OJP (Open Jedi Project)

[razorace]

I'm bumping the OJP decision over here since OJP is a JKA project.

The original thread can be found here (http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=104564).

To continue the discussion, I'm going to suggest that we use SourceForge for our work. I've already seen another JK2 mod on their and cleared it with Raven. All we have to do is get an account.

In addition, I'm going to suggest that we allow my Mouse Sabering work to be in OJP (as a cvar of course).

[razorace]

Ok, bad news. I checked the license agreement stuff for sourceforge and I'm afraid that we can't really use them for our hosting needs. They have a requirement that we can't restrict commerical use of our code AND can't restrict the "free redistrobution" of such code. This means we wouldn't have control to restrict smacktards and LEC from using our code without permission. That's not really cool.

Any other suggestions for possible hosts for CVS system for the project?

[razorace]

Ok, good news. I beleive I've found a good CVS repository at www.freepository.com and it has some additional nice features that will help the cause.

Namely, we have to give out a password to join the project AND the project admins have complete control over who has what read/write privs.

Hopefully that will encourage more people to get involved with the project since we seem to have a lot of people that are unsure of our ability to protect our code from the code whores/script kiddies.

As for the command stucture, I think we should give each contributer an vote(s) on the OJP 'Council' (possibly based on contributions made) and let the public (and non-contributers) just provide input. This will mean that contributers have the final say.

I suggest that we approve code/general feature improvements on a majority vote and gameplay improvements on a super majority vote.

In addition, I think we need to lay down some rules for submission. My primary concern is the distrubing trend in the JK2 community of people "withdrawing" their work midway thru a project. For a project such as OJP to success, I don't think we can really tolerate that. If someone "removes" a feature, it could have a domino effect on the project.

While we will respect the rights of individuals to their work, I suggest that we have a submission disclaimer that states that after your work has been submitted, there will be no unsubmitting it. Meaning that the group can continue to use your work (with full credit of course) even if you withdraw from the group.

What do you guys think? Too restrictive or only reasonable?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Razor,

I agree with all the points you have made above - including the clause about not being able to withdraw previously contributed work - makes sense.
The respoitory site you have linked to also looks like a good choice.

I'd just like to clarify what the overall aim of the OJP is though. You probably feel that you have explained it well enough - and if I've not got it, I apologise. I did read back over the old thread, but the different things being said by various people have confused me a little.

Overall, it seems the aim of the OJP is to provide a standard 'library' of bug fixes / improvements etc. That's fine - I get that. And I see the need for these bug fixes / improvements to be regulated and controlled.

Now - from what I've read - the idea is that mods are built 'on top of' OJP - i.e. using the OJP code as a base. If this is the case - then woohoo - this is great!

...but if this is the case, we really do need some solid rules in place to 'police' this. It may seem nit-piky to do so, but this will be ESSENSIAL if this is going to work. Not trying to say any rules I say have to be used, just saying that definete, specific rules HAVE to be drawn up and known by all.

And yes, it is going to get tough at times, and disagreements are going to take place - this is inevitable. But I believe it will be REALLY benificial to all JA mods in the long run.

In fact, OJP is starting to sound a LOT like an idea I put forward quite a while back. I don't think it was very practical at the time I suggested it. But now that we effectively have a clean slate, I think it's a lot more feasible.

I guess the two most important things to make sure of is:

1. Credit needs to be officially given where it is due.
2. Additions to OJP 'material' will need to be regulated by the OJP members.


I think one thing which would help in this regard is a big, phat:
Official OJP webiste
All mods using OJP code would need to link to this site.
This would list all kinds of details - to make VERY certain that credit is given where credit is due. The website would list all contributors to the OJP project. Clicking on the name would give you a full rundown on the features this person has contributed and which mods they are used in.
(Incidently, it would also list anybody who has been deemed to be abusing the OJP.)


I would also suggest the following 'rules' to any mods who make use of the OJP system. (Some of these will have already been mentioned, but I'll include them again anyway just for clarity).

1. To use OJP code, you must contribute something 'of worth' to the project.
Of course, 'of worth' is a relative term, but as has been stated, we would need some way of deciding these things between ourselves. I would suggest a small number of leaders who hopefully can deal with most stuff, but if the leaders do anything which the majority of contributors don't agree with, their desisions can be over-ruled by majority vote.
(THe only reason I don't think ALL desisions should be made by majority vote is that:
a. It would be really hard to try and organise so many votes on (hopefully - if OJP is a success) such a regular basis.
b. I have a sneaky suspicion a LOT of the contributors would not want to get too involved in the administritive side of things anyway, and could end up actually discouraging people to bother contributing in the first place)

2. If contributing features clash in some way, they need to be standardised
For example, two people might contribute class systems. It wouldn't be desirable or practical to have both systems included into the OJP, so some sort of compromise would need to be reached, possible involving cvar-ing various parts of both systems.
Again, it would be up to the leaders (with power to over-rule from all contributers) as to how this is done.

3. Mods using features from the OJP cannot 'significantly' alter the used features.
This basically means in ways which the original authors disapprove of. If they REALLY want to make some alteration to the feature, they discuss it with not only the original mod maker, but with the OJP as a whole, and assuming it is approved, it not only becomes an extra option for their mod, but it must become part of the OJP code. (i.e. avaliable to all mods)

4. Mods made from OJP code must clearly state (somewhere) that they are OJP mods
Ideally, I think we should have some kind of official logo which needs to be displayed prominantly on any official websites, menu's etc. (Think the Intel logo on PC cases, adverts etc.)

We may also want to enforce the listing of every single feature used from the OJP base and give individual credit to each person for that feature directly in the readme's etc. However, tHis could become a bit of a logistical nightmare. Also, I don't think we could trust individual mod makers to go to the effort of getting all the details right. So even if this isn't done in all cases, all this info is on the OJP site which they MUST link to from their mod - that's simple enough to do! (Readme, official sites etc.)

5. Any mod built from the OJP must be 'substantially' different from other OJP mods
This rule is to combat so-called copy-cat mods. In practice, this means that if your mod does nothing more than take a few of the OJP features without doing much else, then you have not done enough to make your mod UNIQUE.

What makes a mod unique? Not just features, but game rules. game design. etc. etc.

Now, of course this is where some disagreements could crop in. But this is always a posssibility no matter how far we go with this, so I say we may as well go all the way... (in for a penny, in for a pound - as my Dad likes to say! ;) )



Yes, these rules are kind of restrictive. They have to be there to make sure that the OJP works like it needs to. Will this mean that no-one will bother contributing? I really don't think so - because at the end of the day there are so many plusses to being involved in the OJP, that it would be worth putting up with the rules.
In fact, the only people I see who would be too upset to deal with it are people who can't keep their ego's in check. And as far as I'm concerned, these are exactly the kind of people we DON'T want in this project.


OK - so now I'm going to use a couple of case examples from JKII and see how they work out with the system I've just described above.
I'm aware that using personal examples might end up backfiring on me, but it's just the easiest way to explain the practical context of the rules I've just listed.


Case 1 - ProMod
Undeniably, the biggest and most unique feature in ProMod was the non-random, competitive saber combat system. Unfortunately, this mod was never as popular as it could have been - because a lot of players were interested in what could be described as 'bells and whistles'.
Sure, if they could have both, then great, but poor Artifex only had so much time as a modder to add all this stuff (and we are all in the same boat there...).

So, let's imagine that Artifex makes ProMod 2 for JA. He adds his main features to the OJP. Now, sure - people are free to take his combat system in their mods. But, he can also take some of the 'bells and whistles' features and incorporate them into his. i.e. everybody ends up with better mods.

IMPORTANT POINT - these other mods aren't going to be ProMod rip-offs because for them to qualify to base themselves off OJP code, they must have been deemed to be significantly different to other already existing (or currently developing) OJP mods.

However, it is possible that Artifex may not need to work on a specific mod.
After contributing stuff such as the Combat System to the OJP, Artifex may find many mods that use his systems in ways that are very pleasing to him. He may then decide that he really doesn't need to do extra work on ProMod, since these other mod(s) essentially do what he was going to do anyway.

However, the only reason he would do this is if he was satisfied he was getting sufficient credit for his work where it was being used. Would he get proper credit? YES - it's a rule of the OJP. It's clearly mentioned on the OJP webiste. In fact, go and click on Artifex's name, and you could potentially find a whole slew of great mods which make use of the official Artifex combat system. (A nice touch might be to allow each contributor to recommend other mods where their systems, in their opinions, were used well.)

Basically, I'm trying to portray a concept where contributors may not actually have their own mods, but instead add great technical features to the OJP which end up benefiting and enriching all mods WITHOUT a feeling of over-competitiveness or resentment.


...to further emphasise this point, let's imagine a senario where someone only adds one feature (the feature has to be 'significant', but still only one) and then uses - let's say - 10 other features from the OJP to make their mod.
Now to me, this is perfectly 'legal' -assuming of course the whole mod concept is significantly different (so they also get credit for game design - assuming the game is good of course!), but at the end of the day the mod is more an OJP mod than theirs. i.e. they can't really call it THEIR mod in the traditional sense. (After all, they only contributed 1 feature of theirs against 10 others from the OJP.)
If they have given proper credit to the OJP and listed only their one feature as theirs, then - job done. However, if the OJP feels the particular mod maker hasn't done a good enough job of making sure people know they did not write the whole mod themselves (i.e. people going on forums and raving about what a great job so-and-so did on ALL aspects of the mod), then the OJP needs to take action etc.

Personally, I think this open approach will lead to some great mods. (This comes from my belief that great game designers are not nessesarily the greatest coders...). And as long as credit is not stolen, there is no harm, and no foul.

(An alternative to this is only allowing people to use as many OJP features as you contribute. i.e. you add one, you get to use one. Of course this means you have to start weighting contributions etc. I would still prefer to do things how I have described above...)


Case 2 - Movie Battles
I'll use my own JKII mod as an example as well, since I'm familiar with it ;)
Also, I can firmly state the mod makers motives with accuracy!

I am very interested in making Movie Battles 2.0. However, what drove me away from JKII modding was:

a. Not having the time needed to add ALL the features I wanted in the mod.
b. THe feeling that I was constantly competing with other mods. Personally, it just drove me up the wall.

OK, so, I start Movie Battles 2.0 by contributing my main features to the OJP - assuming they are accepted. These would be LMS system, team and class model-forcing etc.

I would like to think my mod would not be just a copy-cat of other mods. To list just one point, I'm not a believer in lots of cvars, so in my mod lots would be locked down. (For starters, the LMS system would not be optional...)

Ok, now I get to use other OJP features which would enhance my mod - thus saving me a hell of a lot of time and effort. I haven't STOLEN them, I have earned them by contributing to the OJP - and I must publicly admit they are not my features anyway!
(In fact thinking of it as just 'my' mod would be a mis-conception. Once you use OJP features, you are effecively working on an OJP mod - i.e. it's not solely your own anymore. If this is too bitter for you, then you won't have joined OJP in the first place...)

At the same time, other mod makers can go ahead and use - for example - my LMS system in their mods. This is fine by me. I get credit when it's used, and I know that no-one can use my features to make a copy-cat of my mod. (It's in the rules).



Sorry about the long post, but I felt it was nessesary to get across what I'm proposing.

WHat do you all think? The rules may seem long-winded, but their not really. The bottom line is 'We all use each-others stuff in a fair way'. The rules are only to draw border lines around the technicalities...


Renegade

[razorace]

Thanks for joining the conversation Phunk. I was starting to sound like a loony without other people posting. People keep talking to me privately instead of on the boards. :P

In fact, OJP is starting to sound a LOT like an idea I put forward quite a while back.

Well, it is pretty similar to what you suggested just with more empise on "open" source. :)

Official OJP website

I really like your idea. However, doing website design/updates/etc isn't my cup of tea. We will have to find someone who is willing to do that stuff.

1. To use OJP code, you must contribute something 'of worth' to the project.

Now, this is where you and I disagree on things. I think we need to have some system in place to allow newbies and people who aren't planning on contributing to view the code.

I suggest that we meet in the middle on this and allow people (who aren't on our blacklist) to view the code (and keep track of that). However, to USE the code in a publically released mod, you have to follow OJP rules and contribute any desireable features into OJP. It's concievable that there could be a mod that was unique, significantly different, and DOESN'T have anything that could be contributed to OJP.

Due to way freepository works, you need a password to join a "public" project. As such, we could keep detailed records of who accessed the code and why.

I would suggest a small number of leaders who hopefully can deal with most stuff, but if the leaders do anything which the majority of contributors don't agree with, their desisions can be over-ruled by majority vote.

Great idea, I suggest we do that.

2. If contributing features clash in some way, they need to be standardised

Agreed.

3. Mods using features from the OJP cannot 'significantly' alter the used features.

Mmm, you're going to have to explain the purpose of this one to me. I can understand requiring people to contribute bug fixes but I'm not really clear what you're getting at with this one.

4. Mods made from OJP code must clearly state (somewhere) that they are OJP mods

Agreed. I suggest we have a OJPcredits.txt included with the OJP code to make it easy to properly credit people.

In addition, any features that come from OJP should be specifically credited as such in the mod AND IN ANY PUBLIC RELATION MATERIALS (unless you specifically created that feature). This will prevent a situation where someone with a popular mod will get "the credit" for features that he didn't make (JediMod <-> OmniMod/JediMod++/JediPlus)

5. Any mod built from the OJP must be 'substantially' different from other OJP mods

Agreed.

Sorry about the long post, but I felt it was nessesary to get across what I'm proposing.

As long as you're covering new territory with your long posts, that's completely acceptable....Well, that's assuming that it's readable. :)

I'm going to suggest some additional rules:

1. Before releasing a OJP mod version publically, you need to clear your mod with the OJP leadership.

This is to ensure that your mod is in compliance with OJP rules. This needs to be as convenent as possible for modders so we don't scare people off with this requirement.

2. OJP-based mods must include the required OJP files.

The required files would include a OJP credits text file and a OJP readme that includes the rules, the blacklist, and a introduction of the project.

I'm going to start working on those files now.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Hey - thx for listening to my ideas Razor - this is great :)
To be honest, if it wasn't for the possibility of OJP, I probably wouldn't even be considering modding for JA...


I suggest that we meet in the middle on this and allow people (who aren't on our blacklist) to view the code (and keep track of that). However, to USE the code in a publically released mod, you have to follow OJP rules and contribute any desireable features into OJP. It's concievable that there could be a mod that was unique, significantly different, and DOESN'T have anything that could be contributed to OJP.


Hmmmmm - yes, I see.
I think you have a good point. Even just from a practical context - if contributors can't see the code until they have contributed, that would mean that members of the OJP would have to merge in new code! Or we could have some kind of system where the appplicants show us the working feature(s) before we give them access to the OJP...
...but this produces extra work and hassle - so I agree, let's principly give anybody access to the source.

And as you say, if we give out permissions, we can avoid people who are known to be a problem. (Although we must be fair about this - we'd have to be careful about denying someone access I think).

The only thing that worries me a bit is the idea that people could quite easily take OJP code, slightly change it to make it look like it was original work (or at least claim any similarities are co-incidence) and essentially claim it for their own.

Sure, we would have a record of all people who have accessed the OJP, but people can always use more then one persona on the internet can't they... At least forcing people to contribute first makes this much harder to happen.

But I guess we'll see how it goes...



3. Mods using features from the OJP cannot 'significantly' alter the used features.

Mmm, you're going to have to explain the purpose of this one to me. I can understand requiring people to contribute bug fixes but I'm not really clear what you're getting at with this one.


Hmmm - yeah, maybe this is not a practical rule to enforce at the end of the day - and possibly not nessesary. This was a rule meant to stop mod fragmentation, but since we already have the rule about no copy-cat mods, maybe the above rule is one too far.

Basically, I was thinking along these lines:
'If you have used a feature from the OJP and improved on it, you should put those improvements back into the OJP, since that is where you got it from in the first place...'

But maybe this isn't nessesary thinking about it - and could actually stifle progress. Maybe it would be better if we forget that one!


1. Before releasing a OJP mod version publically, you need to clear your mod with the OJP leadership.

This is to ensure that your mod is in compliance with OJP rules. This needs to be as convenent as possible for modders so we don't scare people off with this requirement.


Agreed. I think people should be able to 'submit' mods as early as possible - even before they start coding infact. Because at the end of the day, I can't think of anything worse than slaving away on a mod for a few months only to be told at the end of it, or near the end, that I can't release it because I didn't think of mod X or Y! Hell, I'd probably put two fingers up and release it anyway in that case!

So I think people should be able to pitch their mod as early as possible. And then assuming they don't deviate massively by the end of development (or any deviation doesn't cause it to become a copy-cat mod), then any changes are acceptable.

And we'd need to be quite organised about this. If we appprove mod X, but then find out that mod Y is starting to look a lot like mod X a couple of months down the line, we may need to take steps etc.


2. OJP-based mods must include the required OJP files.

The required files would include a OJP credits text file and a OJP readme that includes the rules, the blacklist, and a introduction of the project.


Yeap - sounds good.

I'm willing to perform any admin duties that need performing - I'd really like to see this get off the ground.

...OK - so who's up for webbie duty? :)

Renegade

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

About the website:

There are always quite a few modding sites that spring up for a game. I'd say the OJP site is basically a special type of modding site. i.e. we don't need to restrict it to just OJP business. We could have all kinds on there - mod reviews, forums etc. etc.

Basically, since your garuanteed visitation by a hell of a lot of coders, I could easiely see the OJP site becoming the central site for JA modding. I'm sure that we could find some web guy who'd be interested in working on such a potentially high profile site...
...how about the nice people at jediknight.net? :)


I just think a big, central, well presented website is VERY important to make sure that the 'credit where credit is due' requirement is met:

Player 1: 'Isn't feature X cool? 'Modder Y' did a great job on that eh?'

Player 2: 'Err, no. Actually it was 'Modder Z' who made that feature. It just got included in Modder Ys mod'

Player 1: 'That's not what I heard...'

Player 2: 'Well, I can prove it to you'

Player 2 gives Player 1 a link to the OJP site where it says - officially - who was responsible for what. Argument over. No ambiguity.

[razorace]

The only thing that worries me a bit is the idea that people could quite easily take OJP code, slightly change it to make it look like it was original work (or at least claim any similarities are co-incidence) and essentially claim it for their own.

Sure, we would have a record of all people who have accessed the OJP, but people can always use more then one persona on the internet can't they... At least forcing people to contribute first makes this much harder to happen.
True, but I have some countermeasures planned. That comboed with our records should hopefully give us enough to ward off the code whores.

Of course, I can't talk about the countermeasures on a open channel like this. :)

Basically, I was thinking along these lines:
'If you have used a feature from the OJP and improved on it, you should put those improvements back into the OJP, since that is where you got it from in the first place...'
Ok, that makes more sense. I've added that to the rules draft.

And we'd need to be quite organised about this. If we appprove mod X, but then find out that mod Y is starting to look a lot like mod X a couple of months down the line, we may need to take steps etc.

Agreed.

I'm willing to perform any admin duties that need performing - I'd really like to see this get off the ground.
I suppose you could ask the jediknight.net dudes (and others) if they want to be involved. I kind of have my plate full with the rules draft, the repository, and the possible features list. :)

While you're at it, ask them if they could host a forum here for the project. This thing is going to be too big for a single thread soon.

Emon's checking out server options.

Things are looking up. I've gotten multiple people either interested or at least willing to contribute to the project. :)

I've got a draft of the readme and rules set up. Want me to post it so you can work it over?

As for OJP moderators, it looks like me, you, and Emon are probably going to be the starting moderators.

Anyway, that's all for today. Sorry if I'm hard to understand. I'm tired.

Goodnight!

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Great stuff Razor - I'm in :)

I'll talk to some people and see what I can do about getting a site and forums up...

And sure - post up an initial rules draft when you are ready...

[Wudan]

1. Rules Scare People. I'm basing it off of the fact that I'm scared by rules.

2. Maybe just 2 rules - proper credits of the latest version of OJPsource available at the OJP site included with your mod, and no mods released using OJP without contributing to OJP. I don't think OJP's 'grand vizier' or whatever needs to sniff and hug each OJP released mod. I think the key focus should be on encouraged contribution.

3. Last, a source recommendation - each new added feature has a run down and sig comments "//Wudan - " with info - I'd think it extra special if the bulk of new features were in extra source files, as opposed to cluttering up existing source files. I understand that a certain degree of integration is necessary, but it should be kept to a minimum, so many features can be added without the source getting uber confusing.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I know what your saying man, but rules aren't here to scare people - they are here to make it very clear what were doing.

To just say 'Make it fair' is just not specific enough. One person's definition of fair is not another persons. And we can't use everyone's definition at once, so we have to come up with a common set of rules.

A good example of this are the rules which govern these forums. There are actually quite extensive rules governing what you can and can't post here. And there are eager admins on the prowl ready to enforce these rules...!
Is this a bad thing? Most people certainly aren't 'scared' by these rules - they accept them as part and parcel of posting on a forum.

...for my part, I don't actually read every single word of the rules of these forums. (Yes, I am BAD!) I get the basic jist though - don't be a jerk!
But they can't just say 'Don't be a jerk!' in the forum rules! They have to be MUCH more specific than that. They have to be able to refer to a specific section of the rules which covers that particular part of 'jerk-like' behaviour for specific cases...

Same with OJP. The rules aren't something to be used like a whip whenever you feel like being vindictive. It just makes it perfectly clear what were doing.

It may seem rules will stifle the open nature of things. But really, I think the opposite will happen. A firm set of fair and agreed rules will allow many people to contribute freely and not be worried about how their work could be (potentially) exploited.


As far as the specific issues you've raised about the rules, sounds like your biggest beef is with this one:


5. Any mod built from the OJP must be 'substantially' different from other OJP mods


OK, let's take a theorietical situation. The OJP is fairly mature and there a lots of good features in the 'library'.

Modder X comes along, takes all the features, adds a few new emotes and calls it 'X's super mod'. (Prefectly legal without the above rule)

Modder Y comes along, takes all the same features, adds a few new saber colours and calls it 'Y's super-duper mod' (Perfectly legal without the above rule)

Modder Z comes along, takes all the features, changes some #defines for weapon bullet speeds and calls it 'Z's woppie-de-doo mod'. (Prefectly legal without the above rule)

...do you see this as an acceptable situation? This is not a problem of giving credit where it is due (we'll assume they are following all the other rules), the problem is we now have 3 OJP mods which are so similar, I would have no problem with saying that they dont' really deserve to be seperate mods. The new emotes, the new saber colours and the new weapon speeds should be cvars in the same mod.

I think this makes sense to most people, and the above example is a little OTT to illustrate the point, but this is exactly what the rule is meant to combat. I actually think most people will take this as a given using common sense - so hopefully we would rarely even need to enforce it - but it needs to be there non-the-less.

..and remember, ALL contributors have a say in this...


I think I need to clarify something here - the new emotes, new saber colours and new bullet speeds wouldn't be the contributions that got X, Y and Z membership in the first place. (Or at least i seriously doubt these would count as good enough - individually at least. The ability to add saber colours would count though I guess...)

X, Y and Z have already contributed 'satisfactory' features to the OJP before, which means they get to release mods which take advantage of OJP source.

Now, you can argue that X, Y and Z, being decent coders to get in in the first place - would not try and make such mods. They would have no problem adding these minor things as cvars into the main OJP.

In which case, great! This makes it even LESS likely we would ever need to enforce the rule. But the above situation is still potentially possible, which means we still need the rule defined...

[razorace]

I agree with Phunk on this. While rules can scary people off, we need to have rules in place to make it clear what is and isn't acceptable.

The people's view of what is acceptable varies wildly. For example, I actually talked to the person known as BOFH about this. He seems to be under the impression that any modding work is automatically the property of LEC after release (due to the crappy EULA) and therefore giving credit to other modders is a matter of personal opinion. This means that if you get on his bad side, he thinks it's "ok" to remove any "credit" from his derivative mod.

Everyone that is working on OJP disagrees with this rational and have to make rules that make this very clear.

For those comments and for a varity of other reasons, I've already put him on the OJP Blacklist.

[razorace]

------------------
OJP Rules Handbook
------------------


Version: 0.1




=================
Table of Contents
=================

0001 - What's New?
0002 - Introduction
0003 - Decision Making
0004 - Getting Access
0005 - Usage
0006 - Smacktard Open License
0007 - The Blacklist


==================
0001 - What's New?
==================

0.1:
The rules handbook is born!



===================
0002 - Introduction
===================

OJP is here for the community. Our primary goal is to provide a feature platform for JKA mods that insures that every creator is given full and proper credit for our work.

We operate on a "semi-open" source system. We try to allow as many people as possible to access our work and contribute. However, since there are a lot of people that can't play nicely or respect the works of others, we have some strict rules to keep everything fun and helpful for everyone.

We're looking for, and accept, interesting and well done features that the modding community in general would be interested in. Work must be done in a clear, understandable manner and documented to a reasonable degree.

The only things we can't accept are pure maps and models. They take up too much space and would make it difficult for our dial up users to easily and quickly download project files. However, we take especially well done graphically work (like a far superior saber blade effect graphic) or models that have technical uses (like an improved hit collision player model). If you are unsure on whither your work is acceptable or not, just ask one of the moderators.

To prevent major complications, we can't allow anyone to "desubmit" work after it has been integrated into the project. Otherwise, we'd have to spend insane amounts of time removing features that disgruntled contributors want removed. This is a requirement for ALL submissions so please keep that in mind before submitting.

This doesn't mean that you surrender your rights to your work. We consider your work to BE your work. We will continue to respect your work whither you continue to be a part of the project or not. We will make every effort to protect your work from smacktards and illegal commercial exploitation.



======================
0003 - Decision Making
======================

While we do accept input from the community, we can't allow the community to out voice the contributors. As such, OJP is run by a group of moderators that volunteer their time for the cause. Since most people don't want to be involved in the day-to-day running of the project, the moderators regularly vote on and handle issues. A simple majority rules here.

If there is something that the project contributors don't agree with, they can overrule the moderators by a supermajority vote.



=====================
0004 - Getting Access
=====================

To keep out the undesirables and to protect our work, we require everyone to ask for access to the OJP source code. To get access, simply send an email with the following information to one of the moderators:

- Name
- Any aliases/nicks/handles you use.
- Reason for wanting to access the code
- Previous modding works
- Features you might contribute to the project

Please be honest as possible. If we find out that you intentionally lied to get access, we will ban you.



=============
0005 - Usage
=============

You are allowed to:

- Analysis OJP works to learn how things operate.
- Use our code in your mod IF you follow the SOL (Smacktard Open

License)

You are NOT allowed to:

- Distribute OJP source works.
- Financially profit from OJP source works in ANY way.
- Cut and paste code without following the SOL.

We are pretty strict about the usage of our source work to create new works. For anything that is released publicly, you have to comply with the SOL (Smacktard Open License) or clear it with OJP moderators.


=============================
0006 - Smacktard Open License
=============================

To correctly use OJP works or derivatives you MUST do the following:

- Get your work approved by to one of the moderators BEFORE you release it. Please email ahead before you send large files thru email. Thank you.

- Include the two main OJP files with your work. This means this file (OJP_rules.txt) and the readme (OJP_readme.txt)

- Make it clear that your work is OJP based work in and OUTSIDE the mod. Talking about an OJP feature in a forum as if you created it is unacceptable.

- Submit any community useable features to the project. OJP's success depends on users taking AND giving to the project.

- Any bug fixes or improvements to OJP code should be submitted back to the project.

- Your mod MUST be significantly unique to be releasable. Simply adding a couple of cvars and emots IS NOT ALLOWED. If you have a project that is very similar to another project, try cooperating with that project.

- Thou Shall Not Take OJP's Name in Vain. Meaning, for the love of god, don't name your mod something like OJP+++ or OJP v2.0. WE WILL hurt you.


If you don't follow these guidelines, we may be forced to take actions to prevent abuses of our works. These actions might include:

- Getting your work removed from download sites.
- Removing your submission privileges.
- Banning you from the project and putting you on the Blacklist.
- Legal Action.

We suggest to you keep in constant communication with OJP to allow everyone to coordinate their projects. We don't want you to waste months of hard work to find out that your mod is exactly like ____'s mod.



====================
0007 - The Blacklist
====================

All of the following individuals have violated one or more of the OJP rules (or simply cheesed us off) and are not allowed to use or view the OJP source code/materials. Intentionally giving OJP source code/materials to these individuals will result in you being added to the blacklist.


BOFH/Spectrum - Banned for not giving proper credit to coders in the community, changing handles to avoid retribution, abusing file master privileges to hype own mod, and using backstabbing tactics to acquire modding material.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

The doc looks good Razor. It covers everything and it makes things very clear - good job!

The only critisism I have is that some parts could be worded a little less aggressively - although in most cases it's OK.

But this bit I think should be taken out:

(or simply cheesed us off)

It gives the impression were going to exclude people from the project if they even look at us the wrong way!

Sure - their may be a situation where we need to ban somebody if nessesary, but I'd like to think this would be the last course of action - after trying to discuss any problems and seeing if there are other ways we could sort it out first.

...and we certainly couldn't ban somebody just because we didnt' like them!

But apart from that, it's all good.

[razorace]

Noted, feel free to make changes and post them or email them to me.

[Scarlett]

I don't really have any input to give as to how this whole thing works (right now anway).... but i think it's a great idea. I'd love to contribute to this. Razor suggested i dontate my effects work to it, so i'll do that. I'd also like to work on material specific effects and entity collision sounds and stuff like that... mostly astetic related. Most people would probably think my gameplay and interface ideas are a bit extreme... so i don't know about those. ;)

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Well - this is the good thing about the OJP Scarlett.
If you've contributed some good and worthwhile stuff to the OJP, then you get to become a member who can potentially 'produce' an OJP mod.

(I think the term 'produce an OJP mod' is the best way to describe the process. It's better than just 'making a mod' - this sounds like your making it all yourself from scratch...)

Of course you must follow the rules - most importantly giving full credit for the features you use.

Your game ideas may be 'extreme', but as long as they were original and not a copy-cat, then that's fine. You are free to try and make a good, unique game which adds to the OJP 'range' of mods...

[reaper1576]

shaping up realy nice razor nice work

[razorace]

Thanks Reaper, but I have had some help. :)

[Scarlett]

If you've contributed some good and worthwhile stuff to the OJP, then you get to become a member who can potentially 'produce' an OJP mod.
I'm not interested in "producing" a mod based on this, i'm working on my own. I was just wanting to contribute some of the things i've done into the offical OJP base project is all.... i don't know where you got all those ideas about my intentions from...

[razorace]

Originally posted by Scarlett
I'm not interested in "producing" a mod based on this, i'm working on my own. I was just wanting to contribute some of the things i've done into the offical OJP base project is all.... i don't know where you got all those ideas about my intentions from...

Uh, fair enough. I'm sorry if I made that sound differently.

I've got several issues that I'm going to put into the next version of the rule handbook:

1. We need to say something about the fact that this is technically applied on top of Raven's code. Basically, something about the way the OJP rules ONLY apply to the works created by OJP contributers. We're simply distroing parts of the Raven code for simplicity. We have every respect for Raven/LEC's rights to their works.

2. Remove the charges of "not giving proper credit to coders in the community" and "changing handles to avoid retribution" since I don't really have direct evidence to back that stuff up. I'll also reword the charges. The ban still stay however.

3. Add a section about the process to submit features to the project.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

i don't know where you got all those ideas about my intentions from...


OK - my mistake.
...I was only speaking hypothetically anyway, just to underline the possibilities.

Whatever you could contribute would be great :)


About your points Razor, agreed to all.

I've sent out some messages to a few people about website and forums - hopefully we'll hear something back soon.

[AV4T4R]

Hi guys.. really interesting ideas!

Renegade it's 1 mounth i'm searchingfor you .. eheh can u cnotact me in some way?

icq :35433605

i need to speak with you for a couple of things ( related and not-related to JK )

[Emon]

Those rules aren't as necessary as you think. You'll be scaring people with them. The only reason BOFH was able to "steal" JediMod was because Dest stopped producing it, and because it directly affected end users, getting him fame, which he probably wanted. If someone rips off OJP, whoopdee ****ing doo, no one's going to use it, it's blatantly a rip off, why steer away from the accepted standard? When's the last time you saw someone rip off an open source library for C or C++ like libpng or libjpg? Exactly. They'd get no fame, they wouldn't have any reason to do it. And developers in particular understand the importance of mainstream. I wouldn't start using some jackass' OJPOmni++ 2.5 because he thinks it's better. Source should be available to all, you shouldn't need to e-mail us to get it. That hinders development and scares people away, I know it would for me.


I think there should only be two ways to participate in coding. First is having CVS access, unrestricted, this is for the full time contributors. A listing of current tasks should be kept up to date on a website or sticky thread in a forum. If you keep access unrestricted, it allows anyone to modify anything that isn't being worked on. It would suck to have to go to an administrator and let him chmod a directory or something so you can access it.

The second is submitting patches. Another reason to keep public CVS wide open. A lot of people aren't going to want to join the team, only submit a patch or two. Just about a month ago, a guy I was talking to about window managers for Linux made and submitted a window snapping patch for Fluxbox in about an hour. He submitted it, made it free for download, and then the developers either chose to accept it or reject it some other time. I think that's exactly how OJP should work. Anyone can download the CVS and make any patches they want, and put them up anywhere they want, of course that would all be unofficial, we would have to accept it and add it to the code if we wanted. Now you're probably thinking someone's going to take advantage of this and try to steal some fame or some crap like that, but, as a developer, would you start using patches rejected by the official team? Anything good we will accept, but people should be allowed to do what they want with it, unless they're selling it or something.

Anyways, that's my rant. I'm basically trying to point out that adding rules and restrictions will slow development. People are scared away by that sort of thing. Especially now, when we are starting out, we'll be seen with the attitude of, "Heh, they want me to ask for permission? Who do they think they are??" Quite frankly, we're like nobodys now, we are in no position to be restricting those who want to help us.

[razorace]

Well, Emon has a point as well.

It's really just a matter of how worried you guys are about people using your works, with or without credit, and whither you want to try to help the community out with the similarity clause. But if you're not willing to have additional rules, the chance of people abusing the project is higher.

I'm basically fine with full open as long as people don't use my works commerically. However, I think the similarity clause would help things quite a bit.

I'll go with whatever the majority wants. :)

However, I'm against the task list concept. While I am recording a list of possible fixes, additions, etc, I've found from experience that people will NOT do anything if you give them a task to complete. I have no problem with simply having a "suggestions" list but anything beyond that WILL NOT WORK. The only way things get done in the modding community is when people are directly interested in doing it.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

At the end of the day - the OJP is run by majority. We have a pretty good idea who the initial contributors are going to be. So let's see what everyone else thinks. If most people don't want any kind of rules for mods built off the OJP, then I'll go along with that.
I'll state that I think it's potentially a bad idea, but I'm happy to go with the majority on this one...

i.e. I would rather have an OJP which had no rules and some risk involved than have no OJP at all because no-one could live with any rules...!


I think it's fine to make the OJP source available to all without some kind of 'request' e-mail. That makes practical sense as well.
(btw though, with our old proposed system, once you had access - I believe that meant FULL access. I don't believe we were proposing people had to re-request every time that wanted to look at a particular file!)

But I still think some kind of 'rules', for building completely new mods from OJP source are worth-while having.


When's the last time you saw someone rip off an open source library for C or C++ like libpng or libjpg?


While I'm not exactly sure what those library's are about, I'm guessing they are meant for professional software development. Well, were in a different position because were not in the professional development arena. And so saying no-one has ripped off these libraries is not a direct analogy between what might happen to the OJP.
I agree, it would make no sense for a professional to 'rip-off' open source code. Their not coding for fame - their getting paid to do a job...

The fact is were talking about modding for a computer game - there is a different spectrum of mentality. The incident you mentioned above is a clear example of this. (I'm a bit confused by the fact you seem to have stated a clear example of abuse of open source which is known to have happenned, and then said 'So let's not have any rules this time round'?!)

Will it slow down development? Ermm, potentially I guess it might do - a small bit in some cases. I guess I have to give you that one. But I'd say it's worth it - when the alternative is what happenned before.

Will it scare off people? Were you scared to post on this forum because there were some rules that go along with that activity?

Will people freely contribute to the OJP with NO safe-guards in place against using the code without credit, or suddenly 10 copy-cat's of their mod popping up?

Patches are something different - these are not affected by the rules for building new mods. In fact, as far as patches I would say no hard and fast rules at all. I think maybe we want to be sure that the patch is actually an improvement of somekind to the game - maybe have a coding standard (but I think the admins would have to possibly accept a little bit of code 'clean-up' duty) - but apart from that - anything goes I'd say. Let's let anybody contribute whatever they like. The more, the merrier.

But I think building a new mod off the OJP source is a different story...


Quite frankly, we're like nobodys now, we are in no position to be restricting those who want to help us.


This is looking at things backwards. The rules were proposing should be benifical to all - not just the people who happen to admin it.
And we wouldn't be restricting anybody who wanted to help us. At least that wouldn't be the intention - if we did restrict people who wanted to help, then that would be our fault.
The intention would be to restrict those who want to abuse the open nature of development...

[t3rr0r]

guys, not sure if you know about this, but you may want to take a look... http://pcgamemods.com/2309/

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Haha
:D

Well, that IS funny!!

...co-incidence?!
(Anybody know this guy?)

[t3rr0r]

they're only saber hilts, too...

and judging by the date, it is probably safe to assume it is not a coincidence.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

If it IS a co-incidence, (it's a bit unlikely, but it's possible after all) then fair enough. It's not a problem, we'll work something out.

If it's NOT a co-incidence though, well, I rest my case on the maturity of some modders... :rolleyes:

I think we need to talk to him first though.
(Who knows - maybe he was just trying to get the ball rolling, in an unorganised kind of way!)

I'll leave a quick comment when I get home...

[bliv]

http://www.lucasforums.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=112195

Not really wanting to point the finger at anyone but if you scroll down that thread a little you can probably work out what I think.

[Azymn]

I agree with what I think bliv thinks.

[razorace]

I've sent the following to the dude. I've also contacted the major file servers about the issue. I haven't ask them to remove the files yet as I want to hear this dude's side of the story first. No need to take forceful action if it was just a honest mistake.

Hello,

We've just noticed that you've posted a mod with the name OJP (Open Jedi Project).

We have been using this name for sometime now. We don't want to cause problems with duplicate mod names and we'd like to hear your side of the story. However, we have proof that we've been using this name for sometime now and are willing to take this evidence to all the major file servers if we find that you're just attempting to steal/slam our name. Please contact me ASAP.

Thanks,
Razor Ace

[Emon]

Originally posted by razorace
It's really just a matter of how worried you guys are about people using your works, with or without credit, and whither you want to try to help the community out with the similarity clause. But if you're not willing to have additional rules, the chance of people abusing the project is higher.

I'm basically fine with full open as long as people don't use my works commerically. However, I think the similarity clause would help things quite a bit.

However, I'm against the task list concept. While I am recording a list of possible fixes, additions, etc, I've found from experience that people will NOT do anything if you give them a task to complete. I have no problem with simply having a "suggestions" list but anything beyond that WILL NOT WORK. The only way things get done in the modding community is when people are directly interested in doing it.

1. If someone rips it off, just get the mod sites to take it down. Any decent administrator is smart enough to see something like that, and to avoid a legal mess, they'll probably comply.

2. They couldn't use it commercially because the EULA prohibits commercial use of any mod. The only way is if someone bought a Q3 engine license and somehow got our code in there, but that's like impossible.

3. No, I don't mean assigned tasks, I mean just keep a list of what people are doing on a forum or website so that other people don't go mucking around in it by accident. Like bob12435 can be like, "hey guys I'm going to do some new physics thing" and then it gets posted on the forum so no one else mucks with his files.

RenegadeOfPhunk, libpng and libjpg are exactly what they sound like, libraries for loading PNG and JPEG files. They're completely open for any kind of software development.

I understand there's a different mentality (and what examle were you talking about where I said it was abused??), but still, think about it. This is a very large project with a lot of developers. It's the first. If someone wants to rip us off, let them try. Everyone's going to know it's a ripoff, so no one's going to use it. I sure as ****ing hell wouldn't take some dumbasses modifications from like the GTK and use them in my software, I want the real thing, and I know everyone else who's a decent developer would too.

I'm not sure what to think of that guy's hilt pack, but from his posts, he just sounds confused.


My basic thought is that rules are going to scare people away. Public CVS access is a must. If anyone tries to steal it from us, let them try, we will just smite them. Let's assume our path is rather rocky, so let's say it will happen. But how many times can it happen? Once? Twice? Over the course of (hopefully) many years? That doesn't sound very threatening, nor does "omgom guys I maed teh ojp-- mod it r lek teh ojp but I changed teh menuz!", etc. If it becomes a serious problem, then we can take action, but right now we are in no position to be making demands of developers who want to use our stuff or contribute.


Edit: Also to support my belief that this is not a problem, look at GtkRadiant and Q3Map2. They both have the source code readily available, there has never been a problem. If some jackass ripped it, called it OmniGtkRadiant or something, would you use it? No, of course you wouldn't, same with Q3Map2. People want reliable stuff, not some immitation crap.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Everyone's going to know it's a ripoff, so no one's going to use it. I sure as ****ing hell wouldn't take some dumbasses modifications from like the GTK and use them in my software, I want the real thing, and I know everyone else who's a decent developer would too.


Hmmm. It's possible were getting crossed wires here Emon. When you refer to the 'rip-off', sounds like to me your refering to a different open source project who rips off our code and then hands that out to other mod makers (?). If so, that's not what I'm talking about.

...I'm talking about someone taking OJP code, claiming it as their own and making their own mod out of it, changing enough of it so that many people are fooled into thinking it's original work and then releasing that mod to the public, without any recognition to the original authors.

In this case, it's not developers (decent or otherwise) who are being presented with a 'rip-off', it's the gamers themselves.

Can this happen? YES - it HAS happenned. You've already mentioned the 'incident', and I don't want to mention it directly again (because that's when things start to get heated up around here - which CLEARLY shows it was indeed quite a BIG problem).



1. If someone rips it off, just get the mod sites to take it down. Any decent administrator is smart enough to see something like that, and to avoid a legal mess, they'll probably comply.



I think it's easier to get the guidelines clear right from the start, rather than having to write to every single mod site and tell them to start ripping files down.

Why not try and stop those files getting put up in the first place?!
OK - you may argue there is little we can do about it if somebody wants to do this - especially if we want it to be as open as possible. And yes, you may be right. But why not at least make it very clear this is against our 'rules' (and when I say OUR, I mean ALL contributors, not just a handful of 'high-and-mighty' admins), and if you do this, were going to take steps. If we do make this clear, it is possibe they may not try to begin with, saving not only us, but the mod site admins a whole load of grief we and they don't want!



look at GtkRadiant and Q3Map2. They both have the source code readily available, there has never been a problem.


I am almost certain the code for these programs will come under the GPL - which the Quake I and II engine open source code are also under.
Check here (http://www.gnu.org/copyleft/gpl.html) for the 'rules' of that license.

(I did try and find out for sure whether this was the case directly, but half the links I found to try and get more details about gtkradiant and Q3Map2 weren't working - so I gave up!
But put it this way - I don't know of ANY 'professional' open source code which DOESN'T include some kind of licence similar to the GPL...)

If you know better in these specific cases you've mentioned, then by all means post a link and I'll happily take it back. But I'd be very surprised if you do...

Look, I'm not trying to say we should be like ultra-professionals - just for the sake of it. I know this is just a mod were working on. I don't see this as legal stuff. Because at the end of the day (I know Razor disagrees with me), I don't think taking legal action over mods is either practical or justified.

...these 'rules' were talking about - as far as I'm concerned - are just about:

a. A certain level of common cortosey and respect

b. Reassuring people that if they contribute, the OJP will do whatever it can to make sure they will get the appropiate credit whenever their feature is used / played.

c. Try and stop copy-cat mods appearing all over the place.

Now the copycat mod thing - possibly - is the least important out of the three. But still - why not try and stop this? Basically, if you've made a realtively minor change or addition, please don't go and make a whole new mod.
Instead, please just add it back into the OJP.

...is that really SO much to ask?

[Emon]

Whoa! Okay, hold up, you didn't have to type more than the first few lines. I understand what you are talking about now. I thought you meant a duplicate of OJP, not someone claiming the code as theirs.

This is really easy to fix. In our license agreement, which we can put on our site or on our CVS thing, we just say that if you use code without credit, we can take legal action. The only other thing I can see to stop this is to limit distribution of the source code, which may severely hurt the development of the project, and like I said, scare people away, and would also seem kind of elitist I think, and demanding.

If someone still tries to dick with us, well, there isn't much we can do, other than talk to the mod sites to get them to take the stuff down. If we wanted to threaten with legal action or something, any mod site not run on Geocities is going to comply.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

This is really easy to fix. In our license agreement, which we can put on our site or on our CVS thing, we just say that if you use code without credit, we can take legal action.


This is all Razor and myself have been saying from the beginning! Well, I'll let Razor speak for himself. I know that's what I meant at least...

I'd thought I(we) had made ourselves pretty clear too... :confused:

(Although I still think legal action is a little over-the-top, but whatever).

Oh well, at least were all on the same page now :)

[Emon]

Oops! :o

I'll start work on a small website.

[razorace]

The problem is, simply telling people to give "proper credit" isn't going to work. A lot of the problems with "the incident" was that there was credit given but it wasn't enough to prevent glory hogging.

If you think credit hogging is more acceptable than some useage rules, that's fine. But we're going to have to accept the conceqences either way.

Personally, I'd rather error on the side of caution and only have the cream of the crop material (since those are probably the only people able/willing to submit) rather than have to suck it up when people totally abuse my work.

Besides, I don't feel like having to babysit crappy modders when they submit code that is in no shape to be intergrated into the project.

[Emon]

And the only other option is limited source code distribution, which I am strongly against.

Please correct me if I am mistaken, but BOFH actually did credit a lot of the code he used. And besides, this is one guy, it's not worth it to drag everything down because something like that might happen again. And did those who got the code stolen ever bother to contact sites to get it removed, or did they just flame BOFH in the forums, because I seem to remember that.

[razorace]

I'm not for limited source code distrobution either.

However, I have no problems with us denying access to known troublemakers. And the only way to do that is to require everyone to contact us before giving out the password. With the repository I got set up, I have to pass out a password to the repository anyway.

[Emon]

What's to stop someone from contacting you under an alternate alias? It's not going to work. If someone wants the source code, they are going to get it.

[razorace]

True, but there's nothing wrong with at least trying to keep them out. If we keep records and find out that a banned individual has gotten the code, we might be able to track it back to whoever did it. Plus, we could act immediately against the banned individual instead of having to try to be "fair".

EDIT: Plus, we can do additional things like knowing who's using our code legally and so on.

Any luck with sourceforge?

[Emon]

No, that won't matter. You cannot prevent someone from getting the code if they want it. It's much easier and more effective to just get the crap taken down, this is going to hinder development for legit coders. Especially when you want to take all these precautions because of one guy who, at least I haven't seen in many ages. Are you trying to inflate his ego or what? We should let it go and not be intimidated by idiots.

SourceForge hasn't replied, but I can try a few other places.

[razorace]

How's it going to hinder legit developers? All you gotta do is email one of the moderators and tell them who you are and why you want access. If they're too lazy to do that, they're going to be too lazy to configure their copy of CVS to access the repository or too lazy to pimp their code up to an acceptable level anyway.

On the useage side of things, the rules I've suggested have two main purposes:

1. To help ensure the rights (and credit) of the modders to their work. A lot of people are very concerned about this. If strict rules are the difference between people contributing and not contributing, we need to have the rules in place.

2. To hopefully limit the widespread of "me too" mods that hurt the JK2 community.

If we're not too concerned about either of the two, that's fine. We need to do whatever is the most likely to get good modders to pretipate. I think that the good modders need to feel that their code is going to be properly creditted than allowing super free access.

[Scarlett]

Just some input:

About the whole credit issue. I think we shouldn't be so egotistical about it... i say screw it. Sure a credits list for the project is desirable, but if someone uses our work i don't think we should be so insistant on them giving their sources away. Sure it's ideal, and we should request that it be done, but honestly not everyone's going to do it no matter what you say. Hopefully when this thing takes off it'll be really popular and thus, if someone takes code from OJP and uses it in their mod people are just going to know where it came from anyway.

And about how open the source code is... i think it should be fully open. Downloadable from the website, and up to date with the latest build that's been released. I really can't see it any other way. As Emon has been saying, i really think that could potentially slow down production too.

Also, maybe this has already been figured out, but this is how i was thinking the whole source code updating process would be handled:

[list=1]
The client sends a moderator an email with the source code that they're wanting to contibute to the project
Then the update will have to be offically accepted
If it is accepted, it'll be added to the base project as a new update (by a moderator)
Then a beta test will be sent back to the client, for them to test it out to make sure it was implimented properly
The client will then have to reply, confirming this
Then the new build is released to the public
[/list=1]

[razorace]

That seems fair.

That's one vote for "screw it. Open Source TO THE EXTR3M3!!!!".

I'm undecided. I just want to do whatever most people can get behind.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Well, to me it seems most people are saying:

a. Rules are scaring a load of us

b. Some don't think the rules can actually be 'enforced' that easiely anyway in the first place.

I think a. is unfounded. 99% of us do not need to be worried by the rules, because most modders I've met have been perfectly nice and reasonable people. i.e. the rules will most likely not end up affecting most of as at all.
...at most, you might get the odd suggestion about - I donno - about maybe this feature should be cvar'ed or slightly altered because it clashes with this feature already in the OJP etc.etc. Maintenance type stuff - just to keep the OJP nice and organised. That's all it will be for most of us.

THe main 'rules' are only to combat a minority who wish to abuse stuff. Who knows - that minority may not even be a problem this time round. But I think it would be unwise to leave things open for that kind of abuse this time round again.


Concerning b., however, I think people may be somewhat correct about this - and why it's not really worth trying to make things TOO restrictive in an effort to try and make this 'water-tight', because I don't think this is possible.
I think it's enough to have the rule in place and say 'We will do whatever we can to enforce this'. This will deter some people. Maybe not all - granted. But there is NOTHING we can do about the very possibility of rips without making the source much less OPEN. And I agree with Emon here - this is the whole point of the project in the first place.

SO I say give out access freely, but make sure the 'rules' are nice and clear, and let people know we will take 'some kind of action' if they don't follow them. There ARE steps we can take - it's not like people will be able to have completely free reign here.

Assuming the OJP becomes fairly universally recognised, that in itself gives it some 'pulling' power around the community etc.

[Emon]

I can see you wanting to stop the "me too" mods (which, by the way, were gameplay based, we aren't going to be making any gameplay changes probably, removing any possibility of that), but having people e-mail for the source code is not going to help! I bet you we'd end up authorizing every damn e-mail and it won't have mattered any way. Tracking? Please, what's that going to let you do? It all boils down to you contacting a site and making them take the mod off, how is knowing who e-mailed you going to help? They could have sent an anonymous e-mail. Sure, you can trace it, but how does that help! Oh no, you can tell a guy lives in Germany that stole our code! Whoop dee ****ing doo, we still call up LucasFiles and tell them to take it down.

Afterall, this is all over ONE person who I haven't seen in a long time. If we're doing this entirely to stop BOFH from stealing our code, then please, grow up. It's also inflating his ego!

If something severe happens, then let's limit the code distribution. But for now, I don't see a damn reason to.

Additionally, I think we should release the code in actual mod form for end users. JA's got more map entities, but not enough. It would be nice if mappers could make maps to use OJP's public releases. Since it doesn't make gameplay changes, it would be ideal for servers that don't run mods and want to run some fancy levels. And also, we'd have to release only major revisions, because no one wants to update OJP every other week.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Additionally, I think we should release the code in actual mod form for end users. JA's got more map entities, but not enough. It would be nice if mappers could make maps to use OJP's public releases. Since it doesn't make gameplay changes, it would be ideal for servers that don't run mods and want to run some fancy levels. And also, we'd have to release only major revisions, because no one wants to update OJP every other week.


I agree, we should definelty have an official OJP mod released and playable by the public.

Actually, my idea I was thinking about would be to possibly have a couple of different versions. I haven't really thought this through thouroughly yet - so don't dismiss the idea straight away! - but I was thinking of something along the lines of:

OJP Basic
------------
This would be JUST bug fixes and anything which are improvments, but don't alter basic gameplay - like you've said Emon.

OJP Fun
----------
This includes all the OJP basic stuff - PLUS...
all the 'cool' extra (gameplay changing) features cvar'ed up. This is for the less serious gamer who just wants to chill out, and doesn't bother too much about conformity etc. (There are a lot of players like this)

...and maybe even...

OJP Pro
---------
With some established tweaks. This one would probably end up being quite a sticking point for some people, and could end up being like a 1.03, 1.04 patch senario!! :eek:
So, not even sure we want to go there - but it's a possibility anyway...


I just seems to me that if we only release an OJP mod which doesn't alter gameplay AT ALL, there could be tons of features which never get seen in the OJP mod.

Then you have to rely on these features getting used in other mods. If they happen to never get used, or only get used in rather obscure mods, then - doh - they basically went to the trouble of adding a feature that didn't really get used - even if the feature was actually quite good!

SO I think having 2 or 3 versions of the OJP mod sorts that out.
i.e. if you do add something to the OJP, you are almost certainly assured to have it show up in at least 1 of the OJP variations.
And you cater to a wider variety of gamer too.

Of course,I wouldn't start making 10 different 'original' OJP mods - that's a bit OTT, and you've just started the whole fragmentation thing yourself!! But I think 2 or 3 types are reasonable...

[Wudan]

Well, Re: Fragmentation - that's going to happen anyway.

You can't tell people to be original - it's something they'll have to do themselves.

I plan on radically changing gameplay in my mod, I agree with Emon that gameplay shouldn't be changed by the OJP - but I think that certain fixes and improvements could be made without destroying gameplay (because gameplay is in shambles as it is).

Whatever I want to add on top of that is my business :)

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Whatever I want to add on top of that is my business


I totally agree...
...as long as your not 99% similar to another OJP mod - which I think is reasonable to ask...

(or some high percentage - 98% would probably not be good either! ;) )

Since you plan on 'radically changing gameplay', sounds like you'll have absolutely no problem with meeting that requirement.
Can't wait to see what you come up with btw...


(because gameplay is in shambles as it is)


This is a totally objective opinion.
(I don't have one yet - I've just bought the game this second. I haven't even got round to installing it yet! lol :) )
But I've spent enough time in the Jedi Academy forums to know that there are very much two sides to that story...

[Emon]

Yes, there are definately two sides, and it looks like it's boiling down to patches. Some people think patches are bad, I disagree. I think the only reason it was bad for JO was because LEC pulled the plug, and Raven started working on JA. That, and **** just happens, some people made some bad choices or mistakes, it isn't garunteed to happen again.

[Emon]

Originally posted by Wudan
You can't tell people to be original - it's something they'll have to do themselves.

That's sort of what I was getting it, thank you for stating so. Really guys, making people e-mail you for the source code isn't going to stop look alike mods.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I agree - I am no longer suggesting people e-mail us for access to the source code initially. I'm totally down with that. I have been for quite a few posts now.

What I am proposing HAS to be organised fairly well is the releasing of NEW mods built from OJP source code.

I guess this should require some kind of request e-mail, along with the description of the mod etc.
But anyway - let's just decide what permissions are needed first. Once we know that, then we get a bit more nitty-gritty and decide exactly how they should work...

[Emon]

What do you mean, new mods built with OJP?

Razorace and Wudan, what are your mod ideas? I'm also thinking about a mod I'd like to do, and if our plans aren't far off, I think it would be to the best for all of us to combine efforts. Basically, I want to take what's in JA, fix it (if not fixed in patches), and improve upon it. Right now I'm thinking of scoping the E-11 and bowcaster, and bringing back some guns from DF and JK.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Blimey!
...what have we been talking about this whole time?! :confused:

Please check my very first post in this thread:


Overall, it seems the aim of the OJP is to provide a standard 'library' of bug fixes / improvements etc. That's fine - I get that. And I see the need for these bug fixes / improvements to be regulated and controlled.

Now - from what I've read - the idea is that mods are built 'on top of' OJP - i.e. using the OJP code as a base. If this is the case - then woohoo - this is great!


If this wasn't the idea, you maybe should have mentioned something earlier...

I don't mind disagreeing on things - but if your not going to read my posts properly, this makes things very difficult.

If the idea ISN'T to build new mods 'on top of' the OJP source, then I see it as a very limited concept. Sure - it may have appeal to a few developers who have very similar ideas on what they want to do. But what about the rest of us who DO possibly want to change gameplay a bit? Even drastically?

Are we just plain out of luck? i.e. the OJP can't really do anything for us?!


Emon - if you just want to get a few people together to make a mod, you don't need a big, old open source project for that, you just need to get a mod team together!!

[Emon]

I don't know, I read your posts, but I got confused some how.

That's definately the idea behind OJP, it always has been. I'm confused, when was there confusion on that??

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

LOL!

...when you said this:


What do you mean, new mods built with OJP?


I think everybody is confused now - certainly including myself!!

Tell ya what - you tell me whatever language your speaking, I'll go off and learn it (it seems to be like English, but slightly different) and then we'll carry on the conversation!


I'm sorry - I'm just getting a bit fustrated here. I think I've been making myself pretty clear...

When I say 'new mods built from OJP source code' - I mean 'new mods which use some OJP source code'. Is that clear?

Is anybody else finding me incomprehensible?!

[Emon]

Sorry, I was referring to this comment of yours:


What I am proposing HAS to be organised fairly well is the releasing of NEW mods built from OJP source code.

I guess this should require some kind of request e-mail, along with the description of the mod etc.
But anyway - let's just decide what permissions are needed first. Once we know that, then we get a bit more nitty-gritty and decide exactly how they should work...


In response to that, I think people should have to e-mail us simply telling us they are using the source code in their mod, so that we can keep track of it. Well, it wouldn't necessarily have to be required, but it would be a benefit to both parties if they did.

Another great thing about building mods on OJP, is that you could have levels built with new code and entities that will run on any mod built off OJP, which I hope to be almost all. :) One of the cool things about the code setup in the original Jedi Knight, was that you could add any kind of code you wanted, on a per-level basis. Q3 lacks this, and OJP could help as a remedy.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

OK - I think were communicating now :)


Another great thing about building mods on OJP, is that you could have levels built with new code and entities that will run on any mod built off OJP, which I hope to be almost all.


Yes - this is a GREAT plus to having the OJP in place - totally agree.


In response to that, I think people should have to e-mail us simply telling us they are using the source code in their mod, so that we can keep track of it. Well, it wouldn't necessarily have to be required, but it would be a benefit to both parties if they did.


Yes, this is the right way to think of it.

If we can keep track of the mods which are using OJP source, then if we see two mods which are 99% similar we can just say 'Hey guys - it looks like your mods are going to be practically the same - might you consider joining forces?' It may turn out that there were more differences than we realised - or they may indeed join forces. Whatever. At least we can TRY and organise things so that overly-similar mods don't get made - because that doesn't help anybody. Not the mod makers, or the end users - the players.

Ok -so do we agree that - ideally - all mod makers who want to use OJP source in their new mod need to touch base with the OJP admins - so we can organise things? That's all I'm saying...

[Emon]

Sounds good.

Only reason I can see that someone wouldn't want to use OJP is the view that it's bloated, and would have large VMs. But this isn't going to affect actual speed, only load times perhaps. At least noticably. Only truely anal coders like ASk will have a problem. ;)

[Scarlett]

Actually, my idea I was thinking about would be to possibly have a couple of different versions.
I don't really like that idea. It seems like it'd be best to just keep everything in one version. As long as any beyond-patch gameplay changing aspects are done outside of BG code, we can easily make them Cvar options... i think that'd be the best way to go.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

:)
Yes - the OJP code itself is going to get quite large!

People making new mods from the OJP source code are free to 'strip out' whatever they don't need though I guess. At least I don't see why this is a problem.

...and as long as all the OJP additions have been clearly marked with nice clear, searchable comments, it should be as painless as possible to do this - ideally as least...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

I don't really like that idea. It seems like it'd be best to just keep everything in one version. As long as any beyond-patch gameplay changing aspects are done outside of BG code, we can easily make them Cvar options... i think that'd be the best way to go.


Well - partly, this depends on what people see as the scope of the OJP.

Seems that some people just see it strictly for bug fixes and improvements which don't affect basic gameplay.

However, I saw it as more encompasing than that. For example, I am ready to add an LMS (Last Man Standing) system to the OJP. But this - of course - DOES affect basic gameplay...

First of all, is this kind of work (e.g. LMS) welcome to be added to the OJP?

Second - assuming it is - do we release the OJP absolutely chock-full of cvars? To me - that seems like a total mess. I dont' agree with that. Pro players - for one - would NEVER play it - because they would never know what type of game they were playing when they joined an OJP server - they would rather not have the bug fixes - no matter how good - and just stick with the base game.

So splitting it up into at least 2 types of mods allows us to take on any and all 'improvements' without turning the released OJP mod into a cvar nightmare!

[Emon]

I don't like the multiple version idea, either. Just have internal and external releases. Internal is very frequent, external leaves out the minor revisions so people don't have to update so damn much.

Gameplay changes through cvars would give end users a little more incentive to run the mod. But restrict them to balance issues, nothing major. Through this, OJP could patch any gameplay issues that Raven doesn't or cannot get (like if LEC pulls the plug), and, hopefully, become an unofficial patch, and at the same time support all sorts of new user made levels. (Competitive players wouldn't bother with this mod, as they almost always like everything vanilla, but I personally think that kind of strict competitive play sucks anyways).

I have a lot of faith in this project. I think that if it goes the way we want, it could be the sole factor in determining the long term condition of JA.

[Emon]

ROP, I see your problem with the cvars, but I believe multiple mods is a bigger problem. It's confusing, they're not compatible, just... I don't like it. We aren't going to be making six hundred changes here, so it won't be a huge mess.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Emon,

Can you please just double-check you've read my last post thouroughly.

I'm not talking about different versions as in v1.0, v1.1, v2.0.

I'm talking about two different 'builds' of the OJP.

One which is limited to only bug-fixes and non-gameplay changing improvements. (Sounds like this is what your most interested in)

...and another build which could have all the other additions (e.g. LMS, extra force levels, jetpacks etc. etc.)

...unless were not intending the second kind of additions to be allowed in the OJP at all. In which case I think that's a bit limiting. And actually going against the whole 'open source' concept you've been speaking so strongly for...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

ROP, I see your problem with the cvars, but I believe multiple mods is a bigger problem. It's confusing, they're not compatible, just... I don't like it. We aren't going to be making six hundred changes here, so it won't be a huge mess.


I believe the opposite.

I think it's FAR worse to have one mod chock-full of cvars, than having two builds.

Either that, or we have to think about limiting the amount - and the SCOPE of the features we can have in the OJP - which I don't think is very appealing, and goes against the idea of 'open source'...


And it's not just the literal amount of changes, it's also the SCOPE of the changes.

You seem to be under the impression no-one was going to add features which changed basic gameplay.

However, I was already planning to do so. (LMS)

If you do accept the LMS code, and you add a cvar for it, then say goodbye to the so-called 'professional' JKII players who just want to play the game as it is - no massive gameplay changes from base should be even possible.

If you still accept the LMS code, but don't include it in the final mod - what was the point of me contributing it in the first place?

If you don't accept the LMS code - then you limit the whole idea of the OJP. It would still work, and it would be fairly good - but why not allow all changes and make 2 builds?

Could you explain exactly how 2 builds will cause such confusion?! Seems pretty simple, clear and effective to me...

but again - it's majority rules here - so whatever everybody else thinks...

[Emon]

Originally posted by RenegadeOfPhunk
Emon,

Can you please just double-check you've read my last post thouroughly.

I'm not talking about different versions as in v1.0, v1.1, v2.0.

I'm talking about two different 'builds' of the OJP.

One which is limited to only bug-fixes and non-gameplay changing improvements. (Sounds like this is what your most interested in)

...and another build which could have all the other additions (e.g. LMS, extra force levels, jetpacks etc. etc.)

...unless were not intending the second kind of additions to be allowed in the OJP at all. In which case I think that's a bit limiting. And actually going against the whole 'open source' concept you've been speaking so strongly for...

1. I know what you mean, I know you mean different builds, and I still disagree.

2. Things like LMS, jetpacks, and whatever aren't what OJP is for, that's for the mods built on OJP. OJP is for things like new entities, bug fixes, new collision detection, maybe like new and fixed AI, and maybe very small gameplay changes to fix balance issues, making it an unofficial patch. Speaking of patches, that could be used as a guideline for what should go in. If Raven wouldn't add it in a patch, maybe it shouldn't be in OJP. Patches rarely severely alter gameplay or add new elements to gameplay, only fix them, which, as I have followed, the limit to gameplay changes for months now.

3. It's limiting, sort of, because it goes beyond the scope of OJP. We want, or at least I want it to help developers to make their own gameplay changes, not let them use ones we've created. If we go by your idea, we'll start to see some lookalike mods. And how does this go against open source? Open source just means the source code is freely available to anyone, in a nutshell.

4. "Chock-full of cvars"... As stated above, we'd only be making minor changes, there would be no more than like a dozen new cvars. I don't see that as "chock-full".

And limiting what goes into OJP is, as stated above, not against open source. This is primarily a mod for developers, not end users. Rather, it is for developers directly, end users are affected indirectly.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Ok - I see what your saying.

Basically, I've seen the OJP slightly differently than you have.

Yes, if we are limiting the OJP to non-gameplay changing features, then fair enough. We don't need two builds - I agree.

However, I'll be a bit disappointed if this is the case. I saw the OJP being a little bit more ecnompasing than that.

...but if this is the case, then so be it...

I think we can do what you want to do AND MORE with the 2 build concept. And I don't see it as confusing - at all infact! But whatever everybody else thinks...

[Scarlett]

Alright, i can see your point about having different builds, Renegade, rather than all the options... i didn't think about some of those things. But let's just limit it to two, eh? One for enhancements alone and another of additions and the enhancements. So when there's a new update that's an enhancement, it'll be implimented into both builds.

[Emon]

Hey, I understand what you mean. But think about it. If we make all those changes, there's no real point in having other mods, and we're going to see a lot of copycats.

Take for example various C/C++ libraries. LibXML only loads and parses XML stuff for you, it doesn't interface with your code. LibJPG will load JPEGs for you, but it won't start drawing them on cubes for you in OpenGL. Every project's got to have some sort of boundaries, for OJP, it's gameplay changes.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Alright, i can see your point about having different builds, rather than options... i didn't think about some of those things. But let's just limit it to two, eh? One for enhancements alone and another of additions and the enhancements. So when there's a new update that's an enhancement, it'll be implimented into both builds.


This is EXACTLY what I am proposing. Just 2 builds - that's fine.

All the stuff in the 'enhancement' mod would also be fully included in the 'additions' mod - exactly.

In this sense, they are compatible mods.

The ONLY reason for the two builds is because your more serious JKII gamer wants to know what he's playing when he joins a server...

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Hey, I understand what you mean. But think about it. If we make all those changes, there's no real point in having other mods, and we're going to see a lot of copycats.


Not nessesarily true Emon. Not all mods will nessesarily just blanketly use all the features from the OJP. And this was the whole point of the copy-cat clause we've been talking about for a while.

I, for one - know that the mod I would plan to make from the OJP would not just casually copy ovver all the features. In fact, I'm fairly sure I wouldn't want half of them! My mod is about Movie Realism - so a lot of it wouldn't be applicable (one small example - RGB sabers - I wouldn't want them - I would only want colours seen in the movies).

If you read my first post, I used two case examples to illustrate how I saw it working.

Your analogies between libraries and the OJP only work if you consider the OJP actually as a library. It doesn't nessesarily have to be JUST that...

[Emon]

It still violates the idea that OJP is a mod directly for developers, not for players. What you are proposing is the opposite. What I am proposing is what Razorace and I originally thought up many months ago.

But, I have an idea. If you want to do a gameplay mod, perhaps some of the members of the team would be interested in collaborating an OJP based gameplay mod, which would be an entirely different entity. It's just that OJP itself was never designed directly for the players, and I think it should stay that way.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Yeah - I understand I may have a different idea than was originally planned. And sorry if I'm rocking the boat a bit dude :)
THat's why I made my first post in this thread so long - to make sure I wasn't getting the idea of the OJP wrong...
...I'm guessing you didn't read it! ;)


But, I have an idea. If you want to do a gameplay mod, perhaps some of the members of the team would be interested in collaborating an OJP based gameplay mod, which would be an entirely different entity. It's just that OJP itself was never designed directly for the players, and I think it should stay that way.


Well - ermm - ok. Do you mean a whole different repository, admins etc.?

...do you think that's a better solution than a few preprocessor defines?!

My idea of the OJP is still to help share developing resources. Why have 3 different developers work on similar gameplay 'additions', when it can just be put into the OJP by one, and then used by all?

Mine isn't a totally different concept to yours!! Mine just isn't limited to non-gameplay changing features - that's all.

But anyway - sounds like it's essentially end of discussion for you. THat's not what you had in mind, so that's not what's happenning. If so - ermm - fair enough I guess...!

[razorace]

Woah, lots of activity here. :)

I'm just going to weigh in before heading off to work. I'll be home in about 5 and 1/2 hours.

I'm voting for the 2 build system:

Basic - (Emon's) Does game side modifications ONLY. There will be no gameplay modifications in this build. It will ONLY bug fixes, map entity additions,etc.

Medicorran Enhanced - (Phunk's) Alters both game and cgame code. Also allows good gameplay additions.

To keep things under control, we should NOT cvar everything. Instead we need to just tag every major feature with comment tags to allow people to add/remove major features at will. Whither these things are "on" by default will be up to the moderators.

This means that functions will have to duplicated for the major function rewrites.

In addition, I propose that we do NOT put any per person comment tags in the code. Instead, we'll do it on a per feature basis and then list all the credits in the credits file. That way we wouldn't have person tags up the ass when multiple people end up working on a single feature.

[razorace]

BTW, the gameplay code sharing was part of my original OJP concept. I never mention to imply that gameplay changes were outside the scope of the project. I was simply minimizing the concept to make it clear that we only want the good gameplay additions.

Anyway, the two builds will be handled on the same repository. They will just be in seperate directories. The what's new? files will probably be seperate and the credits/rule handbook/readme files should be shared.

Off to work!

end of line.

[Wudan]

You run a high risk of having one big ugly codebase, if you just have everybody's stuff thrown in to one big soup.

I'm really not sure what Emon thinks that the mod might be - if you want a set library of things that mod devs use to make a mod - we'll have that when the SDK comes out.

You'll find that people agree and disagree on what should or shouldn't be in a mod - the key concept of OJP (imho) is that if we all do LMS (for example), we should collaborate and make the most possible stable set of code for it - an OJP LMS module.

I think that the gameplay altering sources should be in separate files, with the best possible guide to plugging the code in to the SDK source (or perhaps a core OJP codebase), that way you won't have your gameplay changed unless you opted for it.

I know that I'm very afraid of writing a mod too similar to other OJP mods, but I'm pretty certain that it is not. I can benefit from OJP though, if it's done right.

Let's decide on how it's going to work.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Wudan,

Your right - we need to think about how - practicaly - it will work. But it can work - I'm sure of that.

I think the first obstacle is just deciding what were actually trying to achieve first! It seems to me we haven't actually decided that yet!

Once we DO decide that, then we can start talking about how we practically approach it. Many of the suggestions you've made sound sensible - for certain cases...

[Emon]

Well then, Razorace, you did a pretty poor job of explaining it to me in those two pages in the other thread, because I have been convinced that it's a mod for developers mostly.

If you've programmed in C++, you've probably used the STL, Standard Template Library, and you know how incredibly easy and powerful it is, and how much time it saves when programming. I think OJP should be similar to this. Let's fix bugs, make new entities, fix up the AI or vehicles, things which don't alter gameplay, but provide a good base for other developers. You all want to stop lookalike mods, but if you start putting gameplay changes in a mod that's labeled as a base for other developers, guess what, people are going to leave them in there, and mods are going to start looking the same! That's why if you leave out all but the basic balacing fixes, you can leave up originality and creativity up to people who use OJP in their mods, which reduces lookalike mods.

Also, most players aren't going to freely accept the mod if it's going to start seriously mucking with their gameplay. A lot of people like vanilla versions of their games. With my idea, OJP would keep that intact on many servers, but allow for much more advanced levels to be created.

Do you guys understand what I'm saying?

[Emon]

I think we need to be in a chat to discuss this. Since we're all here as it is, come to #OJP on GamesNET.

[Emon]

I don't know why we disagreed, but after some chatting, ROP and I seem to have come to an agreement and understanding on what we think OJP should be. I think was partly confused, and just looking at it the wrong way.

I think I can sum it up by describing the two distributions of OJP.

1. The first distribution would be a barebones, streamlined mod for developers and players. For developers, it would include all the bugfixes, AI enhancements, and anything else that mappers could use in their levels. The only gameplay modifications would be balance fixes and bugs, things that everyone would agree on. Not everyone would want jetpacks or mouse sabering, we can leave that to the second distribution.

Think of this one as a stable base for both mappers and players, but modders could use it too, especially if their mod has nothing to do with what's described in distribution 2. What was really cool about the original JK was that you could have new maps that had totally new code, and could be played with any mod. In most cases, it was something basic in concept, like a new type of elevator, a trap of some sort, etc. You can't really do that in JO without a mod, which means you can't be playing other mods while playing the level. With OJP, we can code for the mappers (on demand of what's needed in the community), we can add versatile, modular and flexible systems that fit any mapper's needs.

This lets you play really sweet maps with still a (basically) vanilla game. No major gameplay modifications, just fixes and better maps.

2. This distribution is designed for more serious changes. It's a superset of distribution 1, it includes all it has, and more. Again, every new feature has to be really versatile and adaptable. Examples could be, say, a dual wield weapon system, mouse sabering, LMS, a player class system, etc. You'd still keep most if it basic, no shockingly specific gameplay alterations, just good features that a lot of modders would want, and can adapt them to their own stuff. And because it's a superset of the first distribution, you can still run all the maps.

I don't know about the rest of you guys, but cool features in maps is really important to me. JO kind of limited you on this, and although JA is better because of scripting, it is not perfect. It's probably because I spent so many years in the original JK, I came to really love and understand the potential maps can have. With OJP and all mods based on it, you can have a map with all kinds of cool stuff that works in any mod.

As far as copy cat mods, I'm not really worried any more. Again, I remembered back to the original JK, and everything was open source, because code and hardly anything else was stored in other than ASCII. But it was never a problem! Rarely was work stolen, and if it was, it was just taken down by request of the author. I think the main reason for copy cat mods in JO is that everyone was too busy trying to fix the bugs and the balance issues, and trying to create what they thought JO should have been. The first distribution fixes that on the most basic level. No more bugs, no more balance issues, just vanilla gameplay. The second one doesn't cause the copy cat issues I thought it might earlier, because if the fundamental issues are solved, people are going to start working on the more important stuff.


So, what do you guys think? Are we all clear on this?

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

Sounds great Emon.
That covers it all.

Now if we are agreed on the purpose of OJP, we can move on to practicalities.

btw - I have applied to ChrisC3P0 for seperate forums and webspace for the OJP project.
He did say it sounded like a good idea, but didn't confirm anything. I'm hoping to hear from him soon.

I think seperate forums especially will be great! Trying to continue all this stuff in one thread is a real ball-ache!!

[Emon]

That's great, ROP. Try to get us a private forum, too.

We can host our source code at a place like Freerepository or Asynchrony, but I think having our forums and web space right here with the community is not only convenient, but functions as an ad, too.

Which brings me to my next point, advertisement. It's going to be a while before everyone accepts the mod and it becomes widespread. I think if we can get big mods like the DF mod and AotCTC to use OJP, the words "Built on OJP!" or whatever would give us a lot of publicity. I'll talk to the rest of the DF mod team, and see what they have to say. I'm pretty sure they'll agree, especially because they need the AI. Also, any code they develop could be a great boon to us, and consequently the rest of the community.

Another great example for my map thing is co-op or other gameplay modes. We can code those in, and it would make it really easy for people to make co-op or whatever kind of gametype maps. I can't imagine the popularity we would get from co-op, you've got no idea how many people want something like that! Especially if we go recreate the ents from SP, like verbatum, hopefully it could be possible to boot up most all SP maps into MP and play them. I already tried, and it actually ran, but was just missing entities.

Edit: I'll start working on a page layout and the graphics for it, more on that tonight.

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

The possibility of co-op is indeed very sexy! ;)

And yes - I think we need to get as much of the modding community on board as possible. At the end of the day, the more this is standard across the board, the more it benefits everybody.

[Emon]

Oh, and in addition to the forum idea where current tasks and whatever are listed, we have to make sure our CVS host supports checking in and out of files, so that only one person can edit a file at a time. For added safety. I think this is a standard thing, but we should check anyway.

[razorace]

Question, on the plan you guys came up with (which sounds just like I suggested) would Distro 1 be BG or G only? I know a lot of people want game only mods to make it easy for people to join the game. If Distro 1 is to appeal to tourny players, it needs to be game only.

I know some of my stuff (the updated animation system) requires BG modifications.

Secondly, the whole point of CVS is to prevent a checking in/out system. We want to maximize the number of people that can modify the code at the same time. With CVS, the only issue will be that you sometimes have to manually handle conflicts if someone commits something while you were doing your modifications.

[Emon]

BG? You mean client game modification? Yes, it would require that, but I don't care about the competitive community. Quite frankly, most of the competitive community sucks in my opinion, and they're never going to use a mod unless it's entirely perfect to their exact specifications, and is designed for exploits and tricks, something which I find stupid.

[razorace]

Suggestions for coding guidelines:

- All code should be as isolated from the normal code as possible. I suggest seperate functions whenever that's approprate.

If you have to alter a large portion of an existing function to make things work, make sure you leave an original untouched copy of the function (commented out of course).

- I suggest html style tags to indicate when changes are started/ended. Example:

//[AS2.0]
//code goes here.
//[/AS2.0]


Features should use analogies. Bug fixes and code improvements can probably just use something like "[Bug Fix #]" and [Code Improv #]. We can leave the explainations of Bug Fixes and such in the project documents.

- Try to document your code as much as possible.

[Emon]

Good idea.

You can also be extra fancy and do this:


/***************
* New feature A *
***************/


;)

[Emon]

Preliminary site layout from 1:30 AM, I think the comments emphasize my fatique... (http://emon.geekvision.net/OJP)

[razorace]

Originally posted by Emon
Good idea.

You can also be extra fancy and do this:


/***************
* New feature A *
***************/


;)

Well, we don't want to make it too complicated because some of the more complex features take a LOT of on/off tags to work. The key is to have something that is easy to ctl+F for. :D

[RenegadeOfPhunk]

About check in's and out's

I think whatever CVS we end up using should have some kind of check-in / check-out system. (If it doesn't have that, it won't be a very good one...!)

That doesn't mean only one person can modify a file at a time. If the CVS is good, it should allow 'multiple' check-outs - which means more than one person can have any one file checked out at the same time.

This gives the CVS extra information (person A checked out the file before person B etc.) it needs to do a LOT of the merging duties automatically. We will still need to do some manual merging in particular cases, but hopefully this should be reduced to a minimum if the CVS is good....

So, if at all possible, I'd make that one of our criteria for whatever CVS we go for - the capacity for multiple check-outs...

As a second priority, it would be handy if the CVS gave us the control to say file A can be checked out multiple times, but file B CANNOT. This can make merging easier if conflicts in particular files end up being particularly nasty.

One example in MFC programming of this we've found at work is we never let the resources.h and .rc files be multiple checked-out. Because there are bound to be conflicts, and trying to merge changes back together in those buggers is a REAL kick in the ballsack!

[razorace]

I didn't know that CVS has a checkout system option or that it makes a difference for the merging process. :| Oh well, I'm still new at this CVS thingy anyway. :)