The official server flamewar topic

[Big Crunch]

There are [many] [old] [threads] about organisation of things which could be locked and make publically visible so people can review for themselves. I suggest they're opened up soon, as the lack of accessible information is stifling.

I'm not sure why the first is in the parking lot, as it never seems to have devolved. It's quite useful, as it contains some information+screenshot about the state of the project from before I joined it that a few people keep referring to.

The latter two are very useful, as they come from late 2009 and are the closest I've found to a complete and reasonably recent description of organisational structure. They take the manasource split and departures into account, and the then whole team agreed to that structure.
To my knowledge from then: Elven never ceded sovereignty. Jaxad passed on eathena service management to me, then later I to Frost. Rotonen appointed Wombat as content leader for tmwAthena, which was passed on to Pjotr, then to Jenalya. No one was brave enough to lead tmwAthena source before o11c, so it spontaneously came into existence with the blessing of everyone that wanted to see the codeblob that was tmwAthena made into something sane.


When things cool down a bit, perhaps we could all construct an objective (and free from insults like "egomaniacal dictator" or "power hungry abusers") timeline of events, and sort through things without being scorched by the flames?


---Freeyorp

These threads have been released.

[Nard]

Nard certainly did a lot, but not enough to be allowed to repeatedly break the forum rules, and certainly not enough to get The Mana World to break the law, which is what he really wanted in that license dispute.

Do you believe that merit is enough to accept those things?

@o11c:
I pushed the rules yes once and Not repeatedly, but why? If any repetition quote please.
Because especially YOU push them on a regular basis whithout beeing warned. This post is once again a good example of your lie abilities.
Did I want this license dispute?
Surely no! My only intention even on that topic is to make TMW realize that t GPL choice toward art is a wrong one. I do not change a single word of what I said about it:

• For example releasing an ogg file under GPL is simply nonsense because: It is definitely not a source even under GPL definition. No serious musician (which is obviously not your case) would consider ogg as their "preferred form" of making music. (I could also take example of a photographer, a dancer...)
• Any artistic work, including pixel art, has a existance outside a computer, even with law, software has not by obvious nature and even if this frustrates you.
• GPL does not take any account of restrictions that laws grant to artistic works and even consider them as opposed to their concept of "freedom" In my opinion this can make GPL uneffective. And, especially in USA, when a point of a text is uneffective the whole text is often uneffective. Fortunately there are laws outside GPL that could take the relay.
• Dual Licensing two licenses that both say they are incompatible (OSI does not consider CC is not "open source" because source has no meaning towards art), and without any precision, is the worst possible choice.

Did I ask for a special treatment?
No

Do you believe that your merit is enough for us to accept your attitude?

[o11c]

@o11c:
I pushed the rules yes once and Not repeatedly, but why? If any repetition quote please.

Attempting to bypass a moderator's decision is undisputably a violation of the rules.

Because especially YOU push them on a regular basis whithout beeing warned. This post is once again a good example of your lie abilities.

I reserve the right to believe that some people are idiots due to their inability to follow a logical argument, and that it is worth ignoring them.
I reserve the right to speak my beliefs.
Which part of this is against the forum rules?

Surely no! My only intention even on that topic is to make TMW realize that t GPL choice toward art is a wrong one. I do not change a single word of what I said about it:
<snip>

Do you still not understand that none of this matters at all?

We have a HUGE body of art that people have released to us ONLY under the GPL. We simple CANNOT arbitrarily relicense that. THAT IS STEALING and The Mana World is NOT going to steal.

Well, I guess the alternative would be to simply delete all of our existing content and start making again. How do you think players would like that?

Later Edit: According to license.txt, we only have 256 pieces of art also available under CC, out of 874 pieces we are currently using under GPL. And there's no guarantee that those 256 pieces can be used to form a whole.

[Nard]

@o11c:
I pushed the rules yes once and Not repeatedly, but why? If any repetition quote please.
Because especially YOU push them on a regular basis whithout beeing warned. This post is once again a good example of your lie abilities.

I reserve the right to believe that some people are idiots due to their inability to follow a logical argument, and that it is worth ignoring them.
I reserve the right to speak my beliefs.
Which part of this is against the forum rules?

Surely no! My only intention even on that topic is to make TMW realize that t GPL choice toward art is a wrong one. I do not change a single word of what I said about it:
<snip>

Do you still not understand that none of this matters at all?

We have a HUGE body of art that people have released to us ONLY under the GPL. We simple CANNOT arbitrarily relicense that. THAT IS STEALING and The Mana World is NOT going to steal.

You imposed them this license, it is your reponsiblility to make things right. Changing from an uneffective licence to another one which respect artist's rights is not only the only way to be fair, but also a duty to make the project fit it's original goal and spirit. Saying that CC licence choice is stealing is nothing but laughable. Also I never said that GPL should not be quoted as original license my opinion is that there should be a disclaimer saying that in case GPL in incompatible with laws, then CC should apply. CC doesnt proceeed differently.

You can think , that I am an idiot, but I am surprised that as a forum moderator you grant yourself the right to say it or to lie about me.
And I could return you the compliment: read licenses and I think you should be intelligent and logic enough to understand what is the difference between art and software, if dictionary is not sufficient.

[Len]

You imposed them this license, it is your reponsiblility to make things right. Changing from an uneffective licence to another one which respect artist's rights is not only the only way to be fair.

Only the creator of a work can license or change said license on that work.

[Nard]

Only the creator of a work can license or change said license on that work.

What happens in the case the author's choice is uneffective?
The work can be stolen.

I have at least in mind one precise case where it happened: A french singer made a song for a foreign TV anime series. The french producer didn't respect exactly the rules for such changes. The japanese producer attacked the arrangement and won the trial. Both Japanese and french producer got the royalties from TV, The artist got nothing.

Edit: It is also for the reason that you expose, that I suggested that Ali's license file should be updated with first author as first in the list.

[o11c]

You imposed them this license, it is your reponsiblility to make things right.

You falsely imply that I have been I have been with this project forever and was making decisions.

The choice of GPL - for good or for ill - was made by the project's original founders, enforced under Platyna, and then reconsidered by us. Do you not remember that I was one of those who pushed for the possibilty of dual-licensing?

Saying that CC licence choice is stealing is nothing but laughable.

You apparently can't read. CC is a perfectly fine license for new works. However, taking works that were not licensed under CC and then using them under CC *is* stealing.

You can think , that I am an idiot, but I am surprised that as a forum moderator you grant yourself the right to say it or to lie about me.

I've never claimed that tact is one of my strong points. I *do* claim: the ability to be truthful, and the ability to step back from non-time-critical situations in which I have a conflict of interest.

What happens in the case the author's choice is uneffective?
The work can be stolen.

Then that's their problem.

I'm pretty sure that there are some artists who have EXPLICITLY stated that their works are not under CC, only under GPL.
I assume that they read the GPL, particularly the parts that talk about how to apply it to non-software products, and agreed that the particular details of those protections fit them better than CC. For example, CC does not offer patent protection (though I admit I'm not sure just how that would apply to images), and maybe that was something they were passionate about.

--

According to your understanding of copyright law, I could take everything you have ever created (for TMW or otherwise), without your knowledge (or even if you explicitly refused), relicense it under the you-cant-do-anything-all-rights-reserved license, put it all in a book, sell it, make a movie, and sue anyone else using it (including you), all in the name of the greater good.

[Nard]

In that case you is obviously not personal but collective: you are a TMW administrator, you are thus personnally responsible of what is written in this forum's headers and in wiki towards licensing.

Nard wrote:
What happens in the case the author's choice is uneffective?
The work can be stolen.

Then that's their problem.

No, it is TMW's responsibility because TMW imposed it to averyone. I think Authors didn't care that much about the license but more to the spirit. TMW says something like "we want this project to be free and want it to stay free" you have the responsibility to stick to it and make it applicable because you are a TMW administrator.

Nard wrote:
Saying that CC licence choice is stealing is nothing but laughable.

You apparently can't read. CC is a perfectly fine license for new works. However, taking works that were not licensed under CC and then using them under CC *is* stealing.

If it is good for new, it is good for old, at least as a condition when the first is not applicable, because it fits the global project's and authors intentions.
From Collins dictionary:
Steal: verb
Word forms: steals, stealing, stole, stolen

1. to take (something) from someone, etc without permission or unlawfully, esp in a secret manner
2. to obtain surreptitiously
3. to appropriate (ideas, etc) without acknowledgment, as in plagiarism [...]

I really cannot see how defending artists rights and intentions is a theft in any way. By taking precautions TMW would prevent them instead just as GPL does it for software.

Nard wrote:
"You can think , that I am an idiot, but I am surprised that as a forum moderator you grant yourself the right to say it or to lie about me."

I've never claimed that tact is one of my strong points. I *do* claim: the ability to be truthful, and the ability to step back from non-time-critical situations in which I have a conflict of interest.

This is far over tact. now you even claim to be truthful on this point. And I have no conflict of interest with you: I am nothing in this project except a tester.

[Speiros01]

Since this game and its content is open source everyone can create a server.

This is how I understand it. If this is different, then can someone tell me, as I am under the impression that three to four years ago, when I had downloaded the files from gitorious, I was doing something legal, and with support from my fellow manaworld players.

Net or org, I don't care for the fights. I come on here for a game, and chat along with it. What is the reason for such bitterness? Why not just have the two servers running??? There's already about 7 or 8 public ones...surely this should be good reason not to be concerned over it.

As for the development and administration, good job on the parts of everyone involved...this includes new and old, and those on both sides of the fence.

As for the bickering...get over it, and move on. Remember what the reason was that you decided it was a good game...well, I guess my reasons aren't your reasons...still. Move forward, and just enjoy it as a game even. Go and chop into a zombie or something.

The advantage of having the two servers, is you can have your own sets of rules...isn't that wonderful? Why let it be a sour point? Maybe someone needs to touch the mana seed!!!

[Len]

To be fair we shouldn't have ever accepted any art without a tag placed on it by the author, as that's part of GLP.

GNUArt and the GNU General Public License
Most of the statements contained in the GNU General Public License are obvious and don't need to be commented.
On the other hand, some points, once soundly interpreted, reveal fantastic opportunities if applied to Art :

"This License applies to any program or other work which contains a notice placed by the copyright holder saying it may be distributed under the terms of this General Public License."

Because of this statement, we can apply the GNU General Public License to any (©opyright-able) work provided we mention such application.
Hence the relevance of our choice.
"You may copy and distribute verbatim copies of the Program's source code(...)"

The GNU General Public License may be chosen to protect a Work of Art provided its source code is clearly defined. As an abstract notion, this could indeed seem inapropriate to mention the source code of a Work of Art.

"(...) any medium (...)" doesn't mean that :
this source code consists of a description of a textual nature,
this source code is of a visual nature,
this source code could only be interpreted using one of the 5 Senses (or a unique device).
We can call "The Source Code of a Work of Art" any set of data which any other Artist (or specific kind of device available to other Artists) can interpret in order to re-generate the corresponding original Work of Art in order to modify it.

Also, in the GNU Philosophy, "Source Code" especially designates the data actually required to bring changes to the original Work.

As an example, a score or a small text are not enough to indubitably identify a specific version of a song.

Computer Scientists have dealt for a long time with languages such as Perl and Basic in which case the program is considered as its own source code. Such languages are classified as "Interpreted Languages" because they require another program (the "Interpreter") to be executed.
In this case, the source code recipient still has to be specialized in such code in order to understand properly what he intends to modify.

This is not different from Art in any way !

That's why we consider it as relevant to consider a Work of Art as its own source code.

This however doesn't forbid the inclusion of further documentation of the methods used to achieve the final result. This is strongly encouraged.

This especially apply to Conceptual Works in particular as properly understanding its conception is, in this case, mandatory.

Anyway, as a method can't be patented such description will remain associated to the distribution.

A GPL'ed Work of Art may be distributed as part of a "commercial" Catalog or Compilation provided its status along with The GNU General Public License are mentioned.


Sequential distribution, such as radio-broadcasting require a verbal or visual notification of such information before the broadcast. Mention of URLs along with a short description of the GNU/GNUArt philosophy is an acceptable fulfillment of this requirement.

For example :
"You'll now hear the "Free Software Song" originally written and sung by RMS (http://www.stallman.org) remixed by Tompox (http://www.tompox.com). This remix is protected by the GNU General Public License (http://www.gnu.org) and you can find more about such distribution of music on the web site http://gnuart.org...

If you find that such mention is long and boring, we therefore wonder how you can bear the much longer FBI Warnings that appears at the begining of most DVDs. Also, please consider that GPL'ed Art is Free for use.

Such credit is not only fair but also an invaluable retribution for its Author(s) and our organisation.

Of course, redistributing a Free Work of Art, requires the enclosed documents and references originally given by its Creator to remain part of the distribution, either furtherly modificated by another Artist or not.

http://gnuart.org/english/gnugpl.html

[Freeyorp101]

The artists never gave TMW maintainers the right to later change the license.

Other projects, [such as Wesnoth], do ask the artists to allow the project maintainers to be able to later license their works under a different open source license. TMW has not, so it can't just declare all existing work as available under CC-BY-SA; it doesn't have the permission to do so, and to do so without permission would infringe upon the artists' rights (something rather different from stealing, though some copyright maximalists would try to spin things otherwise). TMW has to individually ask every for artist's permission, and replace any works for which permission can't be obtained with works that are CC-BY-SA compatible.

TMW is slowly doing so, but it's not something that can be done overnight.


---Freeyorp

[blackrazor]

@o11c:
I pushed the rules yes once and Not repeatedly, but why? If any repetition quote please.

Attempting to bypass a moderator's decision is undisputably a violation of the rules.

Because especially YOU push them on a regular basis whithout beeing warned. This post is once again a good example of your lie abilities.

I reserve the right to believe that some people are idiots due to their inability to follow a logical argument, and that it is worth ignoring them.
I reserve the right to speak my beliefs.
Which part of this is against the forum rules?

And here we have it in a nutshell. Nard was claiming for himself those same basic rights, to speak his beliefs. All of a sudden, for him alone (in that thread, at that time) it becomes a violation of a moderator's decision for him to perform that basic right that you, o11c, would like to take for granted for yourself. That the moderator is TMWC and o11c is TMWC, and Nard is not, only makes the optics of this even worse. Seems Nard's opinion didn't fit in with the Meritocratic club and so a TMWC moderator sanctioned him, but no one else, claiming that he was derailing the thread, when he was only having his opinion, same as everyone else. And did anyone on the TMWC step in to correct the situation? No. And THAT is why you need an elected top-admin. So that these sorts of unfair situations are no longer defended and so that they can no longer happen.

What was done to Nard by the TMWC was no better than anything the TMWC claimed that Platyna did. I thought we were going for real change, not just a changing of the guard. Well, the sad fact is, that without democracy, the only thing a regime change will ever accomplish is to define who specifically are the regime darlings and who are the regime villains of the day. Not fair.

I call on Elvenprogrammer to point his themanaworld.org domain name NOWHERE, until we have an honest movement towards a democratically nominated and elected top-admin, with set term-lengths and a recall-vote mechanism, so that we can get some true community inclusion and protection.

[Sanity]

And THAT is why you need an elected top-admin.

Awesome. Go and elect a top admin on .net forums

[Ablu]

Nards story has nothing to do with this thread.

Though Nard spammed a Art Thread with a silly "Sourcecode" (well at least not the prefferred medium for doing modifications) of a Image over multiple posts (to fulfil the GPL in his eyes. Then he started ranting about it. The start thread was a thread to start with switching to CC BY SA. So WHY is everyone so obsessed suddenly with flaming about the GPL and the CC license if there actually is work to be able to switch to it? There is no need for beginning to critique a work of others which tries to solve the problem your try to point out. (In short: There was no work to switch to CC BY SA -> nobody complained about the GPL; There is work to switch away from the GPL to CC BY SA -> suddenly people start ranting about the GPL). So Nard was ranting about something which already seems to be in progress for me...

Not really a story about somebody abusing their powers...

But well again. This does not have a lot to do with the server-move. But I guess this thread is already derailed (or was designed to derail in a controllable way).

Regards,
Ablu

[Jaxad0127]

And here we have it in a nutshell. Nard was claiming for himself those same basic rights, to speak his beliefs. All of a sudden, for him alone (in that thread, at that time) it becomes a violation of a moderator's decision for him to perform that basic right that you, o11c, would like to take for granted for yourself. That the moderator is TMWC and o11c is TMWC, and Nard is not, only makes the optics of this even worse. Seems Nard's opinion didn't fit in with the Meritocratic club and so a TMWC moderator sanctioned him, but no one else, claiming that he was derailing the thread, when he was only having his opinion, same as everyone else. And did anyone on the TMWC step in to correct the situation? No. And THAT is why you need an elected top-admin. So that these sorts of unfair situations are no longer defended and so that they can no longer happen.

o11c isn't TMWC, he is a member of TMWC. The moderator in question here is Crush, though. Crush is not a member of TMWC.