Time  Nick         Message
00:22 paramat      merging
00:23 paramat      merged
00:42 paramat      game#2199
00:42 ShadowBot    https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/2199 -- Rename 'killme' mod to 'commands' and add missing files by paramat
08:42 dmitry131    Hello guys! What is the problem with light in the game? Whenever I come close to cavern system, or to an island above, the game become dark, even if it is sunny outside
11:38 p_gimeno     Hm, the issue of licensing is somewhat more serious. "LGPLv2.1+" does not sound legally binding; it's unclear what it means and why/whether the + means "or later". Ideally every LGPL2.1+-licensed file should have a copyright notice and a license notice. Currently no source file seems to have any.
11:39 p_gimeno     See the license itself, "How to Apply These Terms to Your New Libraries"
11:40 p_gimeno     Also, regarding license issues as trivial sounds like a big stretch. Those need close inspection, as it's easy to miss something.
11:43 Krock        Also seen the GPLv2+ and GPLv3+ notation in a few places and it seem to be common to abbreviate it with the plus sign to indicate that any higher number also applies
11:44 Krock        You also have to consider that these mods are not world-changing and the features are implemented rather fast if one is keen to do it
11:53 p_gimeno     Yeah, that notation is sometimes used to convey the idea of the license, *together* with the standard boilerplate in each file. If someone just says "License: GPLv2+" they are not offering any guarantees that the recipient is covered by the license.
11:54 p_gimeno     As for the non-world-changing issue, that's completely irrelevant. A Fibonacci calculation program can be protected by copyright and subject to licensing. That's besides the point; the license applies to the *current* code.
12:33 rubenwardy   LGPLv2.1+ is a license identifier
12:34 rubenwardy   I forget the standard name
13:59 p_gimeno     https://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-howto.html
13:59 p_gimeno     "The purpose of a free software license is to give certain rights to all users of a program. If it is not clear what rights you have given them, that defeats the purpose. Our practices are designed to avoid any uncertainty."
14:03 celeron55    well the thing is, we don't actually have the right to change the license, which really also includes the right to make it clearer
14:04 celeron55    we can pretend we have, of course, if it makes someone happier 8)
14:05 celeron55    of course it could be written down how we think the license of MT has been and is to be understood
14:05 celeron55    for anything made in the past, it is just an interpretation
14:06 celeron55    not including the parts of the code whose author is still around, of course, if they agree to the text
14:09 p_gimeno     well, up until commit 7d70d25, the license statement was quite clear
14:14 p_gimeno     I agree that we don't have the right to change the license, but that doesn't prevent others making it clearer, if the license allows modification, as is the case.
14:18 crazy_baboon anyone knows where abouts in the code is the irrlicht light source implemented?
14:20 rubenwardy   We don't use hardware lighting
14:21 rubenwardy   Unfortunately
14:21 rubenwardy   So n/a
14:21 rubenwardy   The mesh is baked with light levels during mesh generation
14:21 rubenwardy   Not entirely sure how
14:23 p_gimeno     You can also release something with an additional license, if the original license does not restrict relicensing (the Expat aka MIT license doesn't restrict it, that's why works under the MIT license can be dual-licensed under the GPL; the GPL does, saying that you can't impose further restrictions).
14:28 crazy_baboon ok
14:28 rubenwardy   GPL gives examples of further conditions you can apply
14:28 rubenwardy   Just no more restrictions
14:28 crazy_baboon do you know what the tile.cpp file does?
14:29 rubenwardy   And nothing stops you from dual licensing if you own 100%
14:30 crazy_baboon half the code there seems to do absolutely nothing
14:32 rubenwardy   I don't know
14:34 p_gimeno     rubenwardy: right
14:35 crazy_baboon maybe someone else deals with lighting? Anyone?
14:36 rubenwardy   Look at the history for the file
14:36 p_gimeno     what I'm trying to say is, 1) Monte48 has raised the point that the license is not clear enough, and that can be solved by adding a license statement to each file; 2) commits dealing with legal issues should not be considered trivial
14:37 p_gimeno     the carts mod doesn't even mention "see license.txt" in the readme, I haven't looked into all of them though so maybe there are others unclear
15:02 sfan5        p_gimeno: the license statement was always clear, every full text license included the "or later" clause
15:02 sfan5        saying "LGPL v2.1" in the abstract is not legally binding
15:08 p_gimeno     "If a program has a copy of a license FOO alongside the source files, but doesn't have an explicit statement that “This program is released under license FOO,” that leaves room for uncertainty about whether the license FOO applies to the code of that program." (from the gpl-howto liked above)
15:08 p_gimeno     Probably, "See license.txt for license information" is enough, though.
15:09 p_gimeno     A bit ambiguous, maybe.
15:10 p_gimeno     The carts mod doesn't even have that.
15:12 p_gimeno     sfan5 ^
15:16 Krock        the carts mod was also converted fro CC0 to MIT for some reason
15:16 Krock        *from
15:17 Krock        the license note was probably forgotten while merging it into MTG in 2016
15:20 p_gimeno     changing from CC0 to MIT is not a problem
15:21 Krock        indeed. wasn't claiming anything else
22:25 paramat      Shara for game#2199 is 'mtg_commands' ok with you for the mod name?
22:25 ShadowBot    https://github.com/minetest/minetest_game/issues/2199 -- Rename 'killme' mod to 'commands' and add missing files by paramat
22:45 Shara        paramat: no objections. Pretty much anything beats "killme"
22:56 paramat      ok