It is currently Tue Oct 17, 2017 10:50 pm

All times are UTC - 7 hours





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 7:36 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:56 pm
Posts: 298
Quote:
By experience do you mean "using" the wiki or "installing it"? If you do have experience in the installation phase then it could help the future admin if he doesn't have any.


I run those two wikis I mentioned (well I have a third private one) so obviously I'm familiar with the installation phase. ;) It's pretty easy really.

Quote:
I'm always wary to add any external module since we never know how much impact in can have on the security on the site (sorry if it seems like an attack directed at you but it's not).


naturally. The extension offers a pretty wide range of admin definable functions to restrict use, and it prevents things like infinite loops and the like from hogging the server.

But it's definitely not something most wikis need.. it was more just a suggestion since there would be a fair amount of programmers on the site


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Mar 13, 2009 9:23 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19093
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
Banshaku wrote:
I'm aware of that point. It just we will need someone that knows how to install and maintain the Wiki (good chances the media wiki one).

I've installed MediaWiki before on two sites, one running Apache on Linux and the other running Apache on Windows. I have sysop rights on two others (tetrisconcept and DLDI).

Quote:
But the "tricky" part is to find someone that have been there for a while on the board an is willing to do it. This is one factor that could be used to define "how trustworthy" the person could be. I know this single factor is quite shallow but it may be hard to define other ones (I have no idea at the moment). Because of that, I cannot even elect myself since I only been here since last year.

Since Tepples is a moderator and like to balance things, maybe we should ask him is opinion on how to select the admin.

Preferably, we should have more than one admin to prevent something like this from happening again.

Quote:
frantik wrote:
I recommend adding information first and worrying about organization a little bit later. Waiting for organization to occur before information is added will just discourage people adding information.

The way I understand the previous wiki, this is how it was done and nothing moves and people seems to find it messy.

In Wikipedia, the information often comes before the organization. The editors end up writing a manual of style and other guidelines, and some of them toss message box templates at the top of pages that don't fit the guidelines yet. These templates put articles into cleanup categories, which the WikiGnomes help to maintain by reformatting articles to fit the manual of style.

Quote:
It's hard to find what you're looking for. So to define everything is not possible of course but at least some guidelines for categories for grouping information would be nice.

Those can be developed in talk pages once the wiki gets going.

Quote:
I'm always wary to add any external module since we never know how much impact in can have on the security on the site (sorry if it seems like an attack directed at you but it's not). So unless the user have a good knowledge of this extension we may try to keep it as plain vanilla as possible.

The extensions installed on en.wikipedia.org are probably safe though.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:16 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Posts: 3715
Location: Central Texas, USA
I think we should find at least one admin, move the current site over to parodius, and continue to plan on a complete rewrite. One unavoidable need for the rewrite is a clear, permissive license. The current site can continue to be tweaked, so there's no pressure to quickly rewrite things. This would end up creating two Wikis for a while, but I hope that doesn't add too much overhead. The old Wiki should have some kind of name indicating it'll be gone at some point, so that the new Wiki has the "proper", clean name.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 1:20 pm 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19093
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
blargg wrote:
One unavoidable need for the rewrite is a clear, permissive license.

I'm thinking we should just put the entire new work under the zlib license. That would solve the following problems:

The GNU Free Documentation License, used by Wikimedia Foundation's Wikipedia project, isn't designed for code samples because it has requirements that are incompatible with free software licenses. For this reason, the license text recommends dual-licensing all code samples under some free software license. There are also practical problems with the GNU FDL, such as the requirement to include a copy of the entire ilcense with any short quotation from a work. See also an essay about the license by a Debian contributor.

Creative Commons CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, used by Wikimedia Foundation's Wikinews project, are incompatible with GNU GPL and GNU FDL because of the "remove from the Collection any credit" requirement in the text of each of these licenses.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 6:38 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:38 pm
Posts: 1517
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
tepples wrote:
I'm thinking we should just put the entire new work under the zlib license.


I just read the license. It quite simple but there is one thing I would like to clarify. Let say for example that I decide to use a code sample of a few line that just init the memory. Because of the license, I have to but that header in the file it was inserted or just keep it in it's own file separated (init code + license) so to make the management of it easier?

Isn't there any way to just put a reference to the license and author of the code or something similar in a readme instead? I just don't like "licence wart" everywhere in a code base. In many case of open source code, there is more information about the license in every file than comment regarding the code...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 7:16 pm 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:56 pm
Posts: 298
Quote:
Creative Commons CC-BY and CC-BY-SA, used by Wikimedia Foundation's Wikinews project, are incompatible with GNU GPL and GNU FDL because of the "remove from the Collection any credit" requirement in the text of each of these licenses.


I think that part says you have to remove credit only if the person contacts you asking you to do so, which seems fair imo.


I think most code on the wiki should be 100% free with no restrictions unless the individual author specifies a license.

really though, does anyone who is planning on contributing to the wiki have the resources and desire to pursue legal action if a license is violated? :P


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Mar 14, 2009 8:22 pm 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Posts: 3715
Location: Central Texas, USA
If you just want to copy a few lines, rewrite them "in your own words". Only the particular expression of the idea is copyrighted, not the algorithm itself.

Quote:
I think most code on the wiki should be 100% free with no restrictions unless the individual author specifies a license.

I think everything on the Wiki should be under the same permissive license. If there's something substantial that a particular author wants under different terms, he can put it on his own site and have the Wiki link to it.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 1:34 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:28 pm
Posts: 3192
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
blargg wrote:
I think we should find at least one admin, move the current site over to parodius, and continue to plan on a complete rewrite. One unavoidable need for the rewrite is a clear, permissive license. The current site can continue to be tweaked, so there's no pressure to quickly rewrite things. This would end up creating two Wikis for a while, but I hope that doesn't add too much overhead. The old Wiki should have some kind of name indicating it'll be gone at some point, so that the new Wiki has the "proper", clean name.


Who actually owns the domain nesdevwiki.org? Are they a forum member here? WHOIS says it's someone named Michael Harris, but of course I have no idea who that is.

If the owner was willing to point the DNS A record to the same IP as nesdev.com, I could redirect nesdevwiki.org to nesdev.com/wiki/ (simple HTTP 301 redirect indicating permanent relocation; browsers would redirect automatically). Of course, this means we (Parodius) don't have control over the DNS for the domain (which I often prefer for a lot of reasons), but still...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 3:13 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 3:15 pm
Posts: 393
Man, come on. The system that we develop for is OLD AS HELL. Why does anyone give a shit what kind of license there is for anything that we do?.... seriously. I mean, sure, acknowledge if you get some help (a la music engine or something similar) in the credits or something, but in the end, why the hell does it matter what kind of license there is on code snippets or something? Do people feel _that_ freaking small that they have to be mentioned in anything that is so closely related to their code? I'm serious as shit. Quit being so shallow about this whole NES development thing. Sure, we all do our fair share of coding and such, but if there is something that works well for what we do, then I'm in the mindset of "just use it." I mean, what we dev for is a tough enough system to program for, given the RAM limits and what-not.

At one time (not too long ago) I was concerned that there were people grabbing code and making a buck off of it. I've come to the realization, though, that in the end it doesn't make a fuck what people do with this old system, because just the _fact_ that people still want to program for it is damned awesome. You know, most of us wouldn't know what the hell to do with the NES if it weren't for disassembling some of the older games in the first place...

Anyway, if there is _any_ kind of license put forth on (yet another wiki, much like a project that keeps getting recoded over and over) the wiki, then I seriously think the best license is something I saw another poster on this board talk about at one time:

http://sam.zoy.org/wtfpl/

If there is anyone that objects to this, then yes, have them point to their own website with their own license talking about it, but keep it off of the nesdev wiki. If people _really_ care that much about their own code for this defunct system, then I personally feel like they have issues, and should keep their own code to themselves and not contribute to this community anyway.

We are here to have fun, and program for an architecture that is outdated. Man, WHO CARES what license there is in the end???? This really, REALLY shouldn't be an issue. Just have fun, people. Quit being 'worry warts'.... HAVE FUN DOING WHAT WE DO!

OMFGBBQ who wrote this code in the first place and wants to have it for himself wrote:
: bit $2002
bpl :-


Everyone, we just need to get over ourselves and stop caring so much about _ourselves_ and just have some damn fun with this. Seriously.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:09 am 
Offline

Joined: Tue Mar 03, 2009 3:56 pm
Posts: 298
^ i tend to agree :)

Quote:
If the owner was willing to point the DNS A record to the same IP as nesdev.com, I could redirect nesdevwiki.org to nesdev.com/wiki/ (simple HTTP 301 redirect indicating permanent relocation; browsers would redirect automatically). Of course, this means we (Parodius) don't have control over the DNS for the domain (which I often prefer for a lot of reasons), but still...


why not just make a new nesdevwiki.parodius.com subdomain? then you're in complete control and you don't have to wait around for someone who is awol.


all i know is, it would take about 20 minutes to have a new wiki going and people could be adding stuff. I would do it myself on my site but then you might end up with the same problem if i were to disappear randomly lol


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 5:55 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19093
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
koitsu wrote:
Who actually owns the domain nesdevwiki.org? Are they a forum member here? WHOIS says it's someone named Michael Harris, but of course I have no idea who that is.

"Michael" might be Atarimike.

Quote:
If the owner was willing to point the DNS A record to the same IP as nesdev.com

And if the owner were contactable...

Roth wrote:
why the hell does it matter what kind of license there is on code snippets or something?

Because people are still making and selling NES games through RetroZone. When compensation for your time is involved, "hope the other guy looks the other way" licensing isn't going to fly. But I see your point about WTFPL (essentially a public domain dedication) being a valid choice.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 7:59 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Tue Jun 24, 2008 8:38 pm
Posts: 1517
Location: Fukuoka, Japan
Tepples wrote:
Roth wrote:
why the hell does it matter what kind of license there is on code snippets or something?

Because people are still making and selling NES games through RetroZone. When compensation for your time is involved, "hope the other guy looks the other way" licensing isn't going to fly. But I see your point about WTFPL (essentially a public domain dedication) being a valid choice.


I think the content of the wiki should be public domain. This is what I was looking for but forgot about the concept. There should be no string attached and I agree with Roth completely. If the user doesn't want it to be that way then it should be on their own site.

The site should contains code samples and not complete application so it should not be a problem. If some application (ex: Blargs blip api) is mentioned, there will be a link to the owner site and the application will have it's own license. That way, I don't see any problems.

Game are still sold but how many anyway and how much money are they making on the back of the information they took? And after reading Roth message, what is the purpose of that license, an ego boost? People should be free to use the information to their heart content. People that really care will mention where they took the information and write the names of the person concerned. People that are pirates will rips off the information without even mentioning anything so what will really that license bring?

Let's stop the bureaucratic crap and let get the ball rolling.

Edit:

Tepples, you want to be an admin? We could just start the wiki together then? I can try to spare some of my time when I'm available.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 8:45 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 9:28 pm
Posts: 3192
Location: Mountain View, CA, USA
frantik wrote:
why not just make a new nesdevwiki.parodius.com subdomain? then you're in complete control and you don't have to wait around for someone who is awol.


Because there's already been a discussion about how the Wiki should end up at http://nesdev.com/wiki/ ? :-)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 9:34 am 
Offline

Joined: Sun Sep 19, 2004 11:12 pm
Posts: 19093
Location: NE Indiana, USA (NTSC)
So PD it is. It seems to work for the help pages at mediawiki.org.

Banshaku wrote:
Tepples, you want to be an admin? We could just start the wiki together then?

In that case, let's do this. The first thing we might have to do is blow away the Tavi that's already at that URL.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sun Mar 15, 2009 10:21 am 
Offline
User avatar

Joined: Mon Sep 27, 2004 8:33 am
Posts: 3715
Location: Central Texas, USA
Quote:
Man, come on. The system that we develop for is OLD AS HELL. Why does anyone give a shit what kind of license there is for anything that we do?....

I do; I don't want people making contributions to the Wiki, getting angry over something and later requiring that we go through and remove all of his contributions. Retarded? Sure. Other people using code from it might also want the same guarantees, thus we want to have a clear permissive license that contributors must put their work under. Under modern copyright law, there's NO WAY to create a work that's not under some kind of license, and without any license specified, it defaults to the most restrictive, i.e. no distribution allowed.

Quote:
Everyone, we just need to get over ourselves and stop caring so much about _ourselves_ and just have some damn fun with this. Seriously.

Who here releases his work under non-free licenses, or is arguing for non-free licensing of the Wiki? I release everything I can under free software licenses.

Quote:
all i know is, it would take about 20 minutes to have a new wiki going and people could be adding stuff. I would do it myself on my site but then you might end up with the same problem if i were to disappear randomly lol

All I know is that I want to make something higher quality than "let's just throw stuff together and pretend it'll work well, even though it hasn't so far".

Quote:
I think the content of the wiki should be public domain. This is what I was looking for but forgot about the concept. There should be no string attached and I agree with Roth completely. If the user doesn't want it to be that way then it should be on their own site.

Yes, except there's no public domain for any current works, so the closest is something like the modified BSD license, the zlib license that tepples linked to, etc. The advantage of these licenses is that they require modified works to be identified as such, so that we don't have the problem of people making their own versions of the Wiki material that isn't clearly not part of it, thus confusing others as to what the primary, reliable source is.

Anyone have a problem with the zlib license?


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 55 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

All times are UTC - 7 hours


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group