Route archive

Disclaimer:
On of the biggest problems in all of this, is a fundamental lack of understanding of copyright law on all sides of the debate.
I don't claim to be an expert, but I have at least a reasonable understanding of British/ EU copyright law. These brief notes *should not* be taken as legal advice, or be assumed to apply to any jurisdiction other than the United Kingdom.
If anyone is particularly interested in the legal position, I will sort out appropriate citations.

Onto the more interesting things at hand:

Disclaimers are at best a legally murky subject.
The concept of 'Abandonware' (Software, routes etc. for which the original creator/ site was withdrawn or deliberately closed) is not one that is legally recognised in any jurisdiction that I'm aware of.
In general, the internet tends to turn a blind eye to this, but it's not a legal situation I'd be happy with.

However, this also falls into the wider field of Orphan Works (Stuff for which the original creator is completely missing and un-contactable), and for which the EU Orphan Works directive would potentially provide legal cover for.
Frankly though, in order to get to this stage, I'm making some very tenuous legal links (Specifically the definition of a 'work' is normally limited to books, films etc, but probably could be argued to apply to a train simulation route), and it's not something I'd really like to attempt to argue without the auspices of a larger community organisation. (A museum, charity etc.)

Similarly, your proposed take-down on complaint policy is one that could be argued to be legally compliant, but is also one which is wholly reliant on the argument that these routes fall under the category of Orphan Works.
Without this, my basic assesment is that you have no legal defense.
This isn't so much a problem, until someone actually tries to take you to court- The worst thing that is likely to happen would be the website being taken down by the host, simply because there isn't enough money in it to pursue these things further.



So, what's my actual opinion?  
I think that however well-intentioned this may be, it's likely to cause problems.

I'm not saying don't do it, but on the flip side, you *have* to be aware of the legal implications of what you're trying to do.
I've posted several 'heritage' routes on my site already, and if I can get into contact with the authors, I'd like to add more.

Cheers

Chris Lees

http://www.bvecornwall.co.uk

Sadly, this would be less of an issue if only there were more people currently producing new material for the sim. Especially if such producers were to make it clear that their intention is to either "gift" the work into the public domain with no strings attached, or release such work under "Creative Commons" terms to allow redistribution under their stated conditions. At least that would ensure clarity, if nothing else.

I am not an expert in copyright laws but it going to problematic if you don't have permission to do this from the creator. But giving credit and the chance for the creator to give permission (mentioned on a notice at the download location like you said) is probably the best that can be done if you can't get permission. Hopefully people see the good intentions in this archive by providing content no longer available and don't take legal action otherwise. Instead if you have hosted the route and they do or don't want it hosted then they should just contact you. But if I was doing this myself I wouldn't be keen I doing this without permission from the author as it seems from what leezer is saying to have legal issues. I was thinking with my route to release it under Creative Commons or similar to ensure it's use it not too restrictive but I don't think many routes would be like this.

Dexter
The route(s) archive is a very good idea.
I was starting doing that.
Please visit http://openbve.wix.com/openbve

fcancalon wrote:Dexter
The route(s) archive is a very good idea.
I was starting doing that.
Please visit http://openbve.wix.com/openbve

I have seen that site. I was wondering who created it, so now I know.

I have found the following web :

http://shitman.luky-pat.cz/BVE/trat%C4%9B%20bez%20vlak%C5%AF/

with some routes maybe not available never more

vpodhola wrote:I have found the following web :

http://shitman.luky-pat.cz/BVE/trat%C4%9B%20bez%20vlak%C5%AF/

with some routes maybe not available never more

There is almost all the material I could think of... pity the "Svět BVE" collection is incomplete.

And if you go there
[url=http://shitman.luky-pat.cz/BVE/trat%C4%9B s vlaky/]http://shitman.luky-pat.cz/BVE/trat%C4%9B%20s%20vlaky/[/url] 
you have even more routes (the difference with the previous link is that on this directory it is with trains) 
(thanks Podhola for finding that)

Dexter wrote:

vpodhola wrote:I have found the following web :

http://shitman.luky-pat.cz/BVE/trat%C4%9B%20bez%20vlak%C5%AF/

with some routes maybe not available never more

There is almost all the material I could think of... pity the "Svět BVE" collection is incomplete.

That link is brilliant, thanks, found so much content that I forgot about, even found my first route on there, thought I'd lost that!

I full support this idea. Any of the work I have done is welcome to be hosted if the website ever disappears.

All,

I am aware that this is something that has not been spoken about for a long time, but along with this it could be possible to give managed content a re-birth.

This was, IMO, one of the best features OpenBVE ever had. For the end user installing the program and it's dependancies can be complex enough. Furthermore, add ons can be a pain too. This system had so much potential but was never allowed to become as great as it could have been.

Personally, and I think most would agree, there would need to be some changes to the way things work. I think the requirement for any included work to be totally open source needs to be removed, I think the entire "core" should be downloadable by anyone, so in spirit of keeping the program open, if the server disappears it is not a big job for someone else to upload it, but at the same time I think multiple mirrors are the way to go.

For example, remembering I am not totally familiar with how the last system worked:

• OpenBVE initially references (say) three database servers
  
• Within these databases there can be a method of updating the servers the program talks to, to add new mirrors and remove old ones
  
• All database mirrors are synced with each other
  
• Add-ons in the program need to have App Store/Play Store type pages to give proper information about the route/train, screenshots, instructions, URL for support and credits etc.
  
• The ability to have more than one mirror for each add-on and for the program to automatically go to the next one if the first fails is where this archive will come into it's own
  

What are peoples thoughts?

The principle of "managed content" was a worthwhile one. From what I recall of the early efforts to implement it there weren't many takers though. Now, I looked at the requirements with a view to taking the idea up, and I recall not being able to understand the procedures involved to carry it out. If it had been explained to me in a comprehensible way I probably would have been happy to join early on.
It's no good talking to me about "mirrors" and databases etc, I'm not a proper technician or programmer and, as was often the case, Michelle's explanations went over my level of understanding.
So, if the managed content idea is to be resurrected it needs to be done in consultation with the route and object makers. Talking to them in a language that they understand. The nerds must remember we ain't all of us born talking C# - I'm a photoshop and graphics guy on the other side of the GUI to them, please remember.

Agreed Michelle didn't always speak to people using terms they could understand.

Unfortunately I am guilty of this myself too at times.

What I am suggesting is managed content again, but done to suit the devs and the benefit the end user.

Is that English enough for you? 

Fortunately the members of this forum say so if they don't understand, you could have started a flame war instead 

I discovered OpenBve after that talk so I not aware of what this involves. I personally don't mind extracting zip files and organizing folders as I knew about that before I found the sim. Though I recognize that not every one likes doing that. But as long it is explained simply to those that don't know this idea (including myself) and it doesn't make it too difficult for both developers and users then it might be a good idea.

What I am suggesting is managed content again, but done to suit the devs and the benefit the end user.

No harm in discussing the possibility.
I vaguely recall that the Michelle system meant that the route/object maker hosted the actual files and the updating procedure wasn't all that straightforward.
For any managed system that may emerge, I would prefer if there was some way that the route/obj/sound files were sent to the SAME place that distributes the program itself. The advantage would be that in the event of a provider being, say, run over by a bus or dropping dead outside the dole office or running off to join a monastery, then at least the work would remain available "as is" in loving memory of the poor bugger!

Fortunately the members of this forum say so if they don't understand, you could have started a flame war instead

To the best of my knowledge the "Olympic (Gold Medal) Flame Thrower" person is no longer active on any of the respected forums, fortunately.

Something like this?  

Please ignore the fact that the package content in the images is all test-junk.

A quick lowdown on what's working:

• Basic UI, as per the animation.
  
• Dependency management.
  
• Extraction.
  

What's not working:

• Version conflicts.
  
• Package creation.
  

The package format:
I've defined a simple package format, either editable by hand, or there will be a tool.
This consists of an archive, containing two extra files:

1. Package.xml - Contains the package metadata.
   
2. Package.png - Image displayed during install.
   

A sample Package.xml file is as follows:

Code:

<?xml version="1.0"?>
<openbve>
<package name="test package" version="1.2.3.54" author="Test Author" guid="123465" description="Test description \r\n This is a new-line in the test description. \r\n>
</package>
<dependancy name="test package 1" minversion="1.2.3.45" author="Test Author" guid="54321">
</dependancy>
</openbve>

Michelle's system fell over miserably because of several factors:

• It only supported .tar.gz for the packages.
  
• Only supported a centralised database, which she had access to.
  
• The licencing business.....
  

This is intended as a 'simple' installer format which authors can provide, with no strings attached.
I have no intention of attempting to maintain a master database.

(Note: This *is not* ready yet. A build will be released with it integrated in due course.)

Cheers

Chris Lees

http://www.bvecornwall.co.uk

Excellent Chris!

I think the current system some use for versions works well, with the folders ending with vX - it means that people can keep old versions if they wish or alternatively delete.

Am I right in thinking that this system is basically for package extraction/install and things are still downloaded from individual websites?

Greater Anglia Metro wrote:Excellent Chris!

I think the current system some use for versions works well, with the folders ending with vX - it means that people can keep old versions if they wish or alternatively delete.

Am I right in thinking that this system is basically for package extraction/install and things are still downloaded from individual websites?

Things are still downloaded from individual websites-
I don't really want to get involved with the politics of maintaining a database or hosting others work, although that would be easy enough to add at some stage in the future if there is takeup of this.

This just provides a user friendly interface for installing the files into the right place, and prompting if anything is missing, or will be broken by what you're about to do

Cheers

Chris Lees

http://www.bvecornwall.co.uk