I don't know what I've said or done to upset you daniu, but you seem determined to assume the worst about me and interpret everything I say in the worst possible light.
Well, you were asked alreay.
That was clearly an enquiry into how Symphony could be
used, not how it
works. I answered accordingly and I assume the user was happy with my response since they did not request further clarification. To my knowledge nobody had enquired as to the technical details before you complained that I had not provided them. Furthermore, it is my experience that people generally do not care
how a tool works, as long as it does indeed work. Consequently I don't usually take the time to format and present said details unless someone requests them.
I'll hardly start calling external tools from an executable.
If you don't wish to do so then that is, of course, your perogative. I merely pointed out that is was permissible.
PFM is an application, not a script.
Applications spawning additional processes in order to perform a section of work is nothing new. Your IDE does it, your internet browser almost certainly does it, even Shogun 2 does it. As I said, it's up to you how your application behaves, but please don't insinuate that my suggestion was in some way inappropriate or unrealistic. Since you do not want to invoke an external application from PFM, would you be happier if I provided a variant of Symphony as a dll?
Sure, people are asking for the source code because they won't understand it. That statement itself is an insult to the intelligence of anyone knowing more than a single programming language. Heck, I've been going through taw's Ruby code and got along fine, and Ruby is much more fundamentally different from anything common like C or Java than C++. Maybe I'm special, but do you really think you'd have a hard time understanding how the PFM works?
It certainly wasn't intended as an insult. I know professionals who aren't up to speed with the latest C++ features and would probably stuggle with elements of my code. However, if you believe you could cope with it then fine, I will accept that.
I doubt it because my assumption is that's where you looked to see how packs are assembled.
I did not use anybody else's tools in the development of Symphony. If I had I would have asked their permission and credited them. I figured out how pack files work by reverse-engineering the files and reading information posted publicly by The Creative Assembly.
And none of the libraries you state you use is "releaseable in executable but not in source form", a licensing model I only have seen in commercial product, which I must express my doubt you use; and if you do, that does also fall under "not my idea of community effort" because I have a hard time believing you can't use an equivalent open source library to keep things open.
You're probably right, there probably isn't anything in my source that would prevent me from releasing. But you'll note I didn't say that there was. I said I would have to check. I
know everything in my various libaries and code snippets are releasable in executable form because I don't add anything to my respositories that does not meet this requirement. However, this is the
only thing I check. I do
not know the licensing requirements for a source code release of everything in my repositories, and I'm not about to open myself to liability without thorougly checking first. In fact, having just checked the Boost license I find this:
Excerpt from
Boost Software License
The copyright notices in the Software and this entire statement, including
the above license grant, this restriction and the following disclaimer,
must be included in all copies of the Software, in whole or in part, and
all derivative works of the Software, unless such copies or derivative
works are solely in the form of machine-executable object code generated by
a source language processor.
If I had released and had not checked this license I would have been breaking the terms of the Boost license.
But this must all stay guesswork on my part because again you seem reluctant to give out any concrete information.
What concrete information would you like?
Not that it really matters because like I said, if people can live with using a multitude of tools to get their mods working, that's fine by me.
It's just that it conflicts with my idea of having a single tool providing as much integrated functionality as possible.
And the idea that someone might pick up on where you stop when you do, as I had to with the PFM.
Fair enough, but I have listed my reasons for not releasing my source and while you have addressed one, the other three still remain.
Can I ask why you chose such a 'locked door' solution to an open community problem?
I don't consider it a 'locked door' solution. It is a fairly standard software license and in fact much more open than most since it permits unlimited distribution. It's not an open-source license because I am not distributing my source - for the reasons explained previously.
from CA to ruin mods even more.
this is the modding workshop forums if we are not here to learn and share what are we here for? Not for the cups of tea surely
. I did a quick check to see if it would work without using my custom pack, and the same thing happens.
