[crossfire] Arch repository: layered art files?

[David Delbecq]

En l'instant précis du 13/12/07 06:22, Mark Wedel s'exprimait en ces
termes:
>
>
>   I'm a bit less sure if having a bunch of formats sitting about in the arch 
> directory would be a good thing.  A concern I have is of formats which no one 
> can easily use, and there is not certainty if anyone in fact is still using 
> those images (hypothetical case here is someone adds some new images in some 
> image format, and then disappears from the crossfire world.  Two years later 
> ability for anyone else to read the originals may be gone, and not certain if 
> anyone would care if they were removed).
>   
Well, either someone change that arch in future without being able to
open source format, then he removes the old source file (eg caril draw
69.2.0.44) and provide his own one (gimp) matching the new arch picture.
Then the old format disappear by itself from repository. Since svn
handles deletion of files/directory properly, this is not a problem.
Either no one change the arch, then i see no problem with keeping the
source file. It's in accordance to GPL (you know, the provide source
section) and maybe that guy will come 2 years later to redo some of his
art work :D
>   Having everyone use a same format may not work.  But at the same time, if the 
> format being used is obscure enough that only that single developer uses it, 
> having that source checked in really gains nothing.
>   
But it cost nothing too, if we keep sopurce arch in a separate folder.
When you want to edit arch monsters/kobold_111.png, you just have to
list content of svn repository src/arch/monsters and checkout the source
file you need.
>   As a compromise, I'd suggest that in principal, any format may be allowed, but 
> has to be approved/discussed on a case by case basis.  For fairly popular 
> formats or programs, that should pretty much be a rubber stamp.  But if someone 
> pops up and wants to add a format no one has ever heard of, answer is probably no.
>   
Do we have yet a formal general approval process? If yes am ok with it,
if no, that would just mean the commiter will have final word.
>   Last note would be licensing - I don't know if it would be an issue or not, 
> but crossfire is GPL, and thus all files so checked in must be comformant with 
> that license.  If adobe or other software has restrictions on what can be done 
> with the data files, etc, that would be another reason to disallow software (an 
> example could be the file format itself is patented, and thus freely 
> redistributing files in that format requires some licensing or permission)
Am not aware of such restriction. What you produce with a tool, in
europe, afaik, can not subject to conditions coming from tool itself.
The only problem i might see is general scurity and exportation laws,
that could restrict distribution of a format that uses heavy
cryptography but a crypted file in src is useless :) The licensing rules
of a format (patents, etc) apply to algorithms uses to create / read
that format, that mean someone might be required to acquire a commercial
software to open the source file, but that's hardly agains the gpl license.