Join GitHub today
GitHub is home to over 40 million developers working together to host and review code, manage projects, and build software together.Sign up
[Approved] Debate about the future of mod CME (development was abandoned) #12
This issue is to debate about the future of this mod because the development was abandoned.
Approved and cloned unforked: https://github.com/minetest-mods/mob-engine
The main question is:
- Do you agree with the incorporation of my fork (mob-engine) in the team @minetest-mods?
- Do you want to collaboratively maintain this code?
- Do you want incorporate another fork instead?
You can simple answer I agree or formulate your opinion.
@BlockMen: not contacted yet
@Athemis: not contacted yet
@LNJ2: agree / maintain
All (developers / users / gamers)
@bbaez: not contacted yet
@LNJ2, thanks for your answer.
Good point about reference "forked from".
Please, share this debate with other people. Thanks!
@LNJ2, I remove the reference "forked from" because the changes in license, etc...
@Rogier-5, when you say "imparcial", do you mean "with no opinion"?
And in develop wiki:
Can you explain how it's incompatible?
@Diogo-Gomes You can use LGPLv2.1**+** in a LGPLv3(+) project and use it as LGPLv3. But you can't use LGPLv3(+) code in a LGPLv2.1+ project! If you say that your project is LGPLv3 or later, you can't use it as LGPLv2.1 (only LGPLv4). So you would have to add "or LGPLv2.1 or any later version", but that is LGPLv2.1+ again.
IANAL, but IMO the minetest api is public, so it can be used by any mod, just like the linux kernel can be used by any program.
As cme is a modpack, I think that even every mod in the pack could have a different license, as long as it sticks to the public api of the creatures mod.
However, if somebody wants to add code to cme, or to one of the animals, that is copied from another location, e.g. because that code uses an interesting fighting implementation, then that code and the mod it is added to need to be license-compatible.
So if you might ever want to incorporate code originally written for another mod, with a different license, your license would have to be compatible with that mod's license. So your choice of license can / will also limit what you are able to do with the code in the future.
@Diogo-Gomes I saw you removed the original license file. However, the license file expressly forbids that ! Again, IANAL, but unless you have explicit permission from @BlockMen, I'd keep the original file, but document that all future contributions will be licensed with the new license. And of course, you must be certain that the new license and BlockMen's license are compatible !
Okay, I understand about Minetest license.
@LNJ2 , about git, I use gitflow (link,link) and senver 2.0.0 and commits you mention are automatic. (I use that in all my professional projects because perhaps will be a standard in a near future...)
@LNJ2 , git-flow is cli
@Diogo-Gomes impartial = neutral.
As I don't intend to contribute (although I may still do if I run into a bug that I want removed), I don't think I should have a say. And in the end, all depends on the direction things take, and I don't know that in advance anyway.
Re: license removal: OK, I missed that.
Do realize that if you want to change the license in the future, either you'd have to get permission from all contributors, or the new license would have to be compatible with the one you're choosing now, which, I get the impression, is not very likely if you choose (L)GPL3.
(or I suppose: you'd have to revert the commits from any contributors that do not agree, and rewrite them)
@Diogo-Gomes ups.. (I didn't even opened the links, sorry)
senver 2.0.0 is nice (and I also use it, in some of my project [not TNG]) :)
And I also like this workflow (and I just use a bit simpler version, without release branches) http://nvie.com/posts/a-successful-git-branching-model/
And this git-flow extension also seems cool, but I'm sure you can configure it so that it won't add merge commits (just uses git rebase and git pull)