Mod packaging and repositories

Feedback on past, current, and future development.
User avatar
Okulo
Posts: 671
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 16:11

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by Okulo » 21 Jan 2014, 15:27

BrotherBrick wrote:Not our problem. :)

If you want in the distro, you have to play by the rules.

Following the defaults will get your mod in. If you actively want to go against the defaults, that is cool too, but it won't be in the distro. It really is that simple.

I firmly believe that whatever you create, is yours, to do with as you want. I have no problem with encouraging openness, but it is always your right do what you want.
skullgrid wrote:Forcing freedom down people's throats is not a good idea. Even Stallman himself believes that people should be convinced rather than obliged.

The issue is not picking a license that is not the default or even one that is libre - the issue is people not picking a license at all. You might not want to force freedom, but you do want to force clarity. There is literally nobody who suffers from such clarity.
Last edited by Okulo on 21 Jan 2014, 15:28, edited 2 times in total.

K0kt409P
Posts: 148
Joined: 06 Aug 2013, 09:14

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by K0kt409P » 21 Jan 2014, 15:28

BrotherBrick wrote:
skullgrid wrote:Forcing freedom down people's throats is not a good idea. Even Stallman himself believes that people should be convinced rather than obliged.
That was said with tongue in cheek... just saying that the default should be a open license, in plain sight. Allow them to change if they want to, but encourage openness and reward it by having it hosted, for example, by debian.
While I agree in principle, I don't know that Debian is the right medium for mod distribution, for several reasons. For one, hosting game mods seems like it would be outside the scope of the Debian project, so I rather doubt they would agree to it even if the mods used permissive/copy-left licenses. Secondly, a mod distribution system that depends on Debian infrastructure would only benefit Linux users, which excludes a large part of MW's fanbase.

I think the optimal solution would be if existing distribution channels such as Nexus and PlanetElderScrolls could be convinced to create an API for automated retrieval of mods. Add to that a mandatory license meta-data field in all mods created with OpenCS (with a free license being the default), and we would be well on our way to a better MW ecosystem.

skullgrid
Posts: 18
Joined: 09 Jan 2014, 15:05

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by skullgrid » 21 Jan 2014, 15:31

BrotherBrick wrote:
skullgrid wrote:Forcing freedom down people's throats is not a good idea. Even Stallman himself believes that people should be convinced rather than obliged.
That was said with tongue in cheek... just saying that the default should be a open license, in plain sight. Allow them to change if they want to, but encourage openness and reward it by having it hosted, for example, by debian.
Sure. Either we default to a free license or to no license at all. In both cases we have room to work with.

Also, if you want to host your own mod repo and allow GPL'd mods only you are free to do so.

I think freedom should be its own reward. And if we want people to adopt it then teaching by example can do as much good. I personally think Gamespy and Nexus are responsible for those bad practices.
Okulo wrote: The issue is not picking a license that is not the default or even one that is libre - the issue is people not picking a license at all. You might not want to force freedom, but you do want to force clarity. There is literally nobody who suffers from such clarity.
GPL is not as permissive as most people say. How about WTFPL or CC or BSD for default?

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4629
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by psi29a » 21 Jan 2014, 15:33

I've discussed this with other debian developers and they all say:

1) To get openmw out of contrib and into main, it has to have playable content, we'll get there when there is an example suite.
2) If there is DSFG agreeable content (such as mods), it can be hosted on Debian

That being said, it would need more maintainers than scott and myself and most importantly, the quality has to be there as well. Someone (or voting system) would have to handle that. This is what I envisioned as part of the motivator for creating open content.

PS: No one said GPL... just anything that agrees with the DSFG.
http://www.debian.org/social_contract
Last edited by psi29a on 21 Jan 2014, 15:34, edited 1 time in total.

wheybags
Posts: 207
Joined: 21 Dec 2012, 19:41

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by wheybags » 21 Jan 2014, 15:34

Yeah, tbh just unsing nexusmods with a mandatory license field seems the most senesible option to me.
Could have some warning text above the license field (auto-filled with gpl), eg: "The default below is a free license called the GNU GPL, which allows others to modify and redistribute your mod, provided they offer the same license. If you are not ok with this, please change it. For more information about the GPL, please see gnu.org/whatever"

Also, re: not gpl, the other don't virally force the whole community to use free licenses :3

EDIT: There are two issues being dicussed here, mod licensing in general, and mods on debian, I'm dicussing mod licensing in general (tbh I don't think mods as debian packages is a great idea, apart from the example suite ofc).
Last edited by wheybags on 21 Jan 2014, 15:36, edited 2 times in total.

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4629
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by psi29a » 21 Jan 2014, 15:35

wheybags wrote:Yeah, tbh just unsing nexusmods with a mandatory license field seems the most senesible option to me.
Could have some warning text above the license field (auto-filled with gpl), eg: "The default below is a free license called the GNU GPL, which allows others to modify and redistribute your mod, provided they offer the same license. If you are not ok with this, please change it. For more information about the GPL, please see gnu.org/whatever"

Also, re: not gpl, the otehrs don't virally force the whole community to use free licenses :3
I'm OK with this... use whatever is available. :)

K0kt409P
Posts: 148
Joined: 06 Aug 2013, 09:14

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by K0kt409P » 21 Jan 2014, 15:53

wheybags wrote: Also, re: not gpl, the other don't virally force the whole community to use free licenses :3
I realize that you are using "virally" in a tongue-in-cheek manner, but it's not really a great way to describe how the GPL propagetes and might give people the wrong idea. See this interview with Stallman.
rms wrote:To compare anything to a virus is extremely unfriendly. As regards the GPL, it is also inaccurate. The GPL's domain does not spread by proximity or contact, only by deliberate inclusion of GPL-covered code in your program. It spreads like a spider plant, not like a virus. People who hate the GPL have the right to say that it "contaminates" othei software: that's misleading, but they have freedom of speech. However, if you don't hate the GPL, would you please not use smear words like "viral" and "contaminate" to describe it?

User avatar
Okulo
Posts: 671
Joined: 05 Feb 2012, 16:11

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by Okulo » 21 Jan 2014, 16:31

skullgrid wrote:
Okulo wrote: The issue is not picking a license that is not the default or even one that is libre - the issue is people not picking a license at all. You might not want to force freedom, but you do want to force clarity. There is literally nobody who suffers from such clarity.
GPL is not as permissive as most people say. How about WTFPL or CC or BSD for default?
It seems you're missing the point of what I'm trying to say... It doesn't matter what the license is, as long as there is a license attached, be it libre or non-libre. As long as people know what they can and cannot do with the mod.

You can't force that on repositories that are not controlled by you. You can however, force it when it is mandatory metadata. That is why having a license on a website or in a textfile alone is not enough to ensure every mod has it attached. People can repackage it and modders can just neglect to add one. It needs to be stapled to the mod.

User avatar
psi29a
Posts: 4629
Joined: 29 Sep 2011, 10:13
Location: Belgium
Gitlab profile: https://gitlab.com/psi29a/
Contact:

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by psi29a » 21 Jan 2014, 17:03

K0kt409P wrote: Secondly, a mod distribution system that depends on Debian infrastructure would only benefit Linux users, which excludes a large part of MW's fanbase.
Forgot to address this, just because it is hosted by Debian doesn't exclude others from using it.

If the point here is to also make a front-end for looking for OpenMW compatible mods, then also looking at debian's repos is a valid thing to do. What is wrong with something dpkg/apt-like on windows? :)

I've seen this with brew and ports in FreeBSD, windows is in desperate need of a package manager.

K0kt409P
Posts: 148
Joined: 06 Aug 2013, 09:14

Re: Mod packaging and repositories

Post by K0kt409P » 21 Jan 2014, 17:15

I have no problem with a dpkg/apt system on Windows; it's just that using Debian repos from non-Debian systems seems a bit.. inelegant to me.

Post Reply