Open Source Projects

[deepstrasz]

I was answering to a poster saying to open the maps after a 5 years delay. I'm talking about it in a "manteniance clause" way for those maps that get bugged when a new patch appears, and the Owner puffed out of existence and can't do the repairs. In that case, open, repair, upload and wait.

I'm quite OK with that as long as it's moderated by the staff and the original map thread gets updated.

If the owner still don't give any lifesign after a while, send it to full blow open source and call it day.

That would be disrespectful in the absence of the author though. Fixing and maintaining is one thing, editing quite another.

We need more map maker and reviewer thoughts in here.

 

[Nudl9]

Open source is great i think.

I would like another option to allow edits and publish on hive though.

I spoke earlier about how melee maps would benefit from this and improve melee maps as a whole greatly.
As people play maps and discover new exploits they can be covered faster with small edits.
Or maps that suffer in one regard but lack in another.

Something like a lisence to publish edits of maps.
Take a look at how w3reforged and how it handles my map.
All previous versions and edits are listed beneath.
I spoke with the author of the site and there was promises of a visual branching of different versions.
It probably never came to fruition though because it's a complex thing to make.
But i could see something simpler being implemented.
Like requesting access to publish an edit of a map, which is hosted alongside the original.
Or just opening pandoras box to everyone if you so choose.

 

[Kyrbi0]

I love the idea of automatically hosting edits/versions underneath a given map.

 

[deepstrasz]

I love the idea of automatically hosting edits/versions underneath a given map.

Sure, only don't force users to download all maps in the map thread under one archive each time like now.

 

[Nudl9]

Here's a map i believe would benefit from allowing branched map submissions.
[green] ET v0.68a
Under normal circumstances it's not allowed to post edits on the site, but it's sort of like an extension of the original game.
So i feel it should be accepted if credit is given appropriately.

 

[disruptive_]

A licensing system is good to provide certainty. For example, a few weeks ago a guy asked if he could use icons submited here for his stand alone game, and the fact is that there are lots of quality rules but few licensing rules (read: what users of the site can do with the stuff that is uploaded) meant that there was no easy answer. But a licensing system will also create some complexity unless the rules are redactated in a layman friendly way.
Ideally it is implemented in the resource submission UI, like, when a person uploads a content, just like he/she could tick the resource tags, he/she might also tick/untick some options regarding the license giving to the users (ie. Free to modify [NO] ; Free to distribute [NO]; Want to use another license? [YES: CC-BY 3.0]; Want to add a general license/restriction? [YES: any use that complies with the Blizzard EULA]).
As addition, there should be a clear, general, and dare i say, "just", minimum license or licensing principles in favour of any user and that everyone must agree on, just like there is a clear principle or principles about quality of the submissions.
One of this aspects, i think, is precisely about if assets could be used (read: reproduce and modify a resource as many times needed as to employ it for a particular end which, in this case, is as a game asset) on stand-alone games or only on Warcraft 3 mods.

This HIVE open-source definition is indeed a licensing rule, but i would recommend to use another terminology or making it extremely clear. Open-source born regarding software code and not complete game projects (a game could "spawn" copyrights regarding: code; assets; and the game itself as an audiovisual work). For example, i'am entirely in favour of freeing the code. Also, open-source usually entails an unrestrictive distribution license (even with the possibility to charge a price), and that could be harmful to authors that appreciate this site's rules and content submission control (ie. the fact that there are map reviewers that precisely control low quality maps and loose modifications). Altough the "open-source HIVE definition" is sufficiently clear over fact that open-source projects are not freely distributable (just freely modifiable) one can easily imagine how the collective unconscious over the word open-source could produce some discussions in this aspect.

 

[deepstrasz]

Also, open-source usually entails an unrestrictive distribution license (even with the possibility to charge a price)

I don't think so. Open source is supposed to be free for everyone, free to modify but not sell as say when you'd sell stuff made after J. R. R. Tolkien's works.

Altough the "open-source HIVE definition" is sufficiently clear over fact that open-source projects are not freely distributable (just freely modifiable) one can easily imagine how the collective unconscious over the word open-source could produce some discussions in this aspect.

They are freely distributable since editors could just reupload the modified versions. Otherwise, there won't be any point of open source rather maps would just be unprotected which many already are.

 

[disruptive_]

I don't think so. Open source is supposed to be free for everyone, free to modify but not sell as say when you'd sell stuff made after J. R. R. Tolkien's works.

They are freely distributable since editors could just reupload the modified versions. Otherwise, there won't be any point of open source rather maps would just be unprotected which many already are.

Are you confusing public domain with open-source?
I'm pretty sure open-source is a historic concept so it already has a meaning. In this context open-source is a licensing standart (non restrictive modifying, distribution, and overall use of the code) regarding software CODE. If you say a piece of code is open-source a great deal of people will automatically assume a certain meaning and reasonably so.
Most programmers are familiar with this open-source concept as well as the free software movement, but also most programmers think that the only possible copyright implicated on a game is the code. On a game you have assets that are the creation of, most likely, a 3D artist or a composer. Already lots of courts recognize that games themselves are another possible separated IP (the author here is the "game developer", just like on a movie there is a script and art, but there is also a director). A court ie. recognized that DotA (Wc3) implicated IP as a game ("audiovisual work"), even if the authors used assets of Blizzard. This means that the game is a separated IP from the assets and also the code, as the code is considered a "literary work".
A game that is solo developed is certanly possible (the ownership problem becomes simplified here), but on a custom wc3 map you will see code and assets made by lots of different authors (including ie. Blizzard). I noted this problem in one of posts above: the HIVE open-source definition implicates a license over the code? the assets? the game itself? all the above?
So let's apply all this: the HIVE here says that an entire game project is open-source. Again, a great deal of people will assume a certain meaning already: free modification, free distribution and overall non-restrictive use of the game. Luckily, and as i said, the "HIVE own Open-source Definition" is clear in saying that open-source only means free modification. Still, because of the use of a concept that already has a meaning for a great deal of people, i'm certain that we will get into some discussions regarding on what rules apply, yet again.

 

[Drake53]

Open source only means you can view the source, it doesn't imply anything about the license.
Licensing a repository - GitHub Docs

You're under no obligation to choose a license. However, without a license, the default copyright laws apply, meaning that you retain all rights to your source code and no one may reproduce, distribute, or create derivative works from your work.

 

[deepstrasz]

Luckily, and as i said, the "HIVE own Open-source Definition" is clear in saying that open-source only means free modification. Still, because of the use of a concept that already has a meaning for a great deal of people, i'm certain that we will get into some discussions regarding on what rules apply, yet again.

I guess, they should be more specific then but it comes down to the map authors in the end to declare on release. Open Source on Hiveworkshop doesn't have a line in the site rules or its own special rule thread.

Also found this: The Legal Side of Open Source

 

[disruptive_]

Open source only means you can view the source, it doesn't imply anything about the license.
Licensing a repository - GitHub Docs

That's yet another Open-Source definition. You must also note that, again, that github definition != hive definition != osd definition != your definition != my definition, etc. A good point to make is that just flat out saying that your project or piece of code is open-source is to be found meaningless right now, as there are lots of open-source definitions. Luckily the HIVE definition specifies what this "open-source" hive concept is all about. Hive users should read it carefully as they are maybe expecting what you said. That is key but that doesn't resolve the problem that "open-source" is now a polysemic concept and lots of people expect different things regarding its implications. That is why i said that maybe another concept could be used, like "HIVE Source", or else.
I'm following the first guys to use the term "open-source": The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative. The concept you proposed here distorts this historical open-source concept. Also, since copyright rights born the moment an author creates a work and because the content of the OSD definition ("freely distributable"; "freely modifiable"), the only way for a work to be considered open-source (atleast in this definition) is if it gives a certain license to users, so one can say with complete confidence that "open-source" indeed implies a license.

I guess, they should be more specific then but it comes down to the map authors in the end to declare on release. Open Source on Hiveworkshop doesn't have a line in the site rules or its own special rule thread.

Also found this: The Legal Side of Open Source

That was my entire point, atleast regarding copyright law.

 

[Drake53]

I'm following the first guys to use the term "open-source": The Open Source Definition | Open Source Initiative.

The definition given here sounds more like 'free software' to me, rather than open source, so you're right about this:

github definition != hive definition != osd definition != your definition != my definition, etc. A good point to make is that just flat out saying that your project or piece of code is open-source is to be found meaningless right now