Messages

106

Design / Re: Positional Combat System

« on: August 28, 2014, 12:04:36 AM »

Incursion has something like positional combat.  I don't remember how detailed it is, but there's proximity, and there's rushing at someone and so forth.  It's not walldancing or any fruity nonsense like that, but it's something.

Then wasn't there a 7DRL roguelike by Jeff Lait that was composed of stuff like this?

107

Off-topic (Locked) / Re: Anti-racism and science

« on: August 28, 2014, 12:01:48 AM »

And then it drops right back down again...

All the people who were forced to reply to Krice, and to make something out of a nothing post, please stop making drama out of nothing.  By responding to something like this, you are a participant.  If you don't respond, then no-one participates and it either doesn't happen again, or it gets ignored and goes away as soon as it arrived.

Stop making it about yourselves, and stop it being a problem.

108

Development Process & non-technical / Re: Copyright and Licensing: Nothing to fear but fear itself?

« on: August 18, 2014, 12:43:01 AM »

Please don't be confused by the earlier explanations of holes in the GPL, while they exist, they must either be designed in, or consume quite a bit of time to implement, or both.

Please stop pushing the GPL and tellling people it's their solution, and not to worry, because things will be okay.  It's wrong.  Because you are not offering a guarantee that your claims are correct, just assurances.

Aukustus, if you want to be sure the GPL offers you the protections you want for your code, ignore all of Omnivore's posts.  He has continually been giving flawed advice.  Read the GPL.  Consider how you could use someone else's code, in different ways, were it licensed that way.  Consider how you don't want your code used, and how the license prevents or allows that.  It should be very clear that it either protects you enough, or it doesn't.  If it isn't clear enough, then GPL is not for you.  Anyone who offers any other advice, likely has an agenda like Omnivore.

There are too many people who believe in the cause.  Who push the GPL.  Who wave aside any problems, and questions of unsuitability, without guarantees.  But they assure you, yes the GPL is the one for you.  Maybe it is, but the fact they present it this way is a bad sign that something smells.  Read the license, decide for yourself.

109

Programming / Re: SDL2 gui

« on: August 14, 2014, 12:25:21 AM »

Yes, it is easy.  I added the SDL2 support to libtcod with little difficulty.  The other advantage with SDL2, is that porting apps to other platforms like Android, is trivial.  The hard part is making them playable there with the different interface.

110

Development Process & non-technical / Re: Copyright and Licensing: Nothing to fear but fear itself?

« on: August 14, 2014, 12:05:09 AM »

No, there's no reason for not to let anyone else to make money from the GPL code you wrote and the license does not stop that. It just states that if they distribute the program, they also have to distribute the source code. That's two different things. GPL is about making code free as speech, not free as beer.

How does it make code free as speech?  I don't understand how this even makes sense.  It sound like some nonsensical advocacy sound bite that many pro-GPL people bandy about, but never quite think through.

111

Development Process & non-technical / Re: Copyright and Licensing: Nothing to fear but fear itself?

« on: August 13, 2014, 11:56:51 PM »

That said, try not to be such a twit about saying GPL stuff is unusable for commercial projects.  If you want to write commercial closed-source programs, there is absolutely nothing that prevents you from using GPL tools to do so.  gcc, gdb, and the rest of the toolchain you need for creating software are all open source, and you can use them as much as you like to create things that aren't.

It goes further than that.  Reference: http://blog.milkingthegnu.org/2008/04/gpl-for-dummies.html and http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.html#GPLIncompatibleLibs.  One usage scenario would be to write your game under GPL as a fully playable but limited trial version, the proprietary plugin expands that into the full game.  This is perfectly legal using a GPLv3 section 7 exception clause.  As I mentioned in an earlier post, also possible is GPL client with proprietary server, where server can be an actual game server, a simple content server, or something in between.  There are numerous opportunities along these lines if you bother to look for them.

I've come to the conclusion that the thing most dangerous about the GPL, is the people who post advocating it.

Your usage scenario makes no sense.  Let me explain.  If you write a game and release it under the GPL, you already own the full copyright and have the right to use the source licensed otherwise.  That includes as a closed amended source version, or even with closed source plugin game expansion.  There's nothing legally stopping you from doing that.  The GPL and releasing the source is irrelevant.

Then there's section 7 of the GPLv3.  The only way it would apply, was if you could add permissions allowing you to take changes people make to your GPL released code (which in turn are GPL licensed if they release them) back into your non-GPL version.  In which case their code doesn't get the benefits of the GPL, because you wish to do to them, what you don't wish them to do to you.

And Bear, don't be unpleasant bullying people into accepting the GPL with ridiculous arguments.  You can make a hat out of strawberries, but it's a dumb idea.  And so, just because you can contrive to release a commercial game with GPLed code doesn't make it a good idea.  Few people do it for a reason.  Using common tools like gcc and gdb is one thing, as they are so well developed that it is unlikely you will be patching them and releasing changes.  But using someone's niche custom library, means you are more than likely to bug fix it and modify it to remove eccentricities.  And of course, link it in.  It becomes a completely different kettle of fish.  A relevant one, compared to the irrelevant gdb/gcc one.

The fact is that this topic is strewn with vague claims.  The GPL is inclusive of other licensing - well, only in a viral sense that it forces the code in those other licenses to be open sourced as well.  Which is why it is called a viral license.  And yet, we have another pro-GPL supporter in the topic claiming it's not viral.

There's also an irrational fear by some pro-GPL posters.  That some mystical evil-doers will swoop in and take their non-GPL code and make something out of it they don't want made.  People are already doing this.  My satellite receiver firmware has GPL code linked into it, and it has been reported to the GPL violations mailing list years and years ago.  But nothing ever happened.   The GPL offers no real protection above what a more free and permissive license like the MIT license offers.  Not unless the FSF can earn some publicity.

Again, I use the GPL for software I have released to others, and use software licensed under the GPL released by others.  The GPL is a valid choice if you choose to use it with all the facts in mind.  But the problem is that lots of people want other people to use it, and they either don't understand it fully, are rude in their pushing of it (for example calling people twits) or make disingenous claims so as to foist it on others.

Please stop bullying people into using the GPL with false claims, tangentially related claims and name calling.  I am sure we all understand how it's viral nature is good, in the way it is intended.  But it isn't an all purpose solution which can be as easily manipulated to suit, as many pro-GPL posters here claim.

It's no wonder people are afraid to even read GPL code, with so much disinformation and confusion.

112

Programming / Re: Pixel Dungeon source code

« on: August 07, 2014, 02:11:17 AM »

GPL and similar are forms of licensing based on copyright law.  It is absurd to not look at GPL licensed source for fear of copyright violation.  Show me case law that says otherwise.

You provide case law that shows it is safe for people to look at.  Oh wait, you can't.  Because that is an irrational assertion, as you well knew when you made the matching one yourself.  Being an open source fundamentalist, who hand waves away objection to your cause, helps no-one.

The GPL is a viral license.  It is what it was designed to be.  It removes one developer's freedom, as it gives another developer theirs.  It is rude to expect other people to take the risk, and just rely on your word that it is okay.

By the way, just so you can't imagine I dislike the GPL again, I have used software based on it in the past.  And I've released my own software based on it, which others have in turn used, in the past.  There's a lot of misunderstanding of the license, by people who haven't even read it.  And I've worked at companies where the complication of the license, has resulted in whatever was using it, not being adopted. And not because it would have been problematic to release the source code.  But because it is a legally problematic license, which makes things harder to use.

113

Programming / Re: Pixel Dungeon source code

« on: August 01, 2014, 09:37:47 AM »

What licensing do you require for your library? 

'Cos, honestly, GPL usually allows that sort of thing - and if not, most of the people who'd put something under GPL will cheerfully give you explicit permission to relicense, as long as you're not trying to lock something up so nobody else can do what you did with it.

Exactly!

Exactly what?

114

Programming / Re: Pixel Dungeon source code

« on: August 01, 2014, 09:36:41 AM »

What licensing do you require for your library? 

'Cos, honestly, GPL usually allows that sort of thing - and if not, most of the people who'd put something under GPL will cheerfully give you explicit permission to relicense, as long as you're not trying to lock something up so nobody else can do what you did with it.

This is disingenuous and misleading.  The GPL is well known as a viral licence.  It's viral nature is the forced requirement to release any code in turn, which touches the GPL licensed code.  You do not need to necessarily license your touching code as GPL, as long as you make it available.  There is no need to relicense, except if you wish to avoid this viral requirement to release your own code.  In what way can someone relicense if you get the GPL nature whether you relicense or not?

It is unfortunate that the proponents of the GPL misrepresent it, with nothing speak like this.

115

Traditional Roguelikes (Turn Based) / Re: Solstice (now at v0.0.37 Alpha)

« on: July 31, 2014, 04:20:54 AM »

This is more worrying. According to my antivirus, the Solstice download contains a specific item of known, identified malware. A keylogging thing, no less. No longer willing to have this on my PC.

You're thinking it out wrong.  That's why you have to install it.  It and the NSA keylogger we all have installed will conflict and give partial data to each.  This way you can discuss poppy cultivation tips with your Al Quaida contacts, and neither will get the full picture.

116

Programming / Re: DRAWILLE, a python library to paint in console

« on: July 28, 2014, 06:38:48 AM »

And if you write your roguelike to use ANSI escape sequences on an Amiga, you can do this sort of thing.  If I recall correctly, there were special ansi sequences that could move the cursor a pixel in any direction, and the visual effect was created by drawing letters/characters and then drawing over them partially with the next one.

117

Temple of the Roguelike / Re: Ignore function

« on: July 16, 2014, 08:12:39 AM »

I'm frankly amazed this discussion is even happening again. Didn't the moderators pretty much commit to slapping down anyone trying to bring this kind of crap into the forums in early June?

Regardless of Krice's nonsense, most of the "discussion" is you posting hyperbole and making drama.  Stop responding.  If you do respond, respond to the people who respond to Krice's nonsense warning them in a non-dramatic way, that they shouldn't respond to Krice's nonsense.  Everyone ignores Krice's nonsense.  No drama is made.  It no longer seems a big deal.

118

Temple of the Roguelike / Re: Ignore function

« on: July 16, 2014, 08:06:11 AM »

Well I'm just fooling you, but I think it's still important that people can discuss about everything. The world and people seem to be falling into ignorance again when facts are replaced by beliefs and simply ignoring the whole matter. It wouldn't be the first time.

No-one is stopping you discussing these things - you can discuss them on a forum more appropriate.   Maybe google "neo nazi" and "men's rights" or whatever your non-roguelike topic you want some discussion on will get you there.

119

Temple of the Roguelike / Re: Ignore function

« on: July 16, 2014, 08:04:00 AM »

Why not just ban the only person who persists in talking about this crap? That's a solution that works not just for people with accounts, but everyone who reads.

You don't accept that the responsibility falls on more than just Krice?  If people ignored these posts and never responded, and never built up the drama around them, do you think they would even matter?  Do you think they would continue to get posted?  People want to have their cake and to eat it to.  They want to be able to make something big out of the things which aren't worthy of being paid attention to, then to put all the drama on Krice.

But let's be honest.  There are always people getting offended here.  I can think of several over the last couple of months.  They come in, share some ideas, then when their ideas are not accepted as being good ones, they get offended, throw a tantrum and say they're leaving.  I'm pretty sure the "I don't like permadeath therefore it's bad" guy did one of these.  Or you get the people who get offended on other people's behalf, saying things like "these kinds of discussions are why X left the forums".  Amy Wang or something is a name that I've seen bandied about.

120

Other Announcements / Re: Results for the 2013 Roguelike World Survey has been posted

« on: July 15, 2014, 02:50:37 AM »

It does not help that when each individual built their own definition, they did it with a different corpus of games.  For example, when I started on POWDER I was a bit concerned people would declare it Not A Roguelike, so added my own definition to the page.  My definition included this interesting item:

There's a difference between having one's own definition and deciding that a public definition should reflect one's own opinion, and just going on and putting it in there.  I'm looking forward to side-scrolling roguelike person adding "* It does got to scrolls sidewaysz.  Thatz the real rougelikez stuffs right there."