Ryzom

thats the spirit

Spiderweb, Spiderweb
does whatever a spiderweb can,
saves a world, built of bugs,
thats what the spiderweb does.
Lookout! here comes the spiderweb devs?


i wanted to added a verse about VCA , but 'didn't get the game' and 'thank god' didn't rhyme :/

eriu3 wrote:i wanted to added a verse about VCA , but 'didn't get the game' and 'thank god' didn't rhyme :/

I don't get it why you're - why so many are - so negative about the idea of an Open Ryzom that at the same time offers room for the idealists as well as any companies who want to host servers and provide customer support and marketing. It would help all of the involved parties to prosper, and not least, it would serve to keep Ryzom available for everyone, not in the hands of just the next company to go into receivership and Atys vanishing in some corp drawers forever.
I could understand if you were cautious, or wouldn't believe it could work, fine, but there are some who almost sound as if the people of ryzom.org - who has to my knowledge not excluded anyone here - had pissed on your leg, why? What happened I am not aware of?

khyle wrote: I could understand if you were cautious, or wouldn't believe it could work, fine, but there are some who almost sound as if the people of ryzom.org - who has to my knowledge not excluded anyone here - had pissed on your leg, why? What happened I am not aware of?

it not the people of VCA most people hate, just the proposition. my personal opinion, is that i dont like the fact that the community pays for the purchase of the game code, then developes it for free, then pays a subscription to be able to play it, whilst Xavier takes a wage for his newly set up hosting company (that has servers bought and paid for by us), and since he would be CEO of the company that owns Ryzom, he could sell it at any point after the community had developped it into a successful product (or sell parts of the product eg. engine). The game would be destroyed overnight, once all the story, artwork, lore, would be available for download. read this thread start to finish, alot of good opinions in there, not just mine

http://forums.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27611

but oh well they lost out again, i`m sure we`ll see them again next time ryzom is for sale

eriu3 wrote:the community pays for the purchase of the game code, then developes it for free, then pays a subscription to be able to play it

That's about the idea behind it. No game can survive without someone to pay for server, hosting etc. fees.

eriu3 wrote:whilst Xavier takes a wage for his newly set up hosting company (that has servers bought and paid for by us)

As would anybody else who ran the servers, aka. a "solid company".

eriu3 wrote:and since he would be CEO of the company that owns Ryzom, he could sell it at any point after the community had developped it into a successful product (or sell parts of the product eg. engine)
The game would be destroyed overnight, once all the story, artwork, lore, would be available for download.

That's where you are off... the idea is to put the assets under a public license, so there would be noone to sell anything to anyone, as it's all publicly available. That doesn't have to mean the lore has to be in plain view, as that is one main concern against (and an understandable one); it might be managed by a relatively small circle of people, just as it has been in the past by Nevrax and GF. Of course anybody who wanted to read the lore would ultimately be able to, but that's in the person's own responsibility - if somebody wants to destroy the immersion for themselves, so be it... nobody would be forced to read it

eriu3 wrote:read this thread start to finish, alot of good opinions in there, not just mine

http://forums.ryzom.com/forum/showthread.php?t=27611

Alot of flaming and bashing, too. No need to repeat that.

eriu3 wrote: but oh well they lost out again, i`m sure we`ll see them again next time ryzom is for sale

I think that sums it up quite well... if there's a next time, as opposed to everything vanishing in some spider web.

khyle wrote:Alot of flaming and bashing, too. No need to repeat that.

agree

geniune question about open source projects:

once a piece of software is made opensource can it be changed back to commercial license? or would it have to stay opensource forever by law? I had presumed that the company owners had the power to close the project at any time and still own the rights to the code.

Sorry for derail, once this is answered may the thread get back on topic

The only reason I am concern with this is the fact that this company is, well, unknown and mysterious. The satelite picture shows it is a residential place.

If it was a big game company then I would actualy be relieved. I would understand that such a company would try to keep this a secret. But since the business history of this unknow company has shown they already had financial problems, I just do not want Ryzom to go through the same ordeal again. It will probably take an additional month or two before we even know who the real buyer is.

I am even more concern because I have found NOTHING to replace Ryzom. I had found something special in Ryzom that satisfies me.

I talked to a few people that live near that place and they will try to have a look.

eriu3 wrote:once a piece of software is made opensource can it be changed back to commercial license?

One can only comercially exploit code for which he either owns the copy rights or owns a licence which allows that. Once a piece of software is made open source, only the code that is property of the company that made it open source (or more code if they have the required contracts with the various contributors) can be alternatively sold in a commercial license, but the last open source version still remains open.

kaetemi wrote:One can only comercially exploit code for which he either owns the copy rights or owns a licence which allows that. Once a piece of software is made open source, only the code that is property of the company that made it open source (or more code if they have the required contracts with the various contributors) can be alternatively sold in a commercial license, but the last open source version still remains open.

It really depends on the exact wording of the particular open-source license involved, and whether that wording will stand up in court. This is a much bigger topic than can be adequately addressed here.

iceaxe68 wrote:It really depends on the exact wording of the particular open-source license involved, and whether that wording will stand up in court. This is a much bigger topic than can be adequately addressed here.

Ofcourse, there always are exceptions, best is just to read the license/contract for the project.