxes too. It's possible that we could do all of Wesnoth, Inc's taxes "in house" but I don't think it will be as simple as personal taxes.
  409. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  410. yeah i don't know anything about doing taxes for a small business
  411. so also, i want to bring up an item from the forum pm:
  412. Dave writes: "Procedurally, I think we should decide how we as a board want to communicate, and what our expectations are regarding the distribution of our communications (i.e. if they are made public)."
  413. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  414. what about it?
  415. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  416. so i guess maybe you already discussed it and i didn't see it?
  417. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  418. we haven't
  419. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  420. the earliest log I have is Vultraz - Last Monday at 3:53 AM
  421. ah, now we just need iceiceice
  422. ok
  423. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  424. yes we haven't discussed anything before you arrived.
  425. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  426. so i think that we should try to make some page about the board, what it is we do etc.
  427. whether or not our logs are public
  428. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  429. yes I agree, I think that is important.
  430. we could go the 'all transparent' model and make this chat room open for anyone to observe.
  431. but I don't know if we want to do that.
  432. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  433. yeah
  434. i guess i dont see a particular reason to do that
  435. if anything it would be helpful because can tell people "if you want to understand in detail what we do, read our minutes"
  436. but it would likely be hard for anyone to make sense out of a giant log like this
  437. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  438. we don't have minutes :stuck_out_tongue:
  439. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  440. yah i mean
  441. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  442. well the main reason would be to promote a feeling of transparency. The main downside would be if anyone watches and gets offended / upset / spreads rumors based on some minor thing that was said.
  443. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  444. this log is the closest thing to minutes i guess
  445. yeah
  446. Jetrel - 10/05/2016
  447. Fairly cogent statement from Dave, there.(edited)
  448. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  449. @iceiceice: alright did you want to create a page which contains an overview of decisions made etc?
  450. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  451. making these logs public also means we can't put any sensitive material like passwords, etc, here
  452. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  453. yeah i could take a stab at this
  454. yeah i guess like
  455. there were other quesitons, like, are there financial matters or other matters that we want not to be public
  456. if there are things like that that we want to be secret then i guess we can't discuss them here which might be inconvenient
  457. it might be workable though
  458. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  459. we could make two channels(edited)
  460. and reserve one for non-public sensitive material
  461. and then publish logs for this one
  462. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  463. @Vultraz: do you want to take care of reaching out to ElGalloGringo and asking for him to work on the iPhone port?
  464. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  465. I could do that, yeah. Would like to be sure we've worked out all the details first, though.
  466. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  467. Sure. The biggest things in my mind are :
  468. (1) is there a way not to screw over existing iPhone users?
  469. (2) can we get control of the existing port? I sent Jetrel the password. Then we can hopefully have power to take it down when the time is right.
  470. (3) I want to be clear that if we go ahead with this as a board we are agreeing/continuing the existing assertion that we feel all Wesnoth developers agree to shipping Wesnoth on the iPhone even though the Apple agreement (possibly|probably|definitely) is not GPL compatible.
  471. Vultraz - 10/05/2016
  472. 1. dunno. wouldn't we have to ask apple? 2. also dunno. 3. there've been no objections this far. Though this does touch on a broader issue we should discuss that you mentioned in your PM - that being, licensing and compatility with various app store distribitions
  473. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  474. I am fairly sure that if there is no automated way to do it the answer is "no".
  475. iceiceice - 10/05/2016
  476. hi, i tried writing like a draft statement about the board, feedback would be most appreciated:
  477. Wesnoth is a large project with many different aspects which people work on.
  478. At any given time there may be people working on the pixel art, the portraits, the
  479. music, the code that supports the graphics, ui, sound, networking, game logic, WML api,
  480. and the WML that makes up the campaigns themselves, as well as the terrain graphics and unit animations.
  481. Not to mention maintaining the actual server infrastructure, including the campaign server, multiplayer server,
  482. web server, forums, and wiki...
  484. Besides all this, the Wesnoth project also has some costs associated to it
  485. - A web host for the various servers
  486. - Commissioned art (historically this has sometimes been pixel art, sometimes portraits)
  488. Wesnoth has been financially supported in a variety of ways over the years. Wesnoth was a Google Summer of Code project in
  489. several years, which means that students were paid to work on coding projects for wesnoth full-time for a summer.
  490. Wesnoth has solicited donations at various points in time.
  492. Since 2008, Wesnoth was, after much discussion among the developers, distributed for sale on iphone.
  493. This generated considerably more revenue than previously existed. Wesnoth Inc. is a non-profit corporation created
  494. to receive and handle this income, and decide how to spend it.
  496. In 2016 it was decided to reform the Board of Directors of Wesnoth Inc., by holding an election among the developers.
  497. The board is a four-person group which is essentially empowered by the developers to distribute the game on various
  498. distribution channels on their behalf, especially those that involve exchange of money or special (non-free) licensing.
  499. The board makes decisions about how to spend that money for the benefit of the project at large. It is hoped that
  500. the new board will have clear goals and will be transparent in its operation, will have good
  501. communications with the developers, and will be effective as a vehicle for promoting the project.
  502. It is important to emphasize that the board of directors are not the leaders'' of the developers, nor do they
  503. own the assets associated to wesnoth. Wesnoth Inc. does own several kinds of intellectual property associated
  504. to wesnoth, particularly, the domain name, the trademark. The most important component is that, on channels like the Apple store
  505. or Steam where only theoriginal developers'' are permitted to distribute a game, Wesnoth Inc. is the entity which
  506. properly distributes Wesnoth, as opposed to individual developers or other people.
  507. (got some markup snafu in there, oh well)
  508. be back later
  509. Denivarius - 10/05/2016
  510. I think it looks reasonable. We probably need to add some more details.
  511. October 10, 2016
  512. Denivarius - 10/10/2016
  513. So, we have to get stuff together to move forward with things -- vultraz have you contacted ElGalloGringo about the iPhone port?
  514. October 14, 2016
  515. Vultraz - 10/14/2016
  516. @Denivarius sorry, have not yet. been a little busy getting wesnoth ready for another dev release. I'll PM him tonight. Just to confirm the details, we've agreed to pay him 25% and expect some sort of meaningful progress by 3 months? Anything else I need to mention?
  517. Denivarius - 10/14/2016
  518. that sounds good!
  519. October 15, 2016
  520. Vultraz - 10/15/2016
  521. pmed him, sent you three a bcc of it.
  522. October 20, 2016
  523. iceiceice - 10/20/2016
  524. hi,
  525. i started trying to actually make a webpage as discussed earlier
  526. i put the stub of the project in a github repository, currently marked private on my account,
  527. i invited you all to collaborate on it, so only we will be able to see it for now
  528. the repo is here:
  529. i didn't really do anything more in regards to actual content yet, but at least there are some stubs, and we can go from there
  530. Denivarius - 10/20/2016
  531. alright, cool. Yeah I got your invite
  532. October 22, 2016
  533. Vultraz - 10/22/2016
  534. I haven't heard back from ElGallo. Has anyone else?
  535. Denivarius - 10/22/2016
  536. Nope. Do you have any other channels to reach out to him on?
  537. Vultraz - 10/22/2016
  538. Nope
  539. October 23, 2016
  540. Vultraz - 10/23/2016
  541. pydsigner has been working on drafting a proposal for allowing CC licenses for mainline wesnoth art/music as well as allowing it on the addon server:
  542. Gist
  543. Wesnoth Asset Licensing Proposal Draft
  544. Wesnoth Asset Licensing Proposal Draft
  546. as it stands I think the proposal is perfectly fine
  547. the general ideas were based off of previous dicussions such as this:
  548. GitHub
  549. Allow explicit use of any CC license for UMC assets by pydsigner...
  550. The mandatory use of the GPL for all things Wesnoth has long been a sticky point for contributors, especially those not contributing to core (i.e. creating UMC add-ons). Here are a few examples of...
  552. I know we intended to look at this at some point, so I'm posting it here so we can approve it before it gets posted.
  553. Again, I think it's fine, but the rest of you might have some suggestions on what should change.
  554. I'll pass any on to pydsigner (or we could invite him to #general)
  555. October 24, 2016
  556. Denivarius - 10/24/2016
  557. @Vultraz FWIW I feel these are excellent proposals
  558. October 26, 2016
  559. Vultraz - 10/26/2016
  560. Another matter i'd like to resolve before 1.14 is migrating the bug tracker off GNA.
  561. I'd like to use github, but the main complaint is it doesn't have private bugs
  562. github recommends creating a private repo for managing private bugs in leiu of visibility settings
  563. However, AFAICT, private repos require a paid subscription.
  564. Any thoughts on whether this is worth it
  565. Other suggestions have been redmine or jira but i have neither the time nor the experience to thoroughly test any of those.
  566. and i think a unified project on GH would be best anyway
  567. thoughts?
  568. (especially from @iceiceice who's supposed to be the treasurer)
  569. On a totally unrelated note, I have not heard back from ElGallo still.
  570. Vultraz - 10/26/2016
  571. Also for the record, I have recieved PMs from a few other interested parties since ElGallo first wrote. I've not turned them away fully, so we might have to contact one of them if ElGallo doesn't come through.
  572. Denivarius - 10/26/2016
  573. @Vultraz do any of those solutions require money or special licensing? If not I don't think it's a board issue
  574. @Vultraz and okay we might have to consider whichever one of them we feel is best qualified.
  575. Vultraz - 10/26/2016
  576. I just said that keeping private bugs on a private github repo would require a paid subscription as far as i can tell
  577. feel free to correct that if it's incorrect
  578. Denivarius - 10/26/2016
  579. oh yeah sorry. Why do we want a private repo?
  580. I mean why do we want private bugs?
  581. Vultraz - 10/26/2016
  582. certain bugs such as security issues are not suitable for public view
  583. they are rather rare, which is why im not sure it's worth the money
  584. Denivarius - 10/26/2016
  585. I would think it's pretty uncommon to have a bug like that? And it should be fixed quickly ... it seems the value of a private bug tracker for such issues is pretty minimal?
  586. Vultraz - 10/26/2016
  587. true
  588. Vultraz - 10/26/2016
  589. if we didn't use gh then we might have to consider another tracker (which would not be the board's responsibility)
  590. Jetrel - 10/26/2016
  591. Honestly, I vote for a public tracker - I don't think we have any need for a private tracker, even for security issues (this would only differ if we were, say, the linux kernel, or some fortune-500 business). I suspect Dave would corroborate that.
  593. Denivarius - 10/27/2016
  594. @iceiceice: I think that's a good point about CC-BY-SA
  595. and allowing use of any art there
  596. Jetrel - 10/27/2016
  597. I agree - that's a good point.(edited)
  598. October 28, 2016
  599. Vultraz - 10/28/2016
  600. It is
  601. But there is somehing to be said for restricting use as well.
  602. say you commisssion some art for a project and don
  603. 't want it spread everywhere
  604. I will grant, however, that this is a corner case
  605. And in the vein of yesterday's discussion, perhaps not worth considering
  606. Just bringing it up, however.(edited)
  607. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  608. The idea from the very beginning has been that non-free content should be clearly labeled as such so that people considering taking it from an add-on/post can clearly see that this is not a possibility or that there are caveats. Sure, it is a slight paradigm shift from the previous free-for-all anarchy we had, but I don't see why it has to be a negative thing. And re: policing, right now, I could publish an add-on full of Frogatto art or what have you and no-one would notice unless they were familiarized with the work in question; so in that regard, it seems to me like the content policying system will be only as broken as before.
  609. (Also, in case anyone is wondering how I got here, blame @Vultraz.)
  610. Vultraz - 10/28/2016
  611. I invited him here to offer insight on these issues we are discussing.
  612. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  613. shadowm: hi
  614. so i guess i just posted briefly on forums,
  615. if the policy is "any CC license" does that actually allow you to impose the kinds of caveats you were talking about before?
  616. or is that not the goal anymore?
  617. i guess i could dig up the irclogs, its possible i dont recall correctly what was said
  618. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  619. I didn't understand the question. Certain CC licenses (the NC and ND variants) have restrictions in what you can do with the licensed material.
  620. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  621. so the example i remembered from before was, what if you want to commission an artist to make art specific to your add-on
  622. that will be like a memorable or unique part, and you don't want it to then appear in "Colloseum XXXL" and get overused or whatnot
  623. if you allowed "any license" then you could make a license like that I think
  624. if you only release it under "CC-BY-NC-ND" then i guess that wouldn't achieve the result?
  625. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  626. There are three points to consider: 1) I'm not particularly interested in making add-ons for Wesnoth anymore (my participation in the authoring of pydsigner's proposal is limited to some quick proofreading and raising one or two concerns about ambiguous language). 2) Allowing literally any license would open up the possibility of people using nonsense homebrew licenses or licenses that are outright incompatible with the proper operation of the add-ons server ("this add-on can only be distributed through the add-ons server it may not be posted on any website", to give a very crude example). 3) Even allowing more than one CC license on the server is already proving somewhat difficult to get through some people's moral filters; I don't think it'd be productive to overcomplicate the first step.
  627. Maybe someone at a later time will want to extent the list of allowed licenses or something, but that's not going to come from me.
  628. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  629. so wait, you are advocating CC-BY-SA on add-on server, or the "any CC license" version?
  630. (sorry if I misunderstood)
  631. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  632. The latter.
  633. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  634. I guess i think that you are right actually, the policing situation is not that different
  635. we already could be in a position where someone says "X is a derivative of Y so should not have been uploaded" or something
  636. and the uploader disagrees that it is derivative
  637. i mean i think that would be the most annoying kinds of policing issues?
  638. do you think the users will actually pay attention to the licenses if people post non-share-alike stuff?
  639. i think there's a decent chance they'll just assume that if it's in a wesnoth add-on then no one will really stop them
  640. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  641. Hence the proposed license file(s) in the add-on detailing this stuff. It's really just a matter of educating existing users of the add-ons server. (Perhaps with an optional UI indication/category for add-ons with content that is considered to be non-free.)
  642. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  643. yah that would be a pretty good solution
  644. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  645. I'd doubt this would be a problem for new users anymore than the "no non-GPLable material" policy is.
  646. Vultraz - 10/28/2016
  647. @iceiceice did you even read the proposal :neutral_face:
  648. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  649. i think so
  650. Vultraz: I think UI indicator in the add-on list would be quite helpful, above and beyond the text files
  651. i'm probably on board with the proposal in that case
  652. i mean i guess that's not really that different from how ubuntu works
  653. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  654. For other people's reference, Debian and Ubuntu have different "sections" in each distribution's archive. For example, Debian has main (Debian Free Software Guidelines-compliant packages), contrib (DFSG-compliant packages that depend on non-free packages, for example, games with DFSG-compliant engines and non-free data such as Frogatto), and non-free (self-explanatory). I don't know the Ubuntu hierarchy but I believe it's similar with different names.
  655. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  656. i actually didn't know debian did that also
  657. ShikadiLord - 10/28/2016
  658. System admins have the ability to exclude contrib and/or non-free from repository updates so that they will never accidentally install non-DFSG compliant software.
  659. iceiceice - 10/28/2016
  660. i have to go to catch a train, i can check back here in a few hours
  661. October 29, 2016
  662. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  663. just leaving this here:
  664. reddit
  665. Battle of Wesnoth ripoff? Came across this in Steam's recent rel...
  666. 2 points and 9 comments so far on reddit
  668. nothing serious, and it's not direct
  669. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  670. Vultraz: I'm not very happy about your most recent forum post about this licensing stuff
  671. I've heard from a few people that you've been taking an increasingly imperious stance on a few wesnoth-dev issues
  672. in this case, at least as i understand, making decisions about licensing issues, what we consider to be important to the project, etc. is one of the essential purposes of the board
  673. now you and I are really very close in position on this i think
  674. i think pydsigner is rather off-base on a few things
  675. but if you can't agree that my opinion matters as to whether or not this change will happen,
  676. then i'm going to resign from the board
  677. > West left because people kept demanding he release the "sources" of his works. When he took effort to release something along those lines, there was no response. To be fair, most of the people complaining had left by that point, but it still hit him the wrong way. The cases that led to the departure of other music contributors can still be linked to the GPL. The fact is that we're only switching away from it now, and whether CC SA or CC ND is what SACEM requires, neither is the GPL!
  679. This discussion is getting frankly ridiculous. This is objectively a good change, and saying it should be broken up or delayed because a million people haven't flocked demanding it is ridiculous! Again, I point to Skyrim modding. More modder resources are always welcome! There's no way allowing more resources be used in Wesnoth UMC will in any way not allow the creation or more unique content! The status quo is a restrictive environment where everyone draws from the same limited pool! I see it in no way a bad thing to increase that pool at the cost of the use of certain resources being slightly restricted!
  681. Continuing to argue semantics and specifics of every word everyone has every said regarding this issue is pointless and not advancing this discussion any further. Can we please stop arguing and instead focus on getting this change implemented in the most expedient and efficient manner?
  682. I think I've been extremely reasonable throughout this discussion.
  683. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  684. Ok, here's the thing: As it has been pointed out before, the management of the project and the company are two different things. I simply have hands in both pies, so to speak. This is an issue the project deems necessary. Usually, the Board would not be involved, except, since it involves licensing and has implications regarding distribution, the Board is involved. The arguments you are making do not appear to be from the POV of a Board member. None of your complains have any bearing on our ability to continue distributing wesnoth on our current platforms, nor on that to enter new distribution channels. Those are the things in which the Board could take issue. So far, I see no problem on that front. @Denivarius and @Jetrel seem to agree with the proposal and I would hesitate a guess they they neither really care about SA-only vs otherwise. Your critiques of the proposal are (or at least, should be considered) from the POV of a project contributor, not a Board member, and I'm sorry, but in the matter of project management I outrank you. I will admit I was rather harsh in my last post; I apologize. However, I feel you're continuing to argue issues that have little if any import! For example, you keep saying you don't see much, if any, support from the community for this change. I will say that is irrelevant. As I pointed out, it's an objectively good change. It is not being done based on personal philisophies, and is being done for the good of the project. Also, arguing the semantics of the situations that led to the departure of our Lords of Music is also something I consider tangential. I happen to agree with the points pydsigner is making, and again, I apologize for my harshness, but I simply think your points have been addressed already, and I do not really appreciate (from the POV of project admin, not Board member) the way you keep brining them up in different form.
  685. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  686. Vultraz, it's not an "objectively good change" if the only people who think it is objectively good are you, shadowm, and pydsigner, and everyone else has pointed critiques
  687. the only thing that is ridiculous is for you to keep saying that
  688. and to comically exaggerate what my points were
  689. "a million people clamoring for it" or whatever
  690. what should be obvious is that the reason this was never posted on ML
  691. or on forums
  692. until now
  693. until you are "announcing that it is happening"
  694. is that there just isn't really any support for this, and you just want to force it through
  695. now look, i dont think its a terrible proposal
  696. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  697. Yes, this is an announcement of intent, not a call for comments.
  698. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  699. and i'm not really going to oppose it
  700. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  701. That was clear from the beginning.
  702. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  703. okay, i'm going to resign from the board then, effective immediately
  704. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  705. Why?
  706. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  707. i think this shows that the board is a farce
  708. and you are going to do whatever you want
  709. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  710. The board does not manage the project!
  711. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  712. there's no reason for me to be on it
  713. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  714. It manages the company
  715. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  716. it's supposed to, to some extent, reflect the will of the developers
  717. and the character of the project
  718. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  719. As I just said, the only extend to which the company need get involved here is to determine whether the proposed change affects our ability to continue to distribute the game.
  720. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  721. i think you and i have very different ideas what the board is and what it is supposed to be
  722. i'm not sure how that happened
  723. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  724. Well, partly because as shadowm pointed out, @Denivarius didn't really rather outline our full responsibilities until we were elected.(edited)
  725. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  726. Guys, why don't we relax and figure this out.
  727. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  728. Sorry what are the wesnoth forum posts we are discussing
  729. ?
  730. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  731. i think it might be a good idea if we sit down, decide what the board is,
  732. then hold a new election
  733. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  734. @Denivarius this whole thread, re licensing changes:
  735. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  736. vultraz: i'm going to try to explain why i think this is relevant to the scope of the board, its going to take me a few minutes to find some links and quotes
  737. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  738. Alright, please do.
  739. I will admit that some of my opinion has been influenced by the words of shadowm, who have pointed out that the board can (or perhaps, should not?) overrule the project. Perhaps this is so, but you are right that our scope of responsibilitys as this Board in regards to that of the project were never fully or clearly defined.
  740. We were given a bunch of things to work on, yes, and licensing was included in it.
  741. But now we're facing a situation whether we cannot decide how much the Board itseld gets to influence the details of that.
  742. itself*
  743. now that the project has drafted a proposal.
  744. (stemming, I may add, from discussions held long before the formation of the Board)(edited)
  745. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  746. I think one key thing - both direct at Vultraz and iceiceice here, is that any management organization figuring out exactly how it's supposed to operate is a completely normal, and unavoidable step in creating one. No matter how careful you are to try to prep and write some excellent charter, going into one - even if you do it multiple times, the only way for any board of directors to figure out its operating parameters is for the people involved to work together for a while, and run into things where they disagree.
  747. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  748. Certainly.
  749. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  750. Notably - rebooting doesn't solve the problem; it just gives you a different form of the same problem with new people who will disagree in different ways.
  751. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  752. I agree.
  753. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  754. I would also point out that: Disagreement isn't a sign of dysfunction - it's actually a sign the group is doing what it's supposed to. We're supposed to uncover operational issues like this that key drivers of the community would get frustrated with different people having different goals on - get that disagreement in the open, and figure out a way to amicably resolve it.
  755. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  756. Vultraz: look, you aren't "the project"
  757. you basically have the support of shadowm, a quasi-retired developer
  758. and pydsigner, who isn't even a developer
  759. everyone else was critical of the proposal
  760. then it shows up 6 months later and you announce "it's been decided
  761. my job is in part to represent those developers who voted for me, in regards to these licensing issues
  762. you should make some effort to solicit broad support
  763. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  764. shadowm basically (unofficially, I suppose) handed the reins of the project to me, and i have been referred to as project admin by a few people. officially I hold the positions of Community Manager, Release Manager, and Developer. So yes, I do consider myself project admin/leader.
  765. However, let's set that aside.
  766. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  767. if you aren't interested in doing that, this isn't really about "dysfunctional" organizations
  768. it's really just, i'd rather not spend my time doing this with you
  769. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  770. You say I should solicit board support
  771. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  772. i think you should lead the community
  773. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  774. however I counter tht @Denivarius and @Jetrel are basically taking a 'whatever' stance.
  775. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  776. @Denivarius said he thought your proposal was great, then he also wrote
  777. > Denivarius - Yesterday at 12:29 AM
  778. @iceiceice: I think that's a good point about CC-BY-SA
  779. and allowing use of any art there
  780. vultraz: i don't consider you the "project leader"
  781. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  782. ok, I'll grant you that.
  783. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  784. "lead developer"
  785. or anything else like that
  786. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  787. what do you consider me?
  788. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  789. you have some sort of leadership position
  790. but its fairly nebulous
  791. i dont think shadowm was the "lead developer" either
  792. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  793. sure, I won't contest that
  794. dave was the last "lead developer"
  795. officially, I think
  796. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  797. if you really think you are in a position to unilaterally start changing the licensing policies in the project, i think a lot of developers would be pretty surprised to hear that
  798. i think you have a lot of clout to push things through, but if you really think you can just unilaterally do something of this magnitude, i basically view that as a major power grab
  799. maybe the whole project has changed in the last few months or something
  800. idk
  801. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  802. Here's the thing, though, and I was ranting about this the other day: I really honestly feel like I'm the only one who cares about getting the project to a sucessful steam 1.14 release. everyone else is rather meadering along, and I'm starting to feel overwhelmed. I had personally hoped that the formation of the Board would lead to some sort of unified leadership
  803. but that hasn't happened!
  804. first, dave took the lead on the ios proposal. great. but now, when another issue comes up, he and jet are essentially silent.
  805. except for what I personally feel amounts to waving it through
  806. You have been critical of it.
  807. And I'm sorry if perhaps I'm taking my frustrations of feeling that I'm really the only one who's trying to get stuff done on a large scal out on you.
  808. But I still maintain that some of your critiques are taken too far.
  809. either way, this is still just you and me arguing
  810. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  811. there are a lot of things that you can change without people getting worked up
  812. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  813. where are dave and jet, now
  814. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  815. but like, licensing, and share-alike vs. not, that's someting that speaks to like, the character of the organization
  816. that's the kind of thing that supposedly we were supposed to deliberate in a charter
  817. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  818. which we never made!
  819. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  820. and ultimately say "we believe in people make free code and art under share-alike licenses"
  821. or, something elese
  822. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  823. we couldn't evbn decide how or where or even if to make these logs public
  824. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  825. like "we want to support people making games" etc.
  826. well, i had to defend my phd thesis on wednesday
  827. i was super busy
  828. sorry
  829. i tried to make some movement on website, and i was thinking about this a little bit
  830. but yah i was not too active
  831. in last month or so
  832. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  833. this Board represents a company that constitues more than just wesnoth
  834. it also has ties to frogatto and aa and idk even what else
  835. dave and jet have some nebulous goals related to frogatto
  836. about supporting game development or what not
  837. and maybe there should be a discussion about how that affects the company and all the games under its purview
  838. but so far, we have yet to have such a discussion.
  839. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  840. yah i think you are sort of preempting this discussion
  841. with this add-on decision
  842. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  843. and so, the licensing question falls firmly within the wesnoth project's borders
  844. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  845. yeah let's not focus on that for now, let's focus on Wesnoth and how the board should work.
  846. so this is the way I envisaged it should work:
  847. the most clear cut thing the board does is decide how our money should be spent.
  848. so my intent with forming the board was that I outlined what expenditures we have right now
  849. it's my intent that we won't change our spending patterns unless the board votes on it and we have a majority decision
  850. I think that is the most important role, and I think that is a pretty clear-cut line.
  851. with regards to licensing, I think we on the board should have some input but it would really behoove us to try and get a consensus. I kind of think it's not really so much a board decision though us on the board having a consensus agreement as a starting point would probably be a good idea.
  852. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  853. It would help if you and @Jetrel were to read the proposal fully, as well as @iceiceice's counter-arguments, and then we can have a discussion.
  854. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  855. Vultraz: I don't think it matters whether you think its a board issue or a project wesnoth issue,
  856. either way i don't see how you consider it "decided"
  857. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  858. really, honestly, I don't know.
  859. the point of the post was certainly one of declaration of intent
  860. and i guess i kinda got swpt up in the we're-doing-it-this-way way of thinking
  861. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  862. i'm going to take a shower, i will be back in a bit
  863. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  864. and since I agree with the proposal, I suppose i just started pushing it as given.
  865. wesnoth has a long history of stuff being delayed because no one was able to put their foot down and say "we're doing this"
  866. @Jetrel has said this himself, it's not just me who thinks so
  867. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  868. Yes I agree with that entirely. It has a long history of that and it's a big, big problem.
  869. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  870. but i suppose we should at lease internally try to agree on a course of action
  871. least
  872. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  873. So sorry I tried reading the thread on the forums but it's long and confusing. What is the disagreement? @Vultraz thinks that it should allow any CC license and @iceiceice thinks only one specific CC license?
  874. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  875. ice advocates CC SA only
  876. I agree with the original proposal that SA should be for mainline content but the addons server could use any CC license
  877. (the original proposal, for the record, was drafted by pydsigner and not myself. I simply posted it to lend it gravity)
  878. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  879. so firstly these proposals are very similar to be arguing over
  880. I kind of tend toward iceiceice's approach personally
  881. @Vultraz don't you think that allowing any license on the add-on server will lead to a lot of confusion and such? Make it difficult to take and use anything from the add-on server?
  882. I think that was @iceiceice's main concern and I tend to agree with it
  883. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  884. the counter is I and pydsigner don't think the free-for-all attitude of content creators is worth maintaining. making people think a little more about what it is they're taking (like it is in other game's modding communities) is certainly a good thing, and allowing for ND works can allow for more unique content in UMC.
  885. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  886. so to start with it puts on a burden of more technical work since you have to say what is what ... and clearly label it. Do you have a plan for that and developers willing to do it?
  887. Honestly I kind of think we should treat these as two separate things. Get to CC-SA only everywhere. Then we can talk about later allowing more different licenses on the add-on server if someone is willing to do the owrk on it
  888. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  889. what do you mean? the responsibility will be up the UMC authors to specify and check the license of the assets they use.
  890. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  891. yes but we need a format for specifying it -- like putting files with the licenses somewhere?
  892. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  893. yes, all that is outlined in the original post
  894. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  895. okay
  896. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  897. certainly, we would also support an additional key in the server.pbl file (the file that authors use to specify the properties of their addon when uploading)
  898. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  899. so it sounds like we agree on going ahead with CC-SA for mainline and moving UMC to that at least
  900. Vultraz - 10/29/2016
  901. yes
  902. well, not moving UMC to it - allowing its use
  903. it, we'renot gonna magically say eveything on the server is relicensed. we couldn't do that even if we wanted to
  904. relicensing would be for mainline assets and we'd have to contact each artist to ask if they'd relicense their work
  905. but that's something that can happen gradually
  906. but yes, i dont think anyone is against allowing at least SA on the addon server.
  907. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  908. I'd like to tread lightly with this opinion, but I think it'd be nice to move to CC-SA everywhere.
  909. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  910. vultraz: I thoguht about it a bit, I think this is maybe a better explanation for my reaction,
  911. one of the things my Dad always told me is, you know, it's very important in life to pick your battles
  912. this CC-SA thing, I mean, if it were all up to me, that's what it would be, we wouldn't have ND or NC or whatever
  913. but I sort of decided to concede this one anyways
  914. I'm not sure exactly why people voted for me to be on this board, I wasn't really involved in the project for more than a year
  915. I think partly because they expect me to be an advocate for things like this
  916. but for a variety of reasons some of which i explained, I decided to basically give it up
  917. so i decided to just say, well if you make a UI indicator then I'm on board
  918. and i think you were already planning to do that anyways
  919. my impression is that, you basically decided you'd rather just pull rank
  920. from my perspective like,
  921. if you'd rather make a show of force than take yes for an answer,
  922. that augurs rather poorly for a little 4-person board like this,
  923. it's just hte kind of thing that's going to make someone like me instinctively want to GTFO
  924. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  925. For the record, you were nominated for the board by people (and you accepted their nomination). These people were told that the members of the board would deal with finances and finances alone, not influencing or making decisions on the operation of the Battle for Wesnoth Project or the team.
  926. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  927. i don't know if its appropriate for me to quit over something like this
  928. but i just thought i would say that
  929. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  930. The last part came off as quite a surprise to me when vultraz started to throw the board's weight around regarding the proposal.
  931. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  932. maybe in your mind this is more about setting a precedent
  933. idk
  934. shadowm: there was also this thread:
  936. > I want to hold nominations and then elections for a board of three members who will be responsible for the following:
  938. - Collecting a revenue stream for Wesnoth, Inc.
  939. - Publishing reports on our finances in a transparent and open fashion
  940. - Assigning funds to spend on Wesnoth and other related game projects. Particularly to art commissions and server/infrastructure maintenance.
  942. These people should be well trusted in the community and ready to understand this is an important and difficult responsibility.
  944. One of the people on the board will be appointed treasurer. This person will have direct access to and responsibility for our financial accounts. This person must be a US citizen. The other board members need not be US citizens. You don't have to specify whether someone should be treasurer though, the board will decide it when elected.
  946. Once a board is established we can draft a charter to be adhered to going forward, including a statement on transparency, licensing policies, and so forth.
  947. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  948. No.
  949. That is literally the thread I'm talking about.
  950. See the bullet list at the start.
  951. Nowhere it says "we get to boss the project and the site admins around".
  952. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  953. it's mentioned "decide licensing policies and so forth"
  954. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  955. The tone of the whole thing and the controversy surrounding it seemed to suggest it was going to be more or less the opposite, in fact. That the board would act on the project and the site admins' needs and wishes.
  956. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  957. draft a charter going forwards
  958. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  959. Can't say that I can take that part very seriously since it again contradicts the previous statement.
  960. Much like the deal with whether non-devs could be nominated or not.
  961. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  962. i don't think it's a contradiction, i think your interpretation might just not make much sense
  963. no one seemed to say they thought it was a contradiction at the time
  964. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  965. My interpretation is the most natural one. I'm given a list of things that people will be responsible for, it does not say "control the community leads".
  966. Then there's a list of things that the board may do once established, it says "licensing policies", which doesn't really say anything, and isn't a subset of what the board members were said would become responsible for.
  967. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  968. shadowm: I think maybe you should try reading the entire #boarddiscussion channel for today
  969. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  970. But the point is you wanted to know why you were nominated, so there you have my answer. I'd have only nominated active project members if I had understood it would come to this.
  971. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  972. i dont think anyone else here shares your interpretation
  973. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  974. Yes, I read the conversation in its entirety 30 minutes ago, thanks.
  975. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  976. i think we agreed that we are supposed to create a charter that outlines the goals of the organization
  977. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  978. I know no-one here shares my interpretation or cares about interpretations in the first place.
  979. iceiceice - 10/29/2016
  980. look i dont really want to litigate this, that is sort of my point,
  981. i was trying to concede this rather than litigate this,
  982. i'm not sure what it means that we found ourselves here
  983. maybe i'm blowing this out of proportion, i'm going to think about it a bit, but still I think it was worth writing what I did.
  984. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  985. @ShikadiLord my impression was that one of the points of electing a small group of representatives of the community to decide on key things like licensing and finances was to avoid the impossibility of concensus in a "true democracy" -- to try to fix the traditional wesnothian problem of 'lots of discussion and no action'.
  986. I.e. a republic rather than a democracy.
  987. ShikadiLord - 10/29/2016
  988. @Jetrel Sure, but now it feels more like "a bunch of people who haven't had active participation in the project in at least a year and an overeager project admin get to decide things alone" to me. That's the vibe I'm getting from this, anyway.
  989. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  990. Yes, that's why we put it up to a community vote as to who was going to be on the board - to affirm that they would be okay with these people making those sorts of decisions. That was how they asked "hey, even if these people aren't actively doing heavy-lifting on the project, are you okay with them making decisions about how it's run?" And they said yes.
  991. Jetrel - 10/29/2016
  992. I mean - you're here, we want you to influence whatever decision we make. But we strictly do want to make some decision, and move forward. We're not going to be Hamlet, anymore.
  993. Denivarius - 10/29/2016
  994. so I don't think the licensing decision should be a board decision, but it is something vultraz and iceiceice (and anyone else here) certainly have rights to talk about. I think the main responsibilities of the board are (1) to decide how to spend money; (2) to decide when to put Wesnoth on 'proprietary' platforms such as Steam/app store/etc.
  995. October 30, 2016
  996. Vultraz - 10/30/2016
  997. @iceiceice dunno if you saw but i locked the thread for now. i figured we could take a step back and reevaluate the proposal later this week with a fresh perspective.
  998. October 31, 2016
  999. Vultraz - 10/31/2016
  1000. Ok, I've been thinking more about the licensing issues
  1001. I think we should divide up the discussion into three: mainline assets, forum posts, and the addons server
  1002. let's start with mainline assets
  1003. Regarding mainline assets: I think we all agree that mainline music and art should be relicensed under CC BY SA. Therefor, the proposal is essentially: after, say, December 1st, all new mainline music and art contributions will be licensed under CC BY SA, and any existing assets will remain under the GPL until we contact their authors to get permission for their relicensing.(edited)
  1004. Regarding forum assets: I think it makes sense at the same date to also do as the original proposal suggests and make all new music and art posted to the forums on or after that date implicitly CC BY SA(edited)
  1005. So that covers the first two points
  1006. Let's put aside the addons server for now
  1007. @here does anyone have an objection to the above?(edited)
  1008. I want to get those points out of the way before we discuss the addons server.
  1009. Denivarius - 10/31/2016
  1010. @Vultraz I think that sounds good. I agree putting off the add-on server until after sounds best.
  1011. sadly it might be difficult to contact every single author from the past.
  1012. Vultraz - 10/31/2016
  1013. This is true.
  1014. Thankfully, a lot of stuff has been done by a few people. LordBob, kitty, jetrel, sleepwalker, west, etc.
  1015. Denivarius - 10/31/2016
  1016. yes
  1018. November 1, 2016
  1019. Vultraz - 11/01/2016
  1020. @iceiceice @Jetrel do either of you have objections to the above?
  1021. Jetrel - 11/01/2016
  1022. Nope, I think I'm good with that.
  1023. Vultraz - 11/01/2016
  1024. @iceiceice ?
  1025. iceiceice - 11/01/2016
  1026. nope i think it's good
  1027. Vultraz - 11/01/2016
  1028. ok, so we all agree on that. good.
  1029. iceiceice - 11/01/2016
  1030. yeah, actually i can't remember anyone ever speaking against moving to CC-BY-SA
  1031. not that that's important, but i would be really surprised if there's anyone
  1032. Vultraz - 11/01/2016
  1033. I know, I just wanted to ensure we got the simple stuff out of the way.
  1034. before we discussed the addons server
  1035. so they didn't overlap
  1036. November 2, 2016
  1037. Vultraz - 11/02/2016
  1038. For the record, I still have not heard back from ElGallo, though the forums seem to indicate he did read the message at some point.
  1039. November 4, 2016
  1040. Vultraz - 11/04/2016
  1041. alright, I think we might as well delve into the addons server stuff
  1042. pydsigner pointed out 6 cc licenses:
  1043. CC0
  1044. CC BY
  1045. CC BY-SA
  1046. CC BY-ND
  1047. CC BY-SA-NC
  1048. CC BY-ND-NC
  1049. CC0 assets appear in a few addons - no change.
  1050. CC BY-SA: since this would be the mainline default, it would obviously be allowed.
  1051. CC BY: im not really sure how this differs from BY SA, but it seem permissable enough to allow use, IMO
  1052. CC BY-ND: this seems to be the major point of contention. I'll get into the arguments regarding it in a moment.
  1053. And finally, SA and ND + NC: given that we don't think we'll be allowing people to seel their UMC (see also: the bethedsa paid mods fiasco), so perhaps NC isn't needed. However, it might prevent assets being taken and used in commercial products, so that could be useful.(edited)
  1054. now, back to ND...
  1055. the main objections I've seen are
  1056. * many licenses is confusing
  1057. * it would reduce the resource pool available for stuff like frakenspriting
  1058. * it would be harder to police the addon server
  1059. The first is somewhat valid. Even I have trouble telling them apart sometimes. However, I intended to add a nice popup explaining the licensing of specific UMC in the new addons manager. And an explanation can certainly be condensed simply. SA vs ND, and their NC derivitives.
  1060. (again, I still have yet to figure out plain BY)
  1061. Now, the second. I consider this a non-issue. The pool of art is large enough already, and it's certainly valid that people might not want their art in other UMC, for cerious reasons. Either way, we should not lend much weight to this point in the end.
  1062. The third point is the most troubling.
  1063. While @ShikadiLord has pointed out that we basically don't do any policing now, and while I do believe UMC authors can and will adjust to the change away from the FFA attitude towards content (which most modding communities do not share, for the record), there could be some potential hiccups.
  1064. Obviously we would still rely on reports of misused assets.
  1065. But it could be harder to, say, determine if a fraken posted on the forums is from a sprite licensed under ND.
  1066. However, again, there are reasons people might not want their content reused, AND it's possible there's 3rd party content one might want to use that's only under ND
  1067. Keep in mind, though, the latter point might more apply to music.
  1068. The problems with ND mostly stem from art since that's more easy to modify
  1069. people basically just pick up music, so ND is really inconsequential.
  1070. @here anyway, thoughts?
  1071. we need to resolve this soon.
  1072. Denivarius - 11/04/2016
  1073. @Vultraz sorry why is this an urgent issue?
  1074. Vultraz - 11/04/2016
  1075. @Denivarius it's not urgent per-se, I just would like to not let this sit for months on end. Plus, I would like it done before 1.14. So perhaps "soon" is a little too much; more like "in a reasonable time frame"
  1076. Denivarius - 11/04/2016
  1077. okay
  1078. so I don't think this decision is something the board should be officially involved with, also I don't really have a strong opinion on it, personally.
  1079. Vultraz - 11/04/2016
  1080. I'd mostly just like us to discuss it, even if we (as the Board) aren't involved in an official capacity.
  1081. Especially since the discussion on the forums went rather badly the first time.
  1082. If, at least, there's a proposal that none of us strongly object to, that's good enough for me and i'll move ahead with the implementation.
  1083. Denivarius - 11/04/2016
  1084. sure.
  1085. well I mean I'm fine with it. I think @iceiceice was the one who had the most objections so he's probably the one who'd have the most interesting/valuable feedback.
  1086. Jetrel - 11/04/2016
  1087. @Vultraz I think that ND and NC are pretty dangerous to support, and you've done a good job of outlining why - anything that requires manpower to police submissions and catch people using incompatible stuff is not something our community has the manpower to maintain.
  1088. Vultraz - 11/04/2016
  1089. @Jetrel what about NC and ND for music only, and SA (but not SA NC) for art? One does not really have to worry about people modifying music, and allowing NC and ND could widen the music pool for UMC considerably.(edited)
  1090. Jetrel - 11/04/2016
  1091. That's a ... fair argument. Part of me doesn't like it on principle, but it's definitely a fair argument.
  1092. Vultraz - 11/04/2016
  1093. let's see what @iceiceice thinks
  1094. November 5, 2016
  1095. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1096. @Jetrel Remember those sprites from Francisco Muñoz that you (?) eventually discovered to have been borrowed from a non-GNU GPL game?
  1097. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1098. Yeah.
  1099. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1100. My point being that no matter what your license choices are, people can sneak copyright violations into the add-ons server regardless.
  1101. Bifurcating the licensing for assets depending on whether they are music or visual art seems like a waste of time to me.
  1102. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1103. The main thrust in my prior point was policing intra-community content; being able to blanket declare "all UMC content is mutually compatible".
  1104. We should avoid any situation where we've got multiple licenses inside our UMC server that are mutually incompatible, so folks can't use "sprite from mod A" in "mod B" because the license is incompatible.
  1105. Policing that is the thing that's hopelessly beyond, really, any community.
  1106. Vultraz - 11/05/2016
  1107. I said I do not consider that a very important thing in an of itself.
  1108. Policing is not impossible, however.
  1109. I've watched the skyrim modding community (even contributed a small mod), but they take content usage rights very seriously
  1110. As has been pointed out, we're one of the few modding communities that is a FFA with regards to assets(edited)
  1112. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1113. @Vultraz you can ask Phanterm about this - but basically there are a few other large communities that have mutually-incompatible rights, and it's a huge mess - Mugen, and the RPGMaker community are two he's got a lot of experience with.
  1114. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1115. Can we at least make an exception for portrait art?
  1116. As well as story art.
  1117. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1118. IMO; I sympathize with that, but I feel like that ought to get done at a "community rules" level, and not at a "license level". I.e. you can get your mod taken down from wesnoth for re-using stuff in a way that's against the creator's wishes, but I don't want it to globally, "across all open source" stop something from being a useable asset.
  1119. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1120. I'm not sure what that last part means.
  1121. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1122. I mean, I sympathize towards us having standards where we can slap people on the wrist if they're doing something terrible, like photoshopping different character's heads on existing story art.
  1123. But I don't feel like that kind of enforcement should go in the license.
  1124. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1125. That kind of enforcement seems plain unfeasible given its subjective nature.
  1126. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1127. That's why I don't think it should go in the license. That's why it should be fuzzy, arbitrary stuff dealt with at a community level, because it's just based on gut judgement.
  1128. Mostly because if someone does something tasteful, I'm all in favor of it.
  1129. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1130. I've seen a lot of frankensteining of questionable quality, but I don't feel like that's something that should be banned or even frowned upon as long as it's not against the author's wishes.
  1131. But right now we authors don't really have a way to make our wishes heard and enforced.
  1132. I've told people when they ask whether they can use some of my sprites that legally speaking, I can't forbid them. I can only discourage them.
  1133. I've also told them that I'd rather make them sprites than have them use those sprites.
  1134. But the only venue for communicating this right now is in an optional conversation that takes place when people ask me whether they can use my stuff.
  1135. Most people (including devs) just tell people to use whatever they want without worrying about asking the author for permission.
  1136. Vultraz - 11/05/2016
  1137. I just got a PM this moring from someon wanting to use the sprite in my forum avatar, which is the antagonist from the campaign
  1138. I told him I'd prefer he not
  1139. But if he does I cannot stop him :neutral_face:
  1140. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1141. So most of the time that conversation doesn't take place.
  1142. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1143. Yeah... like basically, that's the whole ethos of being open-source. That's the point - of moving it from a legal standpoint where they neither have to ask permission nor forgiveness. Personally I really don't care strongly about this - if we as a community want to abandon that major, cardinal pillar of being an open-content, open-source community - that's okay, though I'd push that vote out to our community as to whether they'd like to do that or not.
  1144. So that's a really big deal... I don't care if we decide to make the big jump and abandon that particular "cornerstone" aspect of freedom - but that's a really big choice to make, and we shouldn't make it lightly.
  1145. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1146. Yeah, like it or not the "spirit of open source" conflicts with how the creative world really works.
  1147. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1148. Right - and mind you I'm being a bit of a lawyer here, but that's the point.
  1149. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1150. And even when it comes to software, it's not really great when you suddenly realize there are several independently and poorly-maintained forks of your software, and that none of them attempts to contribute back upstream.
  1151. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1152. It's a statement that the way the creative world works is wrong - that it's based on ultimately really myopic, possessive emotions that do more damage to the creators over the long term than they do benefit.
  1153. That is the main thrust of that whole idea.
  1154. ShikadiLord - 11/05/2016
  1155. This tends to bite people in the ass in all kinds of ways, ranging from leaving your software open to security vulnerabilities, getting bad press, and making it a nightmare for users and distributions to use your software correctly.
  1156. So excuse me if I've become greatly disillusioned with the "open source spirit".
  1157. Jetrel - 11/05/2016
  1158. :kissing:
  1159. Come on in, the water's fine.
  1160. That's particularly funny to me, because I've been in that boat for years - I think the thing we me is I've - despite it being tempting to just throw the whole works out the window - found that there is a fair amount of value in the whole open-source thing. Like many other major movements like that, they don't have to unanimously do good to still be a net win.
  1161. The right position is a fair amount of nuance; sometimes having certain absolutist rules do cause a fair bit of friction (as you've seen), but that particular kind of friction is perhaps the far lesser of two evils compared to the alternative. The advantage of the absolutist rules is they may be the only way to cut certain gordian knots.
  1162. So that's really just it - that's down to the people invested in and running UMC to make as a decision, not me. But be damned careful - you may find that the grass isn't greener at all on the other side of that fence.
  1163. I'm going afk for a while, here...
  1164. November 6, 2016
  1165. Vultraz - 11/06/2016
  1166. @Jetrel is there any chance of you getting more work done on the desert elves in time for 1.14 (current target is March)?
  1167. Jetrel - 11/06/2016
  1168. Very possible.
  1169. Vultraz - 11/06/2016
  1170. ok, good
  1171. November 28, 2016
  1172. Denivarius - Today at 11:44 AM
  1173. Sorry I guess I don't understand. Is iceiceice's entire displeasure revolving around ... he didn't think vultraz should represent the board in a certain way on the forums regarding licensing content matters? Is that it? Or is there something more to it?
  1174. Denivarius - Today at 3:37 PM
  1175. @Vultraz / @Jetrel so I'm a bit concerned that iceiceice's decision to resign from the board continues some kind of long-running insinuation that Wesnoth, Inc's management is somehow corrupt. I think in response to his Wesnoth forum post we should ask for permission to publish the entire log from this channel so our community members can decide for themselves regarding the way we work. Any objections?
  1176. Vultraz - Today at 3:37 PM
  1177. no objections here
  1178. Jetrel - Today at 3:41 PM
  1179. likewise, no objections
  1180. :rolling_eyes: now we get to find out how much of a PITA it is to extract discord logs(edited)
  1181. Vultraz - Today at 3:43 PM
  1183. reddit
  1184. How do I go about downloading a whole chat log? • /r/discordapp
  1185. The channel in question has been up for quite a while and since I tried doing a simple continuous JS click on the .has-more button, my browser...
  1187. Denivarius - Today at 3:44 PM
  1188. ugh yeah
  1189. Denivarius - Today at 4:20 PM
  1190. alright iceiceice says he's good for us to post the log
  1191. We might be able to use a tool to extract it though maybe just scrolling through and copy/paste is easiest for the volume we have?
RAW Paste Data