[Freecol-developers] Source art files from SVN

[w***@genial.ms]

Hi,

some time ago we already talked about rescuing some of the
source art files from SVN.

I did go though the files now and they are large.
I already pruned a few hundred MB of irrelevent files
(outdated terraintiles, screenshots and sprites from other games),
but there are still about 800MB left.
There are still some duplicated files, extracted resized images
and slightly modified versions of psd-s, some of which could be
removed, but it would be a large effort of manual file comparisons
without knowing if there is enough to be pruned for it to be
worthwhile. I still have the problem that I only get a rough
preview of psd files from Libre Office, maybe gimp can import them
if I install it, although it only seems to have partial compatibility?

I also happened to see some old discussion on debian games mailing
list about what should be required in terms of source for art files,
which made me think about licensing requirements and if some of this
stuff would actually needed to be included in the source packages?

I think source art is as important to preserve as source code and
its also nice to have lossless files, not just ogg or jpg or down-
sized png. Some files provide higher resolution images I plan on
using, though that needs some changes to the resource loading and
key files to allow more than one size to be loaded, which can get
weird if a mod overwrites something.
Though it worries me that it might triple the size of the git repo.
What do you think?


Regards,

wintertime

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Michael T. Pope]

On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:17:52 +0100
***@genial.ms wrote:
> some time ago we already talked about rescuing some of the
> source art files from SVN.
>
> I did go though the files now and they are large...
>
> I also happened to see some old discussion on debian games mailing
> list about what should be required in terms of source for art files,
> which made me think about licensing requirements and if some of this
> stuff would actually needed to be included in the source packages?

I am not sure artwork is in the same category as source code. Do the FSF
say anything about this?

> I think source art is as important to preserve as source code and
> its also nice to have lossless files, not just ogg or jpg or down-
> sized png. Some files provide higher resolution images I plan on
> using, though that needs some changes to the resource loading and
> key files to allow more than one size to be loaded, which can get
> weird if a mod overwrites something.
> Though it worries me that it might triple the size of the git repo.
> What do you think?

I would prefer not to grow the repo that much (indeed, I was hoping to
evict the website directory in due course). Perhaps we should start a
freecol-artwork project.

Cheers,
Mike Pope

[w***@genial.ms]

Hi,

> Gesendet: Mittwoch, 04. November 2015 um 11:26 Uhr
> Von: "Michael T. Pope" <***@computer.org>
>
> On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:17:52 +0100
> ***@genial.ms wrote:
> > some time ago we already talked about rescuing some of the
> > source art files from SVN.
> >
> > I also happened to see some old discussion on debian games mailing
> > list about what should be required in terms of source for art files,
> > which made me think about licensing requirements and if some of this
> > stuff would actually needed to be included in the source packages?
>
> I am not sure artwork is in the same category as source code. Do the FSF
> say anything about this?

My impression is they mostly just care about source code (and partially
documentation) and that resulted in the GPL only using words referring
to code. There is some statement where they recommend using GPL even though
they say you have to know yourself what sourcecode means (as they might
not even know themself):
http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware
IIRC this ambiguity and uncertainty is one of the reasons CC-BY-SA was
created by people who care about artists.

> > Though it worries me that it might triple the size of the git repo.
> > What do you think?
>
> I would prefer not to grow the repo that much (indeed, I was hoping to
> evict the website directory in due course). Perhaps we should start a
> freecol-artwork project.

Yeah, I pretty much want to avoid growing it too much, too. Thats why
I asked if you have a better idea and was trying to prune it before
adding it (I found a paint.net plugin for psd files which I'll try out).
A separate art repo might be a good idea, maybe you could convert the SVN
and git filter-branch inappropriate stuff like col1 or civ3 art.
For the website its too late already, as you fiddling around with
git filter-branch invalidates all commit hashes. I would just keep it
for now, unless it helps with maintenance or upload of the website.
I also found a number of useful higher res images in the website part,
which I would want to keep, so I'd prefer you do not delete it, tell me
when/if it happens and let me sort out what to delete and what not.


Greetings,

winteertime

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Caleb Williams]

My 2 cents is to have either a separate trunk or in some way to put it in
separate repository. I would have been a fan of doing that for the website
too.

That way the source art is separate from the actual game-use art.

Caleb
On Nov 4, 2015 11:05 AM, <***@genial.ms> wrote:

> Hi,
>
> > Gesendet: Mittwoch, 04. November 2015 um 11:26 Uhr
> > Von: "Michael T. Pope" <***@computer.org>
> >
> > On Tue, 3 Nov 2015 01:17:52 +0100
> > ***@genial.ms wrote:
> > > some time ago we already talked about rescuing some of the
> > > source art files from SVN.
> > >
> > > I also happened to see some old discussion on debian games mailing
> > > list about what should be required in terms of source for art files,
> > > which made me think about licensing requirements and if some of this
> > > stuff would actually needed to be included in the source packages?
> >
> > I am not sure artwork is in the same category as source code. Do the FSF
> > say anything about this?
>
> My impression is they mostly just care about source code (and partially
> documentation) and that resulted in the GPL only using words referring
> to code. There is some statement where they recommend using GPL even though
> they say you have to know yourself what sourcecode means (as they might
> not even know themself):
> http://www.gnu.org/licenses/gpl-faq.en.html#GPLOtherThanSoftware
> IIRC this ambiguity and uncertainty is one of the reasons CC-BY-SA was
> created by people who care about artists.
>
> > > Though it worries me that it might triple the size of the git repo.
> > > What do you think?
> >
> > I would prefer not to grow the repo that much (indeed, I was hoping to
> > evict the website directory in due course). Perhaps we should start a
> > freecol-artwork project.
>
> Yeah, I pretty much want to avoid growing it too much, too. Thats why
> I asked if you have a better idea and was trying to prune it before
> adding it (I found a paint.net plugin for psd files which I'll try out).
> A separate art repo might be a good idea, maybe you could convert the SVN
> and git filter-branch inappropriate stuff like col1 or civ3 art.
> For the website its too late already, as you fiddling around with
> git filter-branch invalidates all commit hashes. I would just keep it
> for now, unless it helps with maintenance or upload of the website.
> I also found a number of useful higher res images in the website part,
> which I would want to keep, so I'd prefer you do not delete it, tell me
> when/if it happens and let me sort out what to delete and what not.
>
>
> Greetings,
>
> winteertime
>
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> _______________________________________________
> Freecol-developers mailing list
> Freecol-***@lists.sourceforge.net
> https://lists.sourceforge.net/lists/listinfo/freecol-developers
>

[w***@genial.ms]

------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Michael T. Pope]

On Sun, 8 Nov 2015 23:52:38 +0100
***@genial.ms wrote:
> While doing that I found and deleted some useless example images from the CMS.
> I also noticed that the docs folder is outdated in git; its older than on the website
> and probably unnecessary as it can be regenerated from the .tex files.
> It would be nice if the developer.pdf and html could be added to the website.
> Btw. there are many parts with weird outdated bugtracker/featuretracker embedding
> and/or rss, some parts look like ad-scripting. I'd guess these could be removed,
> unless your want to fix them?

I have no plans to work on the web site ATM. Indeed all I can do ATM is
clear out my patch queue, as work is intruding heavily into my FreeCol
hacking time.

> I found there is an image for kings regular in scout role, but there is no resource key.
> There are also no resource keys for other roles of the kings regular.
> Is it 100% sure these can never be displayed? If for example one looses his weapons,
> then finds some available horses it could result in a scout or not?

Kings Regulars die when they lose all equipment, and they lose horses
first, so they can not become scouts. However, one can imagine a rule
change to make it possible. I recommend restoring the resource key but
with a comment that it is purely for completeness for now.

> I found some scripts for making tiles, but did not investigate if they might work for
> creating double sized rivers/forests/beaches/tile border transitions, which would
> be nice to have.

I think that was an experiment Michael was working on. I was dubious
about it at the time as the maps rarely contain places where there
are four adjoining land tiles of the same type.

>[More image questions]

Sorry, no idea on any of these.

> Currently I just added higher res images which can be seen when zooming in the map.
> Theoretically there are other images useful for people using --gui-scale option, but
> I'm not sure if its useful enough to add these without suppressing loading of these
> without the option (which would complicate the resource management)?

Your call there. You know the tradeoffs in the resource management system
best.

Cheers,
Mike Pope