Ok, this problem of stealing or whatnot is easily solved. Just give the man some credit! Put his name at the top of whatever you use that he made, that's how it was done back in the day. There's no way he can copyright the code, but you can just be respectful and credit him. I don't know if that's all you want DP, but it's the best you're gonna get since this game doesn't encrypt any files.

Well, I agree with that angle 100%, SG. If someone were to take the entire cog as-is, and put their name on it, that's just wrong. It may just be code, but the author's hard work should at least be acknowledged and respected. But no, I don't think that was the issue at all. If it was, someone needs to work on their communication skills.


I think you're reaching too far for that one, zag. I mean no disrespect to coggers... (in fact as a mapper, I depend on them!) but there's quite a big difference between a cog and a model. One is a series of code puzzled together to preform a task, while the other is a form of graphic art. One holds strictly logical properties, while the other holds both imaginative and creative elements. You really can't compare the two.

But if you must compare, look at it this way... say I made a kewl new BMW 3do from scratch. Now, if someone wanted to take that 3do and claim it as their own creation, that's just wrong. A model could be considered your intellectual property. If someone were to use this in their project, they should give the creator full-credit.

Now, if someone wanted to create a new BMW 3do from scratch based on ideas and techniques I used to create my 3do, they have every right to. You see, because you can't claim intellectual property on a method of creation, only the creation itself.

It's the same with cogs. We shouldn't steal DP's cog and claim it as our own... but on the same token, DP can't say "You can't key-trap the player's movements until I say so, `cuz I figured out how to do it first, and I called dibbs!!"

But you know what? This ENTIRE ARGUEMENT is a waste of time, because LEC's EULA makes it very clear that we do not own ANY of our JK related projects.

I can definately see DP wanting to keep people from developing against an unfinished project, especially since he wants to use it in an origional creation - I can relate in a lot of methods I use.

My only concern is the attitude involved - I mean no offense to DP, from this thread he seems to be a very reasonable person, but demanding that no one else use something - an idea - really bothers me. ... But this is a programmed behaviour. I would think that just a simple request that people not use it would have been sufficient, as well as the natural thing to do - but people make mistakes.

But then again, what disturbs me the most were other's reaction to it...
People in a small tight-knit development community actually thinking that it's perfectly okay to essentially own an idea. That's fundamentally wrong, and very much against traditional programming ethic.

I make my living as a Programmer Analyst (It's not just a job, it's how I feed my goldfish) and I don't say this to be an elitist **** - I'm sure I'm not the only professional coder here. I say this to relate. I spend about 35 hours a week coding it up at work, and another 25 or so at home coding it up, and every single scrap of code I use is open for anyone to analyze, reuse, ect. (unless of course you want code from work - in which only people from work can use it) This is how progress happens, Intellectual Property is why the computer industry (hardware and software) has essentially floundered in the past 3 years. Nothing innovating or exciting has really come out since I bought my machine 3 years ago. This incident in itself is not cause for alarm - it has been more of a core sample - and what you have here is something that should scare you.

Think about this for awhile - for your own good. (I don't frankly care)

THANK YOU!

That is all.

1. Code is a product of art (if you disagree, look up the definition of art).
2. Compare code with a poem: a poem is a sequence of linguistic tokens, which can induce different reactions in the mind of an interpreter. If the interpreter was a machine (as is the case with interpreters of code), those reactions would always be the same for a given poem and machine type. These reactions depend on the construction of the poem, meaning that both the kind and position of the tokens is important. The art of poem writing lies in the discovery of effective token sequences. Furthermore, the poem usually has to follow a certain syntax.
All these points also apply to code works. Why shouldn't copyright be the same for them?

I chose a poem because materialists usually don't see it as a physical product. Therefore it serves better for a comparison with code. But it's actually completely exchangeable by other "virtual" art products (like models, textures or sound).

I know well the definition of art. A cogger is no more an artist than the author of a complex instruction manual. Niether create works of beauty, only functionality. Just because the author may be skilled in "the Art of Cog" doesn't make him an artist. The Art you refer to of a poem isn't the sequence itself so much the emmotional messages and images conveyed to the reader. The syntax alone of a poem cannot be copyrighted, since it's simply the medium used to create the art.

What is your definition of art?

?? What's yours? Check the definition yourself. Cogging is not a form of art... it's essentially a craft. If you wanna call coggers "craftmen", I wouldn't argue.

According to mine, it could qualify as art, thus I asked for yours.

Yet it is the sequence of words that creates that emotional response, and while one cannot copyright the individual words, if one wants to copyright the emotional response, one must copyright that particular order of words.

Also, when I speak of that I want my work private intially, private means you can ask me if you want to use it, if it came across as rude, I apologize for that because everything is essentially a request and honor-bound. It is also apparent that I was brought into Massassi in a different age. But there aren't many people who credit the coggers they get the cogs from, and while it might be selfish to want praise, the fact it, everyone wants it whenever they post something here.

No one could take your code and claim it as their own, as no one could take a poem written by Shakespeare and claim it as their own. Shakespeare, however, couldn't claim "ownership" over that rhyme scheme. He has an entire type of a poem NAMED after him, but absolutely anyone can use that form. You can't claim ownership over a new technique or way of accomplishing something. The accomplishment itself is yours to take credit for, but no one can say that Babe Ruth's wind up is his and his alone. It might be signature, but it's not something he owns. It's something he does.

If someone could reverse enginere a level that used perfect polygons, then they used this "revolutionary thing for editors" in thier own level, the original author tha used Perfect Polygons couldn't really do a damn thing. He owns the level he used Perfect Polygons with, he doesn't own the ability to cleave and move vertices in that way.

JediKirby

Art is nothing more than the product of a creative process. An often added side requirement is that it cannot be produced by the average person.
You are referencing beauty. I know at least 20 people (including me) who claim that source code can be beautiful, elegant, clever or ugly, bulky, silly in their eyes. Beauty is subjective, so it can certainly be applied to code.

And DP summed it up: the emotional messages and images of a poem are only effective with a special sequence of words. You can't just reorder the lines, for example, without changing these images and messages. It's exactly like coding. You even have a given vocabulary and syntax rules to follow.


Again, don't be so damn materialistic. His code is a product, not some "technique". Using the same sequence of verbs to create the same effect is like stealing lines from a poem.

The person who comes up with a technique at least deserves the right to be the first to use it in a completed work, beyond that it should be freely available. If the person wants people to be able to use it before he finishes, that's fine too, but it should be up to the author.

There have been numerous other authors, even fairly recently, who refuse to disclose how they achieved certain effects, but nobody got on their backs to the same extent as in this thread, it's quite hypocritical really.

Oh, and I consider good code to be a work of art.

American laws would disagree with you...

but you live by your own laws

Code can definitely be art. There is more to it than functionality - elegance, efficiency, style. We did the same thing with JK Arena - we released the cogs so anyone could start building and testing their levels, but we specifically asked that nobody release any JK Arena levels until the main mod was finished and released. Nobody ever mentioned any problems with this, so I don't get this whole thing here. It's certainly not worth insulting people in this thread

Thats pretty much what massassi has become. People insulting one another over senseless stuff.

Incase some of you missed DP's last post he said that he meant private as in ask him and then give him credit.

And for the record, you shouldn't call code a technique. You call the manner in which it was created the technique. The code is the product. If you manage to write something similar to that using your own technique then DP can't ask you for credit because it would then be your own creation. However, if you wish to use the finished product that DP created, just ask him and give credit.
It's respect, whether or not he can force you to do what he's asking, you should still respect his request as an editor. He's not forbidding you from using it, he's not asking all other Keytrapping creators to stop, he's just asking you to consult him first before using his stuff. This argument about whether or not cog is art is pointless, it doesn't matter. It is a product created by DP that he seems willing to share so long as you ask first. That's not too much to ask in my opinion.

I truly hope that you don't think I'm trying to insult anyone here. I haven't been labelling others as they have labelled me here. I hold much respect for DP and zagibu and everyone else whom I've directly addressed. We are simply at a disagreement. I hope we aren't at a point here at Massassi where a person who disagrees is considered insulting, and should be dismissed. Truth be known, I wouldn't have posted on this thread at all if (IMO) I didn't see the attitudes expressed in it as a threat to the community.

Anyway, lemme put my POV simply. Say I made a driveable vehicle cog. Now, for the sake of debate, lets say the only possible way to have driveable vehicles in JK is to have the same code sequence I've written. Ok, now what if I made my driveable vehicle mod available for download, but claimed the revolutionary cog as private copyrighted material that only I can use? What does this behavior achieve for an editing community?

Now as for the "art" half of the debate, perhaps it's an endless one... mostly because the different definitions of "art" have always been confused. This is likely the result of the word "art" being alternatively synonymous to the word "skill" (ie Martial Art, or the Art of Cooking, or more relevant; the Art of Programming.

When I think of the kind of artist who creates works that CAN be copyrighted, I think of these definitions:

You can label me a materialist again, if you'd like... but I didn't write that definition.

Perhaps we need a legal professional with expertise in Intellectual Property Law to settle this debate once in for all... you know, as long we keep forgetting that we don't own any of our JK related material... LEC does.

Halucid, I don't want to start an argument, so don't take what I'm about to say as such


let me debunk your argument here. Say I make a painting, and for the sake of debate, lets say the only possible way to make this type of painting is to have the exact same painting as I made. ok, what if I put it up for viewing but claim the painting as private copyrighted material that only I can paint.
My point isn't that I can copyright it, it's that your argument is false from the moment you said there's only one possible way to make it. There is no one way to make a painting, there are always different perspectives, forms, styles, etc. It's the same with cog, it's versatile enough to make many different vehicle/keytrapping cogs (as shown by how DP's cogs are very different from mine). The may all do the same thing, but they can and will all be different. Every person has their own coding style and techniques.


As far as the "aesthetic" argument: to define coggers as artists, you could say that we use skill to create code which is then used to create an aesthetic effect in the game. Cogging isn't something you can just do, you have to be able to imagine the desired effect and imaging all the steps needed to get there.
I really don't care if you call coggers artists or not, but I just wanted to show you that there is no ONE way to make any kind of cog and that you can't use those arguments to justify anything here lol.

no hard feelings though, as I said I really don't care if we're called artists or not.

But Halucid, you miss the point.

Code can be aesthetically pleasing. When presented with a piece of code, without even reading it or knowing what it's supposed to do, a coder will reach a subjective decision about the quality of the code based on whether it looks nice or not.

The clever thing is that the coders who make their code look nice also tend to be the ones who produce elegant and efficient solutions.

I also don't understand why you think Brian's comment was directed at you, it was clearly directed at the person in this thread who has actually insulted someone else, Isuwen.

Not to be a word-nazi here, but product is material, technique is immatertial. Sorry.

Anyway, I'm glad to see that we've made a little progress here. From what I can see, we've... mainly... gotten around the name calling, and pretty much come to an understanding that the only thing anyone here disliked about the post was the implied (however unlikely of intent) attitude. I think we can pretty much agree that this discord was caused primarily by miscommunication. I see a lot of ", but I meant..." So essentially, some things were said that were ineffectively communicated, and the point was lost.

So... Now the conversation has been much continued on, and I hope it continues as a civilized debate on finer points. Good.

So... Art is purely subjective - this is the point of art. Whether something is art can only be determined by the eye of the beholder - code can't really be considered art by non-coders, because they can't appreciate what they're looking at.

So now we get subjective again...
Art is a wonderful thing, and copyrighting for anything save plagerism, is evil - and if you should disagree with me, your MP3 collection generally makes you a gigantic hypocrite.

Once again, finer points...
We all agree that DP has a perfect right to request people not use his cog until he's had a chance to use it.
The whole cause for admonishment was the implied attitude involved.
A person should be protected from having their work plagerized.

Detty and SG; I agree and have always agreed that cogging is a skill. As I have said countless times before, I have a lot of respect for coggers. Where we conflict is that I believe that the code can be used as a tool to create the potentially aesthetic art... but it alone isn't art. Just like a paint brush istelf isn't art, but the painting that was created with it might be.

But you know what? I've come to a conclusion on this. There's no way I can possibly understand how code itself can be beautiful because I don't code. You guys got me beat on that one. This thread has actually inspired me to get into cogging, simply because of the passion that the coggers here hold in regards to the skill.

And as for who Brian's comments were directed to, it was so clear to me. Sorry for the misunderstanding.

Actually for coders, the paintbrush is the cog verbs themselves, and the painting is the final product and effect we can create by mixing those verbs together in a laticework of code. And I'm sure that we would be more than happy to help you dip your hand into the coding part of JK.

But I do think it's true that we feel that it's art simply because we were the ones who created it. Art always looks better to the people who create it and are proud of it.

The definition of art is usually pretty vague and explicitly contains indirections and factoids. You know why? Because artists need an excuse to be able to sell their low-quality stuff. Famous Swiss Artist Tinguely once stated that everything he produced got sold for good money, no matter if it was art or not (he slapped paint on some ties and sold them for several hundred dollars). So I guess you have to be called an artist by the public to be able to create art.
I still like my own definition a lot, though. Art is a product of a creative process, that cannot be repeated by the average person. Therefore an artist that tries to sell his poo is actually not selling art.

I did that years ago, before the source engine was even invented. I called it the 'orgasmic JM maneuver', and you can't use it. I've got a patent. In fact, I'm going to sue you when you finish this next map. It clearly is too awesome to be JK. You must be using my technique!

And it's amazing... after all this argument, JEDIKIRBY IS STILL CORRECT!