Scotland Track

[Pixel]

By the way, what do your recommend for the interaction property of decorating stuff, that never will have a collision to a kart? ghost or none?

Doesn't matter, they are the same ... I just couldn't decide what name to use, so I implemented both, with the idea to get some feedback and then make one the official name.

Cheers,
Joerg

Not to get too far off topic, but the term "ghost" has a different meaning in kart racing, and using it for an interaction property could cause confusion.

[hiker]

Finally Nessy has learned to dive in its lake, that means I got the animation to works for LocXY and Z in the scotland track.

Good

It looked a bit weared until I discovere, that the Transform Properties for this objects must be Zero for RotX, RotY and RotZ.

If you send me/post here the .blend file, I can have a look. I _think_ that RotXYZ should be able to be non-zero, but it might be that the exporter exported some default values for RoxXYZ, and so overwrote those settings.

I had also some tries with rotations and it seamed to work for RotX and RotY, but RotZ looked like mix of z- and x-rotation.
It's not so important for the scotland track, but could it be, that this is failure in SuperTuxKart?

Rotations actually might be a problem - since I am not sure if blender and irrlicht apply the rotations in the same order. When I developed the code I checked each three rotations separately, but I wouldn't be surprised that some fixes might be necessary if several rotations are applied at the same time. I guess I would need a test case to check this (but would prefer doing this once we actually need this ).

Cheers,
Joerg

[Canis Lupus]

After more than a Year the Scotland track is finished, more or less.
It even includes a License file.
I hope, that the lisence for the bagpipe music file is ok.
Recently, I discovered an emails between spams in a seldom used account, about lisence troubles with Alien_Apartments.ogg. I'm happy, that was replaced by another ogg file in the current STK version.

Cheers

Canis Lupus

[rudy85]

I can't download track please can you re-upload ?

[acme_pjz]

I can download the attachment without errors ...

[rudy85]

there was a problem yesterday , sure.

[rudy85]

Great track, so

[jpenguin]

I don't know about the music, but there may be a problem with this file-
-Sky_horiz_17.png CC-BY-NC-SA

I don't think STK can include anything with an NC clause...

A quick search for a useable texture turned up this CC-BY http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/deed.en image
http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Eilenburg_Hainichen_Himmel.jpg

[jpenguin]

The tracks pretty nice, although I found a shortcut :-)

At the end of the first bridge, turn right onto the grass, after you go over the greyish rock, you will drop onto the track before the tunnel with the 2 zippers

[Auria]

Hi Canis,

great job
But we will need to do some license cleanup there

pictures used from wikipedia under CC:

This is not precise enough, there are several types of CC licenses, and several versions. Also CC requires that you name the author of the file. So we will need more information

Selfmade parts and under GPL and CC-BY-SA

You will need to specify the version of the licenses; CC-BY-SA 2.x or earlier are not acceptable, so I suppose you mean CC-BY-SA 3 ? GPL also has several versions

from http://www.marcchehab.org under CC 2.0

CC 2.0 is not a license we can accept; but we have an ivy replacement in secret garden so we can use it

from http://blender-archi.tuxfamily.org/Textures

-Mossy_wall.png CC-BY
-Sky_horiz_17.png CC-BY-NC-SA
-HortonRockWall.png CC-BY
-HortonRockWall2.png CC-BY
-HortonStones.png CC-BY
-Paving_stones_2.png CC-BY

Again, it is necessary to specify the version of CC-BY, as well as the name of the authors. CC-BY 3.0 is OK, CC-BY 2.x or earlier is not

under EFF OAL

We will first need to know the version; OAL version 2 is not DFSG-compliant though, so I don't have too much hope for OAL version 1 but maybe

Now I know this license stuff is annoying, but it's an absolute necessity, it we don't do it then we're basically illegal
Hope you can help us clarify the licensing

[Canis Lupus]

The license stuff is alwaqys a nightmare

The music file is from http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Datei:Skye_Boat_Song.ogg

I have no idea if the license is usable for STK:

This performance, like all Pandora Records recordings, is released under the EFF OAL. [3]
This item of multimedia is licensed under the EFF: Open Audio License version 1. This allows for the copying, redistribution, performance or modification of this music, but not for the modification of the original author attribution (including any audio tags) or the license terms. If no specific license version is mentioned, the latest is assumed. This is currently Version 2 which is CC-BY-SA.

I could live without the bagpipes but the textures are more difficult:

from http://blender-archi.tuxfamily.org/Cate ... _2.5_files
under Creative Commons Attribution License v. 2.5
see http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5

The description of this license seems fine to me


More work will give me pictures from wikipedia:
cc-by-sa-2.5
GNU Free Documentation License, Version 1.2 or any later version
cc-by for puffy?
Free Art License 1.3
This image has been released into the public domain by its author, Hoshie. This applies worldwide.
and so on...

Which one are accepteable?

Cheers
Canis Lupus

[Auria]

Hi,

check http://supertuxkart.sourceforge.net/Sty ... or_add-ons for correct licenses; All CC earlier than 3 is not approriate, unfortunately

[Canis Lupus]

I've compared http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/2.5/ with http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/ and can't see a big difference, just that 2.5 is out off date.
What about old tracks, that use textures with older licenses, like secret garden?

Is there a road map for the next STK release?
(It may take me some time to replace most of my textures and even worse, it keeps me away from building new tracks)

Cheers
Canis Lupus

[Auria]

Hi,

don't get me wrong, I find the licensing stuff annoying too But we have to do it, I hope you're not mad.

Regarding CC 2.5 vs 3.0, I must admit I don't know why 2.5 is not good and 3 is; that's what we were told by Linux packagers. Maybe if you explore from there you can find why Linux distributions don't want it :http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlikeGeneric.28CC-BY-SA.29.2Cv2.5

(EDIT:

The original English US version CC-BY-SA 2.5 license is not considered
DFSG-free. This is due to small technical writing errors; we are quite sure
that it is intended to be DFSG-free. We have been in discussions with
Creative Commons, and the 3.0 version of the license should be DFSG-free.

So it seems like it's a little writing error that's giving us all this trouble :'(
)

Regarding Secret Garden, if you check in SVN, you will notice that I replaced all CC 2.5 textures; you can probably look in other STK tracks to find textures with good licenses. If you have trouble with some textures, just ask, I will be glad to help you!

Regarding a STK roadmap, no, we don't really have any Probably we'd like a release by Christmas

[hiker]

don't get me wrong, I find the licensing stuff annoying too But we have to do it, I hope you're not mad.

Regarding CC 2.5 vs 3.0, I must admit I don't know why 2.5 is not good and 3 is; that's what we were told by Linux packagers. Maybe if you explore from there you can find why Linux distributions don't want it :http://wiki.debian.org/DFSGLicenses#CreativeCommonsAttribution-ShareAlikeGeneric.28CC-BY-SA.29.2Cv2.5

Just for the record: using something with CC 2.5 or even a NC license would not make STK itself illegal, but then STK can not be included in certain (any?) linux distribution. In the past sometimes certain distributions would actually replace textures, and feed them back to us. But obviously we prefer that the artist select appropriate textures, not someone else.

Cheers,
Joerg

[Auria]

Just for the record: using something with CC 2.5 or even a NC license would not make STK itself illegal, but then STK can not be included in certain (any?) linux distribution. In the past sometimes certain distributions would actually replace textures, and feed them back to us. But obviously we prefer that the artist select appropriate textures, not someone else.

Agreed, if sf does accept CC 2.5, I have no idea if they do
The legal part has to do with having to credit authors and clearly indicate the license of every piece. From there, using CC 2.5 will likely result in linux distros replacing the offending textures by whatever replacement they find, which can make your track look very ugly

[Canis Lupus]

In the attachement is the actual state of the scotland track
Most of the textures are redrawn by turning each pixel of the original around and made to CC-BY-SA 3.

The exception are textures from http://blender-archi.tuxfamily.org
I've tried to contact the blender people but didn't get answer so far. I'm sure they will update the license of their texture s sooner or later. Does anybode have some contacts to the blender team?

Cheers
Canis Lupus

[Auria]

Most of the textures are redrawn by turning each pixel of the original around and made to CC-BY-SA 3.

I'm sorry to be such a terrible deal breaker here; but are you aware that what you just did is probably illegal? It is forbidden by most licenses to change the license even if you modified the image

(Now, I have no confirmation that CC 2 licenses cannot be implicitely converted to CC 3 - if you can find someone who is good at licenses I would gladly welcome his advice, but meanwhile we cannot make this assumption)

[charlie]

Yeah, it's still a derivative work if you take an image and flip it or modify it.

The textures not suitably licensed need replacing, not contorting.

Think of it as an opportunity to improve on the textures and create better ones.

[jpenguin]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Creative_Commons_3.0

[Auria]

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Commons_talk:Licensing/Creative_Commons_3.0

Indeed the part that says

The old cc-by-sa-2.5 and cc-by-sa-2.0 licenses include terms that permit derivative works be relicensed under a successor license, so they're automatically upwardly compatible with the CC 3.0 licenses.

seems interesting; but the thing is that they define "derivative works" with quite complex lawyer terms and it's not too clear at which point it can be considered "derivative" Does someone have legal advise to share, I would be very glad

Furthermore, they discuss drafts, we'd need to see how the final text turned out

[hiker]

It looked a bit weared until I discovere, that the Transform Properties for this objects must be Zero for RotX, RotY and RotZ.

I just fixed the problem with rotations in SVN (reason was that the order in which rotations are applied in blender was different from the order in irrlicht). So this appears to be working correct in all cases I have seen so far. If you try this, make sure to use the SVN version of the track exporter and the b3d_importer (which must be installed in the blender script directory!).

Cheers,
Joerg

[Canis Lupus]

My next try with scotland track

I've painted the windows, door, phone Boxes and pillars as good as I could in an very old version of paint shop pro.
The difference is not too obviously if you drive fast enough.
So I think, it should be fine now to set their license to CC-BY-SA 3:
-scotland.blend
-pub2.png
-Public_Phone_Box.png
-POD_Pillar
-Flag_of_Scotland.png
-Door4.png
-Window5.png-Window6.png
-WindowOld.png
-pub1.png


Just a few textures are left from http://blender-archi.tuxfamily.org/Cate ... _2.5_files

-Mossy_wall.png
-HortonRockWall.png
-HortonRockWall2.png
-HortonStones.png
-Paving_stones_2.png

I hope blender will change this license sooner or later, but even not.
In worst case this textures were replaceable by other textures.

By the way, data/textures/tinytux.png reminds me very much to tux from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tux.png
I didn't understand at all on witch license this picture from wikimedia commons might be this time, but should be the autor mentioned in STK?

Cheers
Canis Lupus

[Auria]

Hi Canis Lupus,

great there are only a few textures missing to correct; also the License.txt file will need to be a little more precise. But I can help you with this

Some notes :
brick1.png has no license and author
leaves2.png has no license and author
tileroof.png has no license and author
tiles.png has no license and author

Also: this is minor, but is it intentional that puffy's name is mispelled in "Puffi's Bar"?

I will try to help you with replacements for the other textures.

By the way, data/textures/tinytux.png reminds me very much to tux from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Tux.png
I didn't understand at all on witch license this picture from wikimedia commons might be this time, but should be the autor mentioned in STK?

Agreed; this Tux image is veeeery old, before I was part of the project, in the dark ages of the Game of the Month era where STK was forked from TuxKart The authors of the game at this time were not very careful about licenses so we got a big bunch of textures for which we have no appropriate licensing information. Thanks for the link, I will update our license file

[Auria]

What about these textures? I made them from public domain pictures so they are fine to use