I had my combat toon but had no desire to be a jedi back then. So I wanted my own tailor...later I wanted my own entertainer. Going into the NGE when they allowed 2 characters, I let the 3rd acct lapse and only played 2. Then 1 at the end.
I had my combat toon but had no desire to be a jedi back then. So I wanted my own tailor...later I wanted my own entertainer. Going into the NGE when they allowed 2 characters, I let the 3rd acct lapse and only played 2. Then 1 at the end.
Onilwyn
Guild leader of -nWo- and Mayor of Emberlene, Naboo
9 accounts here.
I had 4, wife had 5 (she started in the NGE and couldn't get my extra jedi unlocks) We actually had a T-1 installed in the house so we could play them all.
Last edited by Esquire; 04-25-2015 at 05:41 AM.
I think this is good news, I have been working on my own private server purely to learn how it all works (my way of learning Linux lol). If people can feed back in some of there stuff (who said Jedi?) people could then get the core code from here and have options they wanted that where approved.
Not sure what hoops you have to jump through to sign up to it though.
Used to be burf2000 on Europe-Chimaera. Just managed Jedi before the death of SWG (patch)!
Hes talking about new, original content that was never a part of any version of swg. If we make our own models, animations, systems etc. I certainly wouldnt want to be forced to give them to everyone when the entire point of all of those hours of work was to make my server different from the rest and draw our own crowd that enjoys my work. If i make a new vehicle.that loka like a cardboard box, and it teleports you to a planet called limbo, why should i be forced to give that away? It was never part of swg and soe/daybreak/la/****** never owned the tre files ive created nor the assets in them. Again, why should original content be forced to go open source?
Also, hes not talking about making money off of the emu, hes talkinh about paying coders and modellers etc for their time. Spending money does not = profit.
Last edited by Lolindir; 04-26-2015 at 04:11 PM. Reason: Double post
If you want ownership of a box vehicle then the easy answer is to make your own game. The problem here is your trying to install owned material into a already owned total game (the completed work) using code that is clearly open source to base your valued coding upon. Your trying to create value where you may be precluded via statute, US or otherwise, and/or an agreement for the original conception that may also preclude you from doing so. Your box vehicle is not stand alone, it requires code to operate made by SWGEMU which is open source along with being 1 system of many that makes up Star Wars Galaxies, a MMORPG game (total coding work) owned by others with intellectual property rights owned via yet another entity, a rather large one that holds the key to all of these emulator servers.Originally Posted by Khieran
The one single problem for ****** is actual damages with a non-profit, altho Cease and Desist does not require actual damages to prosecute and there are still ways of stopping all these EMUs without actual damages. If anyone makes the 1st dollar off of SWG now, that damage problem is now ended and opens up all the other damages in which they can ask the courts for regress on. (consequential, punitive, etc etc etc.)
If this is what your trying to do, then my best suggestion is to speak to qualified counsel, and rather quickly.
Last edited by Esquire; 04-26-2015 at 05:04 PM.
Post #57 in this thread.
If AGPL is lifted when we hit 1.0, then you can have your secret code. Until then, we are a development project and our code isn't finished.
I'm no lawyer, but its shady, since some one will make money from SWGEmu. The player/admin doing it, might not make money, but some one who can be considered a dev will.
Last edited by Lolindir; 04-26-2015 at 04:13 PM.
Lolindir
SWGEmu Admin
SWGEmu is a non-profit, open source community project.
How to report bugs | Mantis (Bug Tracker) | Live Support
Install SWGEmu | Fix SWGEmu | Submit a ticket
What if someone 'hired' a 'dev' to code in additional features/content for a new private server, and paid them for their time and resources for writing the code? I haven't really followed this thread closely, but it seems like this is the case for a few other communities.
I'm curious though, how exactly is that in any sort of violation against SWGEmu, legally, or non legally?
Why would SWGEmu care if others hire someone, its not our problem. Their money, they represent a separate legal entity from SWGEmu and they will be held accountable if they do something that illegal, not SWGEmu. Now, I am no expert but as i understand it, if that dev made any changes to the Core3 then because of AGPL those would have to be made available to the public. But, like TheAnswer said, scripts/data should be separate and under different license, so if that "hired dev" made changes to those, they wouldn't need to be released to the public.
No one is questioning the SWGEmu project but rather the approach of "Show me yours and I'll show you mine". Sure, there are servers out there who are reaping the benefits of the SWGEmu project and not giving credit where credit is due, but there's also servers out there who are doing things the right way and their developers may want to keep some of their content non-public for very obvious reasons.
Correct
No one mentioned making money from anything. The concern is being forced into releasing "source" for content which was created independently of the project.
But it would be stand-alone because his box vehicle was developed outside of SWGEmu and outside of SWG, which his content can be tailored to be used on any platform realistically (regardless if his content is a model or compiled code). If SOE or SWGEmu released a set of "tools" which were the sole means in which it was possible to create "content", and someone created "content" on said "tools" for SWG or SWGEmu then I'd agree. If SWGEmu released a 3D modeling program to create 3D models for SWG, then sure. If he decides to release a compiled version of his box vehicle, created in Maya for example, accompanied by scripts created in Visual C++, and grant others the rights to use, but not sell or modify, the box vehicle for "something" it doesn't change the fact that he's the original creator and holds rights to the IP.
Again, I understand the basis for the idea behind this as there are certain servers making wild claims to be doing things we all know they are not. The question becomes is there any consideration to individual developers and servers who wish to protect their content. Where is the line drawn and at what point does it become so irrelevant that it does more harm than good?
In the end we're sitting here debating about who's content should be protected against being made public, and meanwhile most of us all know how SWGEmu came to be. Sony didn't exactly make a public release of their content. I'm not saying this in a good or bad way, but rather that it's very ironic we're even having a debate over this.
There's most certainly developers who fully support the SWGEmu project and it would be a shame to see some of those developers decide to close shop over this decision. As I mentioned in my earlier response, if the focus is community and keeping SWG alive then why would there be a push that alienates certain people in the community who will ultimately become the backbone of the community after 1.0. I don't personally feel the direction of "Show me yours and I'll show you mine" is the best possible solution to the matter.
Correct
I'm definitely no legal expect as well. I'd hope that the intent and interpretation of the licensing is to govern and mandate that "changes" to existing vanilla content be within the provisions of public access, however the additions of new content (models, source code, etc.) could remain outside the provisions of public access and be protected under a separate provision which governs the addition of custom content. My concern is that the definition of "custom content" is only going to be limited to certain things and leave a huge gap of others exposed (such as C++ source code).
Last edited by acidanarchy; 04-26-2015 at 07:45 PM.
It probably is going to cause just that, but if folks are so determined to protect their stuff then maybe they should focus only on scripts and postpone any serious Core3 changes until 1.0 and change of licensing it will bring.
That would be unfortunate but I'll wait for you folks to release further details. Personally, I feel a lot of this could be accomplished by working directly with those who run the servers (or do development) vs trying to accomplish it through licensing changes for everyone on a temporary basis. I'm sure many servers (or developers) out there would be more than happy to work with the SWGEmu staff on an individual case by case basis with requests for information when needed. Those problem servers who are attempting to "compete" would, in my opinion, be easy to isolate without effecting the rest of the community who support and wish to see the SWGEmu project succeed.
Thanks for the responses you guys (and ladies) have all given thus far, it's much appreciated.
Cheers
Acid, I believe I understand where you are coming from with these concerns. But, (and it's a big one), there has already been people that are claiming "ownership" of code/scripts/tre files/etc and have sold them. And ownership implies the right for sale. TA and SWGEMU is reacting to a problem, not creating one. And that problem could be a very large one for all of us if the problem draws the attention of entities involved. We are also trying to "piggyback" on an existing agreement between TA et al and SOE. Not once have I seen TA assign or transfer his rights given to him via that agreement.
The AGPL solution is probably the best one for all parties concerned. If there is no ownership and everyone's "stuff" is open source, there is no rights to sale and TA gets what he envisioned originally also. "SWG free for everyone".
As I see it, and I have a server also, in fact a couple of them I paid over 3K for and knew that I had no way to recoup that expense going in, it wouldn't hurt any of us to work together and with SWGEMU. I doubt that by giving out our code/files/etc that it is going to affect donations nor will it affect our playerbase one bit. It might help someone elses and that doesn't concern me either as SWGEMU's work is sure helping us. This isn't like Cryptic v SOE v Blizzard. We can't charge for the service nor can we make or attempt to profit from the measure. All you could realize is "bragging rights" and that will get exactly nothing at the bank.
Last edited by Esquire; 04-26-2015 at 09:14 PM.
Well, I like it, as an SWG fam.
Even if it's got thousands of players now... interest in this 13-year-old game is not going to last forever. The emphasis is to get to 1.0, then everyone can live their dream as they see fit. It's actually amazing that in the decade of work on EMU, nobody's just flat out made a better Star Wars game. That, of course, is why we're all still here.
As a modder and aspiring developer, I am very happy about this. The more hands we put the tools and information in, the sooner we'll get to 1.0. The sooner that happens, the sooner we'll all see what the game really could be.
Ok look, no one is really stating the obvious issue here, so i will. If all servers have the same code, what is the point of running seperate serversr? If its all the same, we may as well all play on the same server. It seems like individuality is being stripped away and we are going to forced into what amounts to online socialism where in order to be 'fair to everyone', everyone is forced to use the exact same thing. It removes all interest that i have had in this project since day 1.
As it was already stated, scripts/data should not be subject to AGPL, only changes made to the core files. Also, as i stated before, if you are worried about your individualism, or you don't want to share your work, just put on hold any changes you want to make to the core till 1.0 is released.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
