Ryzom

<deleted - read up before posting...>

Anissa wrote:Honestly, I feel weird/bad when I consider that I may be unfairly and somehow "bashing" this project, specially when confronted to optimistic and valid but opposed opinions and views -- although I would not think I am actually bashing, I'd say I am rather being vocal about possible "issues" that one may expect... -- and I do respect the (healthy) optimism and motivation that you, amongst others, share.

Don't worry about it lol, that's what freedom and democracy is all about - having different opinions, but still be able to find common grounds and to get along.

Anissa wrote: Nevertheless, while your statements are unarguably true, they do not seem to address the issues I raise...

I'll be happy to rise the issue on your behalf.

Anissa wrote: I guess that by this you mean "when we have an infrastructure set by M. Lacambre to provide one server hosting service"

Yes, and you're right - there is a time frame attached. We *aim* for this period to be no less than three months (after the control of the assets has bean transferred, which I'm told can be several weeks - even mounts). I'm not aware of any upper cap for the hosting service activity though.

Anissa wrote: ...thanks for reading.

Always a pleasure

mithur wrote:For a start, one of their mains objectives will be porting ryzom to Linux, It will take a lot of efford, that's for sure. Surely it will still run in windows at the end, but my think is that the developing efford could be done in something else..

No, GPL isn't equal to Linux, and it won't be their main goal, GPL is about code not which OS/platform it is run on. The first task is to replace any (3rd party licenced) code to GPL code (here I assume that some of the code can't be passed on to ryzom.org for license reason), so anyone is able to use it. The GPL code can then be compiled on any platform you choose, OSX, MS Windows, Amiga, etc. simply because GPL foundation is open and available on nearly any OS there is (GNU compilers and utils).

mithur wrote:My second concern is the politcal side. I want Ryzon being a reference in the MMRPG world, not a flag for the free software. I've been with the Open Source software for ten years now, but I'm agaisnt the radicalization of the FSF. I'm more in the way of thinking of Torvalds. I can stand with a GPL Ryzon, but no with a FSF Ryzon. It's not the same.

Okay, but FSF is only pledging money to the project, they are not buying a seat on the board. Did you check everybody else that pledged money to the project for their agenda or beliefs? No? So why should their (FSF) money change anything? Looks like you make politics where there are none. And as we are on the subject, FSF is one of the main sponsors of the GNU GPL, so they support both GPL and Ryzom (.org).

magick1 wrote:No, GPL isn't equal to Linux, and it won't be their main goal, GPL is about code not which OS/platform it is run on. The first task is to replace any (3rd party licenced) code to GPL code (here I assume that some of the code can't be passed on to ryzom.org for license reason), so anyone is able to use it.

First problem for me. This implies remove DirectX suport and EAX Suport, limiting the technical possibilities for the people. Bad move, thinking that Ryzom crash a lot more under OpenGL (Not only my problem, a lot of people with NVidia have it). Surely that can be repaired, but its far more complicated.

magick1 wrote: The GPL code can then be compiled on any platform you choose, OSX, MS Windows, Amiga, etc. simply because GPL foundation is open and available on nearly any OS there is (GNU compilers and utils).

I'm developer. I have cross-platform experience. Even Java and Mono have a lot of issues regarding platform, specially if you use thinks like 3D, Hardware Sound and so on. Yeah, the C will compile under any platform (Even under a microwave xD) but no so all the libraries for 3D, sound and so on. I'm not saying that it's impossible, of course. I'm saying that is hard.

magick1 wrote: Okay, but FSF is only pledging money to the project, they are not buying a seat on the board. Did you check everybody else that pledged money to the project for their agenda or beliefs? No?

$60.000 in a row. And *is* the FSF after all. If you don't think that will use Ryzom as a Free Software gaming flag -and making pressure in certain technical decisions-, I think you are too optimistic.

magick1 wrote: So why should their (FSF) money change anything? Looks like you make politics where there are none.

I'll give you one: GPL v2, or GPLv2 and up (GPL3). That's the start of the politics. DirectX removed in Windows client? That's other. And so on.

magick1 wrote: And as we are on the subject, FSF is one of the main sponsors of the GNU GPL, so they support both GPL and Ryzom (.org).

A lot of support, as far as I can see. And a lot of influence.

iphdrunk wrote:This is in part, my views....

(Cut the rest of your post, as this is a general answer to all, sorry XD).

There will be a transition periode, no doubt of that. It contains too many unknown factors at the moment to give a definite "light at the end of the tunnel".
The main two being the time after the (possible) acquisition of the source and to a working binary for the server (and possible client as well), parallel to that there is the construction of the server infrastructure.
The transition periode will also be the test of the project. Does it have what it takes to get off the ground, and if it can, have the strength to continue as well.
Then anyone with access can play (still very unclear on who that is, to me), but let us assume that is everybody playing now. If all goes well, the game is now running as before, and what happens after that I won't even speculate about (although the state of the saga/story of Ryzom have me very concerned in the hands of ryzom.org, will they get all or none of it? Another big unknown as far as I can tell).

Hmmm, raised more questions that I tried to answer, didn't I?

mithur wrote:First problem for me. This implies remove DirectX suport and EAX Suport, limiting the technical possibilities for the people. Bad move, thinking that Ryzom crash a lot more under OpenGL (Not only my problem, a lot of people with NVidia have it). Surely that can be repaired, but its far more complicated..

I am no legal shark, but reading this is seems to me that DirectX is royalty free and can be coded with that as a target. Of course DX will only be of use on the MSW platform. As for EAX, I believe there are several options for multi platforms there (Miles springs to mind).

mithur wrote:I'll give you one: GPL v2, or GPLv2 and up (GPL3). That's the start of the politics.

Leaving GPL3 aside (it is still being worked on). GPL2 is about copyright and the use of the copyrighted code. Nothing less, nothing more. (Well a headache if you are not used to reading that much legal babble )

magick1 wrote:I am no legal shark, but reading this is seems to me that DirectX is royalty free and can be coded with that as a target. Of course DX will only be of use on the MSW platform. As for EAX, I believe there are several options for multi platforms there (Miles springs to mind).

Free as a beer, is. Really, is a tricky question, as far it relay in the zealotism -or lack of- in the development. You can use DirextX and EAX in a GPL Development, but most of the Free Soft Geeks will tell you that they don't want to know nothing about propietary technologies (EAX and DirectX), so you'll never know.

magick1 wrote: Leaving GPL3 aside (it is still being worked on). GPL2 is about copyright and the use of the copyrighted code. Nothing less, nothing more. (Well a headache if you are not used to reading that much legal babble )

Yeah, but it have a lot of implications. Wait and see...

Well, what you say is right, some people don't like to compulsorily use propietary technologies, but that wouldn't be the case, since you can give the user to compile directx support out on linux, and same for EAX... after all, you're free (not as in free beer, but as in freedom) to play with the source code.

It would be ridiculous to force win players not to use directx! And I can't still see why you think the community is planning to do such things with the game... it's a bit a...common-sense matter.

rheda wrote: It would be ridiculous to force win players not to use directx! And I can't still see why you think the community is planning to do such things with the game... it's a bit a...common-sense matter.

I wish you are right. I'm not saying that they are planning to do that. I'm only saying that that could happen.

Maybe I'm a bit of overworried with this items, but I can't help be worried. The FS community is radicalizing too much lately...

On a side note, just out of curiosity, (do not consider this anything else but unfounded, unreliable, unverified rumors) do you have any views / opinions / previous experience about Gameforge?

http://www.gameforge.de/company/7,0,0,0,2.html