• 0

    posted a message on AceDB and default profiles (Picking a bone)
    Quote from Farmbuyer
    You are not.

    http://forums.wowace.com/showthread.php?p=286728#post286728

    I keep a tiny stub mod that, on loading, reaches into AceDB and monkey-patches the :New method to make the 4th parameter default to true.


    Can you tell me how you did this?

    Do you simply create a small addon that redefined the method? Does this do a global replace?
    Posted in: Ace3
  • 0

    posted a message on AceDB and default profiles (Picking a bone)
    I totally agree that it should simply be up to the authors to make sensible choices. But alas, that's just not always going to happen.
    Posted in: Ace3
  • 0

    posted a message on Packager issues
    Hi.

    I'm having some trouble...

    I updated one of my addons yesterday and introduced a bug, which I've since fixed. But I'm getting an error when committing the tag. (Using git.)

    There's a python error, throwing an IOError: [Errno 13] Permission denied: '/home/curseforge/log/packaging-commits.log'

    Git shows that the tags are on the repo, and I can clone the repo from the remote and it has the tags. But nothing's being packaged.

    Any idea what's going on?

    Thanks.
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on AceDB and default profiles (Picking a bone)
    Hi, all.

    So I'm curious about something, and maybe some authors would like to comment on what they think about this.

    In addons that use AceDB, there are two ways you can initialize it. Here's the way I do it in my AddOns:

    self.db = LibStub("AceDB-3.0"):New("MyAwesomeAddonDB", defaults, true)


    That last "true" argument specifies whether the addon loads the "Default" profile when it's first loaded on a character that's never had it loaded before. This allows the user to configure that Default profile once, and then it's loaded on each subsequent toon.

    But a few addons do not initialize the database this way, by omitting the "true" in the constructor. So each new character that loads that addon will either have to load a profile manually, or reconfigure for each character.

    Now, I can see how some people would like to have a different configuration for each toon, but I can't imagine that's what most people want. A few of the AddOns I use regularly don't use default profiles, so I either have to configure them manually or go into the code and change the db initialization myself. I opt to do the latter, and this makes updating those addons a pain. (I won't mention which AddOns I'm talking about...)

    Am I the only one that this drives crazy?
    Posted in: Ace3
  • 0

    posted a message on ButtonFacade: Skins - Official Thread
    Hey, all.

    Got a new skin for ya.

    http://www.wowace.com/addons/buttonfacade_daedui/

    It's designed to go well with the default UI elements, as that's what I'm going for with my UI compilation.

    I hope some of you find this useful and/or fun.

    Cheers,
    Daedhir
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on Guide: Using UIDropDownMenu in your addon
    Am I crazy, or was there a code snippet posted at some point that showed how to display the default Blizzard unit frame dropdown menus by making a wrapper? I thought it was in the Guides section, but I can't find it anywhere now.

    Anybody remember what I'm talking about?
    Posted in: Tips, FAQs, and Guides
  • 0

    posted a message on All Rights Reserved
    Quote from Nevcairiel
    I wanted to bring that argument earlier, but i double checked :p

    The GPL is too long for me to look for a comment to usage, but shrug.

    The GPL also explicitly conveys use rights.

    Now that I've looked a bit further into copyright law, it appears that ARR does allow for use and only restricts distribution and copying. There are some subtleties involved though as far as what "copying" means, but I think most of those would be covered by fair use principles.

    I guess I'm just so used to seeing licenses that spell out all terms of use that I expected the default to be at least as strict. But it seems that most software licenses are, in fact, contracts covering terms beyond those of copyright law. While copyright law may allow fair use, you can curtail that fair use by imposing a more strict license.

    I just find this stuff kind of interesting, I guess. Incidentally, if you do pick the GPL for a license for anything you work on, you can get pro bono (free) legal representation to help you enforce the license from the guys at the Software Freedom Law Center. They're experts in the GPL, and there are lots of terms in the license to protect the developer from people misusing your code.

    For instance, if somebody takes your software and modifies it, they have to explicitly state that they've done so, and if they don't they have violated the license and thus have no rights whatsoever to your software. You can issue take down notices for this reason, and many others.

    So when the WoWMatrix debacle was going on, I'm absolutely sure that the SFLC would have been happy to help any GPL developers regain full rights to their own code.

    Just so everybody knows that, if you'd prefer to use an open license like the GPL, there are resources out there to help. :)
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on All Rights Reserved
    Hmm, the more I read about all of this stuff, the more confused I get.

    Some stuff I'm reading seems to imply that copyright only applies to copying, distribution, and performance. So what is the use of software? I don't really know.

    This is all pretty interesting, actually, but I'm sorry to have bothered everybody. Do whatever you want.
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on All Rights Reserved
    Here's a section I found in the ToS:
    "In addition you acknowledge and grant users of the Curse Websites a non-exclusive license to access your User Submissions through the Curse Websites (or its successors and affiliates) and to use such User Submissions as applicable by their respective licenses."

    The section this came from is the one called "User Submissions" and mostly talks about the rights Curse has with respect to user submitted material. It confers Curse the right to transfer your stuff over their website, but it stops there.

    The ToS allows users to download your code, but all other rights must be conferred by you. Once they grab the code from Curse's website, everything is between you, the author, and the user. And if it's ARR, the user is supposed to stop there. the sentenc that ends "and to use such User Submissions as applicable by their respective licenses" means you need to provide a license of some kind. And as somebody said, ARR is literally the lack of providing a license. I believe it was also said that ARR allows you to download the code, look at it and run it, but in fact that's not true at all.

    I can't find anything in the ToS granting users the permission to run any addons they download. That permission has to come from the addon author, which is explicitly stated in the ToS.

    Posting an addon to wowace, or curse, or curseforge does not give anybody permission to use your stuff, except curse themselves.

    I guess you could always make the fair use argument, but that doesn't change the fact that ARR leaves ambiguity that could possibly be very easy to deal with by providing a clear set of things the user is allowed to do with your stuff. Fair use can be difficult to define, but a license is a contract, which is meant to clarify things.

    And maybe this all doesn't matter in the end. I doubt anybody here would be going around suing people for the heck of it. All I'm saying is that many of you, if you wanted to, could sue lots of people. ;)
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on All Rights Reserved
    I'm sorry if my tone didn't come across.

    I completely understand if you don't want people reusing your code, and I wasn't trying to say that adopting an open source license is something everybody should do. I personally believe in open source software, as I think it results in better code and fewer bugs when more people are using it, but I understand the other viewpoint as well and don't fault it.

    And it's also why I said in my initial post that if you want to pick a restrictive license, that's absolutely fine. And I also fully understand the forking issue, and am obviously lacking in familiarity with the problems that entails. But I have a hard time seeing how leaving rights to an addon more ambiguous is helpful in keeping somebody from trampling your rights. I would think that a clear license, directly prohibiting 3rd-party redistribution of your addon would make things easier, not harder. You can simply say, "read the license, you broke the terms, so cease and desist." Again, maybe I don't fully understand how things work, but there's a reason software developers almost always have explicit licenses.

    All Rights Reserved does not confer any rights whatsoever. Unless explicitly stated, even if you make the software available on a website, it is a violation of the holder's copyright for anybody to take it. And maybe I am being a bit pedantic, but I just really prefer knowing exactly where I stand.

    I'm not saying you should all switch to BSD license, and I'm certainly not trying to push people to give things away. All I'm trying to say is that authors should state explicitly what rights people have to their software. If those rights are simply the right to download and use the code, then say so. Maybe a license with language like this:
    "Awesome Addon, written by Joe Developer, All Rights Reserved except for those explicitly stated in this license. By downloading this software you agree to abide by the terms of this license.

    You are hereby given permission to install and use the software only as a user interface modification to the World of Warcraft client program. You may not redistribute or copy the software for any reason without express permission from the author/copyright holder."
    It's pretty short, it's clear. And there is no mistaking what you aren't allowed to do.

    Sorry, I've been using open source software for a long time, and that community really places a lot of emphasis on explicit statements of rights. I was really not trying to troll, and I'm not trying to steal your code. Just so that's clear.
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on All Rights Reserved
    So I see a lot of addons, many of them extremely popular, that use the "All Rights Reserved" license type. But really, this isn't a license at all.

    All Rights Reserved means just that. It means that your code is yours, and that nobody can modify, use, or redistribute your addon without your express, written permission per copyright law.

    So is it okay for me to download your addon? Is it okay for me to look at the code? Can I reuse one of your functions in my addon?

    The answer to all of these questions, if you've chosen "All Rights Reserved" as your license, is NO. And yet, these are addons that are freely available on WoWace.com and on Curse. What does this mean?

    If you make the code available, and I download it, you could make the argument that I did something illegal if you have your addon labeled as All Rights Reserved. Is that what's intended? Clearly that's not the case, since we all write addons for use in the community.

    So really, I don't care which license you use. You can make your own license saying something to the effect of, "You may download and use this addon, with no warranty as to its functionality. But any other use including redistribution, copying, or reuse of code requires express permission from the addon author," if you intend to keep your code locked down.

    I would advocate for the use of one of the open licenses, like the GPL (my personal favorite) or perhaps a more permissive license like the BSD license. These allow for free code sharing in the community, which can only result in better code. And since we can't sell our code anymore due to the changes in the Blizzard ToU, locking code down in a proprietary licensing model doesn't really make sense for UI mods.

    But regardless of how you want to lock down the rights to your addon, you need to choose some sort of license for your code if you intend for people to use it. We, as users and addon authors, need to know what rights we have with your code. "All Rights Reserved" just isn't clear enough. It's really too bad that it's the default option when creating an addon, since it just encourages this lack of clarity for code use.
    Posted in: General Chat
  • 0

    posted a message on Round3DPortraits
    Round3DPortraits is a new player/target portrait addon designed to blend with the default Blizzard UI elements.

    Designed to work well with my UI compilation, Round3DPortraits allows you to either augment the original Blizzard unit frames with 3D portraits or to make other unit frame addons look more like the originals. I have included functionality to anchor the round portrait frames to the PitBull4 player and target frames.

    The player portrait is a SecureUnitButton, so it can be used to pull up the player menu and do targeting. I am planning to make it work with click casting as well in the near future, to provide a more seamless experience with Clique.

    You can also use the portrait separately, and the configuration options allow you to change the border textures so that the portraits work as a standalone frame. They can be moved, and locked, to any place on the screen. The frames are scalable as well.

    You can see screenshots on the Round3DPortraits page.

    These are not intended to be full unit frame replacements, but to enhance whatever unit frames you happen to be using.

    If you have any other ideas for functionality that would fit, I'd like to hear it.

    Thanks, and I hope somebody finds this useful, or at least cool. 8)
    Posted in: Unit Frames
  • 0

    posted a message on ZOMGBuffs Official Thread
    I think I'm finding a bunch of library incompatibilities when I install ZOMGBuffs alongside BigWigs, Pitbull and others. I'm getting errors about AceComm messing up.

    I can post the errors later when I get home, but this is pretty much the last addon I need for my UI to be finished.
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on Buffalo
    Quote from Nimbal
    Everything seems to have went fine with the commit, there was just an initialization missing .

    Gabriel, could you try again with revision 208? (Or later).
    Ahh, thanks. Sorry I missed that one, thought I'd gotten all of them.

    Not sure why I never saw the bug though, I've been playing with it on the beta for a few weeks now.

    Because I'm a bit neurotic, I messed with the indenting on your fix, so we're on rev 209.
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • 0

    posted a message on Buffalo
    That's strange, that's a bug I fixed. If you could do me a favor...

    Please look at Buffalo.lua and post the contents of lines 800 to 820. This is the first time I've used SVN, so I'm wondering if something went wrong with the update. These lines are where I put in the fix, and I'd like to know if it's there in the version you downloaded.

    Also, did you run this on the beta or on the PTR?

    I also updated the version number in the TOC file, so we're on rev 204.
    Posted in: General AddOns
  • To post a comment, please or register a new account.