Licensing issues with porting GL4 to A3

Greetings!

I have been working on a GL4 port for A3 for my own personal use in my spare time. It's almost to the point of being ready for use/release, however I have some licensing issues I'd like some advice on from the community.

SNKMAN is MIA and has been since 11-15-2010. Group link has been through several authors and SNKMAN himself ported GL from Arma to Arma 2, etc:

The original Group Link script was written by Toadlife.

KeyCat continued toadlife's work and heavily modified the original Group Link script and tweaked and enhanced it.

From now on Group Link was avalible and known as Group Link 2.

Since ArmA was out i converted Group Link 2, added some new features and called it Group Link 2 Plus!

No clear licence exists in SNKMAN's Armaholic release or OP forum thread. Personally I release all of my work open source. However not to step on any toes, could others chime in as to if I should release GL for A3? Of course, I give CREDIT where CREDIT is due.

Thanks!

Hi zorrobyte,

I can only speak for myself and I'm totally OK with it and only glad someone else picked up the torch to evolve GL further and share it with the rest of the community.

/KC

Good to see you still plugging away at this Zorro... hopefully nothing stands in the way of getting this out for A3

As the project stands currently, it is working for A3. I stripped all FX effects as in modern times separate addons are available such as blastcore. I have yet to compile and test as an addon but as far as script based init, it's working.

My thoughts were to keep it script only for now and convert over the modules into certain named logics that one could sync units within the editor. I've made some improvements such as rescanning and adding in artillery, air support as mission runs. I've been watching GL4's behaviors in MCC and from what I can ascertain thus far, GL4 is unique in that it doesn't assign waypoints for AI movement. I seems to take control of the actual AI for movement, house search, etc. I've also been testing with HAL (HETMAN AI) and it seems to be a match made in heaven.

Some of the fixes I'd like to make before release is GL4 init with no enemy on map for use with EOS and other situations in which AI spawn in later, I'd like to cement in classname changes into the core SYSTEM instead of relying on the SETTINGS, I'd like to rewrite the manual as to the changes in the release including script author support as to the important arrays and functions, I'd like to expand the script only functionality for full feature support without needing the add on.

Overall, end goal WOULD be to compile back into an addon with module support in editor. The biggest change is that I'd like GL4 to be as easy and universal as others such as ASR-AI that GL4's enhancements can be used on any server/mission without setting it up in the editor first.

Repo is here: https://bitbucket.org/zorrobyte/group-link-5-core/

Also here is the PDF from SNKMAN about features. Super exciting stuff here: https://www.dropbox.com/s/6e0mquy32c28ulc/Features.pdf

I'm aiming to keep as many AI features as possible in the port.

i would say there is nothing what really stops you from the release on GL4, especially if you keep it opensource and credit all past authors

i used several varians of GL since Arma 1 so i'm only happy to hear it may come to A3 too

Sounds good, I <3 Creative commons

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/

100% agree with Dwarden...youve taken every possible step to make sure its released in good faith.

Awesome job!! GL4 was an amazing enhancement.

Calling all testers for Alpha version. Skype: ross.fisher91

I went through and redid all of my code from back in November, found some issues that needed corrected. I also noticed SNKMAN's script version as an older version vs the addon version. I'm now toying with the AI rearming feature that was added in the last version.

Alpha is addon only, release will have mission init.

Current issues:

UI paa error in editor for module icon

Undefined var at Arma 3 menu screen

Undefined vars for GL Patrol function/module

Todo

Revamp documentation

QA

Assessment of what modules could be re-added (such as High Command, Force Move, etc)

GL init even when no enemy AI on map

Mission runtime method to set Defence, Static, Etc

Much more

New repo:

https://bitbucket.org/zorrobyte/group-link-5-core/

http://i.imgur.com/uhmQdtk.jpg (123 kB)

DL (Alpha):

https://www.dropbox.com/s/af2w6e5o7tck7h4/%40GL5Alpha.zip

Report bugs here (please search before posting):

https://bitbucket.org/zorrobyte/group-link-5-core/issues

Not for Armaholic, etc release.

Zerrobyte,

i notice is that your still using "MAN" .. you should change that to "CAManBase" you dont need to check for every type of man because "Man" returns things that arnt needed. IE: wildlife and anyother AI on the map. change alot of the "forEach" to "Count". Change all the "getPos", "setPos" to "getPosASL/getPosATL", Etc. basically use BIS wiki page for optimization and get a TON better performance out of GL5.

for the missing icon pop up error..

this is for the missing icon error. Just use plain icons..

This is for the flares working on servers. and no errors

Also some of the "nearestObjects" can be changed to "nearestEntities" because they are searching for alive items. and will be more efficient. "entities" is faster then "objects"

use LAZY Eval in ALL areas where it could be applied.

:)

Zerrobyte,

i notice is that your still using "MAN" .. you should change that to "CAManBase" you dont need to check for every type of man because "Man" returns things that arnt needed. IE: wildlife and anyother AI on the map. change alot of the "forEach" to "Count". Change all the "getPos", "setPos" to "getPosASL/getPosATL", Etc. basically use BIS wiki page for optimization and get a TON better performance out of GL5.

for the missing icon pop up error..

this is for the missing icon error. Just use plain icons..

class GL4_System : Logic

{

displayName = "Group Link 4: System [ Initialize ]";

icon = "iconModule";

picture = "\A3\modules_f\data\iconmodule_ca.paa";

vehicleClass = "Modules";

class EventHandlers

{

init = GL4_EH_System

};

};

This is for the flares working on servers. and no errors

switch (side _c) do

{

case EAST :

{

_i = "UGL_FlareWhite_F";

_c addMagazine _i;

_c fire ["EGLM","EGLM", _i];

};

case WEST :

{

_i = "UGL_FlareWhite_F";

_c addMagazine _i;

_c fire ["GL_3GL_F","GL_3GL_F", _i];

};

case RESISTANCE :

{

_i = "UGL_FlareWhite_F";

_c addMagazine _i;

_c fire ["GL_3GL_F","GL_3GL_F", _i];

};

};

Also some of the "nearestObjects" can be changed to "nearestEntities" because they are searching for alive items. and will be more efficient. "entities" is faster then "objects"

use LAZY Eval in ALL areas where it could be applied.

:)

Thank you! I will look into it and I always appreciate feedback. Please add me on skype: ross.fisher91

"Perfection is the roadblock to progress"

1.0 released:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?175475-Group-Link-5-Core-(AI-Enhancement)

Why have RKSL-Rock voted against ? :confused:

Why have RKSL-Rock voted against ? :confused:

Because i dont believe that people have the right to take someone's rights away simply because you dont reply to an email or two.

The default positions is and has always been (even in Law) that the rights are assumed to be there even in the absence of documentation.

My thoughts here:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?175475-Group-Link-5-Core-(AI-Enhancement)&p=2657322&viewfull=1#post2657322

RKSL you missed the fact that GL had several main authors which passed the work one to other ...

also 3+ years isn't two emails...

No, No i didnt. :)

I didn't agree with the initial port without consent either. Dwarden do you remember when you tried to push for a "2-3 week no reply and its up for grabs" period? 2-3 years makes no difference. If i leave for 2-3 years and I come back and some muppet is abusing my models i wouldnt be happy. Especially since, at the time 'i' left the "rule" was its yours until you say otherwise. Oddly enough thats the law too.

Lester asked why i voted against it. I explained. I know that you are an advocate of open sourcing the community but not everyone agrees.

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Here's the kicker in my opinion...

...If you have to ask anyone if you are doing the "right thing" you probably aren't. ;)

No, No i didnt. :)

I didn't agree with the initial port without consent either. Dwarden do you remember when you tried to push for a "2-3 week no reply and its up for grabs" period? 2-3 years makes no difference. If i leave for 2-3 years and I come back and some muppet is abusing my models i wouldnt be happy. Especially since, at the time 'i' left the "rule" was its yours until you say otherwise. Oddly enough thats the law too.

Lester asked why i voted against it. I explained. I know that you are an advocate of open sourcing the community but not everyone agrees.

---------- Post added at 20:56 ---------- Previous post was at 20:45 ----------

Here's the kicker in my opinion...

...If you have to ask anyone if you are doing the "right thing" you probably aren't. ;)

well as Dwarden stated, Being a BI Dev and all; the original mod had many authors and 1 author gave him the go ahead so really theres nothing really wrong here, now if another author had a problem with it, then its up to him to discuss it with both him and the author that gave him permissions.

well as Dwarden stated, Being a BI Dev and all; the original mod had many authors and 1 author gave him the go ahead so really theres nothing really wrong here, now if another author had a problem with it, then its up to him to discuss it with both him and the author that gave him permissions.

And if the BI dev hadnt "officially" authorised the port? Thats another problem I have. Infact its one of the same issues 2-3 years ago when Dwarden was trying to give away other people's rights then too.

Don't see much wrong with it to be honest. Zorrobyte's clearly not an idiot and he's done everything humanly possible to get permission. I think the people against it are against it more because they think it'll set a negative trend and aren't really looking at it as a specific query.

Don't see much wrong with it to be honest. Zorrobyte's clearly not an idiot and he's done everything humanly possible to get permission. I think the people against it are against it more because they think it'll set a negative trend and aren't really looking at it as a specific query.

Both sides are understandable imho. If you say that zorrobyte can port GL4, then why shouldn't I be able to take old mods from OFP/ArmA1/2 and port them over to A3 or any other game? On the other hand, if someone doesn't reply to email, youtube, steam and so on, you can't claim that Zorrobyte didn't try.

Don't see much wrong with it to be honest. Zorrobyte's clearly not an idiot and he's done everything humanly possible to get permission. I think the people against it are against it more because they think it'll set a negative trend and aren't really looking at it as a specific query.

I've never suggested that Zorrobyte was an idiot. I stated that i don't agree with porting it without direct consent.

And yes, I am concerned that Dwarden will set a trend by authorising people to abuse someone else's rights.

Both sides are understandable imho. If you say that zorrobyte can port GL4, then why shouldn't I be able to take old mods from OFP/ArmA1/2 and port them over to A3 or any other game? On the other hand, if someone doesn't reply to email, youtube, steam and so on, you can't claim that Zorrobyte didn't try.

I wasn't around for OFP but I imagine a lot of guys who were making stuff back then have disappeared off the radar for years and years. If you go to the ends of the earth trying to contact them and you can't get hold of them (probably because they've not been active in the community for 6-7 years) then harsh as it sounds I think it's fair game to take that stuff and re-release it (with appropriate credits). I've contacted loads of people about editing their addons and using them privately within our unit and not one person has come back to me and said "No I'm not going to give you permission to do that". You can see this all over the community, people making stuff, allowing others to reskin/tweak it and re-release in order to ultimately improve the experience for Arma 3 users and keep the game thriving. I know people are very proud and protective of their work but I think primary aim should be to enhance the Arma 3 experience for other users. That said I'm not saying people should be allowed to re-release other peoples stuff after like a couple of weeks of them not responding to emails. Difficult to say a timeframe but I think if you're not active (on the forums for 2 years) then your stuff's fair game ;)

This reminds me, we had a very difficult situation actually where we were looking at retexturing a Puma helicopter for our group but the author had sadly died in an accident, ultimately we went ahead with it on the grounds that certain members of our group knew the guy very well and knew he wouldn't have a problem with us doing so. This was back when Rock's Puma had that problem where the engine sound would stop after take off. Pretty sure that's fixed now.

I wasn't around for OFP but I imagine a lot of guys who were making stuff back then have disappeared off the radar for years and years. If you go to the ends of the earth trying to contact them and you can't get hold of them (probably because they've not been active in the community for 6-7 years) then harsh as it sounds I think it's fair game to take that stuff and re-release it (with appropriate credits). I've contacted loads of people about editing their addons and using them privately within our unit and not one person has come back to me and said "No I'm not going to give you permission to do that". You can see this all over the community, people making stuff, allowing others to reskin/tweak it and re-release in order to ultimately improve the experience for Arma 3 users and keep the game thriving. I know people are very proud and protective of their work but I think primary aim should be to enhance the Arma 3 experience for other users. That said I'm not saying people should be allowed to re-release other peoples stuff after like a couple of weeks of them not responding to emails. Difficult to say a timeframe but I think if you're not active (on the forums for 2 years) then your stuff's fair game ;)

This reminds me, we had a very difficult situation actually where we were looking at retexturing a Puma helicopter for our group but the author had sadly died in an accident, ultimately we went ahead with it on the grounds that certain members of our group knew the guy very well and knew he wouldn't have a problem with us doing so. This was back when Rock's Puma had that problem where the engine sound would stop after take off. Pretty sure that's fixed now.

And you are trying to flame bait again. No surprise from you.

And you are trying to flame bait again. No surprise from you.

Nope. Don't know how that post could be viewed in such a way to be honest.