Script Module Guidelines discussion

[GarageGothic]

I think share-alike is messy, messy, messy in this context. For instance, few people would allow derivative works of their finished games, whereas a module MUST allow derivative works - already there a share-alike license would be impossible. As I see it, pretty much the only creative commons licenses relevant to modules would be "attribution" and "noncommercial" or not depending on the author's wishes.

[Scorpiorus]

Yep, there is an issue with deriving vs referencing. Conceptually a game just needs to reference a module, but technically it must be derived from it. Worst of all you can make it derived but say it references or make it reference but say it's derived, in regards to computer field.

So what license to suggest do we actually want?

- anyone should be able to use a module in anyway they like (modify, alter, any derivative work)

- but copyrights for the original module itself should stay intact (they may not just change the author's name to their one and re-release it). They may alter the module, change the author name, but then they must make it clear it is a different version(new module?) to the original one.

What else?


EDIT:

On the contrary, the MIT license itself seems a bit too liberal as it not only permits to distribute and publish but even allows to sell the module alone:

Permission is hereby granted, free of charge, to any person obtaining a copy of this software and associated documentation files (the "Software"), to deal in the Software without restriction, including without limitation the rights to use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense, and/or sell copies of the Software, and to permit persons to whom the Software is furnished to do so, subject to the following conditions:

The above copyright notice and this permission notice shall be included in all copies or substantial portions of the Software.

I doubt it will ever happen (unless as a part of the game, but that's another story), but still wanted to mention it to be strict enough.

[strazer]

Okay, so unless we can agree on a more suitable license I say let's just leave it at MIT for now.

Ah yes sorry that the list hasn't been updated; their quantity is not a real problem though. The real issue is that quite a few modules just doesn't follow the guidelines which makes it questionable whether it's worth listing all the names from a module header.

And listing only those that follow? Seems a bit discriminative to me...

I see. Well, if it were up to me alone, I would just ditch the list.
Too much work for too little gain IMO. I don't get the feeling anyone really uses it and I think even a Wiki page wouldn't see many updates.

What do you guys think?

[SSH]

Well, the Wiki category exists, so really any new modules should get their own wiki page and then have the category added: http://americangirlscouts.org/agswiki/Category:Modules

[strazer]

Not sure what you're getting at. We're talking about the list of already-used names, prefixes etc. that Scorpiorus had compiled.

Of course every module could have its reserved names listed on its Wiki page but who would bother clicking through all these module pages if you just want to know if the name you have in mind is already used or not?
We need them listed together on a single page, if at all.

[SSH]

Oh, I see... well, you could perhaps still do it through the wiki, though: some kind of template

[Scorpiorus]

Okay, so unless we can agree on a more suitable license I say let's just leave it at MIT for now.

Ok then, at least the MIT license doesn't restrict the use of a module. We'll see if we can come up with a more suitable license to suggest in the future.

I see. Well, if it were up to me alone, I would just ditch the list.
Too much work for too little gain IMO. I don't get the feeling anyone really uses it and I think even a Wiki page wouldn't see many updates.

I have the same feeling about it. But on the other hand, were I writing a module, I would then look through some of the existing modules that follow up the guidelines to check their prefixes and make sure mine doesn't match any of them (or at least doesn't match those modules with a completely different functionality, as then there is a greater chance they both may be needed for the same game). So having a list of certain modules would be beneficial to me.

Anyway I think I'll remove the list for now. Still, the Wiki page may be a good alternative as it can be contributed to by other module developers. Ah and yeah, it then should be a single page with all the module prefixes to make it easier for developers to look for a certain name.

EDIT:

Done with removing the list!

[monkey0506]

Personally I just make sure I have a unique name for my module and then prefix all my variables (aside from function parameters :o) (including my local variables) with the module's name. It's a good way to help make sure your variables won't collide with another module's. But the list of prefixes and things is nice.

[Scorpiorus]

Personally I just make sure I have a unique name for my module and then prefix all my variables

Yeah, but as more and more modules appear it becomes quite a challenge to look through all of them for the names being used; being reasonably picky you need to download each module and look into their script headers, since module prefix may be different to its full name or a module can use some extra reserved names.

So any module developer that follow up the guidelines would need the list of reserved names (prefixes) one way or another.