Warzone 2100 Forums

I do not really see the problem in using the GPL for artwork. But I am also fine with public domain, CC  BY or CC BY-SA. The non-commercial license options are dangerous, since they scare distributors of all sorts from carrying the content - including sourceforge, linux distros, game magazines, and so on.

A definite no-go is non-derivate... That would permit us from any kind of modification, for any purpose. Don't use that.

I still don't understand why you all are pestering him to license his work.  Does everything on the planet need to to be licensed?

Chojun wrote: I still don't understand why you all are pestering him to license his work.  Does everything on the planet need to to be licensed?

Believe me if it was up to me there would be no such thing as copyright law and patent law which means we wouldn't need to "pester" him with these license issues. The problem though is that we live in The Real World (tm), where licensing _is_ an issue.

If we want to be able to legally distribute his work we need a license on his work (yes that's right, we _need_ a license). That is because as a direct result of copyright law it is illegal to distribute any original work for which you haven't been granted explicit distribution rights.

Chojun is wrong about the facts, but has a point. Recurring discussion about licenses for artwork is distracting. We should settle for a single license for all artwork, and implicitly assume that any contributions are using the same license unless otherwise noted. Just like we currently do for code. We should put a stickied notice about this in a forum. I know other projects do it this way. Since all the artwork we currently have is under the GPL, I think it makes most sense to continue to use the GPL for new artwork as well. Other projects use GPL for artwork, too. There is no reason to worry about the finer details of how "source code" in the license applies to artwork, since the copyright holder can make any exceptions he likes for himself, implicitly or explicitly, and only the copyright holder may object to how the work is distributed.

Per: having read through the GPL, I can see how it may be interpreted adequately for traditional media, but for digital media (especially one that involves modeling, lighting rigs, surfacing algorithms, and compositing), there are far too many gray areas among software terms like 'source code' and 'object code' for me to be messing with.
The CC license, however, seems clear and concise and I would like to share my Warzone art in the same way that Eidos & Pumpkin have shared their game.  So I have just edited my OP in this thread to point to a suitably altered version of the pic.  Does that suit most, if not all, of the 'druthers?

And if any dev or WM wants to get their mitts on the PNG version of that picture, I'll email it to you... it's nearly 1 Mb and I didn't want to clog anyone's bandwidth here on the forum.

Unification, as Per said, sounds good to me, too.
But (a) I think we already have some CC work, (b) CC is way easier to understand and (c), as cathuria stated.
So I think assuming GPL and an opt-in for CC BY-SA 3.0 would be best.

cathuria wrote: I's back... you know, trying to compose a picture around a big-butt menu in the middle of everything is a bit perplexing.  I may have to take a few more stabs at it.
Anyhow, here is my first attempt at a menu screen -- let me know how you think it works (or doesn't).

http://www.cathuria.com/improbable/pepperpot2-bdrop.png

Well I would like to see this with a few different sky colors to it, over all though its a sweet job, with only one thing to think of, and thats the drivers side viewing portal, from my POV and first hand knowledge of tanks that would be a bit bigger or at lest should be if the vehicle is to scale, with the means to see thru it open or closed. I know thats a bit picky, but just my 2¢


4nE

sweet... sets as wallpaper

I dont know why, or maybe it is just an illusion, but the models on the second image look a bit flat... good work though

While we're talking about the menus, I personally believe that the Main Menu GUI is in dire need of a complete overhaul. IMHO, ATM, the Main Menu looks a whole lot like something even PowerPoint could remake better. (On the other hand, all that I can see the INGAME GUI needing is a bit of anti-aliasing and maybe a bit of re-drawing, but it's pretty much perfect)

Game aside, I'd like to say that

THAT IS HANDS DOWN THE BEST MODELING I'VE EVER F***ING SEEN. EVER.

Although I'm not a big fan of the pepperpot ATM, haven't had the game long enough to judge all of the techs. It's basically a mortar variant of the Hellstorm Howitzer, correct?

Yessir.

If you're referring to what I think you are, anti-aliasing won't fix the issue you're having with the interface looking all funky. It is a texel misalignment issue.

Molotov wrote:(On the other hand, all that I can see the INGAME GUI needing is a bit of anti-aliasing and maybe a bit of re-drawing, but it's pretty much perfect)

Anti-aliasing has very little effect on the appearance of the GUI. You can see for yourself by whacking up the AA settings in your graphics cards driver to 8x (ensuring to tick any override application settings boxes if present). Very little difference.

As for the main menu looking like something done in PowerPoint you might want to take a look at the main menu proposal topic (viewtopic.php?f=6&t=1872 ).

Regards, Freddie.

WHat I meant about the ingame GUI was that it just looks a little underdone. the CONTENT of the GUI is absolutely perfect, but aesthetically , it could use some help. What i'm really trying to say is it is in need of a re-skin.