DDraceNetwork - developer

Wow you can edit these kinds of checklists in github issues just by clicking them ... I'm sure there are more people like me who wonder why they can click it and accidentally edit something (don't worry I changed it back)

we have a history, should be good

00:02

note that only people with access to the repo can click the checkboxes

ik ofc

I think license can be good to avoid Aoe discussions a la "DDNet sux, delete my maps"

you can still be annoying about it with a license

How can I add fast download for DDNet clients to my 0.7 bridge mod?

00:53

Ah, I think I have it

aoe wanted ddnet to delete his Maps?

yes

rly? xd

Show proves or fake

yes

Its true and was a big discussion years ago. DDNet refused to delete them kek

06:33

https://forum.ddnet.tw/viewtopic.php?t=2902

@heinrich5991 it was fair fro ryozuki to ask. @timakro's argument wasn't an argument either

07:16

This whole discussion has been plagued by people scared of the boogeyman

07:18

But I don't believe bringing up licensing is a good idea for the teeworlds community.

"I don't believe" many things, you don't see me putting it out there without any arguments backing my opinion

07:20

DDNet refused to delete them :kek:

DDNet had no right to refuse to delete them but alas I'm no lawyer, maybe if I close my eyes hard enough the law will cease to exist and it'll all be sunshine and rainbows

So do we need licenses from every mapper? :D

If we want the right to "refuse to delete" yes but I'm fine with the old maps being susceptible to takedowns

yangfl

[ddnet/ddnet] Issue opened: #2520 May install tools to /usr/libexec

https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/blob/127e4e643dd40e617221e62e268daef3512a92b6/CMakeLists.txt#L2280 According to FHS it's better to put internal binaries under /usr/libexec, but it can be discussed.

u can get a public domain or CC0 for my maps if you want :)

@heinrich5991

https://twitter.com/ares_emu/status/1284328853171605508

ares (@ares_emu)

"Imagine all the extraordinary things we'll be able to do once computers have literally hundreds of CPU cores!" Developers: https://t.co/M3qiQpzt42

Retweets

15976

Likes

51329

Someone close #2516 pls

https://github.com/ddnet/ddnet/issues/2516

Bug: Ninja slash would cross unsolo tiles without triggering unsolo...

This leads to failure in some maps for example moderate minion TELE 5. Haven't test if solo can be skipped as well.

1

There always was a sentiment in this community (I guess it's the sentiment of the old internet) that everything is up for grabs. I genuinely believe there is truth to that AND that this could be translated into lawyer speech: Implied consent, common law? For example the map takedowns: I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how one would phrase it but we all agree with the point: By submitting your map to ddnet you agree that it's hosted on their servers, players can play it and score ranks. You can't just force them to take it down without reason a year later when there are highscores and speedruns. That's just how I see it, I don't know what the real verdict would be if it came to it. But I'm sure it can't be a simple binary "you loose because copyright" argument. So what I'm saying is all maps are de-facto free to use and I believe with enough effort and a good lawyer we could slap a copyleft license onto the entire ddnet catalogue. Surely no one wants to do that and it's not going to happen among other things because there is no incentive right now to act. Just the same way as there is no incentive for making a list to collect licensing information of ddnet maps. The people declaring their maps copyleft now are not the people who make takedown requests later. The only thing this does is completely denying my viewpoint of the legal situation I voiced above. (edited)

10:19

@Learath2 @Ryozuki

I agree that by submitting your map you agree that it'll be hosted on our servers. I don't see how it also implies that you can't want it taken down later. E.g. by uploading my pictures to a image host (which usually still do make you agree to some terms btw) I don't give away all rights to that picture

this is where u need an actual lawyer

I've contacted one, hoping he won't quote me an entire arm and leg because you are having lulz

5

It's not because the maps are not under licence they are not protected. In fact, if someone can argue the property of one, the map is protected my the right of author. Even with licence this doesn't change. What you need is a public agreement to give the right to ddnet to use the map.

12:00

Ddnet is not even association or enterprise ... So this going to be difficult

https://www.plagiarismtoday.com/2014/12/09/revoking-creative-commons-licenses/

Jonathan Bailey

Can You Revoke a Creative Commons License? - Plagiarism Today

The recent backlash against Flickr over its sale of Creative Commons photos has sparked an interest in changing and revoking CC licenses.

12:04

The Practical Implications Legally, the answer couldn’t be more clear: Creative Commons Licenses are irrevocable. However, there are some practical application points worth discussing, even if they don’t change anything legally. First, many, if not most, works licensed under Creative Commons are not used. If a work hasn’t been used under the license and the license is removed, no one will be able to use it in the future unless they recall the license and use it later. However, most won’t know or recall the license and will either never have been presented with the license, such as with new visitors, or otherwise won’t be aware of it.

12:05

@Lionheart you are wrong

I'm not wrong totally, just partially

12:17

But it's fun to see you consider all what i say wrong because i say one thing wrong

If you don't license something explicitly to grant rights to others, you reserve all rights

14:01

@Lionheart I'd rather if people decided on their own how to license their works, but we could also work with something like an agreement e.g. a license that you agree to when you publish work on ddnet, like wikipedia does it

Great the lawyer I picked is on vacation...

@Learath2 yeah, it's that, either you licence your work under thing like creative common, so ppl can use it under the rule of licence, or you give a explicit agreement for your work be used. It's not a licence but a contract between the mapper and ddnet.

Either is better than just closing our eyes really tight and pretending the internet is a lawless wasteland

Hum, it's not really "our" but your. Because if ddnet is not an organization, it's mean your personally responsible of outrage ^^

15:15

In fact, i don't see someone attack ddnet or admins for something so trivial. It's wasting money, and in final, maybe it's going nowhere. In true, i find that politic bad. If we say "Okay, by propose your map you agree to give the right to ddnet to use it unlimited of time, you keep right on it, but you can"t ask us to remove the map. Do you agree" it's okay for me. But if you say today to mapper their map cannot be removed, since they didn't agree to that .. I find that .. Dishonnest. Without lack of respect for admin of course. Just what i think

@Learath2 I got some reports from players that the votes still has a bug. If sv_vote_majority is 1 and the vote failed, the vote is not going away: https://i.imgur.com/7pslXC4.png Also if someone vote there comes a random msg xD? https://i.imgur.com/bdK5mjX.png

17:44

There comes 2 msges if someone start a vote

Oh that looks off

17:45

@Trafalgar Law is there a message when the vote fails?

Nope

and is it not going away for 0.6 either?

For 0.6 its going away

17:46

0.6 get a msg that the vote failed