My role with Gert in the project was to write the story, keep the work in line with it and work with others to create a coherent campaign - we were the Story Managers. We brainstormed many possible scenarios (with some other team members) and came up with few original ideas. At least we thought so. For example, at the beginning we had the idea to create an ironic story about estonians and finnish people in the 90's.
Threaded idea was to have a battle for plastic bags that were quite ordinary "products" for finnish at this time but not for estonians. The game also included the fight for different products which were also very rare for estonians. For example, who gets more bananas or bubble gum in the plastic bag, is the winner.
Later, when we started to program the game, it came out that the idea was not so easy to do. Therefore we had to come up with a simpler and more doable scenario. Then we invented the character called Rocco who started to fight with the cafeterias and its owners in his small hometown.
Considering the whole project I liked best the management of the group that allowed to share the roles. This way everybody could contribute in the part of the campaign they had most skills.
Unfortunately we were too late with finishing our work and we can not say that we are good time managers, but I was nicely surprised by the spirit of the team members. For example, during the last week (mostly) programmers spent their nights and days building the game and facing different problems, thereby enjoying the whole process.
At the end, we managed to finish the game but reviewing the blue team's game, I somehow wasnt able to open their game. I was using 1.6.5 stable version, but didn't success. In such cases it would be great to have some more knowledge in technics and programming.
Though, The Battle of Wesnoth game was a great experience, because I didn't know about such kind of OS-based games.
Thursday, March 25, 2010
Wednesday, March 24, 2010
Cory Doctorow
Cory Doctorow is a Canadian blogger and journalist, science fiction author, activist and the co-editor of Boing Boing. Doctorow believes that the laws of copyright are too strict. He finds that digital media rules should be much more lightened and the creation (and files) should be available for everybody for no cost. He has this opinion as far as nobody will earn money with other author's product without having the copyright.
He is against to digital rights management, that is used by many companies such as Sony, Apple and Microsoft. He doesnt find it right that digital rights technologies try to control the user and forbidding copying (for individual use).
I really like the way he thinks of copyright. He is not prohibiting the use of his works and he has found his business model, by earning money by selling his books and articles, also performing by giving speeches and sharing his knowledge, etc.
He is against to digital rights management, that is used by many companies such as Sony, Apple and Microsoft. He doesnt find it right that digital rights technologies try to control the user and forbidding copying (for individual use).
I really like the way he thinks of copyright. He is not prohibiting the use of his works and he has found his business model, by earning money by selling his books and articles, also performing by giving speeches and sharing his knowledge, etc.
IT companies using Open Source as a part of their business strategy
There is one Estonian company that is made on PHP and MYSQL platforms - Edicy. Therefore it is not the best example but still half of the business model is using open source as a part of their business strategy. Edicy was created in order to provide businesses and individuals a service to create professional websites easilly and without any technical knowledge. For example, one can create individual site really fast by using simple tools provided.
Better example of the open source business model is Joomla that uses entirely open source model in their business. Joomla enables to build websites on OS solution and it is free to use for everyone - therefore it has become one of the most popular sites sharing the software for websites.
And then Red Hat that is world's leading open source provider. The company truly believes that open source creates better software. And when everyone collaborates, the best technology wins, they say. Additionally to the above mentioned leading OS provider, Red Hat is also the world's most trusted provider of Linux.
Better example of the open source business model is Joomla that uses entirely open source model in their business. Joomla enables to build websites on OS solution and it is free to use for everyone - therefore it has become one of the most popular sites sharing the software for websites.
And then Red Hat that is world's leading open source provider. The company truly believes that open source creates better software. And when everyone collaborates, the best technology wins, they say. Additionally to the above mentioned leading OS provider, Red Hat is also the world's most trusted provider of Linux.
Copyleft
Copyleft can be defined as the opposite to copyright. When copyright protects author's creation, then copyleft has the purpose to maintain the freedom to use, spread and modify the creation by other people. The first and most spread copyleft licence is GNU GPL that holds the right to protect the user.
Copyleft licences give usually the user rights to research, use, copy, modify, share and distribute.
Example of weak copyleft is Mozilla Public License that is a free and open source software licence (for different Mozilla softwares: Application Suite, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc). Example of the strong copyleft is the mentioned GNU GPL - it means that the original author has the most of the rights to the creation.
Copyleft licences give usually the user rights to research, use, copy, modify, share and distribute.
Example of weak copyleft is Mozilla Public License that is a free and open source software licence (for different Mozilla softwares: Application Suite, Firefox, Thunderbird, etc). Example of the strong copyleft is the mentioned GNU GPL - it means that the original author has the most of the rights to the creation.
Monday, February 1, 2010
FSF vs OSI and Battle for Wesnoth
FSF vs OSI
The biggest difference between the terms Open Source Initiation and Free Software Foundation is the point of view, but both are created for free use. That means a possibility to develop and create, instead of using a software as a basic help for creating something.
The meaning of the term 'free software' may be a little misleading, because there is nothing to do with money. Actually it is a game of words, meaning a software that allows more freedom for its user. Therefore, the better word for the term would be 'freedom' instead of 'free'.
Open Source, therefore, is a movement - like an expansion for the term FS. It means that the main accent isn't on the freedom, but the possibility to improve and develope the code by having an overview and access of the source code.
There is still lots of confusion between FSF and OSI, as both still seem to refer to the same principles. I differ them this way: 'free software' is all about the freedom user gets in his moves, 'open source' is more methodological and practical way of improving the code.
Battle for Wesnoth
I don't consider a free software game 'Battle for Wesnoth' an easy one, because I am not familiar with computer games. Though, the assignment of making a campaign as a groupwork is challenging, because it gives a real practical touch of FS game.
The logic of the game is to conquer the enemies, thereby, a player has time to think through his moves - time isn't counting. The game is more on strategical thinking than just 'being a first to finish'.
What I like about the game, a user can create a game of his own. One can create a whole new storyline, units, weapons, characteristics, etc. At the same time, the main logic goes the same with other video games: a player gets points by occupying and also extra points by some certain action are available.
As I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of computer games, I definately find strategical games more interesting than games that are on time and where only thing that matters is shooting or racing.
The biggest difference between the terms Open Source Initiation and Free Software Foundation is the point of view, but both are created for free use. That means a possibility to develop and create, instead of using a software as a basic help for creating something.
The meaning of the term 'free software' may be a little misleading, because there is nothing to do with money. Actually it is a game of words, meaning a software that allows more freedom for its user. Therefore, the better word for the term would be 'freedom' instead of 'free'.
Open Source, therefore, is a movement - like an expansion for the term FS. It means that the main accent isn't on the freedom, but the possibility to improve and develope the code by having an overview and access of the source code.
There is still lots of confusion between FSF and OSI, as both still seem to refer to the same principles. I differ them this way: 'free software' is all about the freedom user gets in his moves, 'open source' is more methodological and practical way of improving the code.
Battle for Wesnoth
I don't consider a free software game 'Battle for Wesnoth' an easy one, because I am not familiar with computer games. Though, the assignment of making a campaign as a groupwork is challenging, because it gives a real practical touch of FS game.
The logic of the game is to conquer the enemies, thereby, a player has time to think through his moves - time isn't counting. The game is more on strategical thinking than just 'being a first to finish'.
What I like about the game, a user can create a game of his own. One can create a whole new storyline, units, weapons, characteristics, etc. At the same time, the main logic goes the same with other video games: a player gets points by occupying and also extra points by some certain action are available.
As I mentioned before, I'm not a fan of computer games, I definately find strategical games more interesting than games that are on time and where only thing that matters is shooting or racing.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)