IRC logs for #openttd on OFTC at 2020-11-01
⏴ go to previous day
00:10:35 <TrueBrain> given how those URLs look, I guess I will configure something on AWS to redirect them as good as we can for a while .. on the other hand .. fuck that, search-engines will update fast enough anyway :P
01:09:52 *** Gustavo6046 has joined #openttd
01:17:13 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC
01:17:52 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
01:26:45 *** Gustavo6046 has joined #openttd
02:25:41 <FLHerne> grfcodec does some truly INSANE things with va_lists
02:26:13 <FLHerne> There are call stacks five or so functions deep, passing the damn things around
02:27:07 <FLHerne> (in the process of reimplementing the stdlib in incredibly broken parody)
02:28:07 <FLHerne> We're going to summon Cthulu by accident with this stuff
02:28:33 <FLHerne> (also, my compiler hates it)
02:31:49 <FLHerne> Oh god, myvsprintf recurses
03:11:49 <Eddi|zuHause> that's when you try to do "clever" things but vastly overestimate your cleverness
03:12:02 <Eddi|zuHause> (which is pretty much all the time)
04:44:55 *** Gustavo6046 has joined #openttd
09:21:27 *** WormnestAndroid has quit IRC
09:21:40 *** WormnestAndroid has joined #openttd
09:40:22 *** sla_ro|master has joined #openttd
09:51:56 *** Progman has joined #openttd
10:05:52 *** longtomjr has joined #openttd
10:06:04 <Wolf01> Back to restoring tanks which andy destroyed
10:11:19 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
10:19:52 *** jottyfan has joined #openttd
10:23:43 <longtomjr> Did you figure something out with the freighters yesterday?
10:44:51 *** frosch123 has joined #openttd
10:45:52 <frosch123> TrueBrain: it's ridiculous that "firs" is on that list, given how out-dated that page is. maybe we should redirect to andy's docs instead :p
10:48:51 <TrueBrain> pfff, means he should update the wiki :P
10:50:18 <frosch123> i like that "cheats" is top-8. but what is special about "maglev" to make it top-11?
10:51:05 * andythenorth figured out there's lots of drawing to do :P
10:51:35 <longtomjr> Hehe, but are you going ahead with the existing design for the 2 large freighers?
10:51:35 <frosch123> andythenorth: when was firs 0.9 ?
10:52:24 <frosch123> because that top-30 wiki page starts with it being outdated, because firs 0.9 changed some things :)
10:53:16 <frosch123> coop bundles start with 1.3
10:54:02 <frosch123> nice that it was translated into polish this year :)
10:56:29 <andythenorth> it's a great world
10:57:20 <frosch123> TrueBrain: i think it's not worth installing any redirects :)
10:59:54 <frosch123> bad tb, you broke the image on the firs page :p
11:01:08 <TrueBrain> pretty sure it was always broken
11:01:21 <TrueBrain> don't blame me for the incompetent of others :P
11:01:40 <frosch123> never mind. i jumped the gun :)
11:02:28 <TrueBrain> still possible I broke the template btw :P
11:13:16 *** HerzogDeXtEr has joined #openttd
11:32:36 <TrueBrain> that moment that you move a lot of code around, and it all starts to make a lot more sense ... :D
12:22:10 <andythenorth> so grfs can provide a url to their website
12:23:00 <frosch123> ask google, maybe they install a redirect on their dns
12:27:23 <andythenorth> I did consider just letting them break
12:27:30 <andythenorth> as that's the least effort
12:27:48 <andythenorth> in fact, it's already implemented
12:32:43 <Eddi|zuHause> two questions at that point: 1) how often does it break? and 2) is there a non-broken replacement easily available?
12:33:20 <Eddi|zuHause> (where "easily available" would be "latest version on bananas")
12:34:10 *** gelignite has joined #openttd
12:34:27 <andythenorth> 1) unknown, depends on coop bundles 2) yes
12:34:40 <andythenorth> except in cases like HEQS, FISH, Squid, which are unmaintained
12:39:05 <Eddi|zuHause> by "break" do you mean "currently unavailable" or "moved permanently"?
12:41:05 <andythenorth> my inclination is to file this under not-a-problem
12:41:12 <andythenorth> "things fall apart", it's natural
12:42:21 <andythenorth> that just leaves the slightly odd case of what to insert for dev releases
12:42:31 <andythenorth> for which the docs might not be published
12:42:50 <andythenorth> [the docs are no longer published by CI on every commit]
12:42:53 <andythenorth> manual process now
13:18:34 <Eddi|zuHause> that makes no sense. it's either a dev version or a release
13:36:31 <Eddi|zuHause> i'd say that is a non-issue, only archive docs for release versions. dev version docs stay on "latest"
13:36:39 <Eddi|zuHause> whatever "latest" happens to be
13:48:45 <andythenorth> not sure how to reliably calculate "latest"
13:48:54 <andythenorth> probably not a hard problem, but eh
13:50:24 <andythenorth> maybe python parse module can do it
14:27:24 <andythenorth> maybe I just conditionally drop the action 14 for url, if current rev is not a tag
14:27:42 <andythenorth> all public releases get a tag
14:27:49 <andythenorth> all tags get docs
14:30:53 <andythenorth> "git name-rev --name-only --tags HEAD" might be my friend
14:31:01 * andythenorth copies from Stack Overflow
14:31:39 <andythenorth> hmm comments say that fails in branches
14:34:28 * andythenorth will leave this to competent people
14:34:33 <andythenorth> pixels to draw here
14:49:03 <TrueBrain> w00p, namespaces are not modular units .. and we can simply add new ones if we like to add new features to our wiki :) :D
14:49:41 <TrueBrain> not = now, nasty typo
14:55:52 <frosch123> the reverse transformation of fragments is ambiguous, but well, i got something
14:56:38 <frosch123> slugify lower-cases everything?
14:57:18 <TrueBrain> slugify use python-slugify
14:57:27 <TrueBrain> don't try it yourself pretty please :)
14:57:38 <frosch123> no, i am just reading the diff
14:58:05 <TrueBrain> ah, sorry, misunderstood what you said there :)
14:58:09 <TrueBrain> and yes, slugs should be lowercase
14:58:18 <TrueBrain> you can see around <hN> how the slug should look
15:02:17 <TrueBrain> hmm .. someone uploaded a scenario as an image ..
15:02:20 <TrueBrain> what are we going to do with that?
15:02:41 <frosch123> they just changed the extensio to .png? or what
15:02:55 <frosch123> tell me, i just add it to the perma trash list :)
15:03:30 <TrueBrain> it is really stupid
15:03:44 <frosch123> it's alreasy in the trash list
15:03:59 <TrueBrain> Page/en/Community/Scenarios/Fractal Landscape.mediawiki
15:05:34 <frosch123> yes, but the download is trashed
15:05:40 <TrueBrain> so ... we are going to remove the link?
15:06:00 <frosch123> we can also trash the whole page?
15:06:01 <TrueBrain> or remove the page? As without the download, the page is not useful either
15:06:08 <TrueBrain> I think that is the only sane thing to do tbh
15:06:13 <frosch123> ok, i'll remove the page then :)
15:07:39 <frosch123> i pushed the slugify result
15:11:49 <TrueBrain> and I fixed a lot more {{SERVER}} and others
15:12:01 <TrueBrain> so when-ever you feel like it, please bash the API again for a while :D
15:12:32 <TrueBrain> - --><sup><tt>[[#note-{{{name|}}}-1|[1]]]</tt></sup></span><!--
15:12:32 <TrueBrain> + --><sup><tt>[[#note-name-1|[1]]]</tt></sup></span><!--
15:12:37 <TrueBrain> found an issue with your latest push :)
15:12:55 <frosch123> wtf. template inside fragment? :p
15:13:10 <TrueBrain> you really asking that? :P
15:13:24 <TrueBrain> I would just skip slugify if {{{ is found in hash, tbh
15:13:32 <frosch123> well, we won't fix that anyway. so this is not more broken than before
15:14:38 <frosch123> but okay, added the same { check as for other things
15:14:48 <TrueBrain> and it works btw :D
15:14:53 <TrueBrain> the new hashes point to the right places
15:15:31 <frosch123> i also did some magic bytes:fromhex and decode("utf-8") :p
15:15:38 <frosch123> not sure whether it matters anywhere
15:15:53 <TrueBrain> urllib can decode it too for you :P
15:16:01 <TrueBrain> it is best effort ... :)
15:16:13 <frosch123> it's not percent encoded
15:16:22 <frosch123> it's dot encoded or something
15:16:28 <TrueBrain> owh, they used that silly encoding .. they replaced % with .
15:16:41 <TrueBrain> but reversing that is .. euhm .. yeah, what-ever
15:16:47 <frosch123> yes, but they did not escape ".", so it becomes ambiguous
15:17:05 <frosch123> ".C5" can mean two things
15:17:24 <TrueBrain> slugs are not meant to be reversed :P
15:17:29 <TrueBrain> but their slug is .. extra special :D
15:18:47 <frosch123> i see, adding some zerg
15:19:06 <frosch123> advancing to lair tech
15:21:06 <TrueBrain> okay, what next ... I have a bunch of TODOs to fix
15:21:15 <TrueBrain> File namespace to implement ..
15:21:47 <TrueBrain> but otherwise I think we are getting feature-complete here ... I should make a list of things we need to do or something
15:23:59 <TrueBrain> owh, yes, caching of metadata .. and invalidating ..
15:24:05 <TrueBrain> that really has to be resolved :P
16:25:22 *** snail_UES_ has joined #openttd
16:32:28 <frosch123> damn, i hit a limit of wikitextparser :)
16:33:16 <frosch123> [[Image:Terminus.png|center|none|frame|Einfache Kopfbahnhöfe: der linke benutzt [[Signale/De#Blocksignale|Blocksignale]] <- when i fix the center|none i invalidate the link in the caption
16:37:09 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: BaNaNaS doesn't compress downloads at all, does it?
16:37:17 <frosch123> let's add more parse/unparse :)
16:37:30 <frosch123> FLHerne: there should be http gz compression
16:37:39 <FLHerne> lzma or zstd compression of code-heavy grfs (e.g. FIRS) is pretty good
16:37:41 <frosch123> or some other kind of gz compression
16:38:03 <FLHerne> Only knocks about 25% off zBase though
16:38:10 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: how do you arrive at that conclusion?
16:38:15 <TrueBrain> (that it does not compress?)
16:38:33 <TrueBrain> frosch123: lol .. yeah, links in links took me a while to get right ..
16:38:37 <glx> compressed zBase is still huge anyway
16:38:42 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: That I've never heard anyone mention compression, nor seen the code for it :p
16:39:00 <FLHerne> That doesn't make me at all confident, hence the question...
16:39:01 <TrueBrain> empirical evidence! :D
16:40:47 <TrueBrain> all files are stored and transmitted compressed
16:40:51 <TrueBrain> has been since day 1 btw :)
16:41:51 <TrueBrain> not sure about the "not seen the code for it".. sounds more like: never looked at the code :P :P :D
16:44:04 <TrueBrain> 11 years ago, damnnnnn
16:44:59 <TrueBrain> and I guess it is a compliment to the implementation that you never heard anyone mention it :)
16:45:02 <TrueBrain> as sturdy as a rock :P
16:45:27 <FLHerne> Okay, okay, you can stop beating me over the head with it now :p
16:45:31 <frosch123> best IT is the IT you never hear about :)
16:45:40 <FLHerne> And what frosch123 said
16:45:59 <TrueBrain> haha, sorry FLHerne , wasn't meant like that :)
16:46:09 <TrueBrain> I had to look it up too if it really was .. I assumed it was
16:46:12 <FLHerne> (the bad part is where it works so well that everyone forgets about it, and *then* it breaks for some reason...)
16:46:42 <TrueBrain> one could wonder if there are better compressions than gzip
16:46:46 <FLHerne> Modern compression algorithms do seem to improve on gzip somewhat
16:46:49 <TrueBrain> but .. don't think it will matter too much
16:46:56 <glx> ha that looks like tar extraction of music packs
16:47:06 <TrueBrain> we used to do gzip -9, but it turned out it was only wasting CPU
16:47:33 <FLHerne> FIRS is 4.8M uncompressed, 772K with gzip, 584K with zstd
16:47:46 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: 0.160833333333
16:47:50 <DorpsGek> TrueBrain: 0.121666666667
16:48:05 *** andythenorth has joined #openttd
16:48:09 <frosch123> didn't rb code some dynamic compression rate when sending savegames to joining players, that balances cpu time with how long it takes to send stuff?
16:48:13 <FLHerne> zBase is 313M (!) uncompressed, 274M with gzip, 223M with zstd
16:48:30 <glx> but old clients know gz only
16:48:34 <FLHerne> Doesn't compress nearly so well, I guess because it's mostly images...
16:48:44 <TrueBrain> main issue with a compression like zstd: not many tools support it yet .. and do they have a stable API by now?
16:48:47 <FLHerne> Yeah, but most people are on the latest client
16:49:02 <FLHerne> And the web download links don't even work, as discussed the other day :p
16:49:17 <TrueBrain> the API was in flux for years .. which was rather annoying
16:49:44 <TrueBrain> anyway, FLHerne , the way forward would be: add zstd support in OpenTTD (also for savegames pretty please :P); which requires finding a decent library with the right license, I guess
16:49:52 <TrueBrain> after that, we can change BaNaNaS to store both formats
16:50:08 <TrueBrain> after that, a small change to the protocol to make it "zstd-aware"
16:50:20 <FLHerne> glx: You need current one for multiplayer and recent grf features, I think most non-very-casual players get the current version one way or another
16:50:47 <TrueBrain> OpenTTD is and always has been backwards compatible :)
16:50:53 <TrueBrain> it is not a lot of work to do that
16:51:03 <frosch123> did anyone report that the "download nightly" link on the wiki sidebar does not work? :p
16:51:30 * FLHerne puts it on the list of things that shouldn't be much work ;-)
16:51:41 <TrueBrain> adding it to OpenTTD client is the most work, honestly
16:51:50 <TrueBrain> owh, the content-protocol doesnt have a version number
16:52:19 <TrueBrain> so it will have to be a new packet
16:52:23 <frosch123> TrueBrain: when ottd downloads via http, it sets the supported compression in the header?
16:52:26 <TrueBrain> but that really is minor effort
16:52:34 <TrueBrain> frosch123: the file being sent is a .tar.gz
16:52:43 <TrueBrain> so I hope it doesn't set compression headers
16:52:46 <TrueBrain> it really shouldn't :P
16:53:10 <TrueBrain> (as gzipping a gzip is not really a good use of CPU)
16:53:59 <TrueBrain> well, not having a version number for the content-protocol is a bit of a boo-boo .. we should have known by then that it will come in handy some day
16:55:03 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: It could be worse
16:55:36 <FLHerne> .deb packages contain a file that must contain only the number 9
16:55:43 <TrueBrain> for HTTP it is a matter of adding a query-string, for the TCP protocol it is adding a version number and changing the packet type .. together with adding support in bananas-api and bananas-server, it is like 2 or 3 days work
16:55:52 <FLHerne> For some reason, this number can't be either changed or removed
16:57:27 <TrueBrain> ugh, the Python modules still vendor zstd .. but at least their API seems to have stabilized
16:57:27 <FLHerne> But right now I'm trying to make NML string code slightly less stupid :p
16:57:33 <TrueBrain> I worked with zstd ... 4 years ago?
16:57:36 <TrueBrain> it was a nightmare :P
16:58:01 <TrueBrain> zstd headers were custom per tool .. which was another issue ... just a minor issue :P lol ..
16:58:02 <FLHerne> It seems fairly stable now, some distros are using it for package compression
16:58:15 <TrueBrain> as it really was better in compression and CPU usage
16:58:46 *** Progman has joined #openttd
16:59:02 <TrueBrain> frosch123: only host/user-agent is set, so pfew, it doesn't add extra overhead there :)
16:59:11 <TrueBrain> not really surprising, given OpenTTD doesn't use a http library
16:59:18 <TrueBrain> it is lovely .. "custom" :D
16:59:39 <TrueBrain> I was somewhat surprised it worked with the HTTP the AWS ALB spits out :P
17:00:02 <FLHerne> How about configurable content servers? Then the simuscape people can have their own...
17:00:21 <TrueBrain> what you wrote could mean almost anything :P
17:01:32 <FLHerne> How about making it possible to add custom content-server URLs in the client, so people who don't like BaNaNaS for strange reasons can still have ingame-downloadable content?
17:01:53 <FLHerne> If they set up their own server instance
17:01:55 <TrueBrain> ah :D Sorry, I rather ask than guess and misunderstand :P
17:02:13 <FLHerne> The sticking point is probably that they wouldn't...
17:02:16 <TrueBrain> well, people can run their own content-servers; if they want people to use it, they can cook their own client :)
17:02:55 <frosch123> seriously... what is wrong with the polish translator?
17:02:59 <TrueBrain> it is one of the reasons I wanted to rewrite bananas and have it decoupled, so it could be on GitHub
17:03:00 <Eddi|zuHause> i think allowing people to host their own content servers is dangerous
17:03:06 <frosch123> they translated a "talk" page...
17:03:34 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: for example, I can see CityMania or Reddit to host their own, with their own client
17:03:38 <FLHerne> Perhaps they're a confused robot
17:03:40 <TrueBrain> so it has the downloads they use on their servers
17:04:15 <TrueBrain> but supporting a custom URL .. not sure anyone would ever use that, honestly :)
17:04:32 <Eddi|zuHause> TrueBrain: at best that leads to a more fractured community
17:04:49 <TrueBrain> I am more afraid for the license violations it leads to
17:05:42 <TrueBrain> anyway, I don't see simubla having the infra to run these kind of things honestly :)
17:05:59 <Eddi|zuHause> imho it would be better if we maintain a curated list of download servers, and if they want to be on that list they have to assure us that they respect licenses
17:06:09 <FLHerne> frosch123: When you said Action8 might not work with Unicode, did you mean the grfid, or were you thinking of something else?
17:06:24 <FLHerne> (because I can't find documentation of 'something else')
17:06:32 <TrueBrain> Eddi|zuHause: easier: official OpenTTD uses official infra, which we maintain
17:06:40 <frosch123> FLHerne: that was a wip comment. it works :)
17:06:43 <TrueBrain> if you want to use another content server, bake your own client :)
17:06:52 <FLHerne> frosch123: Ok, thanks :-)
17:07:12 <Eddi|zuHause> the two immediate uses of that would be a) a mirror of the coop grf pack with all the old grfs of people who won't upload to bananas, and b) a bananas-with-experimental-grfs
17:07:16 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: anyway, so the wishlist for content-service is: HTTPS support and zstd :D
17:07:30 <TrueBrain> I prefer HTTPS being done before zstd, if I can put any priority in there :)
17:08:04 <Eddi|zuHause> all the coop grfs are technically distributable, but they clash with the bananas requirement of being the author to upload them
17:08:42 <frosch123> Eddi|zuHause: just let the old stuff die
17:08:49 <FLHerne> Change the BaNaNaS policy?
17:08:58 <TrueBrain> I like that being part of the policy honestly :)
17:09:02 <TrueBrain> it avoids so many silly arguments
17:09:04 <FLHerne> frosch123: Then you get the occasional person with ancient savegames they can't find the grf for
17:09:11 <TrueBrain> "Are you the author? No? Byeeeeeeeeee"
17:09:26 <Eddi|zuHause> it's a perfectly fine policy for a "anyone can upload" server
17:10:12 <FLHerne> "You must be the creator, unless the creator has been inactive for at least five years" would avoid most conflicts
17:10:43 <FLHerne> Also, looking at the various FIRS clones, "the creator" can mean changing a handful of properties and the name :p
17:10:54 <TrueBrain> so many people misunderstand licenses or used the wrong one from their intent
17:11:11 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: Yeah, but if they've been inactive for years they'll never notice anyway
17:11:11 <Eddi|zuHause> FLHerne: nobody would be helped by that policy. the reason it is there is that it's easy to check for us
17:11:19 <TrueBrain> it is a nightmare if anyone can upload anything, because they -think- the license allows it
17:11:27 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: well .. I am not sure about that :P
17:11:48 <TrueBrain> I suspect some people to come back from the death just to stab a bit more :P
17:11:54 <TrueBrain> anyway, it is a subjective term
17:11:59 <TrueBrain> and those are annoying in execution
17:12:04 <TrueBrain> the current terms are objective
17:12:07 <TrueBrain> you are either the author or not
17:12:20 <TrueBrain> it avoids burning developers out doing stupid shit like license conflicts :D
17:12:34 <TrueBrain> we had sufficient of those in 2009 honestly :P
17:12:39 <TrueBrain> And I am still annoyed by them :D
17:13:59 <TrueBrain> I couldn't believe then, and I still can believe now, how much a very small group was absolutely against their work being distributed
17:14:47 <TrueBrain> like .. we build this game for free for anyone to play, and your addition to it, should be heavily guarded and restricted in distribution ..
17:14:56 <TrueBrain> but that is me personally failing to understand :P
17:15:04 <FLHerne> On license technicalities, does bananas keep a copy of the source of GPL grfs?
17:15:14 <TrueBrain> it doesn't have to, so no
17:15:18 <FLHerne> If not, what happens if the original source host disappears?
17:15:31 <TrueBrain> we are not the license owner; we have no quarrel in that
17:16:26 <FLHerne> I don't see how that works
17:16:52 <FLHerne> Unless the uploader gives BaNaNaS a separate non-GPL license to distribute
17:17:04 <TrueBrain> they give us an explicit permission to distribute their work
17:17:06 <FLHerne> Which they might not be able to, if it's based on any code from another grf
17:17:25 <TrueBrain> (hence again that we want the author to upload the file; they can give us a license to distribute)
17:17:42 <andythenorth> did I miss something? :P
17:17:44 <TrueBrain> and from that point on, it doesn't really matter what the license is
17:17:53 <TrueBrain> it can be a commercial license, a CC-0, or anything in between
17:17:54 <FLHerne> But that means that if grf A is under GPL by someone else
17:18:15 <FLHerne> and I use code from that in my own grf B, under GPL terms
17:18:42 <FLHerne> I then can't upload B to bananas, because it would infringe the author of A's rights
17:19:06 <TrueBrain> very strictly seen, but let's please not make this world more complicated than it has to be, and these kind of questions always (and always) lead to there:
17:19:27 <TrueBrain> author of grf A can argue that the author of grf B did not have the permission to license it to us for distribution, and requests removal
17:19:35 <TrueBrain> we will always and always process these kind of requests
17:19:40 <TrueBrain> just ... nobody in his right mind does that
17:19:50 <TrueBrain> so it is more a hypothetical :)
17:20:07 <TrueBrain> we, as BaNaNaS redistribution platform, request that the author can give us a distribution license
17:20:08 <FLHerne> There's strong evidence that not all grf authors are in their right mind, so I'm not sure it's hypothetical :-/
17:20:15 <TrueBrain> if he does, and is not allowed to, that is a problem between the license owners
17:20:16 <Eddi|zuHause> i think we already established that nobody involved is in his right mind in the first place :p
17:20:38 <TrueBrain> it is a hypothetical, as nobody ever made any fuzz about this left or right
17:20:51 <TrueBrain> all issues we had so far, are from other problems
17:20:59 <andythenorth> does anyone but me actually have a lawyer? o_O
17:21:23 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: well, 11 years of people shitting over the licenses of BaNaNaS makes you read up on a lot of it :P
17:21:45 <FLHerne> I get to listen to my brother complaining about accounting technicalities a lot...
17:22:09 <frosch123> if bananas was agpl licensed, would that make all content distributed by it also agpl? :)
17:22:12 <TrueBrain> but anyway, left or right: we have done our due indigents to receive the proper license to distribute. Anyone who disagrees someone else gave us the license, can email us at info@openttd.org :)
17:22:51 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: basically, this is what all distribution platforms do; otherwise you cannot distribute anything in this world
17:22:58 <TrueBrain> as people will fake their permission, sooner or later
17:23:19 <TrueBrain> we do our best with the information provided; if someone provides other information, we will investigate
17:23:28 <andythenorth> frosch123 did you think expanding buy menu padding for ships was viable?
17:23:39 <andythenorth> or shall I just put more blue around the sprite (with python)
17:23:52 <frosch123> andythenorth: i thought michi fixed it all
17:24:08 <andythenorth> maybe I missed something
17:24:17 <andythenorth> I stopped reading github notifications a few months ago
17:24:44 <frosch123> oh, i refering to a change that was 1.4 or 1.5 :p
17:25:42 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: what makes GPL difficult in those regards: if grf A from your scenario is published on BaNaNaS, it is difficult to argue grf B cannot be published there
17:26:09 <TrueBrain> one could argue that by the extend of the fact grf A is already under the distribution license, grf B has to be too
17:26:51 <andythenorth> GPL is almost irrelevant
17:26:56 <TrueBrain> but when it comes to these details of licensing, country-of-origin kicks in
17:27:41 <andythenorth> no author of GPL program A can restrict what author of GPL program B (derived from program A) does
17:27:49 <TrueBrain> in general, I rather talk in the intent of a license .. what did the author wanted to achieve with it
17:27:51 <andythenorth> it's inherent to GPL
17:28:16 * andythenorth reading commits still
17:28:36 <andythenorth> did PRs outnumber issues yet?
17:28:41 <TrueBrain> CC tried to fix this, by having very clear rules of license .. but .. people found typos and mistakes in the text :P
17:28:43 * andythenorth stopped reading any of this stuff
17:29:10 <TrueBrain> (not really typos .. but typos in the intent)
17:29:59 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: well, sort of .. the author of program B has to show the source upon request ;)
17:30:09 <andythenorth> yes, granted that
17:30:18 <frosch123> shall i derail again? we had a dicussion whether playing a CC-ND licensed scenario cannot be played because the savegame is a derivate of the scenario :)
17:30:34 * andythenorth will go back to Horse
17:30:44 <andythenorth> too much of my life spent on licensing debates :)
17:30:45 <TrueBrain> frosch123: I would love to be able to pay a court to get a verdict on these things, really
17:30:47 <frosch123> andythenorth: trains more fun than ships?
17:30:48 <andythenorth> all fun has been exhausted
17:30:55 <andythenorth> trains faster to make than ships
17:30:56 <TrueBrain> as it is a really interesting case to debate about
17:31:01 <TrueBrain> and I am really curious what a judge rules there
17:31:03 <andythenorth> I made an engine in 20 minutes this morning
17:31:40 <andythenorth> fundamentally ships are less interesting than trains :P
17:31:43 <TrueBrain> I wonder mostly what the author would mean by licensing a scenario CC-ND
17:31:46 <andythenorth> they're all just big floating boxes
17:32:10 <TrueBrain> what does he want to prevent .. someone making a derivative of the scenario?
17:32:49 <TrueBrain> which brings us to, I guess, the most forgotten thing in debates about license: someone has to sue first .. so it fully depends on the original author an his intentions :)
17:32:49 <andythenorth> anyone want to provide some python that can figure out if current git rev has an annotated tag?
17:32:58 <andythenorth> true / false would be enough
17:33:09 <frosch123> TrueBrain: they probably want to prevent someone uploading a "better scenario"
17:33:19 <TrueBrain> so they will never sue for savegames :P
17:33:29 <frosch123> i love forks of X that are named "better X" :)
17:33:41 <TrueBrain> but what is fun ... Scenario under CC-ND .. savegames under ???, someone finds an old savegame, makes it into a scenario .. now what?
17:33:56 <TrueBrain> he didn't know the original work was under a license
17:34:06 <TrueBrain> so should we license all our savegames created from a scenario?
17:34:16 <TrueBrain> or just all savegames? :D
17:34:21 <frosch123> TrueBrain: i am sure ottd is at fault. it should have properly inscribed the scenario origin into the savegame, and prevent conversion
17:34:40 <frosch123> ottd does not have enough drm featurs
17:34:41 <TrueBrain> and this is why I love living in The Netherlands .. "common sense" kicks in somewhere there
17:35:16 <TrueBrain> well, yeah, DRM is the result of people wanting to protect what they perceive as theirs no matter what
17:35:32 <glx> "common" is not common for some people ;)
17:35:35 <TrueBrain> (no judgement on if they are correct in that perception, btw)
17:35:49 <TrueBrain> glx: in The Netherlands they mostly find a nice way to balance that issue
17:36:00 <TrueBrain> to weed out the weirdos with their .. "special" world view :P
17:37:09 <TrueBrain> I think in the end, and I hope we do that right, with OpenTTD we try to be a good boy, while not over-complicating the world
17:37:34 <TrueBrain> yes, you can debate every single upload on BaNaNaS .. but in the end, 99% of the uploads are there because the author intended it to be there
17:37:53 <frosch123> also, yay, hobby lawyer talk :)
17:38:07 <glx> indeed there is not so many banned content on openttd
17:38:21 <TrueBrain> very few disputes, and we try to mediate as much as we can
17:38:27 <TrueBrain> sure you can find issues and loopholes ...
17:38:30 <TrueBrain> but are they really relevant?
17:38:39 <TrueBrain> as soon as someone sues ... we are all out of here
17:38:44 <TrueBrain> like ... I guess you won?
17:39:10 <TrueBrain> We did our best, we did our research, we tried to be good .. is the rest really relevant?
17:39:48 <TrueBrain> for the same reason we never send anyone an email (like ever) for any announcement, "because we have your email, and you never did an opt-out" or what-ever :P
17:39:54 <TrueBrain> we don't want to be "that guy" ..
17:40:27 <glx> opt-out is illegal here anyway IIRC
17:40:45 <TrueBrain> but we did that before GDPR already ;)
17:40:55 <frosch123> aw... i thought we could use them for the ottd-monthly-subscription
17:41:06 <glx> yeah because it was the right thing to do from the begining
17:41:07 <andythenorth> also law isn't 0 and 1
17:41:15 <FLHerne> andythenorth: "<andythenorth> no author of GPL program A can restrict what author of GPL program B (derived from program A) does" <- except that B must remain under the GPL
17:41:26 <FLHerne> And BaNaNaS uploads technically aren't
17:41:40 <TrueBrain> I think FLHerne has some reading up to do :)
17:41:42 <andythenorth> yes, being under the GPL is entailed by "GPL program B" ;)
17:41:47 <andythenorth> clue is in the name :)
17:41:58 <FLHerne> s/remain under/not be distributed except under the terms of/
17:42:18 <glx> BaNaNaS can't know it's a derivative work anyway
17:42:32 <TrueBrain> in the end, everyone things they know the law of licensing ... but AGPL hasn't seen any court yet
17:42:42 <TrueBrain> nobody even knows it is a valid license, as a random example
17:42:43 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Right, but BaNaNaS demands a separate, non-GPL-compliant license from the author of B
17:42:56 <andythenorth> which they can grant
17:43:16 <andythenorth> but distribution isn't modification
17:43:17 <TrueBrain> things? thinks .. lol ..
17:43:42 <glx> and if A complains with simple proof, B is removed from BaNaNaS
17:43:44 <FLHerne> andythenorth: They can only grant it with the permission of A's author
17:43:58 <andythenorth> because they're not the author of the whole program?
17:44:22 <andythenorth> so you think our bananas license is wrong?
17:44:42 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Because the BaNaNaS upload license allows unlimited redistribution without the source being provided
17:45:04 <FLHerne> Which isn't GPL-compatible, so it conflicts with the license of the code taken from A
17:45:11 <TrueBrain> common misconception of GPL
17:45:30 <andythenorth> this is all covered in GPL FAQs, if you dig enough
17:45:32 <glx> A must provide source if asked, not BaNaNaS
17:45:46 <andythenorth> distribution is not modification
17:46:00 <andythenorth> I don't think that is a controversial assertion
17:48:25 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Ok, but I don't see how that applies to the GPL
17:48:36 <FLHerne> "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4 and 5, provided that you also convey the machine-readable Corresponding Source under the terms of this License"
17:49:05 <FLHerne> Where 'convey' means "any kind of propagation that enables other parties to make or receive copies."
17:49:22 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Sure, but bananas doesn't make such an offer
17:49:49 <FLHerne> Unless I've badly misread the GPL, there's no exception from a source offer for distributing unmodified binaries
17:49:54 <andythenorth> you've misread the GPL
17:50:04 <andythenorth> we're not the authors
17:50:27 <FLHerne> "we're" being the bananas operators?
17:50:40 <FLHerne> No, you're distributors
17:51:27 <andythenorth> you're probably right
17:51:30 <FLHerne> GPL doesn't say "if you're the author of a modified version you must provide source"
17:51:47 <FLHerne> It says "if you distribute the binary version, you must provide source"
17:51:49 <frosch123> TrueBrain: pushed new stuff
17:52:09 <andythenorth> not sure if it offends me or not
17:52:23 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: somewhat .. how it is presented in-game, it is less .. like that
17:52:35 <TrueBrain> I am still waiting for someone to complain about that
17:52:39 <TrueBrain> would love to change both
17:53:59 <andythenorth> I suspect that all the grfs I've released are GPL violations
17:54:27 <TrueBrain> "art should not be released under GPL licenses"
17:54:40 <andythenorth> nah it's not that
17:54:42 <glx> but there's code in newgrf
17:54:55 <andythenorth> there's no written offer to provide source, valid for 3 years, cost-controlled
17:55:04 <frosch123> andythenorth: have you checked whether you use any trademarked colours in your sprites?
17:55:27 <andythenorth> but seriously, none of my grfs have that written offer
17:55:44 <andythenorth> nor do I have any copyright agreement with contributors
17:55:44 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: relicense to v3, and done
17:55:50 <glx> there's probably a link to your github somewhere
17:56:06 <TrueBrain> okay, more correct: request your contributors to agree with a relicense to v3 :P
17:56:36 <glx> (and good luck to the mental health of the people wanting to read it ;) )
17:57:08 <andythenorth> oh maybe 3C applies
17:57:29 <andythenorth> " Accompany it with the information you received as to the offer to distribute corresponding source code. (This alternative is allowed only for noncommercial distribution and only if you received the program in object code or executable form with such an offer, in accord with Subsection b above.)"
17:57:52 <andythenorth> I suspect the GPL could have a bus driven through it TBH
17:58:11 <andythenorth> I've done a lot of commercial law in the last 20 years, and the GPL v2 looks quite naive now
17:58:28 <andythenorth> time and context
17:58:42 <TrueBrain> I still love that AGPL is a direct reaction of people violating the intend of the license.
17:59:32 <TrueBrain> like I said yesterday ... when is the Star-Trek era beginning? That we can all stop with this non-sense of "mine" and "yours"?
17:59:57 * andythenorth signs up to that newsletter
18:00:34 *** Wormnest has joined #openttd
18:00:42 <andythenorth> so if Github goes down tomorrow, any GPL offer I make is invalid
18:00:59 <andythenorth> gotta love side effects
18:01:09 <TrueBrain> well, not perse btw
18:01:15 <TrueBrain> but the offer-part kicks in for sure
18:01:28 <TrueBrain> it is like .... if you want to be annoying, you can be annoying ;)
18:01:43 <andythenorth> so does anyone have wording for written offer for source?
18:01:50 <TrueBrain> I like how v3 found out it was an oopsie to say 3 years in v2 :P
18:02:12 <andythenorth> oh OpenTTD violates GPL also?
18:03:06 <TrueBrain> relicensing OpenTTD will be interesting :D
18:03:06 <andythenorth> I see no written offer to provide source in any docs
18:03:21 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: the GitHub link is kinda implying that :P
18:03:46 <Eddi|zuHause> you can't ever give a written order with a download
18:03:51 <TrueBrain> and, also, it is given to you at download
18:04:03 <TrueBrain> so the "offer" part is not required ;)
18:04:16 <TrueBrain> the source and binary are distributed next to each other
18:04:54 <andythenorth> and if it's in your ports tree?
18:04:59 <andythenorth> they need to provide the offer there?
18:05:09 <TrueBrain> deb vs deb-src, ofc
18:05:23 <andythenorth> ok so Bananas does need to make the written offer
18:05:48 <andythenorth> was I drawing trains?
18:06:20 <TrueBrain> frosch123: all {{SERVER, localurl and fullurl are gone \o/
18:06:37 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: no, ships
18:06:38 <frosch123> yep, not at 11k issues :)
18:06:47 <TrueBrain> just a few wiki.openttd.org references left
18:07:09 <TrueBrain> removing the "edit" thingy didn't work for all files, it seems
18:07:18 <TrueBrain> ah ... translations ..
18:07:28 <TrueBrain> would you be so kind frosch123 ? :D
18:07:38 <andythenorth> how would we enforce the written offer?
18:07:55 <andythenorth> we don't mandate there has to be a readme etc
18:08:07 <Eddi|zuHause> let me reiterate: there is no way to provide a written offer with a download
18:08:45 <Eddi|zuHause> "written offer" implies being in physical form
18:08:55 <TrueBrain> that was how they meant it to be read in v2, yes :P
18:09:05 <andythenorth> ok well 3A is also out
18:09:07 <TrueBrain> in a different world :D
18:09:19 <andythenorth> "Accompany it with the complete corresponding machine-readable source code, which must be distributed under the terms of Sections 1 and 2 above on a medium customarily used for software interchange;"
18:09:32 <andythenorth> we're not going to distribute source with grfs
18:09:54 <TrueBrain> spaces ... underscores ...
18:09:57 <TrueBrain> maybe just regex the URL away
18:10:05 <andythenorth> but 3C requires 3B anyway
18:10:20 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: the only remotely practical way is to require GPL grfs to come with a link to the source
18:10:26 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: you were talking about OpenTTD, right? :)
18:10:48 <andythenorth> in the absence of source, the author must have complied with B, a written offer
18:10:52 <andythenorth> they have no choice
18:11:06 <andythenorth> author can't fall back on C, only distributors can use C
18:11:13 <TrueBrain> for BaNaNaS the license is irrelevant .. you can like that or not, but at upload you give us a license to distribute
18:11:31 <TrueBrain> so it becomes either dual-licensed with GPL, or the author is in violation of his own license
18:11:37 <andythenorth> but we're distributing GPL artefacts
18:11:45 <andythenorth> we can't wavey hands a dual license
18:11:54 <andythenorth> v2 FAQS are really clear
18:11:54 <TrueBrain> you can dual-license GPL just fine :)
18:12:04 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: if there ever is a complaint about GPL violation, the grf is removed from bananas
18:12:07 <andythenorth> only your own contributions
18:12:07 <TrueBrain> it might not be valid in court .. but is that our problem?
18:12:21 <andythenorth> you can't dual-licenses 3rd party GPL code
18:12:33 <TrueBrain> what I do agree with, and what we talked about before: we should be more clear what the license means for uploads
18:12:36 <TrueBrain> as people are just clicking what-ever
18:12:41 <andythenorth> so we need authors to provide a written offer
18:12:46 <andythenorth> and we have to convey that written offer
18:12:49 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: we, do not
18:12:56 <TrueBrain> we ask if you are the author
18:13:05 <TrueBrain> if you use code of which you are not the author .. it becomes out of our scope
18:13:11 <TrueBrain> we cannot defend the world against license violations
18:13:14 <TrueBrain> as that would mean we cannot operate
18:13:15 <andythenorth> the GPL disagrees
18:13:25 <TrueBrain> again, you are pointing the wrong finger :)
18:13:34 <andythenorth> well I just read the FAQs
18:13:36 <TrueBrain> basically, in a very bold statements: I don't care under what you license your shit
18:13:41 <TrueBrain> if you upload to BaNaNaS, you license us to distribute
18:13:46 <TrueBrain> if that license is valid or not .. that is not OUR problem
18:14:00 <TrueBrain> as "Custom" licenses would otherwise be impossible
18:14:15 <andythenorth> and draw a train
18:14:18 <andythenorth> bu FLHerne is correct
18:14:25 <TrueBrain> so if GPL doesn't allow dual-licensing ...
18:14:28 <andythenorth> the GPL is infectious by design
18:14:51 <TrueBrain> best we can do is advise people not to use GPL (for art, that is always a good idea)
18:15:00 <TrueBrain> but we are back to that we should improve the license selection box :)
18:15:09 <andythenorth> we should ban GPL
18:15:23 <andythenorth> " For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code."
18:15:31 <andythenorth> we have no way to deliver that
18:15:42 <TrueBrain> again, we have nothing to do with the GPL license :)
18:15:52 <TrueBrain> and I know that sounds childish, but it is what is happening
18:16:02 <andythenorth> I don't see how you sustain that argument factually
18:16:08 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: Yeah, but it basically prohibits (pedantic) grf authors from taking advantage of the GPL
18:16:18 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: I don't see how it is not?
18:16:24 <andythenorth> We're distributing.
18:16:30 <TrueBrain> they give us a license
18:16:35 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: the sustain part is basically: "it's fine as long as nobody complains"
18:16:42 <andythenorth> I thought we weren't, we were just providing a platform for authors to distribute.
18:16:47 <andythenorth> but it seems we are
18:16:55 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS distributes under the terms of a separate license granted by uploaders
18:16:59 <TrueBrain> of course we distribute; that is why we wanted a distribution license andythenorth :)
18:17:11 <TrueBrain> the question you are debating: can you dual license GPL
18:17:14 <FLHerne> The problem is that most GPL uploaders technically can't grant it
18:17:21 <TrueBrain> I dunno .. that is not my problem (in a very childish way)
18:17:29 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: You can dual-license GPL, but only if you wrote all of it
18:17:35 <FLHerne> (or get agreement from the other people)
18:17:39 <TrueBrain> so there you have it
18:17:46 <FLHerne> You can't if it uses someone else's GPL code at all
18:17:46 <TrueBrain> we cannot be the police over licensing
18:17:54 <TrueBrain> that would make any distribution platform non-existent
18:18:00 <FLHerne> Which is the point of GPL
18:18:05 <TrueBrain> we do our best to tell people to make sure they can give us the license
18:18:12 <andythenorth> how silly it all is
18:18:13 <TrueBrain> but in the end, the author is responsible for providing the correct information
18:18:26 <TrueBrain> but again, we can improve by giving better information to the uploader
18:18:30 <TrueBrain> informing him of what choice to make
18:18:42 <andythenorth> strictly I need to request removal of all my grfs on bananas
18:18:53 <andythenorth> and every derivative grf that has been forked from them
18:18:54 <TrueBrain> just email info@openttd.org
18:19:01 <andythenorth> yeah, I'll put it on my to-do list
18:19:12 <andythenorth> near the top, or bottom, do you think?
18:19:18 <TrueBrain> and the law in most countries are pretty clear on this btw
18:19:26 <TrueBrain> as distributor, you need to do your best to ensure the law isn't broken
18:19:41 <TrueBrain> but you cannot be responsible for people not giving the right information to you
18:20:12 <TrueBrain> and in my opinion, we do our best to ensure what we do is legal ... with the exception that would could educate people better on the license part
18:20:23 <andythenorth> well we need to remove GPL from the options
18:20:29 <andythenorth> it's a hole in our argument
18:20:34 <TrueBrain> and to be clear: nowhere I debate the GPL license; I debate that we have our own license
18:20:40 <andythenorth> we can't say 'dual-licensed but you can pick GPL'
18:20:43 <TrueBrain> no; you can distribute under GPL file
18:20:51 <TrueBrain> as long as you are the FULL author of the upload
18:21:10 <TrueBrain> you can dual-license GPL, I was just told?
18:21:26 <andythenorth> but we are presenting content as GPL-licensed, we should stop that
18:21:35 <andythenorth> we don't comply with GPL
18:21:49 <andythenorth> that angry Russian dude was correct it seems
18:21:50 <TrueBrain> you do know you don't have to tell anyone how often and how you licensed your software, right?
18:22:11 <TrueBrain> so I can license something GPL, and have some commercial licenses on the side too
18:22:12 <andythenorth> it's right here in the table 'license'
18:22:15 <TrueBrain> so I don't see your argument here?
18:22:31 <andythenorth> we don't meet the requirements for distributing GPL v2
18:22:34 <TrueBrain> yes ... the fact that something has a license .. how does that mean other people cannot have different licenses with that?
18:22:48 <andythenorth> if we want to distribute GPL v2 we have to comply with GPL v2
18:22:51 <TrueBrain> again debating the GPL license .. we are not debating the GPL license :)
18:23:14 <TrueBrain> can you dual license with GPL v2?
18:23:29 <TrueBrain> does an uploader give us such license on upload?
18:23:42 <andythenorth> no, they cannot give us a dual license
18:23:48 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Your argument is wrong, I think
18:23:49 <TrueBrain> you ... just said they can?
18:23:49 <andythenorth> they give us the alternate non-GPL license
18:24:02 <andythenorth> we do not comply with GPL v2, we cannot distribute under it
18:24:09 <TrueBrain> I am not trying to comply with GPL
18:24:14 <FLHerne> andythenorth: The alternate non-GPL license allows bananas to distribute under GPL if it wants to
18:24:14 <TrueBrain> we are not distributing under GPL
18:24:38 <TrueBrain> that is a misunderstanding on your part what that "license" means
18:24:43 <TrueBrain> it is NOT the distribution license we got
18:24:47 <TrueBrain> as that is between the author and us
18:25:04 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS lets clients download grfs unconditionally
18:25:08 <TrueBrain> we can, if you like, add to the page an *, stating: OpenTTD is granted a distribution license by the author
18:25:15 <TrueBrain> does that help? (as it is implied)
18:25:30 <andythenorth> we need to stop distributing GPL v2 content, or comply with GPL v2
18:25:36 <andythenorth> one or the other
18:25:36 <FLHerne> Then *they* can distribute under the terms given in the GPL, but they can't really because they don't have the source
18:25:37 <TrueBrain> we are not trying to comply with GPL v2 :)
18:25:41 <TrueBrain> we are going in circles here :P
18:25:56 <andythenorth> we are distributing GPL v2, we have no choice but to comply :)
18:26:06 <andythenorth> it's not an opt-in, only if we feel like it
18:26:08 <TrueBrain> that is only true if dual-licensing doesn't exist :)
18:26:35 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS gets a license from the uploader to distribute it in any form, regardless of GPL restrictions
18:26:45 <andythenorth> there isn't like a magic condom that makes it GPL v2 when author compiles it, then something else when we distribute it, then GPL v2 again when they download it
18:27:04 <andythenorth> I thought we escaped it because we are only providing the service to authors, but seems not
18:27:06 <FLHerne> andythenorth: The issue is that the uploader can't grant that license in many cases, but that's not BaNaNaS' problem
18:27:16 <andythenorth> FLHerne that's a different issue
18:27:17 <FLHerne> (except perhaps in a 'providing a useful service' way)
18:27:27 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: on that point I btw see what you mean; I really would like a court-ruling on that, but I get that point
18:27:38 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Then I don't see what yours is
18:28:06 <andythenorth> I pasted above, straight from GPL v2
18:28:11 <andythenorth> "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code."
18:28:14 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: if what you say is true, you cannot dual-license GPLv2 :)
18:28:15 <FLHerne> andythenorth: If you write code, and release it under GPLv2, that doesn't prevent you from also selling it commercially or giving it to BaNaNaS
18:28:26 <andythenorth> TrueBrain of course you can dual-license it :)
18:28:32 <FLHerne> andythenorth: You aren't bound by the license because it's your code
18:28:36 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: there is a contradiction in what you say :)
18:28:51 <andythenorth> but we aren't distributing it under an alternative license
18:28:53 <FLHerne> And BaNaNaS isn't bound by the GPL license because you gave it a separate one
18:28:56 <andythenorth> we are distributing it under GPL v2
18:29:14 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: there you are wrong; we are distributing under the license we hav efrom the author
18:29:26 <TrueBrain> what you mistake it with, is that that license is not transferable to the downloader
18:29:31 <andythenorth> this is so boring, can't we just call it a service to authors?
18:29:40 <TrueBrain> under that argument: I download a game from Epic, they have a download license, so now I do too?
18:29:56 <TrueBrain> a license is between 2 parties, right?
18:30:03 <TrueBrain> the license the author gives to its public, is GPLv2
18:30:09 <TrueBrain> the license they gave us, is: you can distribute this
18:30:25 <TrueBrain> a license doesn't have to be transferable
18:30:29 <andythenorth> we cannot distribute GPL v2 licensed programs without complying with GPL v2
18:30:41 <andythenorth> it literally means we cannot cause the 1s and 0s to be conveyed
18:30:48 <FLHerne> ...and the license BaNaNaS gives its downloaders in that case is also 'GPL v2', but separately
18:31:03 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Your argument makes no sense
18:31:09 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: the AUTHOR cannot give us a license for distrubtion without complying to GPLv2 .. so HE has to take care of source distribution
18:31:13 <TrueBrain> HE has to make sure the link points to the source
18:31:21 <Eddi|zuHause> we distribute it with the bananas license, additionally, the user gets to redistribute it with gpl
18:31:25 <andythenorth> how many times do you want me to paste the GPL v2 text?
18:31:31 <TrueBrain> and again,I agree we can help this more, by adding something like: you selected GPL, make sure you link to your source!
18:31:43 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS' distribution isn't covered by the GPL
18:32:07 <andythenorth> the GPL entirely disagrees
18:32:09 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: it really is not
18:32:12 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: what you state makes dual-licensing impossible; proof me wrong? (maybe that helps us understand what you are saying)
18:32:21 <andythenorth> FLHerne we seem to have entirely switched positions, you pointed me to this :P
18:32:41 <FLHerne> "You grant the OpenTTD team the rights to distribute the last version of your content from a central server. We will assign a globally unique identifier to each upload and everyone can download the content when they know that identifier."
18:32:52 <FLHerne> "You grant the OpenTTD team to distribute your latest content via our website."
18:33:03 <TrueBrain> it is a very custom and specific license :P
18:33:06 <LordAro> oh heavens, this is still going on
18:33:06 <andythenorth> how many of you use Bananas for upload?
18:33:19 <andythenorth> when uploading, one has to choose a license
18:33:35 <FLHerne> andythenorth: The chosen license is the one given to downloaders by BaNaNaS
18:33:38 <TrueBrain> mind you, this is the license you grant our downloaders
18:33:41 <andythenorth> one of the options is GPL v2
18:33:51 <FLHerne> Not the one used by BaNaNaS for distribution
18:34:09 <andythenorth> it's GPL v2 program, the GPL v2 applies
18:34:19 <andythenorth> this is so simple, I am not sure how to make it simpler
18:34:21 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: lets pick another example: you download a Game. Steam, for example, has a distribution license, right? But the license of the game is DONOTDISTRUBTE
18:34:24 <TrueBrain> so how does that work?
18:34:56 <andythenorth> presumably a contract between rights holder and Steam, which permits that specific distribution
18:34:57 <TrueBrain> and again, nobody is debating the author has to comply with GPLv2 .. so he has to make sure he has a link to the source there
18:35:13 <andythenorth> it's all very silly
18:35:16 <TrueBrain> but .. by your own logic: how can they put a more strict license on the website?
18:35:23 <TrueBrain> as clearly it cannot be that strict, as I can download it?
18:35:33 <andythenorth> for the Steam case?
18:35:41 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Right, and this is analogous to the terms of service between the rights-holder and BaNaNaS
18:35:42 <andythenorth> the rights hold licenses the distributor
18:36:11 <Eddi|zuHause> how is that any different from bananas?
18:36:15 <FLHerne> You can upload a grf to BaNaNaS with a "do not distribute ever for any reason" custom license
18:36:33 <TrueBrain> that would be way more strict than GPLv2 :P
18:36:38 <Eddi|zuHause> you as uploader agree to be the rights holder, and you agree to the bananas license that is in the TOS
18:36:39 <FLHerne> It doesn't prevent BaNaNaS from distributing it, because you agreed to the ToS when you uploaded
18:36:39 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause the hypothetical Steam license is not GPL v2
18:36:45 <andythenorth> GPL v2 is viral by design
18:36:48 <TrueBrain> so GPLv2 is magic? It overrules other licenses?
18:36:58 <FLHerne> andythenorth: It's only viral if you didn't write the original code
18:37:04 <TrueBrain> so, I come back to my counter-argument: by your statement, dual licensing GPLv2 is impossible
18:37:12 <andythenorth> no it's viral for any distribution
18:37:13 <frosch123> FLHerne: i think pikka uses that license
18:37:15 <FLHerne> andythenorth: If you're the sole rights-holder, you can do whatever the hell you like with it
18:37:24 <TrueBrain> it either cannot be dual licensed, or what we do is valid
18:37:37 <TrueBrain> I can see your point andythenorth , but that means it cannot be dual licensed
18:37:42 <TrueBrain> if that is true, you are absolutely right
18:37:43 <andythenorth> before I re-read the FAQs, I was 100% convinced that distributing e.g. like Github binaries or whatever didn't touch the GPL v2
18:37:49 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: It's 100% not true
18:38:00 <andythenorth> ""For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code.""
18:38:08 <andythenorth> what's not clear in the GPL v2 there?
18:38:13 <TrueBrain> this is the part I am missing in andythenorth's argument .. he says it can be dual licensed, but you cannot violate GPLv2 no matter what
18:38:17 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: but that virality is backwards. gpl says you cannot forbid anyone to redistribute it, you still can add additional distribution ways
18:38:19 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Nothing, but the author isn't bound by their own license
18:38:49 <FLHerne> andythenorth: And they can nominate anyone else to not be bound by their own license either
18:38:51 <andythenorth> anyway law operates on remedies
18:39:02 <andythenorth> so a remedy is to remove the GPL v2 option from Bananas upload form
18:39:03 <TrueBrain> anyway, although it is a nice academic approach to this all, I think we can all agree we can help authors a bit more, by pointing out what they should and shouldn't be doing
18:39:13 <TrueBrain> and we can simply add: you selected GPLv2, please also provide a link to your source
18:39:13 <andythenorth> another remedy is to require an offer for the source
18:39:28 <TrueBrain> as it is the intend of the license
18:39:28 <andythenorth> I really thought this was different
18:39:36 <FLHerne> andythenorth: If you say "I put this in the public domain and you can use it for any reason, but you can also use it under GPLv2", no-one is bound by that
18:39:49 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: yeah, we still do :P And your arguments are not seen as valid ;) So maybe some dinner might help there :)
18:39:56 <milek7_> but GPL text only applies when it is distributed under GPL, so if you use different license that you got, you don't need to look at GPL at all
18:40:00 <Eddi|zuHause> TrueBrain: yes, if you select gpl, it should require you to provide a link to source
18:40:17 <andythenorth> I thought we were just providing an information society service, and the author was the distributor
18:40:18 <TrueBrain> in general, we should tell a bit more what those licenses mean
18:40:23 <andythenorth> but as we have a 'distribution license'
18:40:26 <andythenorth> that doesn't hold up
18:40:31 <TrueBrain> yeah, that setup won't work andythenorth
18:40:34 <TrueBrain> we are distributing
18:40:40 <TrueBrain> we NEED a distribution license to operate
18:40:59 <TrueBrain> but again, in your reasoning, I can make a custom license that also won't work
18:40:59 <Eddi|zuHause> TrueBrain: with a clarification that it should be a link to the static version that you upload, not a moving development target
18:41:04 <TrueBrain> so there is a crack in your logic andythenorth :)
18:41:13 <andythenorth> I think that 'we need to be a distributor' could be argued differently, but I'm not super interested in trying to prove it :P
18:41:39 <FLHerne> andythenorth: The alternative would be to make BaNaNaS a big pile of redirect links to other people's websites
18:41:50 <FLHerne> Which would have interesting security problems
18:42:01 <FLHerne> And break the available-forever promise
18:42:12 <andythenorth> it's the available-forever that makes us a distributor
18:42:12 <TrueBrain> from what you say andythenorth , you deduce that because it is GPLv2, that license is the only license that also holds for us as distribution provider .. I argue: we are given another license that does allow to "break" GPLv2, by the copyright holder
18:42:19 <TrueBrain> this is, as far as I am aware, fully allowed
18:42:51 <FLHerne> The issue is *only* when the uploader isn't the sole copyright holder
18:42:58 <andythenorth> no that's moot for us
18:43:01 <TrueBrain> but, the argument FLHerne started: are most authors aware they have to own EVERYTHING
18:43:18 <TrueBrain> it is our duty to inform them of such, in my opinion
18:43:26 <andythenorth> I have been relying entirely on GPL v2
18:43:33 <TrueBrain> but we are not by law
18:43:35 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: It would be slightly better to fix it, really :-)
18:43:55 <FLHerne> Not legally, but from the perspective of being a convenient distribution platform
18:43:59 <TrueBrain> but reworking the license dropdown has been on my wishlist for a while now
18:44:17 <TrueBrain> as having the GPLv2 as first entry ... not the best move we made
18:44:26 <FLHerne> If the upload thingy required a source tarball for GPL uploads, it would be good
18:44:35 <andythenorth> it would in some cases be huge
18:44:35 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: GPLv2 is great for grf code
18:44:38 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: but you didn't explain to us why the GPLv2 license would win over our custom license?
18:44:42 <andythenorth> and would be a nice vector for malware
18:44:45 <FLHerne> Also, there's so much already under it
18:45:07 <FLHerne> Using a different license by default would divide the ecosystem
18:45:16 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: source tarballs, hmm .. I rather have the authors made aware they should link it
18:45:21 <TrueBrain> as ingame you cannot download the source tarball
18:45:24 <TrueBrain> so it should be in their README etc
18:45:26 <andythenorth> FLHerne strictly most of those licenses are probably invalid
18:45:31 <andythenorth> so it's likely moot
18:45:46 <andythenorth> all of my GPL v2 licenses are invalid I _think_
18:45:48 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: If the author is the sole rights-holder, they don't need to link it
18:45:48 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: problem currently is that people picked GPLv2 because it was the top pick
18:45:52 <TrueBrain> we need some UX to avoid that
18:45:57 <milek7_> maybe to simplify things, it would make sense to remove license selection from bananas altogether? they can provide appropriate gpl/whatever license in archive itself
18:46:06 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: It renders GPLv2 pointless if they don't, but that's not a legal issue
18:46:20 <andythenorth> milek7_ that's an interesting idea
18:46:22 <TrueBrain> milek7_: yes, that works too; it just means a lot of people will distribute WITHOUT license .. which is worse
18:46:43 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: If the author *isn't* the sole rights-holder, which is true for most GPLv2 projects because code-sharing is the whole point...
18:47:07 <andythenorth> TrueBrain not sure how to show that GPL v2 'wins over'
18:47:11 <TrueBrain> hence making the link mandatory is correct for 90% of the cases FLHerne :)
18:47:13 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: Then it doesn't matter whether the author distributes it, because they can't agree to the current BaNaNaS TOS in that case
18:47:16 <andythenorth> are we distributing single or dual-licensed?
18:47:33 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: do you understand the flaw in your argument you give us? GPLv2 wins, but you can dual license .. that makes little sense
18:47:43 <andythenorth> well are we distributing single or dual?
18:47:56 <TrueBrain> we supply the download under the license the author requested
18:47:59 <TrueBrain> WE do not distribute license
18:48:03 <TrueBrain> WE DO NOT distribute any license
18:48:06 <TrueBrain> just to repeat that part :P
18:48:13 <TrueBrain> we CANNOT distribute a license, as we are not any copyright holder
18:48:21 <TrueBrain> copyright holders have licenses
18:48:29 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS distributes under a single license, its TOS
18:48:30 <andythenorth> it's not my argument, it's FSF
18:48:42 <TrueBrain> you can paste all you want, but you fail to explain to me how dual licensing can work in the world you describe :)
18:48:48 <andythenorth> FLHerne ok so the text about GPL v2 is just an honest mistake and needs removed
18:48:48 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS *grants to its downloaders* a single license, the GPLv2
18:48:49 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: we are distributing with bananas license, every downloader gets gpl license
18:49:05 <andythenorth> no this is just a weird linguistic coin trick
18:49:11 <FLHerne> andythenorth: The TOS permits that
18:49:18 <TrueBrain> we are distributing UNDER the BaNaNaS license
18:49:21 <milek7_> bananas distributes on bananas distribution license, license field is basically author declaration about the contents
18:49:22 <TrueBrain> to be more clear and correct :)
18:49:23 <andythenorth> "watch my glove watch my glove, don't watch the coin"
18:49:45 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Licenses aren't attached to the code, they're attached to the code and two parties
18:49:57 <TrueBrain> licenses are between parties, ofc
18:50:03 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Author -> BaNaNaS is TOS
18:50:06 <TrueBrain> for GPL, between the author and the rest of the world :P
18:50:21 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Author -> directly to users is GPLv2, or whatever else the author feels like
18:50:22 <andythenorth> ok so which bits of this are just made up?
18:50:23 <andythenorth> "For example, if you distribute copies of such a program, whether gratis or for a fee, you must give the recipients all the rights that you have. You must make sure that they, too, receive or can get the source code."
18:50:36 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: okay, other example: I buy a CD in the store
18:50:42 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS -> downloaders is whatever the author selected
18:50:46 <andythenorth> it's not metaphors TrueBrain :)
18:50:49 <TrueBrain> the CD doesn't allow me to copy the music and distribute it, right?
18:50:51 <andythenorth> it's not that I don't understand
18:50:54 <andythenorth> it's that you're all wrong
18:51:00 <TrueBrain> and you FAIL to tell us why
18:51:04 <TrueBrain> so I am trying to help you there :)
18:51:06 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Nothing, except that it's irrelevant
18:51:07 <andythenorth> are we distributing any GPL v2 content?
18:51:13 <TrueBrain> repeating yourself rarely helps in making your argument :)
18:51:18 <FLHerne> andythenorth: There's no such thing as "GPL v2 content"
18:51:30 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: bananas is still not distribution VIA the gpl
18:51:43 <TrueBrain> we have nothing to do with the GPL license, basically
18:51:53 <TrueBrain> how else do distribution platforms exist?
18:51:57 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause I thought that, because I thought the author conveys the program to the recipient via bananas
18:52:08 <andythenorth> but we have a ToS that says we are a distributor
18:52:15 <andythenorth> and that's where you are all trying to do the coin trick
18:52:20 <andythenorth> are we a distributor or not?
18:52:38 <andythenorth> and do we distribute any GPL v2 programs?
18:52:54 <TrueBrain> if you own a GPLv2 program, can you license it to someone else under another license?
18:53:00 <Eddi|zuHause> yes, bananas is a distributor. yes, bananas distributes GPL content, no, bananas is NOT relying on gpl to distribute the GPL content
18:53:12 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause that isn't a possible state
18:53:35 <TrueBrain> so dual-licensing is impossible andythenorth , is what you are saying? Sorry, I keep coming back to that, and you are not addressing that :P
18:53:44 <andythenorth> no dual-licensing is entirely possible
18:53:52 <TrueBrain> so how does that work?
18:53:55 <TrueBrain> like, ever, with GPLv2?
18:54:00 <andythenorth> what is not possible is distributing GPL v2 programs without complying with GPL v2
18:54:13 <TrueBrain> so dual-licensing of GPLv2 can only be done if they are compatible?
18:54:32 <TrueBrain> that is what you imply
18:54:33 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: what else do you think dual-licensing si?
18:54:42 <milek7_> I sort of understand andy
18:54:46 <milek7_> technically, file distributed from bananas IS NOT gpl licensed
18:54:58 <andythenorth> well why does it ship with the GPL v2 license then?
18:55:09 <TrueBrain> because you can ship different licenses?
18:55:10 <milek7_> but there's separate author declaration (between author and user, not bananas) that he shared that under GPL
18:55:27 <TrueBrain> I can have different license with you, than with milek7_ , than with FLHerne
18:55:29 <andythenorth> I wish I was wrong
18:55:31 <TrueBrain> and you can all see the license
18:55:34 <andythenorth> then I could draw a train
18:55:38 <TrueBrain> no andythenorth , you are not stating you know the truth
18:55:41 <TrueBrain> NONE of us are lawyers
18:55:50 <TrueBrain> MOST of this is uncontested in court
18:56:01 <TrueBrain> your interpretation is that this is not possible
18:56:09 <TrueBrain> don't mistake understanding for facts, please :)
18:56:18 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: bananas distributes under the bananas license, and just happens to pass on the gpl licence between author and downloader
18:56:35 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause that would be a convenient coin trick if we could pull it off
18:57:02 <andythenorth> but unfortunately the GPL v2 anticipates that case and doesn't permit it
18:57:22 <andythenorth> if we were not a distributor, all would be fine
18:57:29 <TrueBrain> you keep saying you cannot license software with 2 licenses :P
18:57:36 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: if bananas were passing on using the gpl, the licenses would be author-bananas and bananas-downloader, using the bananas license you now have author-bananas and author-downloader
18:58:08 <andythenorth> TrueBrain you can license it with 2
18:58:15 <andythenorth> but you don't get to just break one of them
18:58:26 <TrueBrain> and I would argue, they can
18:58:34 <TrueBrain> and here is in essence where we diverged
18:58:35 <Eddi|zuHause> nobody is breaking anything
18:58:44 <TrueBrain> you claim you have to comply with both licenses
18:58:46 <FLHerne> (I have literally zero artistic talent)
18:58:47 <TrueBrain> I claim you have to comply with either one
18:59:10 <TrueBrain> you say it is AND, I say it is XOR
18:59:13 <andythenorth> the GPL v2 is designed to prevent this pick-and-choose type affair
18:59:15 <TrueBrain> well, OR, but XOR sounds better :D
18:59:20 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: by USERS, yes
18:59:23 <TrueBrain> not by the copyright holder
18:59:34 <TrueBrain> who-ever uses the GPL software, he HAS to follow GPL
18:59:37 <TrueBrain> everyone agrees there
18:59:41 <andythenorth> and whoever distributes
18:59:42 <TrueBrain> but the copyright holder has freedom
18:59:51 <TrueBrain> the copyright holder can do what-ever-the-fuck-he-wants
19:00:02 <TrueBrain> including allowing us to distribute it :P
19:00:43 <andythenorth> including allowing us to distribute it to end users as GPL v2
19:00:55 <TrueBrain> so the only thing that -might- be invalid, is the author giving us this license, and say: but distribute it under GPLv2
19:01:09 <TrueBrain> but, that is really not our problem
19:01:13 <FLHerne> That bit's fine, it's just misleading to users
19:01:56 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Was my utterly terrible diagram any help? :D
19:02:00 <TrueBrain> I like that drawing FLHerne :) It sums it up nicely
19:02:18 <andythenorth> so the relationship between the author and us is irrelevant for GPL v2 yes/no?
19:02:26 <TrueBrain> owh boy, spam incoming .... ( DorpsGek_III this time)
19:02:36 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-api] pyup-bot opened pull request #76: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7rd
19:02:51 <andythenorth> and when the user downloads from us, what license do they get? (assuming the program is GPL v2)
19:03:06 <TrueBrain> they are granted the binary under GPLv2 license
19:03:16 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-cli] pyup-bot opened pull request #14: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oT
19:03:18 <andythenorth> ok so we are distributor of GPL v2 programs yes/no?
19:03:30 <TrueBrain> misleading question
19:03:46 <TrueBrain> from our perspective, the license is our TOS
19:03:52 <andythenorth> the license to the end user?
19:03:56 <TrueBrain> that is how we perceive the content
19:04:12 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] pyup-bot opened pull request #48: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oc
19:04:37 <andythenorth> TrueBrain the ToS has no clauses that apply to end-user downloading?
19:04:57 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: E_DID_NOT_PARSE, can you be more specific?
19:05:12 <andythenorth> how does our Bananas ToS apply to end users who download a GPL v2 program from us?
19:05:22 <TrueBrain> the TOS is between authors and us
19:05:25 <TrueBrain> not between us and end-users
19:05:26 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-server] pyup-bot opened pull request #36: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oV
19:05:36 <andythenorth> so what's the license between us and end-users who have downloaded?
19:05:47 <TrueBrain> what-ever the author asked us it to be
19:06:09 <andythenorth> and sometimes that license is GPL v2?
19:06:20 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/DorpsGek] pyup-bot opened pull request #38: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oH
19:06:27 <TrueBrain> you can try to lure us again and again in the same question: from our perspective, we use our TOS to distribute
19:06:49 <TrueBrain> one can debate if that is allowed or not, but that would be a problem of the author, not of us as platform
19:07:01 <LordAro> TrueBrain: i'm not helping you fix all those pyup PRs :p
19:07:04 <andythenorth> so we aren't distributing any GPL v2 programs?
19:07:09 <FLHerne> andythenorth: > and sometimes that license is GPL v2? <-- yes
19:07:10 <TrueBrain> LordAro: FINNNNEEEEEE :P
19:07:20 <andythenorth> did anyone draw my train yet
19:07:40 <FLHerne> andythenorth: And in that case, the end users being granted the license are bound by GPLv2
19:07:42 <TrueBrain> no, because what you are saying also means: if you license under GPLv2, any other license you provide has to be compatible
19:07:54 <FLHerne> andythenorth: BaNaNaS isn't, because it's granting the license
19:08:18 <andythenorth> FLHerne that would be a sustainable argument I think
19:08:31 <andythenorth> so that would just leave the question, why does Bananas violate the GPL v2?
19:08:36 <andythenorth> and are we remedying it?
19:08:47 <TrueBrain> we are not violating GPLv2
19:09:11 <andythenorth> I admire your sticking to this position
19:09:20 <andythenorth> it is much the better position
19:09:29 <TrueBrain> you do know those remarks are ... well ... mostly used to put people down
19:10:02 <TrueBrain> I am surprised however that you would see BaNaNaS working without it being a distribution platform
19:10:14 <andythenorth> in a public logged channel, if we are having a specific plan to not comply with GPL v2, we should stick to our guns about why
19:10:20 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/master-server] pyup-bot opened pull request #21: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7Kn
19:10:31 <TrueBrain> again, we are complying with GPLv2
19:10:35 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: whatever text is in the GPL only applies if you use the GPL terms to distribute the GPL'ed program
19:10:37 <andythenorth> TrueBrain I thought it was like a service, e.g. like email etc
19:10:43 <TrueBrain> you keep saying we are not, and I don't like that in public channels :D
19:10:44 <LordAro> TrueBrain: how did you know they were coming, ooi?
19:10:47 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause please, re-read that sentence
19:10:55 <TrueBrain> LordAro: I see all pushes to all repositories :)
19:11:06 <andythenorth> in what way can you not use the GPL terms to distribute the GPL'ed program? :o
19:11:07 <TrueBrain> DorpsGek_III is a bit more verbose to me :P
19:11:12 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/master-server-web] pyup-bot opened pull request #15: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7KR
19:11:24 <LordAro> so the pushes happen noticably before the PRs are made?
19:11:33 <LordAro> i'd have thought they would be effectively instant
19:11:36 <TrueBrain> I have 41 unread messages in that channel :P
19:11:41 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: we are using the bananas TOS to distribute the GPL'ed program.
19:11:48 <TrueBrain> no, the bot pushes 1 change per time ..
19:12:19 * andythenorth might actually draw the train
19:12:27 <TrueBrain> I am surprised that in andythenorth 's world it is impossible that we use another license than the content we publish .. I guess he has issues with that .. and I get what he is coming from there .. but wouldn't that make any distribution platform impossible?
19:12:50 <andythenorth> I am just taking a strictly literal, naive interpretation of GPL v2 text
19:13:09 <TrueBrain> yes, you do, and you keep failing to explain why it would hold for OUR distribution under ANOTHER license
19:13:11 <andythenorth> words like 'distribute' and 'must' do not seem hard to understand
19:13:37 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: again, it doesn't matter what the text of the GPL is, as long as bananas doesn't use it to distribute the program
19:13:38 <TrueBrain> what if someone dual-licenses BSD and GPLv2?
19:13:50 <TrueBrain> we can distribute under BSD, and not under GPLv2? Boom?
19:14:11 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause at what point does the program under bananas ToS become back under GPL v2?
19:14:29 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: you perceive licenses in a funny way :)
19:14:38 <andythenorth> Eddi|zuHause can we agree that if the end user receives it under GPL v2, at some point GPL v2 must be applied?
19:14:47 <TrueBrain> you don't receive licenses
19:14:59 <TrueBrain> a copyright holder makes a license between two parties: him and someone on the other end
19:15:22 <andythenorth> you do receive the GPL v2
19:15:29 <andythenorth> it's in the license text
19:15:35 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: what if all people uploading under GPLv2 changed their LICENSE file with a header on top: OPENTTD IS ALLOWED TO DISTRIBUTE THIS FREELY WITHOUT SOURCE
19:15:38 <TrueBrain> would that solve your issue?
19:15:55 <TrueBrain> it is in the same license
19:16:00 <TrueBrain> so it is not GPLv2, but GPLv2+something
19:16:19 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: the user doesn't even need to agree to the GPL until he plans to re-distribute it, but that's a different topic
19:16:22 <andythenorth> my way is an alternative stupid coin trick
19:16:45 *** DasPoseidon has joined #openttd
19:16:49 <andythenorth> hmm nvm, doesn't work
19:17:02 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: you didn't explain your "no"
19:17:08 <TrueBrain> and I am going somewhere with this example ;)
19:17:22 <TrueBrain> I can write any license text I want, right? So I can simply write: GPLv2, but OpenTTD is exempt
19:17:33 <andythenorth> sorry, I got lost in a get-out-of-jail idea
19:17:46 <TrueBrain> we don't need it, as we already have it, but that is okay :)
19:18:02 <TrueBrain> so if everyone would change their LICENSE file, you would agree it is fine to use it like that, right?
19:18:47 <TrueBrain> (ironically, some distribution platforms have asked this btw; to explicitly except them from the license conditions)
19:18:58 <longtomjr> Legal discussion, what happened?
19:19:14 <TrueBrain> the thing here is the explicit vs the implicit andythenorth .. licenses don't have to be explicit
19:19:35 <TrueBrain> (well, explicit for the public)
19:19:41 <TrueBrain> lol .. wrong way of using explicit :D
19:19:41 <andythenorth> the 'no' is based on "You may not copy, modify, sublicense, or distribute the Program except as expressly provided under this License."
19:19:52 <TrueBrain> yes .. we modified the license
19:19:57 <TrueBrain> the license now says: EXCEPT FOR OPENTTD
19:20:01 <TrueBrain> nothing wrong with that, is it?
19:20:21 <TrueBrain> GPLv2 is not some magic thing that cannot be modified .. I am free to alter the text how-ever I want .. it is not GPLv2, sure, but the conditions still apply
19:20:44 <andythenorth> probably fine, but is it the best remedy?
19:20:52 <TrueBrain> no no, I am not trying to remedy anything
19:21:01 <TrueBrain> I am pointing out: you can observe our TOS as being on top of the LICENSE file
19:21:03 <TrueBrain> from our perspective
19:21:22 <TrueBrain> the copyright holder changed the "total" LICENSE file to include that we can distribute it under our TOS
19:21:32 <TrueBrain> so it is not explicit in the LICENSE file
19:21:34 <TrueBrain> although we could do that
19:21:38 <TrueBrain> but it is there nevertheless
19:21:43 <TrueBrain> hence, your argument fails there
19:22:00 <TrueBrain> (as we don't have to announce our distribution license to the end-user, basically)
19:22:09 <andythenorth> oof this fun argument is keeping me away from my intent :P
19:22:16 <andythenorth> which was to release a new Iron Horse on bananas
19:22:21 *** DasPoseidon has joined #openttd
19:22:25 <TrueBrain> so another way to observe this: we get the license from the author with GPLv2 + a big header indicate what is written in our TOS
19:22:28 <andythenorth> which I can't do legally :P
19:22:33 <TrueBrain> before we ship it to the end-user, we stripped our TOS header
19:22:38 <TrueBrain> that is what "legally" is going on
19:22:52 <Eddi|zuHause> i don't see how anyone is actually moving in this discussion
19:23:10 <TrueBrain> I would like to think I just approached this in a novel way Eddi|zuHause
19:23:14 <andythenorth> I started from it's "all fine, GPL v2" allows this
19:23:21 <andythenorth> then FLHerne proved I was wrong
19:23:49 <TrueBrain> as I hope I now showed andythenorth that it is fine to work with licenses like that
19:23:53 <andythenorth> I already knew that I was distributing my grfs illegally TBH
19:24:08 <TrueBrain> the point he basically argues with, is if we should show that "combined" LICENSE file or not ;)
19:24:34 <andythenorth> TrueBrain no, the point is whether we can evade being a 'distributor' in the sense GPL v2 intends
19:24:36 <TrueBrain> the thing is .. that would only fuzz the waters for 99% of the public
19:24:46 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: no; that is not what we try to do
19:24:51 <TrueBrain> we extended the license with some exceptions
19:25:08 <TrueBrain> so we are not trying to evade anything
19:25:14 <TrueBrain> we legally have the rights to do what we do :)
19:25:26 <Eddi|zuHause> there is no way for bananas not to count as a distributor
19:25:34 <TrueBrain> really, absolutely no way :)
19:25:39 <andythenorth> I can't see a way
19:25:45 <TrueBrain> we never intended not to be :P
19:25:51 <TrueBrain> being a distributor helps for a lot of things
19:25:53 <FLHerne> andythenorth: There's no way to evade being a distributor without breaking the intended purposes of Bananas
19:26:01 <andythenorth> the "it's like email" case would never stack up if we want to have rights to keep the content
19:26:06 <TrueBrain> basically .. "comply with any DMCA request, and you can't be sued"
19:26:09 <TrueBrain> a good place to sit :P
19:26:43 <andythenorth> so we're definitely not accidentally a publisher, right?
19:26:52 <andythenorth> being a publisher would be undesirable
19:26:55 <TrueBrain> but you try to argue that because we are a distributor, we have to comply with GPLv2, while we argue: our license is an extension to GPLv2, if you want to look at it from that point :)
19:27:05 <TrueBrain> how would we be a publisher? :D
19:27:20 <TrueBrain> we really are a distribution platform
19:27:31 <TrueBrain> we store and make available for download
19:27:44 <andythenorth> ok so the argument is we extend GPL v2?
19:27:54 <TrueBrain> well, legally we don't do it that way, but it is a fine way to look at it
19:27:59 <TrueBrain> just see our TOS being on top of LICENSE
19:28:15 <TrueBrain> and call it GPLv2+BaNaNaS excempt
19:28:20 <andythenorth> I tend to agree, but I think we're at cross purposes about the problem
19:28:26 <FLHerne> That sounds like a confusing way to describe it, but eh
19:28:41 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: I think it is pretty elegant, as nobody could deny that would be a valid license :)
19:28:45 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Did my revised, slightly-less-shit diagram help? :p
19:28:54 <TrueBrain> mainly as they exist .. "GPLv2 unless you are a nuclear powerplant"
19:29:08 <TrueBrain> if you are a nuclear powerplant: STOP USING OUR SOFTWARE NOW
19:29:11 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: yeah, but people could deny that it describes the actual situation
19:29:29 <TrueBrain> people can deny a lot of things :P
19:29:38 <TrueBrain> fine .. I was trying to stop running the circles we were doing
19:29:51 <FLHerne> Maybe we should just stop
19:29:56 <andythenorth> I would just stop
19:30:07 <andythenorth> also FLHerne sorry I said you had misread the GPL
19:30:10 <andythenorth> you were correct
19:30:16 <andythenorth> my recollection was all wrong :P
19:30:26 <milek7_> TrueBrain: I don't think it is realistic to make blanket statement as "X and you can't be sued"
19:30:32 <milek7_> as you can always be sued :P
19:30:42 <TrueBrain> milek7_: everything in context
19:30:43 <milek7_> or things like viacom v. youtube wouldn't happen etc.
19:31:10 <TrueBrain> as if you go that road, you cannot make any statement
19:31:16 <TrueBrain> lawyers will find a way to proof you wrong
19:32:00 <andythenorth> law is rarely 0 and 1
19:32:12 <TrueBrain> most of this never seen court
19:32:19 <TrueBrain> which makes most of this an opinion
19:33:58 <longtomjr> If there is a lawyer somewhere, that decides to make a case against Openttd because of copyright, there will have to probably be notices and cease and desist before there is a threat. IANAL
19:34:38 <TrueBrain> the discussion was not about OpenTTD, but about BaNaNaS :)
19:34:45 <FLHerne> Anyway, sorry for provoking the long and somewhat-loopy argument
19:34:58 <FLHerne> Do we need one about OpenTTD?
19:35:03 <TrueBrain> this channel has never been this active
19:35:06 <TrueBrain> not sure what you are sorry about :P
19:35:21 * FLHerne has some ideas about the definition of reverse-engineering too :-)
19:35:28 <longtomjr> Have we figured out the color of the shed yet, or should we start that discussion.
19:35:32 <andythenorth> FLHerne it was co-incidental timing, I need to make a written offer for all the grfs and include it
19:35:36 <Eddi|zuHause> longtomjr: if there ever is a cease and desist letter against openttd, the project will be shut down
19:35:37 <andythenorth> probably in readme I guess
19:36:08 <Eddi|zuHause> longtomjr: there is no way we can actually fight that
19:36:40 <longtomjr> Eddi|zuHause, yep probably, or we have to get someone like the fsf to take the case if they are interested.
19:37:07 <longtomjr> Anyways, lets get back to shedds.
19:37:29 <TrueBrain> the one good thing about breaking any license of any kind .. you need someone who is willing to sue first
19:37:44 <TrueBrain> so I come back again: we did our best with everything we did to comply and follow the rules as much as we understand them
19:38:06 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Hm, I think I was actually wrong :p
19:38:15 <TrueBrain> no, you said you were going to stop :P
19:39:01 <frosch123> how many ships did you all draw during the discussion?
19:39:17 <longtomjr> I decorated one station
19:39:33 <longtomjr> but I joined late, and my station still looks bad
19:39:51 <FLHerne> The GPL does allow redistribution of unmodified binary versions without providing the source, but only non-commercially and if you tell people where the person you got it from said the source was
19:40:28 <FLHerne> BaNaNaS doesn't comply with that last bit anyway, so it's irrelevant to most of this discussion
19:42:47 * FLHerne goes back to being confused at nmlc
19:54:46 <andythenorth> FLHerne (putting aside previous discussion) the problem is 95% with the authors not providing the written offer
19:55:28 <FLHerne> andythenorth: I think the more fundamental issue is with the conflict with non-sole-authors and the ToS
19:55:43 <andythenorth> I am going to entirely not pay attention to that :)
19:55:51 <FLHerne> Frankly, the 'written offer' thing is cosmetic trivia that no-one cares about
19:56:13 <andythenorth> it seems naive from 30 years later
19:56:25 <FLHerne> Including a GPL license makes it clear that the source exists, and it's usually easy to find
19:56:29 <andythenorth> like when I have commercial contracts which have to have a seal
19:56:39 <andythenorth> or that fax is legal, but email transmission isn't :P
19:57:33 <FLHerne> Whereas the ToS issue does actually breach the license in a way that breaks the intent
19:57:53 <FLHerne> But tbh, in that case the source is *still* usually available somewhere
19:58:00 <FLHerne> So I still doubt anyone cares
19:58:46 * andythenorth is concerned about GPL notices in source files right now
19:58:51 <andythenorth> I removed them all from my grfs
19:59:05 <andythenorth> but GPL v2 is hazy on whether they are needed
19:59:12 <FLHerne> I think that's another case of "who the hell cares?"
19:59:32 <andythenorth> did you never want 10/10 on your school spelling test? :P
19:59:46 <andythenorth> GPL v2 'how to' says every source file must have them
19:59:52 <andythenorth> but the license, the legal text, does not
20:00:00 <FLHerne> I used to use a one-line header
20:00:14 <FLHerne> Then someone from the FSF told me that was bad and I should use the full one
20:00:20 <FLHerne> So I stopped using one at all
20:00:33 <andythenorth> I was a big fan of GPL
20:00:40 <FLHerne> I'm pretty sure it doesn't breach the license not to
20:00:40 <andythenorth> but I am starting to find it a bit clown shoes
20:01:01 <andythenorth> " It is safest to attach them to the start of each source file to most effectively convey the exclusion of warranty; and each file should have at least the "copyright" line and a pointer to where the full notice is found.
20:01:12 <andythenorth> 'safest' and 'should' are not very legally robust
20:01:32 <FLHerne> In a way, it's a product of the '90s when large companies definitely would just fork and start closed-source projects based on the same code
20:03:08 <FLHerne> These days, Amazon/Google/Facebook/Intel/etc. have got the hang of contributing to public projects, so you can get away with non-copyleft most of the time
20:03:42 <FLHerne> andythenorth: I think it's just to stop people copying the code and claiming not to have seen the license
20:03:54 <FLHerne> But that defence wouldn't stand up in court anyway
20:04:23 <TrueBrain> can you make divs appears/disappears based on a combobox selection? (CSS-only if possible?)
20:04:32 <andythenorth> it's moderately annoying that GPL FAQs have no boilerplate example for 'written offer'
20:04:52 <andythenorth> TrueBrain in my world that requires JS, but maybe there's more modern css selectors now
20:05:02 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: Doesn't the old openttd.org downloads page have that?
20:06:31 <TrueBrain> yeah, was hoping to avoid a bit of javascript
20:06:35 <TrueBrain> I think it can be done with CSS these days
20:07:12 <FLHerne> I'd like to know how if so :-)
20:08:51 <FLHerne> I was thinking sibling selectors and something with option::selected ~ whatever
20:08:59 <FLHerne> But the divs won't be siblings of the options
20:09:48 <andythenorth> oh that only styles the option I guess
20:09:50 <FLHerne> I didn't read the question as being that
20:10:19 <FLHerne> There's no parent-of selector for good reasons
20:10:27 <FLHerne> No-one wants their CSS to have infinite loops
20:10:44 <FLHerne> Well, I'm sure someone would be thrilled to have Turing-complete CSS
20:11:08 * andythenorth finds example written offers
20:11:57 <andythenorth> interestingly GPL v2 FAQs say that a snail-mail physical media option is mandatory
20:12:33 <FLHerne> andythenorth: If anyone asks, print it out and send it to them :p
20:13:10 <frosch123> 7k8 errors, i forgot where i started... is that 75% done?
20:13:46 <TrueBrain> so getting smaler :D
20:15:59 <andythenorth> hmm other authors seem to think a url is sufficient as a written offer
20:16:36 <andythenorth> "3(b) bundle a written offer good for three years to provide that source upon request. (These days this is often a URL)."
20:17:11 <andythenorth> so maybe either in the readme, and/or in the online docs
20:17:58 <andythenorth> the docs linked there are the wrong ones :P
20:18:51 <andythenorth> hmm Iron Horse source is smaller than the grf, maybe we could just put source on bananas :P
20:19:08 <andythenorth> FSF say the source has to be the exact version for the binary, not newer, not older
20:19:35 * andythenorth envisages explaining "git co [tag]" to a future court
20:19:42 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Readme should be good
20:19:54 <FLHerne> I don't think separate online docs is technically sufficient
20:27:34 <andythenorth> also I defeated my own argument from earlier, TB is right
20:27:58 <andythenorth> I was sure we had it sorted when the Russian guy was arguing
20:31:06 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: can't be done with CSS indeed :( Bah
20:32:47 <FLHerne> Wait, have we run out of disagreements?
20:34:27 <andythenorth> we can disagree about whether to close PRs?
20:34:30 <andythenorth> if they're aging?
20:37:42 <TrueBrain> "Note: if you pick GPL v2, GPL v3 or LGPL v2.1, you are obligated to also make your source code available. Please make sure either the "Project site" points to your source code or that the location to your source code is in the description. "
20:37:49 <FLHerne> We settled that, you're wrong
20:39:07 <TrueBrain> funny, releasing scenarios under GPL .. now that is interesting :D
20:39:19 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: "You cannot upload grfs to BaNaNaS if they use code from another author under a GPL variant and they have not given separate permission"
20:39:40 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: is that true if you link the source, still?
20:40:12 <andythenorth> TrueBrain readme would also be valid, if provided
20:40:29 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: harder for us to validate; so I wanted to keep it a bit more strict if possible
20:40:38 <FLHerne> "If your grf includes code written by another author that you have used under GPL terms, you cannot upload it to BaNaNaS without separate permission from that author"
20:40:45 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: I think so :-/
20:41:01 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: why? As if they provide the source link, they are allowed to distribute it, not?
20:41:21 <TrueBrain> (honest question, to be clear)
20:41:26 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: They can, but only under GPL or a compatible license
20:41:39 <FLHerne> i.e. not under BaNaNaS-ToS
20:41:48 <andythenorth> bananas is at that point compatible (I think the argument goes)
20:41:52 <TrueBrain> GPL allows licensing with compatible license
20:41:57 <TrueBrain> for those cases, we are compatible, not?
20:41:59 <andythenorth> bananas doesn't remove any GPL rights
20:42:00 <FLHerne> Because that doesn't enforce the recipient (BaNaNaS) provide the source etc
20:42:08 <andythenorth> I figured that out
20:42:17 <TrueBrain> that is why I want to add these two lines above
20:42:22 <TrueBrain> that does force them to link the source
20:42:29 <TrueBrain> wouldn't that resolve this whole situation?
20:42:43 <andythenorth> FLHerne if author doesn't provide the written offer for source, they haven't validly licensed it under GPL v2
20:42:50 <andythenorth> so GPL v2 cannot be enforced
20:43:13 <andythenorth> if they provide a full GPL v2 license, then they can also accept Bananas
20:43:51 <FLHerne> The case I think is a problem is on the right
20:44:24 <TrueBrain> that would claim our ToS would violate GPLv2, even if there is a source link?
20:44:26 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: I believe BaNaNaS could fall back on clause 3 (b) of the GPLv2 here
20:44:33 <FLHerne> But it would need a ToS change
20:44:47 <andythenorth> it falls back on clause 3 (c)
20:45:07 <andythenorth> what's the proposed ToS change?
20:45:17 <andythenorth> something something 'valid license'?
20:45:54 <FLHerne> Hm, no, perhaps it's already sufficient
20:46:21 <TrueBrain> as far as I understand the argument, it is about not linking the source .. otherwise our ToS should be GPLv2 compatible, I hope :P
20:46:27 <andythenorth> I think it's fine, and I would be -0.5 on trying to armchair lawyer extra rigour
20:46:32 <FLHerne> To ensure it stays inline with 3(c), it needs to prohibit BaNaNaS from distributing it with the source link or license removed
20:46:38 <andythenorth> FLHerne no it doesn't :)
20:46:44 <michi_cc> To chime in here, I'd say that with the Bananas TOS/license right now the case on the right is indeed a problem.
20:46:47 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: that is kinda implied, so I am fine with that
20:47:21 <FLHerne> But I *think* the list of cases in (6) of the ToS, which excludes changing those files, is sufficient
20:47:34 <michi_cc> If you've used stuff solely under GPL, you are not at liberty to re-license it under any random other license unless it is explicitly compatible.
20:47:44 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: yeah, it is really "repackage" for a reason :)
20:48:16 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: honestly, I have no problem adding an entry in the ToS making it explicit that you supply the source when you use GPL as license
20:48:22 <michi_cc> And the whole written offer thing from GPL really is a can of worms as it can be interpreted as "written" in the legal sense with mostly means physically written.
20:48:43 <TrueBrain> michi_cc: in many EU countries they agree'd that "written" can also be email, these days :)
20:48:44 <FLHerne> michi_cc: We had that discussion a few lines up :p
20:48:49 <TrueBrain> they are progressingggggggggggg
20:49:02 <andythenorth> TrueBrain I don't think us requiring offer for source legally required, but would head off certain issues
20:49:30 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: the whole TOS is (mostly) not build for legal reasons, but more for people to understand what we expect of them, honestly :)
20:50:11 <andythenorth> "something something *you* comply with the license you choose"
20:50:20 * andythenorth against armchair lawyering though
20:50:27 <FLHerne> michi_cc: I think we just barely squeeze through with the "offer of source" in the README being compatible with GPL under 3(c), so it doesn't need to be relicensed
20:50:38 <FLHerne> Of course, this entirely contradicts my previous position
20:51:12 <michi_cc> TrueBrain: This is one of those really nice international problem areas. German law for example knows "Schriftform" and "Textform", where only Textform can be email.
20:51:16 <FLHerne> This seems like a "have it both ways" interpretation
20:51:19 <longtomjr> did openttdcoop.org's IRC just go down?
20:51:45 <andythenorth> FLHerne none of my argument was about our ToS vs GPL v2
20:51:55 <michi_cc> Which means for an english law text, there's ample ways to argue how to translate words :)
20:52:06 <andythenorth> my entire argument was that we're not complying with GPL v2 in multiple cases, but I now see what that's moot
20:52:21 <longtomjr> Anyways, I am off for the evening, good luck
20:52:23 *** V453000 has joined #openttd
20:52:42 <FLHerne> michi_cc: tbh, I can't imagine that anyone would ever argue that a NewGRF should come with a paper source offer
20:52:59 <FLHerne> You'd have to send your postal address when applying to download it
20:53:00 <andythenorth> it would be highly jurisdictional I think
20:53:09 <andythenorth> oh FLHerne that would trigger GDPR :D
20:53:31 <michi_cc> Just the make sure, it is definitely not any problem from the Bananas side of view, but might be one of the author/uploader.
20:53:34 <FLHerne> The law does pay *some* attention to common sense and usage
20:54:12 <TrueBrain> can I suggest this TOS change:
20:54:16 <TrueBrain> (only 1) is changed)
20:54:18 <FLHerne> (if you mailed grf collections to people on CDs then yes, sure)
20:54:39 <andythenorth> TrueBrain I think that's good armchair lawyering
20:55:03 <FLHerne> nitpick: "content which comply with" <- pick a tense/plural :p
20:55:22 <TrueBrain> please correct rather than point out
20:55:34 <TrueBrain> (as in, say what you want it to be, not where there is an error :D)
20:55:52 *** planetmaker has joined #openttd
20:55:52 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o planetmaker
20:55:55 <FLHerne> "You will only upload content that complies with license agreements:" ?
20:56:01 <TrueBrain> ah .. isn't content plural?
20:56:35 *** ^Spike^ has joined #openttd
20:57:01 <FLHerne> It is, but it's non-countable :p
20:57:23 *** XeryusTC has joined #openttd
20:57:34 * FLHerne tries to figure out grammar enough to explain it coherently
20:57:39 <FLHerne> (assuming that's even possible)
20:59:29 *** Hazzard has joined #openttd
21:00:07 <FLHerne> Because 'content' is a non-countable noun, i.e. you can have "some content" but not "five content", it behaves as if it's singular in most sentences
21:00:20 <andythenorth> I could not have explained that
21:02:18 *** ChanServ sets mode: +v tokai
21:02:21 <FLHerne> (On the same lines, you can have less content but not fewer content, which is a popular distinction for pedants)
21:03:13 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] TrueBrain opened pull request #49: Add: introduce more clear guidines in the use of GPL licenses https://git.io/JT7yb
21:03:21 <TrueBrain> see the individual commit for the changes (first commit copies 1.3 to 1.4)
21:03:31 <TrueBrain> frosch123: I would like your approval on this if you don't mind terribly :)
21:04:00 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: first commit title -- typo should be 'guidelines'
21:04:29 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] TrueBrain updated pull request #49: Add: introduce more clear guidelines in the use of GPL licenses https://git.io/JT7yb
21:05:18 <TrueBrain> ironically, this should also solve andythenorth's argument :P
21:05:55 <TrueBrain> ignoring if it was a valid argument, many things can be solved by making it more clear to the user in the first place :)
21:06:02 <frosch123> aw, that's what you needed the div-hiding for :p i was wondering about wiki magic
21:06:11 <andythenorth> it was the best argument
21:06:21 <TrueBrain> yeah, I wanted the p only show up when you selected GPL stuff frosch123 :)
21:06:29 <andythenorth> the most beautiful argument, made by the very best people
21:06:43 <TrueBrain> 2 more days ... I am so curious
21:06:52 <FLHerne> I don't think this works for GPLv3 :-(
21:07:06 <TrueBrain> GPLv3 was more relaxed with source, not?
21:07:13 <andythenorth> FLHerne based on license, or FAQs?
21:07:16 <FLHerne> The equivalent is section 6 (c), but that only applies if you received the binary copy in physical form
21:07:31 <FLHerne> (and 'occasionally', whatever that means in legalese)
21:07:45 <TrueBrain> it has been well established that "supply source" these days is a link to GitHub, tbh
21:08:40 <FLHerne> Oh, 6 (d) might cover it
21:08:48 <andythenorth> 6 (d) seems fine
21:08:55 <andythenorth> seems to anticipate all the relevant cases
21:08:56 <FLHerne> "If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party) that supports equivalent copying facilities, provided you maintain clear directions next to the object code saying where to find the Corresponding Source. Regardless of what server hosts the Corresponding Source, you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements."
21:09:06 <FLHerne> The last bit may be an issue
21:09:26 <FLHerne> i.e. if grf authors' source links break, BaNaNaS is obliged to take down the content
21:09:37 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: I am fine with that, honestly
21:09:41 <andythenorth> v3 uses 'convey' more
21:10:02 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: well, more strict: the author is obligated to remove the content from BaNaNaS :)
21:10:05 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: But then it breaks the "all BaNaNaS-downloaded content will always be available" promise to users
21:10:17 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: No, because BaNaNaS is the distributing party here
21:10:30 <TrueBrain> violations of any kind are exempt from that statement :P
21:10:40 <TrueBrain> if someone violate license, it will be removed, also for savegames
21:10:45 <FLHerne> (and we can't rely on the ToS-as-license-to-distribute, because then we have the other issue)
21:11:26 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: yeah, the same argument goes here: the author is responsible for providing us with correct information; they licensed us, if they were not allowed, they are to blame
21:11:33 <TrueBrain> we add these statements to make them aware of that duty
21:12:01 <FLHerne> 6 (d) explicitly states that it's our problem even if a third-party hosted it
21:12:14 <andythenorth> yes that's some poor drafting right there
21:12:15 <TrueBrain> yes, but we had this talk :D They give us a distribution license
21:12:22 <TrueBrain> if they are allowed to do that or not, is up to them
21:12:26 <TrueBrain> if they follow GPLv3
21:12:31 <TrueBrain> and as such, there is no problem
21:12:32 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: We had that, but then you have the GPL incompatibility
21:12:39 <TrueBrain> if they fail to provide the source, they are not GPLv3
21:13:00 <TrueBrain> so as soon as someone tells us: this is not correct
21:13:02 <TrueBrain> we remove the content
21:13:10 <TrueBrain> (well, we give the author some time to restore, ofc)
21:13:11 <andythenorth> "you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements"
21:13:14 <FLHerne> I can see your argument, but in the long run that seems like a practical issue
21:13:18 <andythenorth> we can delegate the obligation
21:13:27 <andythenorth> the author has to make the source available
21:13:30 <andythenorth> they're obligated
21:13:34 <FLHerne> If openttdcoop breaks, say, or even the domain changes
21:13:35 <TrueBrain> well, I can go one step further: with this new TOS, they are in violation of our TOS
21:13:38 <andythenorth> legal shit flows uphill
21:13:51 <FLHerne> The source doesn't only have to be available somewhere, but at the original URL
21:13:58 <andythenorth> are we required to remedy somebody else's GPL violation?
21:14:02 <andythenorth> that would be an interesting court case
21:14:03 <FLHerne> In theory you'd have to take down about half the grfs :p
21:14:17 <TrueBrain> this is what makes these statements in GPL impracticel
21:14:29 <TrueBrain> and as such, I am more worried to comply with the intent
21:14:36 <TrueBrain> more than the strict letter
21:14:52 <andythenorth> it's really quite poor drafting
21:15:02 <TrueBrain> the biggest issue you rightfully pointed out (although I am still not sure that was your initial argument :D), if someone uploads a derived work, he might violate the license without knowing
21:15:14 <FLHerne> tbh, I think the ideal solution intent-wise would be for BaNaNaS to have a "download source" button for each grf version...
21:15:14 <TrueBrain> andythenorth: I have no clue what that means (lacking the english understanding)
21:15:23 <FLHerne> There are obvious practical issues with that idea though
21:15:24 <andythenorth> GPL increasingly reminds of When I Tried To Write Legal Agreements, 20 years ago
21:15:27 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: which is not managable, honestly
21:15:36 <andythenorth> like employment contracts and business contracts and shit
21:15:44 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: that only really works if we build the binaries from the source
21:15:48 <andythenorth> it's not like proper law
21:15:49 <TrueBrain> as otherwise anyone can upload what-ever
21:15:57 <TrueBrain> there has to be a certain amount of trust between BaNaNaS and the authors
21:16:18 <TrueBrain> we are trying to be a good neighbour, we are not trying to be legally correct on all possibly outcomes
21:16:19 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: But then people will want to upload grfs compiled using custom-patched m4nfo, or whatever ridiculous nonsense stack andythenorth is using now
21:16:25 <andythenorth> nobody in a commercial contract would write 'a network server' now
21:16:29 <FLHerne> (install all the python libs)
21:16:32 <andythenorth> they'd write 'or equivalent technology'
21:16:34 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: exactly why that is just an impossible situation
21:16:39 <andythenorth> unless the server was a specific deliverable
21:17:06 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: What stops uploaders putting random crap in the grf tarball currently?
21:17:08 <andythenorth> also no good lawyer should have let 6 (d) pass
21:17:13 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: LOTS of validation
21:17:30 <andythenorth> " the Corresponding Source may be on a different server (operated by you or a third party)" but also "you remain obligated to ensure that it is available for as long as needed to satisfy these requirements"
21:17:31 <TrueBrain> we are sure it is a valid GRF in terms that OpenTTD can load it
21:17:39 <TrueBrain> if you rename a Word document as .grf, it won't work
21:17:40 <andythenorth> it can be third party, but we are obligated?
21:18:19 <TrueBrain> but okay, it really can be resolved as simple as: when reported, we will deal with it
21:18:31 <FLHerne> andythenorth: If you choose a third party, it's on you to contract with them to maintain it indefinitely
21:19:30 <TrueBrain> lol, I only now see we have: "original authors"
21:19:37 <TrueBrain> which for GPL would mean the original author of the work
21:19:44 <TrueBrain> not the one creating the derivative :D
21:19:48 <TrueBrain> not sure that is the intent :P
21:19:50 <andythenorth> "offer equivalent access to the Corresponding Source in the same way through the same place".... "If the place to copy the object code is a network server, the Corresponding Source may be on a different server"
21:19:56 <andythenorth> this is weak drafting
21:20:01 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: Maybe add "In case of GPLv3, the source must be available at this URL indefinitely or your content may be removed in future" ?
21:20:07 <andythenorth> either it's the same place, or it's not the same place
21:20:15 <andythenorth> don't specify a condition, then undermine it
21:20:18 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: meh .. lets not over-lawyer this
21:20:24 *** Hirundo has joined #openttd
21:20:24 *** ^Spike^ has joined #openttd
21:20:42 <FLHerne> That would probably just provoke people to test it, tbh
21:20:45 <andythenorth> we don't need that clause
21:21:03 <andythenorth> author indicates compliance with GPL v3 (if that's what they're using) when they accept ToS
21:21:15 <FLHerne> Unless anyone reads this IRC discussion, no-one else is ever going to care
21:21:21 <andythenorth> if they drop the source from public, they're violating GPL v3
21:21:26 <andythenorth> what happens when authors die?
21:21:32 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] TrueBrain updated pull request #49: Add: introduce more clear guidelines in the use of GPL licenses https://git.io/JT7yb
21:21:33 <andythenorth> who wrote this license?
21:21:45 <TrueBrain> some nitpicking in language ^^
21:21:46 <andythenorth> does it pass on to the estate in the will?
21:21:55 <andythenorth> oh was it Stallman?
21:21:58 <TrueBrain> mostly why I wanted to add this, was not the discussion of today, but the one with the dude that went mental on the forums
21:22:05 <TrueBrain> he was right in that it was unclear when uploading what GPL means
21:22:34 <TrueBrain> now those people can no longer say: we did not know we also had to distribute source
21:22:43 <TrueBrain> he wanted to get the source of GRFs, and the authors refused
21:22:47 <TrueBrain> he was .. not .. really polite
21:22:59 <TrueBrain> they simply picked the first license
21:23:07 <TrueBrain> they really did not understand the license they picked
21:23:14 <TrueBrain> like .. really did not
21:23:17 <frosch123> [21:21] <andythenorth> what happens when authors die? <- you wait 80 years
21:23:23 <TrueBrain> it was an honest mistake of them
21:23:25 <FLHerne> That sounds like !fun
21:23:37 <andythenorth> frosch123 depending on jurisdiction :)
21:24:35 <TrueBrain> it was a typical: you are strictly seen correct, but the way you approach this, is not going to help anyone
21:25:39 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: anyway, fwiw, +1 for the current revision
21:26:07 <TrueBrain> is BSD etc not that demanding on source code btw?
21:27:35 <frosch123> is the discussion done? TrueBrain: did you want to change "original author" -> "author"?
21:27:58 <TrueBrain> frosch123: I kinda do, but are there any implications?
21:28:27 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] TrueBrain updated pull request #49: Add: introduce more clear guidelines in the use of GPL licenses https://git.io/JT7yb
21:28:27 <TrueBrain> I removed "original"
21:28:38 <TrueBrain> like: the ones that came before, or what-ever
21:28:50 *** XeryusTC has joined #openttd
21:28:50 *** V453000 has joined #openttd
21:29:45 <frosch123> do we do us english? otherwise it should be "licence" with c, i think
21:30:22 <frosch123> i guess we use "license" in other places as noun
21:30:35 <andythenorth> I usually type license
21:30:42 <andythenorth> dunno which is correct
21:30:46 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] frosch123 approved pull request #49: Add: introduce more clear guidelines in the use of GPL licenses https://git.io/JT79S
21:30:49 <frosch123> ok, living languages :)
21:31:00 <andythenorth> lots of GB English was arbitrarily frenchi-fied at some point
21:31:05 <andythenorth> to make it seem sophisticated
21:31:10 <andythenorth> and less anglo-saxon
21:31:21 <frosch123> you mean beef instead of cowmeat?
21:32:15 *** Hazzard has joined #openttd
21:33:32 <TrueBrain> frosch123: you mentioned that before, about license vs licence
21:33:38 <TrueBrain> but you never changed it, it seems :)
21:33:41 <TrueBrain> at least we are consistent :)
21:34:35 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] TrueBrain merged pull request #49: Add: introduce more clear guidelines in the use of GPL licenses https://git.io/JT7yb
21:34:59 <TrueBrain> right, so we can now put this baby to bed; andythenorth can sleep well, FLHerne can sleep well, I can sleep well .. what a beautiful world :)
21:36:02 *** planetmaker has joined #openttd
21:36:02 *** ChanServ sets mode: +o planetmaker
21:36:12 <andythenorth> "It notes that late-19th-century dictionaries “almost universally have license both for noun and verb, either without alternative or in the first place”, but insists that the s spelling “has no justification in the case of the noun”."
21:36:48 <andythenorth> GB English is fucked up by lots of people trying to retcon order onto it
21:36:52 <andythenorth> and making it worse
21:36:57 <andythenorth> does German or Dutch have this problem?
21:37:20 <TrueBrain> Dutch is more ... living
21:37:51 <TrueBrain> as in .. the dictionary is what we speak/write
21:37:55 <frosch123> andythenorth: both german and dutch have spelling reforms every 100 years
21:38:03 <frosch123> though we inserted a hotfix after the last one
21:38:06 <TrueBrain> as example, we used to have "cadeau", but these days it is just "kado"
21:38:26 <TrueBrain> you can, strictly seen, still write "cadeau", but ... no
21:38:35 <frosch123> usually the previous spelling remains accepted but deprecated until the next reform :p
21:38:36 <TrueBrain> and that is a change of the last .. what .. 20 years?
21:38:46 <TrueBrain> it is pretty fluent tbh
21:38:52 <TrueBrain> it is not like a moment in time
21:39:01 <TrueBrain> where one "time" begins and the other ends
21:39:14 <TrueBrain> it is constant deprecation of words and creation of new
21:39:22 <FLHerne> Unlike Germany, where they have rules?
21:39:42 <TrueBrain> I don't know much about German :P
21:39:51 <frosch123> andythenorth: also mind the "disputed" in a text about spelling reforms :)
21:39:53 <TrueBrain> except THAT YOU HAVE TO SPEAK LIKE THIS
21:39:54 <andythenorth> English does not do this reform :)
21:39:56 <FLHerne> frosch123's links was what I meant
21:40:19 <TrueBrain> we have purists over here too, that demand we speak "Proper Dutch"
21:40:23 <TrueBrain> but .... they are losing :P
21:41:33 <frosch123> i did not know about the 1944 one
21:41:45 <frosch123> maybe it was reverted or something, let's read
21:41:58 <frosch123> ah, yeah, "planned, but failed" :)
21:41:58 <TrueBrain> they used to publish a "book" in The Netherlands with the latest way of writing
21:42:03 <TrueBrain> but I haven't heard that in YEARS now :P
21:42:10 <TrueBrain> it was a yearly thing :P
21:42:24 <frosch123> we still have it, it's called "duden"
21:42:52 <frosch123> i have no idea how that company/institution interacts with laws on official languages :)
21:43:42 <TrueBrain> for a while we had 2 parties
21:43:47 <TrueBrain> the "green" book and "white" book
21:43:52 <TrueBrain> which both defined the new rules differently
21:44:07 <TrueBrain> newspapers were stating they used one or the other
21:44:55 <TrueBrain> LordAro: ugh, pyup commits are annoying indeed :D Stupid branch protection ..
21:45:36 <TrueBrain> hmm .. how to do this somewhat sane ..
21:47:32 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] TrueBrain updated pull request #48: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oc
21:49:36 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-api] TrueBrain updated pull request #76: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7rd
21:49:43 <TrueBrain> okay, this is too labor intense .. lol ..
21:50:46 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-web] TrueBrain merged pull request #48: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oc
21:53:13 <TrueBrain> sometimes I read funny jokes on the internet
21:53:15 <TrueBrain> "Not only Rust is immature, but it seems the language designers intentionally limited the language. There are a lot of poor programs misusing goto, so they just removed the operator: good for juniors, but too limited for professionals."
21:54:07 <TrueBrain> I wanna bet that who-ever wrote that won't do well in my teams :P
21:54:32 <glx> if you really need to use goto you have other issues :)
21:55:24 <FLHerne> glx: re. PR -- well, I don't have a Windows box in use at all
21:55:27 <TrueBrain> you are either a really bad programmer, or you first tried regex :P
21:55:36 <FLHerne> Can I run minGW in Wine?
21:55:47 <LordAro> gotos have their uses
21:55:48 <FLHerne> I'm not sure that would be representative or useful :p
21:55:58 <FLHerne> In C, they can be good for error-handling
21:56:07 <FLHerne> But Rust has better ways of doing that
21:56:17 <LordAro> the uses are very rare, but to blanket say "do not use them" is naive
21:56:45 <FLHerne> And in Rust, the borrow checker has a hard enough job without the insane control-flow you can create with gotos
21:56:55 <TrueBrain> LordAro: said by a true C-developer ;)
21:57:10 <LordAro> it is where i spend most of my time at the moment :p
21:57:27 <TrueBrain> in C, using gotos is fine .. often the only way
21:57:32 <TrueBrain> in C++ ..... I doubt it was what you meant to use
21:57:39 <TrueBrain> wanting to use it in Rust? You misunderstood the language :P
21:57:39 <LordAro> but yes, i can't (off hand) think of any good usecases for gotos in rust or c++
21:58:03 <LordAro> RAII & exceptions "fix" most use cases
21:58:03 <FLHerne> TrueBrain: If you're in grfcodec, you can use any C or C++ feature you feel like, in combination
21:58:18 <TrueBrain> I don't do C++, so I don't see the issue :P
21:58:27 <TrueBrain> I am the weirdo that wrote OpenDUNE in full ANSI-C (as in, C89)
21:58:32 <FLHerne> It has RAII of variadic argument contexts, using a class in a macro
21:58:39 *** Gustavo6046 has joined #openttd
21:58:59 <LordAro> unless you actually wrote it before 1999 :p
21:59:10 <FLHerne> People say that C++ is a nice modern language encumbered by obsolete C things
21:59:25 <FLHerne> But I didn't realize how much that's true before reading grfcodec code
21:59:39 <FLHerne> It's amazing how insane the edge-cases of combining both sets of features get
21:59:42 <TrueBrain> LordAro: depends ... is 2009 before 1999?
22:00:10 <TrueBrain> I never understood C++ .. never tried to understand it
22:00:16 <TrueBrain> felt like a bandage on C
22:00:29 <TrueBrain> leave all the shit in, and build to make it "better"
22:00:49 <LordAro> sounds like someone who's not actually tries C++ in the last 9 years :p
22:00:49 <frosch123> TrueBrain: there are "modules" now, so sun on the horizon
22:01:03 <FLHerne> C++ is nice provided you don't let people write C in it
22:01:09 <TrueBrain> LordAro: as mentioned, that is a correct statement :)
22:01:23 <TrueBrain> LordAro: at least ADA now has a package manager!
22:01:31 <TrueBrain> it made me laugh so hard :)
22:01:37 <TrueBrain> I think it is Ada, not?
22:01:51 <frosch123> modules will eventually result in a new language, that is abi compatible with c++, but drops the mistakes from the past 60 years
22:01:51 <LordAro> that does sound familiar
22:01:59 <LordAro> i don't think anyone has actually used it
22:02:08 <TrueBrain> it is new! As in, just released!
22:02:43 <LordAro> oh, they've actually released it
22:02:49 <LordAro> it's been in the works for a while
22:03:16 <TrueBrain> About Rust .. I really expected a similar experience as I had with C++, but after doing a decent project with it .. it really is a nice language
22:03:19 <TrueBrain> it really surprised me
22:03:25 <glx> usually with c++ it's "hmm there should be what I need somewhere in STL", until you find it's not available yet (unless in Boost)
22:03:28 <TrueBrain> you learn pretty quick how to deal with lifetimes
22:04:04 <TrueBrain> and I like it is a growing language; they are quick in adding new features :)
22:04:46 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-api] TrueBrain updated pull request #76: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7rd
22:04:54 <FLHerne> Integrating it with other buildsystems is a nightmare though
22:05:00 <frosch123> i wonder about the future of boost
22:05:05 <FLHerne> If you have a standalone Rust-only project it's fine
22:05:32 <frosch123> all the common boost things are now standard, or will be in c++23. it only contains weird stuff now
22:05:38 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-frontend-cli] TrueBrain updated pull request #14: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oT
22:05:51 <TrueBrain> FLHerne: haven't tried that .. but cargo is nice
22:06:11 <TrueBrain> lol .. I only know boost as the shit-library you had to compile ... as in: took 2+ hours
22:06:20 <TrueBrain> that were good times
22:06:31 <TrueBrain> running 64bit before most other people knew what it was
22:06:33 <frosch123> TrueBrain: i compiled firefox, once
22:06:36 <TrueBrain> back in the days ....
22:06:42 <TrueBrain> hahaha, a mistake you also only make once :)
22:06:44 <glx> most of boost doesn't need compile
22:07:07 <glx> but a lot of space on HDD :)
22:07:20 <FLHerne> I have to compile QtWebEngine (basically Chromium) fairly often
22:07:35 <FLHerne> I got OOMs with 32GB of RAM before allocating some swap space
22:07:42 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-server] TrueBrain updated pull request #36: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oV
22:07:50 <FLHerne> Modern web browsers are nuts
22:08:42 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/master-server] TrueBrain updated pull request #21: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7Kn
22:09:14 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/master-server-web] TrueBrain updated pull request #15: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7KR
22:10:01 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/DorpsGek] TrueBrain updated pull request #38: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oH
22:11:45 <TrueBrain> okay, I think I have them all done now ... I will merge them tomorrow or something
22:15:00 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/bananas-server] TrueBrain updated pull request #36: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7oV
22:15:35 <TrueBrain> hmm .. I wonder what pulls in typing-extensions==3.7.4.3
22:15:39 <TrueBrain> as that is a bit of a weird extension
22:16:02 <TrueBrain> it is for 3.5 - 3.6, kinda
22:16:59 <DorpsGek_III> [OpenTTD/master-server] TrueBrain updated pull request #21: Scheduled monthly dependency update for November https://git.io/JT7Kn
22:46:27 *** DasPoseidon has joined #openttd
22:52:20 <FLHerne> glx: Does yout CMake branch pass -Wall -Wextra to the compiler? Peter's branch doesn't seem to
22:52:48 <FLHerne> That might explain the warnings discrepancy
22:52:53 <glx> I just made it support MSVC
22:53:24 <FLHerne> Did you make code changes for that, or just the buildsystem?
22:53:55 <glx> buildsystem and some changes in code
22:54:02 * FLHerne was trying to fix remaining gcc10 warnings, but the code generating them is just nuts
22:54:35 <FLHerne> Did you do anything to `apWrapper` in sanity_defines.h?
22:57:29 <andythenorth> how will 'num_vehs_in_consist' count articulated vehicles?
22:57:48 <FLHerne> glx: I think you just made the code I was looking at even weirder :p
22:58:17 <FLHerne> `va_start(ap.operator va_list&(),v);` // MSVC complains without that call.
22:58:33 <FLHerne> what does it complain, and how does that solve it...?
23:02:23 <FLHerne> andythenorth: Pretty sure it should be 1 still
23:03:03 <FLHerne> If it isn't, nml is buggy and we should fix it
23:04:44 <andythenorth> I think it's just too late to be writing code :P
23:05:24 <glx> FLHerne: because it can't convert apWrapper into va_list
23:06:17 <FLHerne> Despite there being a conversion operator to convert apWrapper to va_list?
23:07:03 <FLHerne> Eh, can't make it worse
23:08:02 <Eddi|zuHause> andythenorth: i think it counts each vehicle part, but the specs should really clarify that
23:10:35 <FLHerne> I looked at the var 0x40 docs, they don't explicitly say either
23:11:28 <andythenorth> I can code guesses until the result looks correct :P
23:12:16 <FLHerne> "Total number of vehicles in the consist, including shadow and rotor for aircraft.", but 4B says "Position of vehicle (articulated part) within the articulated vehicle" [singular]
23:12:49 <FLHerne> If 0x40 includes articulated parts, NML should work around that somehow...
23:13:10 <FLHerne> Hiding weird implementation details is sort of the point
23:13:47 * andythenorth drawing a weird autocoach
23:13:48 <Eddi|zuHause> i can't really imagine the original code from a decade ago skipping articulated parts
23:13:51 <andythenorth> not sure if it will work
23:14:02 <Eddi|zuHause> that variable probably predates articulated vehicles
23:14:04 <andythenorth> it's like SR gate stock, but in an LNER articulated style
23:14:35 <Eddi|zuHause> FLHerne: then there should be another variable
23:14:58 * FLHerne tries to find an nml project that actually uses it
23:15:15 <FLHerne> Eddi|zuHause: In NML, or grf interface?
23:15:53 <Eddi|zuHause> it would be pretty much impossible for NML to do that
23:16:28 <FLHerne> CETS doesn't, DutchTrains doesn't
23:17:03 <Eddi|zuHause> probably DBSetXL uses it
23:17:16 <Eddi|zuHause> but that predates articulated vehicles as well
23:17:32 <Eddi|zuHause> actually, no, it does have some
23:25:37 * andythenorth wonders what position_in_consist_from_end produces
23:25:46 <andythenorth> if last vehicle is articulated
23:27:42 <andythenorth> also in classic error, I was editing the wrong template
23:37:00 * andythenorth will be rewriting some nml :P
23:41:37 <FLHerne> andythenorth: What was the answer?
23:41:48 <FLHerne> Or did you find different issues and get sidetracked?
23:42:01 <andythenorth> each part of an articulated vehicle counts for the total
23:42:28 <andythenorth> I don't think it's automatically wrong
23:42:57 <andythenorth> it just requires an alternative approach to calculating position from end
23:43:51 <FLHerne> I think it's automatically wrong, at least for the NML vars
23:44:40 <FLHerne> If position_in_consist_from_end of the last vehicle isn't 0, that's just wrong
23:45:45 <FLHerne> Hm, it does say "The position of the current vehicle-part from the start of the vehicle."
23:46:35 <andythenorth> as far as I can tell, given a 2 part articulated vehicle at the end of the consist
23:46:54 <andythenorth> position_in_consist_from_end will return 1 for part 0
23:46:57 <andythenorth> and 0 for part 1
23:47:10 * andythenorth might be wrong, I didn't conclusively prove it
23:47:16 <FLHerne> Hm, it does say "The position of the current vehicle-part from the start of the vehicle."
23:50:04 <FLHerne> I still think this is wrong, but it's probably too late now :-(
23:55:15 <andythenorth> well my code works now :)
23:55:24 <andythenorth> not sure if this articulated autocoach is a mistake
23:55:45 <andythenorth> but I wanted a 1-click vehicle with mail + pax
23:57:14 <andythenorth> FLHerne it was the SR birdcage things you posted that gave the idea :)
continue to next day ⏵
