I tried downloading back when the link still worked, but it took very long. So I decided to abort and come back when the VM does not seem to change any more. Well...
For the record, the skin/eye tone in the base assets is meant as a placeholder to be customized with the rest of the character, not as some stereotypical ideal. I had assumed that most programmers even with no art background could probably do a color swap easily enough, though ofc not being from that side of the game dev world I'm not always sure.
Background: I consider myself a programmer with little to no art talent. I nevertheless entered into both parts of the LPC; in case of the art phase with the intent to learn by doing. And I did learn a lot. But the thing which I still find the hardest is to find good colour ramps.
Hence my comment: As a programmer I can easily do colour swaps, but I am happy if an artist tells me which the new colours should be. Especially since using colours like #000000, #ff0000, or #ffff00 for skin implies insulting certain ethnies.
I am still working on "Obok and Gossip". I just released version 0.3 (see the project site http://www.weyer-zuhause.de/mark/software/lpc.html). Progress is a lot slower than during the LPC (no surprise) and will be on hold while I work on other projects, but I plan to always eventually revisit this one.
Things to look forward to (in future releases):
- More levels for Gossip
- A third game
I have used OCaml for my LPC entry. Before that, I used it for another game, which still lacks a little bit to be annouced yet.
OCaml worked fine for me. Especially for a time-limited contest like the LPC, the ability to get things done quickly and with few bugs is priceless.
From the top of my head, there is another LPC entry using OCaml and two other entries using Haskell. And a few using python or ruby, but that was less unexpected.
It allows more cheating in Gossip. Hold down 'g' to soliloquize (cheating has to be enabled, of course: start the game with "./code_entry cheat").
The only other changes are:
- Some unused code was weeded out.
- A glitch in Obok was fixed: When a tree part was outside of the window but its shadow inside, then the shadow used not to be drawn.
Obok and Gossip:
No, you don't need any weird engine.
I use Debian stable, but Ubuntu should be just the same:
- Install the packages libsdl-ocaml-dev and ocaml-native-compilers.
I use aptitude for that. Others seem to do something like
sudo apt-get install libsdl-ocaml-dev ocaml-native-compilers
- Do
./build
- Run the game doing
./code_entry
Sorry for reopening the thread, but I thought I'd better do a heads-up:
The submission form now requires FSF approval of licenses. It was not mentioned in the rules. Here is why that affects my entry (copied from my submission metadata):
The game uses non-original code from the game anatris (as annouced in http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/getting-an-early-start-on-the-coding-p...
)
That code is under a free-as-in-freedom license, albeit not under an FSF
approved one (the license in question is too new to have undergone FSF approval).
See README for the details. As the condition of FSF approval has appeared only
very recently, I submit nevertheless.
The license is an instance of the following license template:
# Lines starting, like this one, with a `#' are comments. They are not part
# of the actual license.
# In order for this license template to become a license, Section 2 has to be
# filled with the upstream.
0 Definitions
0.1 This license applies to any work (hereafter called `The Work') which
contains or is accompanied by a notice from the copyright holder or
other authorized party (hereafter called `We') saying that the work is
licensed under this license. Each licensee is hereafter called `You'.
0.2 A modified version of a work is any work based on the work. Examples of
modified versions of a work include, but are not limited to, translations,
adaptions, and improved versions of the work. A modification of a work is
the difference between the work and a modified version of the work.
0.3 Source
# Now follows a definition of source in three steps.
# The term `a work' below will later be instantiated both by `The Work' and
# by `a modified version of The Work'.
0.3.1 A definition of a work is a collection of digital data from which the
work can be produced by automated means.
0.3.2 A form of a work is a definition of the work which is, or has been at
some time in the past, manifest.
# Why this restriction?
# If a software author never wrote any comments (or similar niceties) in her
# derivative work, then what she did write should be the source, although a
# version with comments (which never existed) would have been prefered.
# The use of `to be manifest' instead of `to exist' is to circumvent
# philosophical discussions of the kind `Can a number exist?'.
0.3.3 The source of a work is any form of the work preferred for making
modifications to the work and the form.
# The source operator has to be idempotent: If, for example, additional
# documentation is necessary for a form to be preferred, then the source
# should include source of the documentation.
# Hence the recursion.
1 We grant You the right to use, distribute and modify The Work as well as
Your modifications of The Work, provided the following conditions are met:
1.1 When You distribute any form of The Work which is not the source of The
Work, You must also
1.1.1 accompany the distribution with the source of The Work on a medium
customarily used for interchange of digital data, or
1.1.2 make the source of The Work available in the same way as The Work for no
additional charge, or
1.1.3 give all recipients of The Work an offer, valid for at least five
years, to distribute the source of The Work to them on a medium
customarily used for interchange of digital data, for no charge or
a charge no more than Your cost of performing such distribution.
1.2 You may only distribute a modified version of The Work, if the modified
version retains all copyright notices, grants of this license, and
disclaimers of warranty which pertain to the parts of The Work still
present in the modified version.
1.3 When You distribute a modified version of The Work, You must license Your
modifications under this license to all recipients. If such a modified
version of The Work becomes part of a larger work, this condition refers
only to that part of the larger work which is a modified version of
The Work.
1.4 All above conditions regarding The Work are equally required for Your
modifications of The Work.
2 We grant You the right to license your modifications of The Work to
under any license of your choice.
# Typically, the upstream would request to receive patches under a license
# which allows arbitrary relicensing. Thus upstream is able to apply license
# bugfixes.
3 We grant You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable
license, under patent claims owned or controlled by Us that are embodied in
The Work as furnished by Us, for the duration of the patents, to make, use,
sell, offer for sale, have made, and import The Work and modified versions
of The Work.
4 By You distributing The Work, each recipient receives a license grant for
The Work from Us under this license. By You distributing a modified version
of The Work, each recipient receives such a license grant for that part of
the modified work for which We have authority to do so.
5 NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY
5.1 There is no warranty for The Work, to the extent permitted by applicable
law. Except when otherwise stated in writing We provide The Work "as is"
without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but
not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, and noninfringement. The entire risk as to the quality
of The Work is with You. Should The Work prove defective, You assume the
cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.
5.2 In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will
We be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, general,
special, incidental, exemplary, or consequential damages (including but
not limited to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses
sustained by You or third parties; procurement of substitute goods or
services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) or any
other claim or liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort
(including negligence or otherwise), arising in any way from, out of or in
connection with the use or inability to use or other dealing in The Work.
5.3 If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above
cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing
courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute
waiver of all civil liability in connection with The Work, unless a
warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of The Work in
return for a fee.
I am not sure that the sum of all art files of a game necessarily is a combined work, rather than a mere collection. And in the latter case there is no license compatibility issue (except maybe for weird licenses not yet mentioned).
Now for the "or later". I am never happy with using it, because it means licensing my work under terms unknown to me. If you insist on keeping it for the code side... I will have to reconsider whether I want to submit. Not doing so would be very frustrating, of course. Especially at this time of the competition. Well at least you would have to admit that you did, as andrewj suggested, change the rules: The rule page does not mention the "or later".
I also notice that the entry form requires "GNU GPL version 3 or later", while the rules only mentioned "GNU GPL 3.0". Not happy either.
On second thought, I am not a native speaker. Is "all my software source code is GNU GPL version 3 or later" satisfied by the code being licensed under GPLv3 (because the version nmumber 3.0 is greater or equal to 3)? That would be fine, of course ;-)
If the requirement is in fact to add the "or later" clause to the GPL, then it is impossible to use new original content based upon art phase content by other people: We did not receive the art phase content under the GPLv3+, only under GPLv3. Even the base assets are not GPLv3+ (except for the demo), so any art phase content based upon base assets which in fact was licensed GPLv3+, was done so illegally.
The link is broken.
I tried downloading back when the link still worked, but it took very long. So I decided to abort and come back when the VM does not seem to change any more. Well...
Background: I consider myself a programmer with little to no art talent. I nevertheless entered into both parts of the LPC; in case of the art phase with the intent to learn by doing. And I did learn a lot. But the thing which I still find the hardest is to find good colour ramps.
Hence my comment: As a programmer I can easily do colour swaps, but I am happy if an artist tells me which the new colours should be. Especially since using colours like #000000, #ff0000, or #ffff00 for skin implies insulting certain ethnies.
I am still working on "Obok and Gossip". I just released version 0.3 (see the project site http://www.weyer-zuhause.de/mark/software/lpc.html). Progress is a lot slower than during the LPC (no surprise) and will be on hold while I work on other projects, but I plan to always eventually revisit this one.
Things to look forward to (in future releases):
- More levels for Gossip
- A third game
I have used OCaml for my LPC entry. Before that, I used it for another game, which still lacks a little bit to be annouced yet.
OCaml worked fine for me. Especially for a time-limited contest like the LPC, the ability to get things done quickly and with few bugs is priceless.
From the top of my head, there is another LPC entry using OCaml and two other entries using Haskell. And a few using python or ruby, but that was less unexpected.
I like the game. (And not only because it is one of the (currently) just three that work for me.) Hope to see it much extended, some day.
But I noticed a missing attribution: The signpost right before the boss was done by me (http://opengameart.org/content/lpc-caeles-art). (Anyway, thanks for finding it useful!)
I have set up a website for the game:
http://www.weyer-zuhause.de/mark/software/lpc.html
Anybody who finds Gossip too hard might be interested in version 0.2:
http://www.weyer-zuhause.de/mark/software/lpc_0.2.tgz
It allows more cheating in Gossip. Hold down 'g' to soliloquize (cheating has to be enabled, of course: start the game with "./code_entry cheat").
The only other changes are:
- Some unused code was weeded out.
- A glitch in Obok was fixed: When a tree part was outside of the window but its shadow inside, then the shadow used not to be drawn.
Obok and Gossip:
No, you don't need any weird engine.
I use Debian stable, but Ubuntu should be just the same:
- Install the packages libsdl-ocaml-dev and ocaml-native-compilers.
I use aptitude for that. Others seem to do something like
sudo apt-get install libsdl-ocaml-dev ocaml-native-compilers
- Do
./build
- Run the game doing
./code_entry
Sorry for reopening the thread, but I thought I'd better do a heads-up:
The submission form now requires FSF approval of licenses. It was not mentioned in the rules. Here is why that affects my entry (copied from my submission metadata):
The game uses non-original code from the game anatris (as annouced in
http://opengameart.org/forumtopic/getting-an-early-start-on-the-coding-p...
)
That code is under a free-as-in-freedom license, albeit not under an FSF
approved one (the license in question is too new to have undergone FSF approval).
See README for the details. As the condition of FSF approval has appeared only
very recently, I submit nevertheless.
The license is an instance of the following license template:
# Lines starting, like this one, with a `#' are comments. They are not part
# of the actual license.
# In order for this license template to become a license, Section 2 has to be
# filled with the upstream.
0 Definitions
0.1 This license applies to any work (hereafter called `The Work') which
contains or is accompanied by a notice from the copyright holder or
other authorized party (hereafter called `We') saying that the work is
licensed under this license. Each licensee is hereafter called `You'.
0.2 A modified version of a work is any work based on the work. Examples of
modified versions of a work include, but are not limited to, translations,
adaptions, and improved versions of the work. A modification of a work is
the difference between the work and a modified version of the work.
0.3 Source
# Now follows a definition of source in three steps.
# The term `a work' below will later be instantiated both by `The Work' and
# by `a modified version of The Work'.
0.3.1 A definition of a work is a collection of digital data from which the
work can be produced by automated means.
0.3.2 A form of a work is a definition of the work which is, or has been at
some time in the past, manifest.
# Why this restriction?
# If a software author never wrote any comments (or similar niceties) in her
# derivative work, then what she did write should be the source, although a
# version with comments (which never existed) would have been prefered.
# The use of `to be manifest' instead of `to exist' is to circumvent
# philosophical discussions of the kind `Can a number exist?'.
0.3.3 The source of a work is any form of the work preferred for making
modifications to the work and the form.
# The source operator has to be idempotent: If, for example, additional
# documentation is necessary for a form to be preferred, then the source
# should include source of the documentation.
# Hence the recursion.
1 We grant You the right to use, distribute and modify The Work as well as
Your modifications of The Work, provided the following conditions are met:
1.1 When You distribute any form of The Work which is not the source of The
Work, You must also
1.1.1 accompany the distribution with the source of The Work on a medium
customarily used for interchange of digital data, or
1.1.2 make the source of The Work available in the same way as The Work for no
additional charge, or
1.1.3 give all recipients of The Work an offer, valid for at least five
years, to distribute the source of The Work to them on a medium
customarily used for interchange of digital data, for no charge or
a charge no more than Your cost of performing such distribution.
1.2 You may only distribute a modified version of The Work, if the modified
version retains all copyright notices, grants of this license, and
disclaimers of warranty which pertain to the parts of The Work still
present in the modified version.
1.3 When You distribute a modified version of The Work, You must license Your
modifications under this license to all recipients. If such a modified
version of The Work becomes part of a larger work, this condition refers
only to that part of the larger work which is a modified version of
The Work.
1.4 All above conditions regarding The Work are equally required for Your
modifications of The Work.
2 We grant You the right to license your modifications of The Work to
under any license of your choice.
# Typically, the upstream would request to receive patches under a license
# which allows arbitrary relicensing. Thus upstream is able to apply license
# bugfixes.
3 We grant You a worldwide, royalty-free, non-exclusive, sublicensable
license, under patent claims owned or controlled by Us that are embodied in
The Work as furnished by Us, for the duration of the patents, to make, use,
sell, offer for sale, have made, and import The Work and modified versions
of The Work.
4 By You distributing The Work, each recipient receives a license grant for
The Work from Us under this license. By You distributing a modified version
of The Work, each recipient receives such a license grant for that part of
the modified work for which We have authority to do so.
5 NO WARRANTY, NO LIABILITY
5.1 There is no warranty for The Work, to the extent permitted by applicable
law. Except when otherwise stated in writing We provide The Work "as is"
without warranty of any kind, either expressed or implied, including, but
not limited to, the implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a
particular purpose, and noninfringement. The entire risk as to the quality
of The Work is with You. Should The Work prove defective, You assume the
cost of all necessary servicing, repair or correction.
5.2 In no event unless required by applicable law or agreed to in writing will
We be liable to You for damages, including any direct, indirect, general,
special, incidental, exemplary, or consequential damages (including but
not limited to loss of data or data being rendered inaccurate or losses
sustained by You or third parties; procurement of substitute goods or
services; loss of use, data, or profits; or business interruption) or any
other claim or liability, whether in contract, strict liability, or tort
(including negligence or otherwise), arising in any way from, out of or in
connection with the use or inability to use or other dealing in The Work.
5.3 If the disclaimer of warranty and limitation of liability provided above
cannot be given local legal effect according to their terms, reviewing
courts shall apply local law that most closely approximates an absolute
waiver of all civil liability in connection with The Work, unless a
warranty or assumption of liability accompanies a copy of The Work in
return for a fee.
@cwebber:
I am not sure that the sum of all art files of a game necessarily is a combined work, rather than a mere collection. And in the latter case there is no license compatibility issue (except maybe for weird licenses not yet mentioned).
Now for the "or later". I am never happy with using it, because it means licensing my work under terms unknown to me. If you insist on keeping it for the code side... I will have to reconsider whether I want to submit. Not doing so would be very frustrating, of course. Especially at this time of the competition. Well at least you would have to admit that you did, as andrewj suggested, change the rules: The rule page does not mention the "or later".
I also notice that the entry form requires "GNU GPL version 3 or later", while the rules only mentioned "GNU GPL 3.0". Not happy either.
On second thought, I am not a native speaker. Is "all my software source code is GNU GPL version 3 or later" satisfied by the code being licensed under GPLv3 (because the version nmumber 3.0 is greater or equal to 3)? That would be fine, of course ;-)
If the requirement is in fact to add the "or later" clause to the GPL, then it is impossible to use new original content based upon art phase content by other people: We did not receive the art phase content under the GPLv3+, only under GPLv3. Even the base assets are not GPLv3+ (except for the demo), so any art phase content based upon base assets which in fact was licensed GPLv3+, was done so illegally.
I am very unhappy as well.
Pages