Time Nick Message 01:22 [MatrxMT] re: compliance in sending free software and media to clients and them not having the license 01:22 [MatrxMT] I've already conceived of a mod that parses your mod directories and presents licence info in a formspec. But it's just kind of.. boring busywork it feels like? 01:22 [MatrxMT] most servers, the admin should be happy to share it. "Should" is doing some heavy lifting 01:29 ireallyhateirc sending license files, especially of SSCSM code and media, should be automated 01:31 ireallyhateirc either SPDX headers or a custom license if any 01:34 ireallyhateirc with a way to blacklist certain licenses and unlicensed files (or providing an API to help with that) 01:40 sfan5 great, we should spend more development time satisfying fringe license preferences instead of making luanti a better engine 01:41 MTDiscord its also an engine, not a shove your views done others throat pipeline 01:44 ireallyhateirc sending licensing info is more about the engine not breaking the law 01:45 [MatrxMT] ♫ breaking the law, breaking the law ♫ 01:45 MTDiscord sure, but that doesnt mean it needs to be sent in some standard way 01:46 user333_ Blockhead: we're already giving away minecraft for free :p 01:46 ireallyhateirc an opt-in blacklist would be helpful, but if no such thing is provided then I won't play on any servers 01:46 [MatrxMT] did somebody say minecraftforfree.com 01:46 ireallyhateirc web browsers are properly sandboxed and checked for security holes 01:47 user333_ s/minecraftforfree.com/luanti.org 01:47 ireallyhateirc with all due respect, I doubt you will create a perfect and secure system on your first attempt 01:47 [MatrxMT] that's only what everybody's been saying for like 10 years 01:48 MTDiscord browsers arent perfect either 01:48 MTDiscord cves happen and get fixed 01:48 ireallyhateirc and as soon as you allow sending proprietary code, which will also encourage uglifying, it will get ugly 01:48 * user333_ looks at his script which receives IRC messages and runs them as commands... as root 01:48 ireallyhateirc with some safety measures such as 1. allowing blacklist 2. allowing inspecting the code before running it 01:49 MTDiscord rm -rf --no-preserve-root 01:49 user333_ it's not on here :p 01:49 [MatrxMT] what's this concern about proprietary code? the servers can already run proprietary code, and a load of admins don't know what their mods are actually doing 01:49 ireallyhateirc it would at least prevent some people from running shady code 01:49 user333_ but i do have it running in a VM on a channel here 01:49 ireallyhateirc server-side proprietary code is server-side 01:50 ireallyhateirc SSCSMs are arbitrary code sent by the server to the client 01:50 MTDiscord so are you running intel/amd processors from like a decade and half ago? 01:51 sfan5 ireallyhateirc: as far as I am aware the average website is not breaking the law by not including license information 01:51 sfan5 there was a browser extension to enforce some javascript licensing IIRC but that sounds incredibly impractical to me 01:52 ireallyhateirc sfan5, All rights reserved proprietary code is not breaking the law, because the copyright owner sends you their property. With GPL and CC licenses it's completely different 01:52 [MatrxMT] unless it's not your ARR mod 01:53 ireallyhateirc All rights reserved code has no requirements. With GPL code you're *forced* to include a copy of the license 01:54 ireallyhateirc I could send a mail to the FSF to clarify if that helps 01:55 ireallyhateirc even lax FOSS licenses force you to include licensing info 01:56 MTDiscord lots of articles/discussion on mit and minification for js libraries 01:56 ireallyhateirc so you either need to deliver that info in the header in the file OR send a copy of the license along the file 01:56 MTDiscord nah 01:59 ireallyhateirc the alternative for people is to provide a /license command or displaying that info on join 02:00 ireallyhateirc also I'm not a big fan of the "web browsers ignore the issue so we should do the same" argument 02:01 sfan5 right, it looks like minified libs apparently come with a license comment 02:01 sfan5 intentionally 02:01 [MatrxMT] well you're going to have a hard time swimming upstream here, it's the norm in browsers, video games like gmod, roblox and more 02:01 ireallyhateirc the most basic low-effort thing you may do is to simply send the LICENSE file along all .lua files with a SSCSM 02:02 [MatrxMT] even if the engine doesn't deliver the full capability of blocking, CP-CSM should be able to check the SS-CSMs and decide not to run them. 02:02 sfan5 it's questionable if that matters because the user has no way to inspect that file 02:02 ireallyhateirc then we (either upstream or someone else) could implement a client feature to reject unlicensed CSMs 02:05 sfan5 that's exactly what I was going for with my "wasting work for something 3 people in total want" point 02:06 sfan5 but yes we should make sure that mod devs do not easily/accidentally violate their own license because the user has no way to see it 02:07 ireallyhateirc this would be helpful 02:08 ireallyhateirc as for the blacklist feature, I'm sure we'll be able to get 3+ interested people to make a forked client, or merge that upstream if any core dev backs that 02:08 [MatrxMT] luanti-libre 02:09 ireallyhateirc the final luanti lol 02:10 [MatrxMT] final luanti fork after 6.0 comes out, then change the name again (pls no) 02:10 user333_ luantest? 02:19 ireallyhateirc btw from the GPL: 02:19 ireallyhateirc You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you 02:19 ireallyhateirc receive it, in any medium, provided that you conspicuously and 02:19 ireallyhateirc appropriately publish on each copy an appropriate copyright notice; 02:19 ireallyhateirc keep intact all notices stating that this License and any 02:19 ireallyhateirc non-permissive terms added in accord with section 7 apply to the code; 02:19 ireallyhateirc keep intact all notices of the absence of any warranty; and give all 02:19 ireallyhateirc recipients a copy of this License along with the Program. 02:20 wsor4035 i really did hope you would get kicked 02:21 ireallyhateirc you mean me being too talkative or not using the pastebin? 02:21 MTDiscord anyways, my view is send whatever files are in a dir or whatever for sscsm and then its the authors problem 02:23 wsor4035 the latter 02:25 ireallyhateirc will do so next time. Anyway, an alternative to the blacklist and what not would be simply providing a way to display licensing terms upon connecting and "accept/reject" 02:25 ireallyhateirc I believe this should be fair for both proprietary and foss licenses? 02:26 ireallyhateirc after all many games and services do that 02:34 ireallyhateirc Also this article explains how licensing info should be presented in order for it to be legally binding: https://legalclarity.org/when-does-a-software-license-agreement-become-binding/ 02:36 ireallyhateirc "For browsewrap agreements, acceptance hinges on whether the user had reasonable notice of the terms." 02:39 bgstack15 ContentDB seems overly obsessed with license stuff. You'd think Luanti engine itself would also be bending over backwards to make it hard for people to do stuff, such as by forcing license stuff passed around from server to client. 02:39 [MatrxMT] ContentDB is obsessed with trying not to get sued or attract DMCA takedowns 02:39 bgstack15 Kind of weird the priorities are different 02:42 MTDiscord cdb isnt obsessed with licensing. trust me, could be much more anal 02:43 MTDiscord most just have your ducks in a row and move on 02:44 bgstack15 wsor4035: you're only in the 10 ten most anal folks I've interacted with on the Internet. Unless you also go by the initials NTP from a different community, in which case some thoughts and prayers.... 02:45 [MatrxMT] most of the interaction with CDB approvers ends up being license-related because that's one of the big ticket items on a package and one of the ones most people stumble over at least a bit.. 02:45 [MatrxMT] not because we 02:45 [MatrxMT] 're necessarily like that as a person 02:47 [MatrxMT] if we wanted to be anal about code quality almost nothing would get approved 02:48 MTDiscord to be fair, code quality is just one thing 02:48 user333_ "ContentDB: The place to download MTG." 02:48 MTDiscord https://content.luanti.org/packages/?type=game disagrees 02:48 user333_ indeed 02:49 bgstack15 I showed up only after MTG was separated from the engine. I think as a newbie, I'm glad MTG is not included. That's not what I want to use Luanti for, and I'm glad it's not cluttering up my games/ 02:49 [MatrxMT] it's all over once you have 3 pages of games 02:49 * user333_ found luanti in mid 2024 02:50 [MatrxMT] and I end up keeping a separate games/ dir managed manually if I'm gonna play a bunch of game jam entries 02:50 bgstack15 Hm, here's an idea for Luanti funding: paid code reviews for mods. 02:50 bgstack15 for improving code quality. And I realize luacheck hardly covers it, I feel like I've improved after learning about it. 02:50 user333_ people would just flood it with AI slop reviews 02:50 bgstack15 *but 02:51 [MatrxMT] paypal me five bucks and I'll review your mod (nobody has my details yet lol) 02:51 user333_ like, iirc, what happened to curl bug bounties 02:51 bgstack15 Only $5?! 02:51 MTDiscord to be fair, everyone has your paypal details given the leak 02:51 [MatrxMT] a lot of mods aren't very big 02:51 bgstack15 That doesn't even cover your time to download the mod much less actually read and review it. 02:51 MTDiscord sends blockhead dreambuilder and $5, evil laughter 02:51 bgstack15 Well, UNIX philosophy and all that: I think small mods are great. Perhaps I'm not aware of the number of small mods out there. 02:52 [MatrxMT] consultancy fees lol 02:52 [MatrxMT] so overpriced 02:52 [MatrxMT] well the australian dollar isn't worth as much as the american 02:53 user333_ wsor4035: whoever got paid to review air game had an easy day :p 02:53 [MatrxMT] $5/1ksloc, AI slop would be costlier because of all the redundant functions it puts out lol 02:54 [MatrxMT] wsor4035: I can review dreambuilder if you want, but I suspect you don't care much about actioning any of it 02:54 MTDiscord pretty much 02:55 MTDiscord i just keep it alive 02:55 MTDiscord i care about dreambuilder by proxy of caring about some of the mods in it 02:57 MTDiscord idea to raise money for luanti. allow stupid packages or configurations on cdb, but charge mega bucks for it 02:57 [MatrxMT] all rights reserved contentDB, but you have to pay $5/mo to have the mod up 02:58 MTDiscord 1 million dollars a second 02:58 bgstack15 Lol, go full FANG, and accept $15 a day to promote a mod. There's that method for highlighting mods/packages. 02:59 [MatrxMT] buy your way onto the homepage carousel 02:59 MTDiscord i mean, technically you can already do that 02:59 bgstack15 Haha, how about $$ per antifeature flag already present in CDB, like $20 for the "AI-assisted" flag, and $10 for mods only >=5.15.0, etc. 02:59 MTDiscord it just requires having a good package and bribing an editor 03:00 bgstack15 Yeah, but formalize it, so it's easier to get that sweet sweet moolah 03:02 [MatrxMT] if we formalise, the money has to go to the nonprofit instead of the editors' pockets 03:02 MTDiscord i mean, im just trolling 03:03 bgstack15 Blockhead256: who says? 03:04 [MatrxMT] ruben would have something to say about that.. it's his platform, where's his bribe money? but he can't say any of that, he's asleep :P 13:18 ireallyhateirc After the discussion yesterday I thought I'd do an issue for it to better summarize my arguments and to encourage a more civilized and technical discussion https://github.com/luanti-org/luanti/issues/16972 13:33 MTDiscord I thought of it as more like the player refusing certain licenses 13:35 ireallyhateirc that would be good for me too, but if we can't do that then we should at least be able to display the license agreement to the users in a transparent manner 13:51 ireallyhateirc my initial proposal worked under the assumption that most people here wouldn't be willing to run random proprietary blackbox code in a freshly baked sandbox, but if there's demand for that then I can bend a little 16:32 Desour today on I hate github: it appeared to me that a top level comment in the discussions feature was missing. I know there had been the comment, but I couldnt find it. using the browser's search function with a word that I knew was in there didnt work either. and I've seen no "show hidden comments button". I've changed the sorting to newest then oldest, then it was suddenly there. after chaning to the default sorting it's still there now. what is this crap? you 16:32 Desour can't just drop messages, github! 21:42 Sheriff_U3 Anyone got a recommended mob API? Looking at ContentDB and the forums there's a bunch. Looking for something that's licensed under CC0 or MIT. I don't care if it comes with mobs built-in. (I just need an API.) 22:12 MTDiscord mobkit 22:15 Sheriff_U3 hmm