I have had a look into it. The approval queue was experiencing a strange bug.
The problem was the option which let you switch between approved and non-approved users, it was causing an SQL error and returning 0 results. I have disabled the switch and set it to only display unapproved users, and it is now functioning as intended.
I will post in the admin forum with more details about my findings. In the mean time, if you feel you should have been approved a long time ago, please let us know
The nefarious purposes are more about the specific technical implementation, it would require exposing Drupal's bulk operations interface, and that functionality is what I am concerned about. It is a powerful tool and is usually reserved for admins, I can certainly see some edge cases that might not end too well. That tool can have a pretty significant performance impact, since you're writing to a lot of tables at once, and exposing it to end users might allow them to easily automate the process to crash the site.
Just to reassure everyone, we have 13 admins and another 3 editors in addition to about 12 people with other degrees of elevated access. Of those, 4 admins have not been online in the past year.
I think that is actually a fairly sized "staff", though in practice it is at the whim of who has free time at any given moment. We do have an admin forum, but it is not used as extensively as it could be and I agree we could always organise and co-ordinate ourselves better.
I will try to monitor the feedback and admin forums more closely, but i am wary about making a public list of staff with direct contact capability. I am also not sure that a ticketing system is appropriate, we probably just need to be more timely in our responses to the existing systems, rather than creating more lists for us to check.
it is technically doable but has the potential for significant performance impact and possible abuse. The admins can already do this kind of bulk content update for a given user, but I would be quite reluctant to open up such broad powers to generial users.
I also don't personally know the legal implications of you changing your attribution details for work which is already in use. It would be good to get some clarity on that. For instance, of you have previously released something as CC0, i don't think it is possible for your to later change that to something more restrictive.
@gsliepen How can you say "it doesn't work like that"? The ogg version of a song is equivilant to the "object code" in the GPL licence, as it is the final compiled version without the actual "source code".
Section 4 says "You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it"
And section 6 says "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4"
with the provisos of section 6c "Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source"
So if the artist agreed to provide the source on request then OGA would be conveying a verbatim copy of the object code with a verbatim copy of a written offer to provide the corresponding source.
Wednesday, July 20, 2016 - 05:34
GPL v3 section 6b and 6c:
b) Convey the object code in, or embodied in, a physical product (including a physical distribution medium), accompanied by a written offer, valid for at least three years and valid for as long as you offer spare parts or customer support for that product model, to give anyone who possesses the object code either (1) a copy of the Corresponding Source for all the software in the product that is covered by this License, on a durable physical medium customarily used for software interchange, for a price no more than your reasonable cost of physically performing this conveying of source, or (2) access to copy the Corresponding Source from a network server at no charge.
c) Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source. This alternative is allowed only occasionally and noncommercially, and only if you received the object code with such an offer, in accord with subsection 6b.
It seems like keeping GPL is fine, as long as the artist explicitly agrees to offer a copy of the source for at least three years. At that point the artist would be meeting b) and OGA would be meeting c)
I don't upload the component editing files for most of my art primarily because the size is often many orders of magnitude larger than the mixed down final form. An ogg which is 3mb could easily be exported from a set of source files which is several gigabytes in size. Even that is not always the whole source, I might make 15 or 20 different iterations of an artwork prior to settling on a final form, I save each of those versions as a seperate project, and I can extract components from multiple versions to use in the final version. At that point you're potentially looking at dozens of gigabytes of "source" files.
Hell, for most of the songs on here I have also made video clips, which also have multiple versions and massive source files. If I were to upload all of that information, I would be seeding for months. These editing component files are very unlikely to be used by a game dev, and would have a significant effect on the hosting cost of the site. There are a lot of downsides to uploading source files rather than the final mix.
For all the discussion in this thread, I still don't see what the problem is with simply asking an artist for a different fomat if you need it.
It shows 8 random pieces of art with over 30 favourites, a cut off which currently equates to about ~250 pieces of art. The section is cached for between 1 to 30 minutes, at which time it is randomised again.
It would be trivial to add this section to the front page, but I won't be touching the front page without permission.
It is essentially the same thing as a blank search filtered by favourites.
I couldn't think of a quick way to make it display a random selection of only popular art.
I didn't want to add an entire section to the front page without permission, particularly one which wasn't ever going to change. However, I have made a slight change so that the "Popular this week" title on the home page is now linked to this "Most Popular" page, instead of the "Latest art" page.
Hopefully that goes some way towards your request.
I have had a look into it. The approval queue was experiencing a strange bug.
The problem was the option which let you switch between approved and non-approved users, it was causing an SQL error and returning 0 results. I have disabled the switch and set it to only display unapproved users, and it is now functioning as intended.
I will post in the admin forum with more details about my findings. In the mean time, if you feel you should have been approved a long time ago, please let us know
The nefarious purposes are more about the specific technical implementation, it would require exposing Drupal's bulk operations interface, and that functionality is what I am concerned about. It is a powerful tool and is usually reserved for admins, I can certainly see some edge cases that might not end too well. That tool can have a pretty significant performance impact, since you're writing to a lot of tables at once, and exposing it to end users might allow them to easily automate the process to crash the site.
351 Total which are exclusively GPL or LGPL.
There are also an additional 1160 which include GPL or LGPL but are not exclusive, for a total of 1511 which use either GPL or LGPL in some way.
Just to reassure everyone, we have 13 admins and another 3 editors in addition to about 12 people with other degrees of elevated access. Of those, 4 admins have not been online in the past year.
I think that is actually a fairly sized "staff", though in practice it is at the whim of who has free time at any given moment. We do have an admin forum, but it is not used as extensively as it could be and I agree we could always organise and co-ordinate ourselves better.
I will try to monitor the feedback and admin forums more closely, but i am wary about making a public list of staff with direct contact capability. I am also not sure that a ticketing system is appropriate, we probably just need to be more timely in our responses to the existing systems, rather than creating more lists for us to check.
it is technically doable but has the potential for significant performance impact and possible abuse. The admins can already do this kind of bulk content update for a given user, but I would be quite reluctant to open up such broad powers to generial users.
I also don't personally know the legal implications of you changing your attribution details for work which is already in use. It would be good to get some clarity on that. For instance, of you have previously released something as CC0, i don't think it is possible for your to later change that to something more restrictive.
@gsliepen How can you say "it doesn't work like that"? The ogg version of a song is equivilant to the "object code" in the GPL licence, as it is the final compiled version without the actual "source code".
Section 4 says "You may convey verbatim copies of the Program's source code as you receive it"
And section 6 says "You may convey a covered work in object code form under the terms of sections 4"
with the provisos of section 6c "Convey individual copies of the object code with a copy of the written offer to provide the Corresponding Source"
So if the artist agreed to provide the source on request then OGA would be conveying a verbatim copy of the object code with a verbatim copy of a written offer to provide the corresponding source.
GPL v3 section 6b and 6c:
It seems like keeping GPL is fine, as long as the artist explicitly agrees to offer a copy of the source for at least three years. At that point the artist would be meeting b) and OGA would be meeting c)
I don't upload the component editing files for most of my art primarily because the size is often many orders of magnitude larger than the mixed down final form. An ogg which is 3mb could easily be exported from a set of source files which is several gigabytes in size. Even that is not always the whole source, I might make 15 or 20 different iterations of an artwork prior to settling on a final form, I save each of those versions as a seperate project, and I can extract components from multiple versions to use in the final version. At that point you're potentially looking at dozens of gigabytes of "source" files.
Hell, for most of the songs on here I have also made video clips, which also have multiple versions and massive source files. If I were to upload all of that information, I would be seeding for months. These editing component files are very unlikely to be used by a game dev, and would have a significant effect on the hosting cost of the site. There are a lot of downsides to uploading source files rather than the final mix.
For all the discussion in this thread, I still don't see what the problem is with simply asking an artist for a different fomat if you need it.
Joth, after a bit more work there is now a "Featured Art" section at the bottom of the Most Popular page
http://opengameart.org/popular
It shows 8 random pieces of art with over 30 favourites, a cut off which currently equates to about ~250 pieces of art. The section is cached for between 1 to 30 minutes, at which time it is randomised again.
It would be trivial to add this section to the front page, but I won't be touching the front page without permission.
Hi Joth,
I put together a page of the most popular content from all time.
http://opengameart.org/popular
It is essentially the same thing as a blank search filtered by favourites.
I couldn't think of a quick way to make it display a random selection of only popular art.
I didn't want to add an entire section to the front page without permission, particularly one which wasn't ever going to change. However, I have made a slight change so that the "Popular this week" title on the home page is now linked to this "Most Popular" page, instead of the "Latest art" page.
Hopefully that goes some way towards your request.
Pages