+ Reply to Thread
Page 9 of 13 FirstFirst ... 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 LastLast
Results 121 to 135 of 181

Thread: SWGEmu AGPL Instructions and Requirements

  1. #121
    Junior Member lei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by kryst1979 View Post
    ...

    Finally, three words sayings "it is licensing" or " soon" are not answers.
    Setting a Date a month from now on a definitive answer or release says a lot about how serious SWGemu actually is, if the real answer is December (why tease for it 8 months?) or we are afraid that once we open source it we lose our control...you should check you sig quote and question whether people like me are those "people" or its others that will ultimately be responsible for ruining swg...
    Why do I hate to read such things? This is where the cat gets her tail and the daily marmot greets. From core1 to core3. Some things do change, others dont.

  2. #122
    Addicted
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,848
    Probably because in the very early days of SWGEmu, they gave rough ETA's, and people got pissed when SWGEmu couldn't meet people's expectations, because it's kind of a volunteer project.

  3. #123
    Junior Member lei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    59
    Well, some people are always pissed by whatever, but I dont remember core1/2 issues with pissed people. With core1 it was more something like a team issue, core2 then was quite ready and had a playable server, but due to its issued, twisted code it was nuked to restart everything with core3 which has a much straighter coding policy. Just as far as a few words may describe it.

    Personally I'm not glad with the volunteer argument because its a kind of discussion killer. And even though its true, is it really a reason for sloppy communication?

    As TA has written in April the engine restrictions already have been lifted. Or are they back in place? I dont want to set up a trunk copy of everything just to verify that.

  4. #124
    Addicted Tiars's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2011
    Location
    Ironforge, Uther
    Posts
    3,833
    Quote Originally Posted by lei View Post
    As TA has written in April the engine restrictions already have been lifted. Or are they back in place? I dont want to set up a trunk copy of everything just to verify that.
    As later commented on by Oru, the engine without the built in 2.5 hour reboot has not yet been distributed. The issue seems to be making sure the licensing is something that they are comfortable with, verification of conformance to the new agreement and distributing only to those that have accepted the license. Also to be clear, core3 does not have the 2.5 hour reboot as can be seen with Nova and Basilisk, but what has been distributed for developers had the 2.5 hour reboot added. The statement that the 2.5 hour reboot has been lifted is a reference to Nova and Basilisk and not what is available to developers.
    Quote Originally Posted by Vlada View Post
    Jedi dont ruin SWG, people ruin SWG.
    My Blog about SWG and possible changes

  5. #125
    It's like I tell my kid, "You get what you get, and you don't throw a fit..." it will be ready when it's ready and until then whining about it won't change the situation.

    FWIW, if people are so upset that this project doesn't move at their expected pace, nearly all of the information necessary to create your own emulator is available, freely, from the SWGEMU sources and other older development project sites. Most of the packets have been identified, most of the math and rules have been implemented and tested... the groundwork is there, and communicating with the client shouldn't be an issue anymore.

    If you don't like the pace of this public & volunteer project, then start your own project. I really don't see what the big deal is anymore...

    -Duff

  6. #126
    Junior Member lei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    59
    Does anyone seriously believe that after a decade ppl havent realized this being a volunteer project? Public it is not entirely as we have learned some weeks ago, havent we?

  7. #127
    Just out of curiosity I have heard once 1.0 is released you guys will release the information/necessary items to create our own servers even if that means playing offline by yourself or with say a group of friends by yourselves is that correct?

  8. #128
    The Vlada Vlada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Elephant Graveyard
    Posts
    33,045
    Quote Originally Posted by Pwnzerxpress View Post
    Just out of curiosity I have heard once 1.0 is released you guys will release the information/necessary items to create our own servers even if that means playing offline by yourself or with say a group of friends by yourselves is that correct?
    You can do that now

    Semi-Retired Vlada


    SWGEmu is a non-profit, open source project.
    Install SWGEmu | Report Bugs | How to Report a bug

  9. #129
    Junior Member Aso's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2015
    Posts
    67
    Its really not a matter of us being upset or impatient as some have stated. Simple fact of the matter is, its been since April, we've been more than patient I would say.

    It goes beyond just removing the 2.5 reset. I can live with the 2.5 for a little while longer, we have been since we started back in January.

    My main gripe lies once you get past the roughly 160 connections mark, problems start to present themselves with the PublicEngine. I think I mentioned the issue in a previous post, but one of the main issues is the Public Engine sometimes runs longer than 2:25, then decides to reset during a save. This causes playerstructures.db corruption. It seems to only happen when the server is under load.

    While the DB is repairable most times, its still a PITA.
    Last edited by Aso; 09-09-2015 at 03:45 PM.

  10. #130
    Quote Originally Posted by Aso View Post
    Its really not a matter of us being upset or impatient as some have stated. Simple fact of the matter is, its been since April, we've been more than patient I would say.

    It goes beyond just removing the 2.5 reset. I can live with the 2.5 for a little while longer, we have been since we started back in January.

    My main gripe lies once you get past the roughly 160 connections mark, problems start to present themselves with the PublicEngine. I think I mentioned the issue in a previous post, but one of the main issues is the Public Engine sometimes runs longer than 2:25, then decides to reset during a save. This causes playerstructures.db corruption. It seems to only happen when the server is under load.

    While the DB is repairable most times, its still a PITA.
    what do you expect from alpha code? Beta would imply that it's launch ready waiting for testing IMO... either way your problem will more than likely persist even if they lift the time restriction. I'm just guessing, but it's either that they're using a different engine entirely, or they've load balanced it on multiple machines so that they don't run into a high load / corrupting db issue.

    Another reason to include player communities in the testing phase IMO, but it might be more suited for the beta phase... *shrug*

    As for the timeline, the lifting of restrictions, etc... If I had to guess... TA, or whomever wasn't anywhere near ready to release an unencumbered engine... Hell, until people started hacking it there was no need to even think about it. Further, I'd guess that they panicked and had to do something to keep the hack from getting out. They can sue a couple of private servers easy enough, but they don't have the resources to track down every tom-****-harry that might be playing with a hacked engine. Stall by promising to lift the restrictions, then start the long, laborious task of actually doing the legal work to make it legit... doesn't surprise me in the least that its taken nearly 5 months and still no answer. Especially if TA, or whoever, doesn't own unrestricted distribution and use rights to their own creation... sticky mess all around...

    Just speculation tho, and that's why we read these forums right? :-)

    -Duff

    P.S. I wouldn't be surprised at all if we get another year into this, and get hit with another rewrite bomb... Communication has been poor to be sure, but it appears that they truly don't have unlimited use rights to the engine, and as such may end up having to create a new engine before this thing is all wrapped up. if ever... :-p I only say that because if it were my software that I developed, and I wanted an iron clad AGPL license, I'd just have our estate trust lawyer write one up in a month or so... It's not a terribly difficult task if there are no 3rd parties or pre-existing agreements... but what's been described here (or not described as has been mentioned earlier), it sounds like TA, or whoever, doesn't really have 100% control over the IP... Again, just a guess... But it's fun to speculate. *grin*

  11. #131
    Junior Member lei's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Germany
    Posts
    59
    Quote Originally Posted by Aso View Post
    Its really not a matter of us being upset or impatient as some have stated. Simple fact of the matter is, its been since April, we've been more than patient I would say.

    It goes beyond just removing the 2.5 reset. I can live with the 2.5 for a little while longer, we have been since we started back in January.

    My main gripe lies once you get past the roughly 160 connections mark, problems start to present themselves with the PublicEngine. I think I mentioned the issue in a previous post, but one of the main issues is the Public Engine sometimes runs longer than 2:25, then decides to reset during a save. This causes playerstructures.db corruption. It seems to only happen when the server is under load.

    While the DB is repairable most times, its still a PITA.
    Yes, this is one of the serious issues with the limited engine. For any mmo a going down server is a sensible thing. And a corrupted - even if repairable - db is not only a time consuming issue.

    I can understand the 2 hours restriction from the historical view to avoid ppl just grab the code and start yet another project without contributing anything back. I fear the connection limit is another built in hindrance. For a private fun server 160 connections wont really hurt, hardly know anyone who would run a such a big friends & family party.
    But 2 hours just is beyond all playability - even for friends and family.

    Alas the foreign server issue today is no longer the point, there are other servers out in the wild. Long term up and running, more than 160 connections. Do they all run ANH?

    From my point of view there is no a need for anyone to take the evangelist role and praise patience. If AGPL does not work for any reasons this could be easily made clear. If for some reason restrictions on the engine cannot be lifted ... why bother? If the project leaders do not want to support their GPL plan any more ... same thing. But it is not nice to run a big announce and then go hiding in a hole.

    Even Duff wont do so to his kids, or would he?

  12. #132
    Depends. if you ask my kid, I do that stuff all the time... But if you ask my Wife or I, it hardly ever happens. It's all a matter of perspective and circumstance. sorry for the technical answer, but it's important.

    Because... While I might allude to preaching patience, it only appears that way because it's the only thing worth while to say or type. I think TA & Vlada have made it crystal clear that the announcement was made prematurely in hindsight. Putting all speculation aside, I have no reason to disbelieve this. Further, I could rant and rave about it, but then I wouldn't be any better off than these "one-post-wonders" who think they have a say in SWGEMU policy...

    So... I will continue to be patient, not because I choose to be, but rather because I have no choice. I mean, it's not like I can dump SWGEMU for a competitor... Well... I could, but I doubt "those servers" will ever pass their engine hacks on to little ole me...

    -Duff

  13. #133
    Junior Member Erusman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2012
    Posts
    60
    I been following this thread for awhile. I am hoping this happens soon. Looking at starting a server as well. The removal of the 2.5hr core3 limitations would be nice.
    Trying to learn all I can to help out. The 2.5hr shutdown is pretty annoying. Just seems when I am working on something important it seg faults out
    Thanks dev team for all your efforts.

  14. #134
    I checked out the guides and they all seem to use CentOS, is it possible to do this strictly through windows? If not will it ever be? I though I replied with quotes, this post is directed at @Vlada concerning creating your own server.
    Last edited by Pwnzerxpress; 09-12-2015 at 06:47 PM.

  15. #135
    The Vlada Vlada's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    Elephant Graveyard
    Posts
    33,045
    Is it possible? More than likely. Will someone from this team do it? I have no idea, maybe sometime in the future.

    Semi-Retired Vlada


    SWGEmu is a non-profit, open source project.
    Install SWGEmu | Report Bugs | How to Report a bug

+ Reply to Thread

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

     

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts