in discussing with someone else, but im far to lazy now to write this out in a good way, apis generally arent copyrightable, and all this is using the most common api code any game will have. ill let the reader investigate this angle more fully
(part two of two)
1. i really, really dont want to get into a licensing debate, but i think at the basics we all agree you cant copyright an if statement for example. the question then becomes at what point does a code snippet stop being trival and become copyrightable? well grabbing some results from el search engine, https://www.ictrecht.nl/en/blog/what-is-the-license-status-of-stackoverflow-code-snippets#:~:text=As a rule of thumb,law I'm aware of. sure void game is more than a few lines, but its also the lines of code almost every game ever is going to have in it. the detractors might say, but we got you here, if your using void games modnames thats not going to be in every game. well, im looking at this through the lense of cdb (am a staff member after all - this however is my opinion) you have to namespace your mods in a game which removes that very arguement.
with all the above said however, i do personally think that, despite whatever your personal choice and flavor of the licensing wars, a copy left on the computer, on the server, in the public domain, credit only, credit and protect trade names, that simple example code like this if it needs to have a license, should be licensed under 0BSD or some other simple license where people can do whatever with it with worry/care. however this is just my opinion and this is not my package, so the author is free to do whatever they want
2. dont want to ruffle to many feathers, but the response seems to be quite antagonistic (in my opinon) and when followed up in good faith attempt to try and get parts removed from it. while the one liner seems weak, i considered adding additional sentenances, however as this is a personal comment ill leave it at that
(part one of two)
i guess, to get things rolling, replying to the orginal review. personally, at this time i disagree with orginally post, and much perfer void game as a good testing base and also to start making a game with. usually i end up replacing all of void anyways, but its a good launcher when i want to start adding some content first without getting nodes for mapgen, etc at the start.
normally, wouldnt have even bothered to respond, and while i disagree i think the olive has a perfectly valid point and one that probably works for a lot of people, just not me. however i am responding because:
converting this to a thread, not because its a bug report in the traditional sense, but for a few reasons:
use the proper channel for something, if its a package having an issue with licensing, policy, etc -> use cdb reports. if its a bug report, use a packages issue tracker or threads.
abuse/harassment. you mention this yourself, and it is pretty much repeated at this point. you have a bone (right or wrong, not commenting) to pick and essentially are review bombing the author
i hesitate to add this, but ill throw it in. having a viewpoint is fine, talking to otherwise who wish to agree/debate/etc is fine. but please do not shove it down others throats
follow up to my own point 1 now:
in discussing with someone else, but im far to lazy now to write this out in a good way, apis generally arent copyrightable, and all this is using the most common api code any game will have. ill let the reader investigate this angle more fully
(part two of two)
1. i really, really dont want to get into a licensing debate, but i think at the basics we all agree you cant copyright an if statement for example. the question then becomes at what point does a code snippet stop being trival and become copyrightable? well grabbing some results from el search engine, https://www.ictrecht.nl/en/blog/what-is-the-license-status-of-stackoverflow-code-snippets#:~:text=As a rule of thumb,law I'm aware of. sure void game is more than a few lines, but its also the lines of code almost every game ever is going to have in it. the detractors might say, but we got you here, if your using void games modnames thats not going to be in every game. well, im looking at this through the lense of cdb (am a staff member after all - this however is my opinion) you have to namespace your mods in a game which removes that very arguement.
with all the above said however, i do personally think that, despite whatever your personal choice and flavor of the licensing wars, a copy left on the computer, on the server, in the public domain, credit only, credit and protect trade names, that simple example code like this if it needs to have a license, should be licensed under 0BSD or some other simple license where people can do whatever with it with worry/care. however this is just my opinion and this is not my package, so the author is free to do whatever they want
2. dont want to ruffle to many feathers, but the response seems to be quite antagonistic (in my opinon) and when followed up in good faith attempt to try and get parts removed from it. while the one liner seems weak, i considered adding additional sentenances, however as this is a personal comment ill leave it at that
(part one of two)
i guess, to get things rolling, replying to the orginal review. personally, at this time i disagree with orginally post, and much perfer void game as a good testing base and also to start making a game with. usually i end up replacing all of void anyways, but its a good launcher when i want to start adding some content first without getting nodes for mapgen, etc at the start.
normally, wouldnt have even bothered to respond, and while i disagree i think the olive has a perfectly valid point and one that probably works for a lot of people, just not me. however i am responding because:
converted review into a thread
converting this to a thread, not because its a bug report in the traditional sense, but for a few reasons:
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
upon further review, this thread has been deemed to abusive, converting this to a thread (for transparency) and locking
as pointed out to you elsewhere, not everyone is an artist, or even passible levels of ok
converted review into a thread
please use package issue tracker or cdb threads for this
please use package issue tracker or cdb threads for bug reports
converted review into a thread
please use package issue trackers or cdb threads for bug reports
converted review into a thread
please use package issue trackers or cdb threads for bug
converted review into a thread
please use package issue tracker or cdb threads for bug
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
please use package issue trackers or cdb threads for bug reports
please use package issue trackers or cdb threads for bug reports
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
please you issues issue tracker or a cdb thread for bug reports
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
please use packages issue tracker or cdb threads for bug reports
converted review into a thread
converted review into a thread
tell the multicraft authors to rebase from minetest 5.4 to luanti 5.12
please use package issue trackers or cdb threads
converted review into a thread