rec.autos.simulators

Life is not black and white, and I am highly confident that I could
find _something_ illegal about anyone's system, however small.

Marc was simply making a salient point - not arguing with you. I'm
doing that :-)

Cheers!
John

Go and READ the N2 license and what it prohibits - READ the Quake
license and what it allows. You'll notice Quake was especially written
with an open architecture with precisely that in mind.

N2 and ICR2 did not apply that ethos.

Cheers!
John

SHANE:

R:

Like it wans't a money hungry world for over a 1000 years. It's nice that us
average people can make a few bucks now and then. Be thankful were not slaves.

Q.B.M.

  Where is this definition of an artist you cite? There was art before there
was money. There will be art when there is no money. The violinist alone
in her room playing for herself is an artist and is creating art. The making
of Outpost, a commonly accepted piece of garbage, is by your definition art!?

   I submit that if the utilities coded and offered here were boxed nice
and pretty and had a software developers label on them you couldn't tell
them from shinola.  

 Quantity, yes. Quality? Naw. There are more obscure great artistic works
in this world than just what is on the merchants' shelves. No connection,
in context, means art is art irregardless of money's influence.
   The motivation has everything to do with it as it was you who, in the
post I responded to, claimed that nothing motivates the creation of art
more than the possibility of  getting paid for it.
    I sure can't agree with this definition of an artist. I work forty hours
per week. I write music, I play it. I don't live off of it. But I can tell
you this; I'm a far better musician than many who do live off of it.  And I am
not an artist?

regards,
Greg
Gavel

Yes they are. By definition anyone who can only spend a tiny
percentage of their efforts and time on an endeaver is a hobbyist.

I don't believe this for a second. It is simply not true, and there is
no evidence or logic at all to support it at all. Your claim is almost
farcical on the face of it.

Then you are utterly blind. How can there POSSIBLY be "no connection"
between being able to fully devote yourself to art and the quality and
quantity or art produced? Obviously, by definition in fact, your art
suffers if you can only devote 5% of your energy and time towards it.

The *motivation* has nothing to do with it - what we are talking about
is the practical reality of living and working in the world. An artist
has to be able to make a living off their art or they are not an
artist, they're just a hobbyist.

Joe

Joe

The Quake license (which may or may not be legally binding)
goes something like this: "You may not make illegal copies
of this program" (unnecessary; this is covered by copyright
law) "no warranty; if there's a bug, you can't have your
money back, and if this program blows up your computer,
we don't owe you anything" (standard software company
disclaimer boilerplate, maybe worth something in court,
maybe not) "you may make all the mods you want, as long
as they're free and they only work with the commercial
version not the free one (this is the open part)", "if you
want to charge for your mods, or run a pay server, you
have to contact us and hand over some money"  (and this
isn't) "the NiN logos are owned by someone else not id so
we can't let you use them so don't."

The only real difference between id's license and everyone
else's is that id specificially allows not-for-profit
mods.  Very cool of them, but they're granting you a right
that you probably already had.

Does Papyrus or Sierra have the right to tell you not to
distribute original or modified versions of their code?  
Damn straight they do.  It's their code, and they have
copyright on it.  Do they have a right to tell you not to
distribute your own original program that modifies their
code?  I sincerely doubt it, regardless of what their
(probably legally worthless) shrink-wrap license says.
But I'm not a lawyer, just some guy who's read the
copyright FAQ and browsed through the US Code on the web.

(I better stop before I start talking about how you
have just as much right to mention the Daytona Motor
Speedway in your computer game as the newspapers have
to mention it in an article the day after the race.
You can copyright specific pictures, and text, and
code, but not facts like the length of a straightaway.
You can trademark names, and logos, but you can't
keep other people from mentioning your trademarks as
long as they're acknowledged and not intended to
defraud by passing off their product as yours.)

The rights of the holders of intellectual property
are strictly defined, and they're not infinite, but of
course they won't tell you that.

Software license agreement:
By having read this far, you owe me $100.  :->

--

spamgard(tm): To email me, put "geek" in your Subject line.

Yup.

Don't have it or use it as far as I know.

Yup.

True.

Something they've inadvertandly put on and forgot about maybe - which
is not quite the same thing we were talking about, which is knowing
theft.

This isn't an argument - it's just contradiction! ;-)

Joe

: I never said otherwise. Someone was claiming that the availbility of
: fo-pay addons will reduce the availability of free ones. Quake shows
: that nothing could be further from the truth - a healthy addon
: community develops large quantities of both. That fact that Papyrus is
: a much more close-minded company than ID is completely beside the
: point.

I don't think it so much that Papyrus is a "close-minded" company, it's
more the approach they took to creating their sims.  ID had a completely
different approach.  ID wanted to make the engine first.  The engine
would be their bread and butter.  And yes they intentionally made the
engine "open".  On the other hand I believe that Papyrus wanted to make
a racing simulation and built the engine(s) as they developed the
simulation.  Now the big question is, do you want Papyrus to spend a
Large amount of resources (money & man hours), to reverse engineer their
complicated engines, just to make it "open"?

One more thing you seem to be overlooking, when Quake becomes a
complicated simulation (ala NASCAR2, ICR2), then your arguement will
carry more weight.  Until then, it is a rather weak defense.

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

Don't be an idiot. No novel was ever written in a "second". Nor any
great painting or song. (How long the "inspiration" takes is another
completely different point of course, and again you totally miss the
point.)

In the dictionary - try looking up the word professional: someone paid
for their work. A hobbyist is an unpaid part-timer.

This is completely irrelavent to the argument and to anything that
happens in todays world, since everyone in this world needs money to
live. And again has nothing to do with my points, which you
conveniently ignore.

Oh, when exactly will there be "no money"?

Don't be an idiot. Most of the "utilities" are painted car sets, which
no one would pay for. The games themselves, of course, could NOT be
and WERE not created by amateurs.

You just keep repeating the same blithering nonsense over and over
with no argument, no examples to support your case, and no refutation
of my points. In short, you've lost this debate because you refuse to
actually take part in it.

No, you are not an artist, period. You are a music hobbyist.

Joe

But this is no argument at all. You are theorizing that somehow the
complexity of a racing sim makes an open-architecture approach
difficult or impossible, but you've presented no evidence for this
case. It is your defense of Papryrus closed-architecture strategy that
is weak - I see no justification for the strategy at all except
close-mindedness.

Joe

     Not every novel written was written by a full time employed writer.
That is a fact. So your idea that art can only be created by artists,and
not hobbyists is again laid to rest.

        I asked for your definition of Artist.

  I quoted your argument in the last post. Unfortunately, you haven't the
sense to remember or read what you posted. You clearly state that by
definition no one is an artist unless they live off of their art.
 Non sequitur evasion, Joe.
   Of course you know this for a fact. You are privy to the hiring records of
alll major artistic entities!? You don't know know if Mr. X was hired the
day before to help code Nascar2, do you? Of course,according to your
faulty logic, Mr. X was,the day before his employment, a hobbyist. He magically
became an artist when he became gainfully employed in coding.
   Letr me ask you, do you buy your Hamburger from that artistic institute
called Wimpys? Or do you struggle with your hobbyist attempts at cooking
a burger? Art is Art, Joe. Wheteher you live off of it or not it IS ART.

  And you're so full of yourself, you can't respond with anything other than
out of context blather and vague "missed the point" statements.The last
line of your post quoted here sums up your points.
  If you can't remember to check what you wrote in previous posts then don't
waste my time by rearranging context to suit your arrogant demeanor.

       Right. You keep believin that. Arrogant ass!!

 Hi all,
   My apologies that this discussion went on so long and stepped outside the
realm and scope of this newsgroup. Thanks for your patience.
   And by the way...Mr.Lingenberg, you are an artist, same for Carver, Johns,
Frederick, Alex, Noonan, Busch, Heath, Sokoloff, Gary, Jed, any one who ever
used their brain creatively to make the sims we use a little better. Oh yeah,
Mozart too.
   Any further posts, I expect flames shortly, on the subject will be handled
through e-mail though I consider the subject dead as far as my involvement.

   Oh, a last thing. There is a new newsgroup on TEN dedicated to Nascar2.
You all might find it a bit amusing.

Regards,
Gavel

<snip>
: You haven't refuted my point in any way. You seem to be arguing for my

Wasn't trying to...

<snip>
: But this is no argument at all. You are theorizing that somehow the

Wasn't arguing either...

Never mind....

--
**************************** Michael E. Carver *************************
     Upside out, or inside down...False alarm the only game in town.

=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=<[ /./.  [-  < ]>=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=

It's not even a good one. Do the damn thing right and it might be
worth paying for.