The Mana World Forums

As you know the TMW Project is licensed under the GNU GPL.

The problem of the GPL is that it is focused on software and many phrases don't work very well for art. what would mean to "provide the sourcecode" of a picture for example?

so i would like to discuss the theoretical and practical posibility of putting the artistical contend of tmw under a different license that has the spirit of the GPL but that is more suitable for art.

an art license that is very similar to the GPL is the Free Art License:

http://artlibre.org/licence/lal/en

I agree it could fit artistic content better than GPL

Artists, please respond.

I think this one should be up to you do discuss and and agree upon, together.

Perhaps we should try to have a meeting soon-ish? (On this and other stuff.)

Well, it sounds pretty obvious to me.

Well done, Crush. Once again you provide a crucial upgrade to the Mana World development. Lucky to have ya.
i agree wholeheartedly with that license's statement. If only some record companies i know of could adopt it. Ha ha ha

the question is if it is possible to put the executable under license A and the contend under license B and put them together in the same package.

Crush wrote:the question is if it is possible to put the executable under license A and the contend under license B and put them together in the same package.

why not different packages with different licensing? So we can install updates without having to reinstall the source code? do you think it would be useful?

Then you would have to download two files instead of one and have to install them one after another when you want to start playing tmw. is that user friendly? no i doubt that this would be applicable.

having automatic and incremental updates (only changed files in the updates) is planned anyway.

Crush wrote:Then you would have to download two files instead of one and have to install them one after another when you want to start playing tmw. is that user friendly? no i doubt that this would be applicable.

As opposed to download a 20 M piece just to have a fix for a nasty graphic bug, Is that user friendly? No
Yes, I'm forcing my example. But only to get my point across. I guess I'm thinking from a linux user point of view, while you are doing from a windows user point of view.

I don't know if people find it useful to split packages, I do. But then again I'm a gentoo user and many other people may not agree with me.

I use splitted packages very often, althought they are not that frequent in games, and let me tell you how useful and user friendly they are I try to avoid big packages by the default and when some application has some update in the code while the rest is untouched is pretty nasty to have to download all the whole thing.

I can tell you that many linux user wouldn't find this annoying at all, since almost every distro has package management and installing tmw would pull any needed dependency automatically.

And windows users would have to download two things, which total weight would be the same as a single executable, and execute two exes. I don't think that is to much to ask for
Windows gamers are used to apply patches even for games they just bought and should work out-of-the-box, or installing runtime libraries (directx, mcf, squash,etc). And usually they are not any small.

Nothing new under the sun, really.

I think we will have separate packages for client, server, client data and server data: This allows different servers to have different data more easily. (I think we're aiming for this on long term.)

Different packages for client and server seems a good idea...but I think we shouldn't package data and client itself separately.

Regards.