| Time |
Nick |
Message |
| 00:06 |
|
ANAND joined #minetest-dev |
| 00:10 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 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 |
| 00:43 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 01:29 |
|
Tmanyo joined #minetest-dev |
| 04:31 |
|
reductum joined #minetest-dev |
| 06:26 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 07:28 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:10 |
|
Darcidride joined #minetest-dev |
| 08:24 |
|
dmitry131 joined #minetest-dev |
| 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 |
| 09:04 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:18 |
|
calcul0n joined #minetest-dev |
| 09:18 |
|
Fixer joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:32 |
|
dmitry131 joined #minetest-dev |
| 10:32 |
|
dmitry131 left #minetest-dev |
| 11:15 |
|
Krock joined #minetest-dev |
| 11:23 |
|
YuGiOhJCJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 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 |
| 12:41 |
|
Gael-de-Sailly joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:14 |
|
Foz joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:17 |
|
Foz joined #minetest-dev |
| 13:19 |
|
Foz joined #minetest-dev |
| 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 |
| 14:08 |
|
crazy_baboon joined #minetest-dev |
| 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 |
| 16:00 |
|
Foz joined #minetest-dev |
| 16:48 |
|
twoelk joined #minetest-dev |
| 17:04 |
|
ssieb joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:03 |
|
shivajiva joined #minetest-dev |
| 18:07 |
|
indiana joined #minetest-dev |
| 20:12 |
|
Cornelia joined #minetest-dev |
| 21:48 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
| 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 |
| 22:34 |
|
YuGiOhJCJ joined #minetest-dev |
| 22:40 |
|
twoelk left #minetest-dev |
| 22:45 |
Shara |
paramat: no objections. Pretty much anything beats "killme" |
| 22:56 |
paramat |
ok |
| 23:59 |
|
paramat joined #minetest-dev |
