Calling all modders (APB - All Pixel Bulletin)

[Manx]

Sorry...I DP'ed!

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Manx ]</p>

[Manx]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon:

Michael and Philippe,

Don't necessarily want to speak for Manx here, but it appears he's talking about the MOD naming convention and not the BMP naming convention.

Gordon<hr></blockquote>

Yes, indeed i was. This was in response to Gordon's 3rd Question.

BTW -- The whole thing about naming conventions is that they're not MEAN'T to make any sense!

However, once you understand the format and get used to seeing it being used on a regular basis, then reading these cryptic "aircraft part numbers" becomes childs play.

Also, in my suggestion, i missed out the Seasonal Key -- s/w = Summer/Winter. Here's another version!

BBCL1GM_wTreebases.zip

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Manx ]</p>

[Philippe]

Sorry, Manx. I think I've been down in the trenches so long I can only see my little corner of no man's land. I just went back and realized you were talking about MOD names and I was talking about BMP names. Nevertheless, I do not withdraw your nomination for Registrar.

I have no strong position on MOD naming (as opposed to BMP naming). Unlike BMP naming, simpler is probably not better in MOD naming. Information should be maximized, and extensions are probably a good thing. Until recently I was wondering if DD Hires was related to the people who make root beer...

Philippe

Mea culpa, mea culpa, mea maxima culpa...

[Manx]

Philippe -- You've raised some very good and valid points, regardless of whether it's the Mod or BMP naming convention that we're after.

As for me taking on, what would be, a mammoth task -- I think this a job that should be handed over to someone else, very, very, quickly!

[Gordon]

Regarding registration of BMP suffixes. It's already implicit in the registration of RuleSets and Rules (for the "official" ones at least). Since everyone has to beg, plead and bribe me :cool: to get the coveted "best" numbered RuleSets, the combination of the RuleSet and Rules pretty much define the suffixes used.

However, that said, I could also maintain the list of suffixes (bearing in mind that suffixes do not necessarily equate to mod author) and provide updates of that list along with the RuleSet/Rule registration list to Manx periodically for posting.

Regarding MOD naming conventions, in my opinion, the game designation is one of the least important "keys". Why? Chances are CM:BB will be installed in a completely separate folder than CM:BO. Web masters will most likely have separate CM:BB sections (if not complete sites) and forums. So the game designation is a one-time sort key (e.g. Do I download this mod and put it in "C:\Program Files\CMBO\Mods" or "C:\Program Files\CMBB\Mods"?). After that, I'm more concerned about the in-game object that is modded, or the author, or the style, or the season, etc.

Gordon

[Wolfe]

I agree with Gordon; I really don't think the distinction between CMBO and CMBB really needs to be a part of the zip file title. Certainly webmasters, but also us mod sluts, will keep them in separate directories. But the one thing I think is most important is for folks to put their name on their work (in the title). And to have it listed first. That makes it easy to find a mod by a particular author on your computer. And if you can't remember who did a particular PzIV mod, there will likely be a list of mods similar to the one currently on Manx's site where you can look up the filename. BTW, did Slapdragon finish his revamping of the Mods list?

I'd like to modify Gordon's naming suggestion a bit. How about:

GEM_wM4CamoFF_1of4_2-0_C_lr.zip

That's exactly 31 characters, and I believe covers everything that may be included. Author's name, season/description, part of a pack, version, CMMOS, res. This reads better to me. In this example there are only 8 letters for the description (assuming the author's name is only 3 letters), but this is the worst case where everything is needed (pack number, version, CMMOS). These things wouldn't always be needed. A few examples:

GEM_sFieldDrabPriest_C_hr.zip

Magua_sM3M4AlliedHT_2-0_hr.zip

OldDog_sSubduedVelvet_lr.zip

GunGoz_sSpeckledGrass_hr.zip

Galambos_wPantherA_2-0_lr.zip

I tried to use capitalization to make it more readable. You don't always need the version number if it hasn't been modified from its original form. And there aren't any spaces and only one period in the filename, thank you very much. I don't think you need to formally create abbreviations for the mod authors (particularly their names); they'll do that on their own.

Of course not everyone is going to follow this 'standard'. Seems we have a bunch of anarchists running around. But the one thing I hope folks will take care to add is their name and the name of the mod. Those two are really indispensable.

Thanks.

- Chris

[ 11-16-2001: Message edited by: Wolfe ]</p>

[Gordon]

Another possibility to solve the MOD name question, and I'm not necessarily saying this is what I favor, would be to embed much of this information in an easily understood "Information" file that's a standard part of every mod. Something like what CM Mod Manager did with it's "info.txt" file, only generalized for all mods, containing more information and more formalized and consistent than the current README hodge-podge.

Then web-masters would just need to extract the "Information" file from the mod to get everything they need. It's not quite as nice for the end-user as having everything embedded into the name, but with a 31 character limit, it's going to be hard to please everyone.

Gordon

[Cameroon]

From my perspective as a user (instead of as a developer), the "best" solution for me would be for the mods to remain zipped on my computer.

Ideally my mod management software reads the info.txt (or whatever) file from the archive for displaying the information from its GUI. Then, if the mod is being installed, the manager extracts the necessary BMPs.

Additionally, a small web cgi could be used to perform a similar operation so that web masters wouldn't even have to worry about extracting the info file. The cgi could, and then generate the HTML for the mod.

That is, assume the zip is blah_blah_blah_blahblah.zip. Then the cgi just pulls the info file from the archive to create the stuff the user sees. To create something like "Train Tracks (hi res) by Gyrene."

Again, this is from the user standpoint. It would be the most useful solution for me as a user because I don't have to care about the file name of the mod, my "tools" will display all the information I need.

[Puff the Magic Dragon]

That's a good point. Those BMPs eat up a lot of space. Why must I leave all those uncompressed alternative graphics on my drive?

[Gyrene]

Cameroon has some good ideas there, but I think Gordon's point is that modders themselves need to get together and figure out a naming convention that developers could then use with their CMMOS type apps and CGI scripts.

This would also include "read me" file conventions for CGI's to work, I assume.

Before we get too far along and confused by all this we need to first figure out what info has to be part of the file name.

In my opinion the following info is all required:

-Mod Author initials

-Brief mod description, i.e. "M8HMC"

-Mod resolution indication - "H" or "L"

-CMMOS compatibility - "C" or nothing

-Winter version

-Winter only - "W"

-All Seasons included - "A"

-If there is no "A" or "W" then no "snow" version is included

-Multiple Variants included - "V"

-CMBB or CMBO - "B" (Barbarossa) or "O" (Overlord) - No letter means it works with both.

-Version number - 1.0, 1.1, etc.

So, for example, my dark tracks in high res would be named like this:

GYR_RRTracksDark_HO_1.0.zip

Should my tracks have been CMMOS compatible and including Winter files, the name would be this:

GYR_RRTracksDark_HACO_1.0.zip

I think this is a pretty simple format, as the modder still has plenty of room to describe the file and there are few code letters to remember.

Here's another exmaple:

GEM_PzIV(GHJ models)_HCVO_1.0.zip

Gordon's PzIV for G, H & J models, High res, CMMOS compliant with variants in file for CMBO, mod version 1.0

Anyway, it's an idea, with a little practice these code letters should make sense very quickly and the order of the code letters makes little difference.

Gyrene

[Gordon]

Cameroon,

I actually considered accessing the BMPs directly from ZIP files. There's a couple of reasons why I rejected it (at least for now). The main issue is that there is not a 1-to-1 mapping between mods (ZIP files) and CMMOS RuleSets. For example, there are probably more than 10 separate and independent mods that are processed by the "Commonwealth Vehicles" RuleSet. Therefore there's no convenient way for CMMOS to know which ZIP files are applicable to which RuleSets.

Puff,

I don't have a really good answer to your question right now than "because they're worth having?" All I can say is that I will continue to think about ways to optimize CMMOS both in terms of speed, functionality, ease of use and space useage.

Gyrene,

I have a feeling settling these "minor" issues like naming conventions is going to be more work than CMMOS.

Gordon

[Cameroon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon:

Cameroon,

I actually considered accessing the BMPs directly from ZIP files. There's a couple of reasons why I rejected it (at least for now). The main issue is that there is not a 1-to-1 mapping between mods (ZIP files) and CMMOS RuleSets. For example, there are probably more than 10 separate and independent mods that are processed by the "Commonwealth Vehicles" RuleSet. Therefore there's no convenient way for CMMOS to know which ZIP files are applicable to which RuleSets.

[snip]

Gordon<hr></blockquote>

I've got some ideas on solutions for that "problem", but I don't have the time to elaborate on them right now.

[Phantom Rocker]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon:

Puff,

I don't have a really good answer to your question right now than "because they're worth having?" All I can say is that I will continue to think about ways to optimize CMMOS both in terms of speed, functionality, ease of use and space useage.

<hr></blockquote>

They may be worth having, but I still can use only one set of graphics at the same time! Ehm - way don't you include the zip name into the ruleset? Just an idea.

[Gordon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Phantom Rocker:

They may be worth having, but I still can use only one set of graphics at the same time! Ehm - way don't you include the zip name into the ruleset? Just an idea.<hr></blockquote>

Because then you have to re-release the RuleSet with every mod which get's back into the same version confusion you had with the batch file system. As it stands now, the RuleSet can be written and released independently of the individual mods.

Gordon

[Gordon]

Ok, we've been so focused on naming conventions that there's been no real discussion so far on the "Modder's Code" and/or disclaimers. So let me hoist the following initial proposal up the flag pole and see who salutes:

1. Any disclaimer should be included in the mod's Readme file (or whatever other standardized file is decided upon) and this disclaimer should be listed by the hosting web-site along with all the other mod information.

2. In the absence of an explicit disclaimer, anyone wishing to modify/adapt/extend or enhance someone else's mod should make a reasonable attempt (TBD) to contact the original mod's author to obtain permission. If such attempt is unsuccessful then the new mod can be issued as long as proper attribution is provided.

3. If a disclaimer is present that grants permission to make any and all changes, modifications and enhancements, it is still suggested that the original author be contacted as a "courtesy". For instance, I often ask the original author's opinion of my changes.

4. If a disclaimer is present that specifically prohibits any and all changes, modifications and enhancements, the original author must be contacted and permission received or you'll just have to keep your new mod to yourself.

5. If a disclaimer is present that prohibits hosting a mod on any other site(s), then permission must be received before even something as non-intrusive as repackaging a mod to CMMOS-enable it can be done.

I'll make another post later that proposes some standard disclaimers.

Gordon

[bfamily33]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon:

I'll make another post later that proposes some standard disclaimers.

Gordon<hr></blockquote>

Gordon: Perhaps you could start a dedicated thread for this code of ethics / disclaimer issue.

Likewise, a dedicated thread for your uniform issue. Allow this thread to cover your naming convention issue.

[Marco Bergman]

With reference to the disclaimer issue, all mods OUGHT to have one included of some form.

As regards use of other's work, experience tells me that anything not explicitly PERMITTED in the disclaimer should not be done without direct contact with the mod author. As a last resort if you can't contact someone, start a thread asking for them. That's worked most times people tried it.

Gordon said:

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>For instance, I often ask the original author's opinion of my changes.<hr></blockquote>

But never more than 6 requests per night :eek:

Concerning the file-naming question, I'll go along with what people want, although how are those 3 letter name codes going to be allocated? Guess I should stake my claim for MB right now...

For Mac file names, is there any other arcane information we might need to know, apart from 31 characters max and no spaces in the name?

[Gyrene]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>For Mac file names, is there any other arcane information we might need to know, apart from 31 characters max and no spaces in the name? <hr></blockquote>

Macs are more lenient than PC's when it comes to what symbols you can use in a file name, all PC legal symbols work with the Mac.

Btw, can PC names have more than one dot? "."? i.e: file.name.is.this.zip?

Gyrene

[Cameroon]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

Macs are more lenient than PC's when it comes to what symbols you can use in a file name, all PC legal symbols work with the Mac.

Btw, can PC names have more than one dot? "."? i.e: file.name.is.this.zip?

Gyrene<hr></blockquote>

Ah, not quite true Gyrene and a good question by Marco. The ":" is a special character for the Mac file system much like "/" is in *nix file systems and "\" in Windows. I can't see colon's being used much in the mod names, but just one extra thing...

So to sum it up, the only file name limits I'm aware of on the Mac are 31 characters and no colons.

And what file system/naming convention brought about the no spaces thing anyway?

[Scipio]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gyrene:

Btw, can PC names have more than one dot? "."? i.e: file.name.is.this.zip?

<hr></blockquote>

Yes

[Gordon]

bfamily33:

I'll start a separate thread for the Uniform modders and CMMOS discussion, but I'd like to keep the disclaimer, reuse and naming issues together as they are pretty closely connected.

Marco:

I agree that all mods should have a disclaimer (and I'm guilty myself for not having them as of late).

So regarding disclaimers and possibly all this other information that may be embedded into mods, do people prefer the "lot's of little text files" approach or something like the CMMM approach of using windows INI files? Personally I prefer the individual text files method, but I can accept either. NOTE: Web-masters, this is one that's going to hit close to home for you, as you'll be accessing all this information.

Ok, some proposed standard disclaimers:

First, the "Knock yourself out" disclaimer:

This mod pack is released for free unrestricted use to the CMBO community. Feel free to do anything you like to it, so long as modified versions are labelled as such, and credit given both to <THIS MOD'S AUTHORS> and any prior author(s). (In this case, <PREVIOUS MOD AUTHOR> and BTS). This pack may be freely posted for downloading, but must not be charged for.

Ok, this is based on Marco Bergman's standard disclaimer, which I was using (when I included them) and pretty much covers all the bases for an unrestricted use release. Substitute for the parts within angle brackets. Also, note the explicit refernce to BTS, from whole all mods originate, in one form or another.

I'm thinking we need an explicit statement on whether permission was received or implied (if we go that route) in the interest of full disclosure.

Something like "This mod was produced with the permission of <XXX>", or "This mod was produced without the explicit permission of <XXX>, who was unable to be contacted."

For the "hands off" disclaimer,

This mod pack is released for free in-game use to the CMBO community. Alteration or modification to any of the files contained here-in is exressely prohibited unless prior permission is obtained. This pack was based on <THE BASE MOD'S NAME> and/or the BTS originals. This pack may not be posted for downloading without express permission.

Ok, all this legalese is making my head spin, time to go start the "CMMOS uniforms" thread.

Gordon

[Scipio]

Why so much words? For my own mods:

Everything is forbidden without my explicit permission.

[Michael Dorosh]

Forbidden is a strong word, as no one has the authority to prevent someone else from modifying a mod and using it for their own. The other two disclaimers are great, Gordon.

How about creating a name for the modders who are coming up with these "rules" - it is starting to sound like the Geneva Convention - you know, a set of rules that you would like to see binding everyone, but in reality, is only an encouragement to self-police? The Japanese never signed the convention and look how they acted. There was no way to MAKE them do so during the war, just as there is nothing from stopping me taking any of Scipio's, or any other mod, running a colour filter on it, changing a couple of details, and then calling it my own. Just as there was no stopping the Bataan Death March with lawyers. Granted, I would quickly earn the wrath of the modding community, and perhaps the entire CM community at large if I did something like that - and people noticed - but from a legal standpoint you would have failed. If, on the other hand, you have some way of effectively prohibiting others from doing this, go for it, but with the availability of artistic software and cheap/free web space for hosting mods, I don't see how that can be done.

In other words, you may want to change the wording to something like "The creator and publisher of this mod agree that under the terms of the Gordon Convention for the Distribution of CM Mods, it is desired that no other mod artists make use of these files for the purpose of public dissemination without prior permission from the original artist."

In the end, all these conventions only work if everyone agrees to using them. I hope they will, and when I get the time to finish some of my CMMOS projects, I will too. But there is no way you can prevent people from NOT abiding by them, and using threatening language will only disenchant people.

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]

A better wording of your original, Gordon, would be:

This mod pack is released for free in-game use to the CMBO community. It is requested that any public dissemination of alteration or modification to any of the files contained here be done only once prior permission is obtained from the original author, Jonathon Doe (CM forum name JohnDoe99) who can be contacted at johnnydoe@hutmail.ca

[ 11-18-2001: Message edited by: Michael Dorosh ]</p>

[Gordon]

Scipio,

That's not adequate because "everything" is not prohibited. You're not prohibiting anyone from downloading and using your mod, for example, and as Michael pointed out, you can't forbid anyone from doing whatever they please with your mod as long as they keep it to themselves.

Michael,

Ok, how about "The Chicago Convention relative to the protection of mod author's rights".

Your rewording is as acceptable to me as my original, although I see I mangled the attribution section and yours is missing a complete attribution. I really think maintaining the "provenance", so to speak, of a mod is very important.

Gordon

[Michael Dorosh]

<blockquote>quote:</font><hr>Originally posted by Gordon:

Scipio,

Michael,

Ok, how about "The Chicago Convention relative to the protection of mod author's rights".

Your rewording is as acceptable to me as my original, although I see I mangled the attribution section and yours is missing a complete attribution. I really think maintaining the "provenance", so to speak, of a mod is very important.<hr></blockquote>

Or TCCRTTPOMAR for short. "Tick-rit-po-marr" has a nice sound coming off the tongue, eh?

I agree with you about provenance - I deleted that bit for brevity, my fault. Should definitely be in there, unless someone comes up with an all-original mod (and there have been one or two, oddly enough - like that Panther that was scanned out of the same book of Tanks that I happen to own. Nice mod that was, too, but of course, provenance would then have been to the image in the book rather than another mod.)