OpenUru.org

JWPlatt wrote:

Doobes wrote:Yes, sorry. I might have been a bit too thorough when I zipped those files up.

All part of testing and refining the submission process. That's what this is for.

Too true!

This does bring up the issue of easier ways to create Linking Books to fan Ages. Presumably, this would start with Tre'bivdil, Fehnir House, Vothol Gallery, the Ae'gura GoMe Pub (which have all been tested on other shards) and the library to tie it all together (assuming it passes the "smell test" ).

Right now, the global xLinkingBookGUIPopup and xLinkingBookDefs scripts work quite nicely for Cyan Ages (along with xJournalGUIPopup for journals in separate LOC files). A similar script for fan Ages could also streamline that process and keep things more uniform for easier submitting...and less we'd have to compile for each Age. I believe the GoW is keen on creating such a script, so that'll be something else to test at some point.

Doobes wrote:… Tre'bivdil, Fehnir House, Vothol Gallery …

Out of curiosity, do you know from the authors of these ages that they want their work on MOULa, or are you just assuming that? I was under the impression that among the authors of MOUL-compatible ages, you were the first (and so far only one) to express a desire to get them on MOULa. (And I’m glad that you do! )

Maybe my attitude that the initiative for getting a fan age on MOULa has to come from the author (and by consequence my belief that the lack of progress on that so far was at least partially caused by lack of demand) is too restrictive, given that half of those authors are no longer active in the community, but at least asking them seems a requirement.

Christian Walther wrote:

Doobes wrote:… Tre'bivdil, Fehnir House, Vothol Gallery …

Out of curiosity, do you know from the authors of these ages that they want their work on MOULa, or are you just assuming that? I was under the impression that among the authors of MOUL-compatible ages, you were the first (and so far only one) to express a desire to get them on MOULa. (And I’m glad that you do! )

Maybe my attitude that the initiative for getting a fan age on MOULa has to come from the author (and by consequence my belief that the lack of progress on that so far was at least partially caused by lack of demand) is too restrictive, given that half of those authors are no longer active in the community, but at least asking them seems a requirement.

You bring up a good point. I suppose it depends on if they initially agreed to have them posted to Gehn and TOC, and if so, did that agreement include other shards or just those particular two. Presumably, since they wanted their work on those shards, they'd also want them on the main MOULa shard, but it probably wouldn't hurt to check with Lontahv, Tweek, and Rustee. I imagine contact through the GoW forums would be the easiest way, so I'll see what I can do.

Is there not a formal standard to include a license with content material just like we do with code? Isn't it simply habitual by now? Maybe let's take a look at other submission materials, and if it's not there, this should be created as part of the process here.

I would advise soliciting permission before adding an age to the shard. We solicited permission to add the fan age before we did so on Gehn, and we (in some cases eventually) scored the source material as well to facilitate integration. This was only needed in the case of inactive authors. Best of luck contacting the Vothol Gallery author--he's really hard to get ahold of. You better start last year

JWPlatt wrote:Is there not a formal standard to include a license with content material just like we do with code? Isn't it simply habitual by now? Maybe let's take a look at other submission materials, and if it's not there, this should be created as part of the process here.

Holy word salad, batman!

JWPlatt wrote:Is there not a formal standard to include a license with content material just like we do with code? Isn't it simply habitual by now? Maybe let's take a look at other submission materials, and if it's not there, this should be created as part of the process here.

Still thinking way too much into this. We're volunteers, not companies writing up binding contracts. There's no formal "license agreement" because it's really not needed so long as there's communication between Age builder and shard admins..which I'll admit...can be sketchy at best.

From what I understand of the inclusion process for Gehn, it's mostly just getting the Age builder's permission for inclusion. Once that's done, the checks and adjustments begin. Hoikas may correct me in a reply if I'm missing something.

It's another instance of keeping it simple. Someone submits an Age (we'd have to determine where and how, I'll admit), a few of us (the more, the better) can volunteer to appraise it and check for quality and any possible copyrighted material, then if all is good and everyone signs off, we start working on it for addition into a future update.

I would certainly advocate getting permission (I'm assuming that no-one has attached a license to their age that would make clear what permission exist). Apart from being common courtesy, there is a potential issue if the original source data is not available and the original author is not around to support the age should any problem be found.

Ultimately, Cyan might require a license, so it's all clear and legal for them to use (or at least an indemnity against any copyright infringement that might later transpire).

Mac_Fife wrote:Ultimately, Cyan might require a license, so it's all clear and legal for them to use (or at least an indemnity against any copyright infringement that might later transpire).

That would be most ideal. While FCALs were a great idea initially, given how slow communication with Cyan can be, a more general form that can be filled out by Age builders submitting content would make more sense. We send those along with the content to Cyan and they'll have that on file in case something arises (which, if things are properly tested and checked, won't be an issue). It could be something we could develop here, then send to Cyan legal for their approval.

Something along the lines of "By submitting these files, I confirm that, to the best of my knowledge, this content does not contain copyrighted material or anything that might otherwise get Cyan in legal hot water".

I'd rather include a license in my age than get emails from each person or shard wanting to use it. And I'd rather it be clear what I'm willing to share if I disappear off the face of the Earth, as content and code developers seem to occasionally do. Is it really that freaking hard to slip in a license such that it be classified under "companies writing up binding contracts?" Get real. Open Source programmers do it as second nature.

JWPlatt wrote:I'd rather include a license in my age than get emails from each person or shard wanting to use it. And I'd rather it be clear what I'm willing to share if I disappear off the face of the Earth, as content and code developers seem to occasionally do. Is it really that freaking hard such that it be classified under "companies writing up binding contracts?" Get real. Open Source programmers do it as second nature.

Sorry, I had trouble parsing your first post. I would agree that I tend to attach specific licenses to things I release just to make things clear. I would suggest pointing age authors to the Creative Commons licenses so as to reduce headaches. CC BY NC ND 4.0 is probably a good one to suggest by default... Unless the age author specifically wants to grant individual permission, which is, IMO, perfectly acceptable. A lot of age creators see their stuff as a self-fulfilling work that they're sharing with others just as a bonus, after all.