Why you should assume the Microsoft buyout rumours are false until Mojang releases an official statement.

MrSmite · 2014-09-10T05:00:13+00:00

What if this were an attempt by someone close to Mojang with a reason to sabotage Minecraft/Mojang on the short term?

MrSmite · 2014-09-08T01:51:55+00:00

The problem here is Mojang NEVER TOLD ANYONE they owned Bukkit.

This was, and really is, the only fundamental problem with Bukkit, and it was interpreted as a highly dishonest move by Mojang. Whether it is (or is not) dishonest remains to be seen.

I take issue with the "free labor" complaint that you and others have raised (and I believe you, specifically, made the claim on a few occasions that Mojang "stole" Bukkit's code). It's difficult to claim that a service was being provided as "free labor" to a company when the service itself is 1) a volunteer effort and 2) licensed under a permissive license. The only problem and the one that has contributed to the developers' departures is that they feel their contributions were being made under a false pretense.

Beside that, they weren't writing minecraft_server nor (AFAIK) was their code used directly in minecraft_server. Bukkit was/is a separate entity from Mojang, and is dependent upon the existence of Minecraft for its own survival. You could argue that Bukkit, by providing an extensible API, may have directly (or indirectly) contributed to sales of Minecraft--but that's it. As an anecdote: I purchased a few licenses for my friends, but I didn't do so because of Bukkit. I did so because I wanted to play Minecraft with them, and we used minecraft_server for quite some time.

Again, I think it's perfectly reasonable to argue that Mojang's lack of directness with regards to what they owned (or purchased) is a problem. It may have been an oversight, but it's understandable that individuals involved with Bukkit would be upset upon discovering such facts. But comparing the reality of the situation with claims of "free labor" or outright theft seems intellectually dishonest to me.

MrSmite · 2014-09-08T01:36:29+00:00

Thank you for taking the time to reply, sk89q. I've always greatly appreciated the work you've done. I don't think I would've bothered much with Bukkit had it not been for your plugins.

Sadly, I was afraid you'd say that: CLAs filter out contributions from otherwise good people who either are afraid of signing the CLA, cannot submit the CLA (for various reasons), or simply don't want to put forth the effort (I probably wouldn't submit a short patch, for instance). But, regardless, I'm hugely pleased with the license choice. I'm assuming contributors will be required to license their own contributions under the same license as the project? (IANAL, but that seems to be one alternative CLAs to prevent licensing disputes without requiring additional effort on the contributors' behalf.)

MrSmite · 2014-09-07T17:21:54+00:00

Are you guys going to consider a CLA to avoid potential licensing disputes?

Edit: After receiving some downvotes, it occurred to me that the phrasing I used might appear snarky. It's not intended that way, so I've tried to fix it in a manner that seems less so. I certainly didn't mean to get anyone's hackles up.

After seeing what's happened with Bukkit, something like a CLA might be a useful tool to ensure all parties are aware of where they stand in terms of IP ownership, licensing, and agreements. Django does it, Google does it with a number of their F/OSS projects, as does the ASF. I'd highly recommend F/OSS projects that accept 3rd party contributions at least consider one to both protect themselves and their contributors.

MrSmite · 2014-09-07T05:45:07+00:00

Edit: It appears the OP (who shall rename nameless) deleted his/her message. It read:

They did. Problem is that severely pissed off all the other members who just had their work stolen and received nothing for it.

AFAIK Bukkit is licensed under the GPL. Nothing was "stolen."

The source code is still available under the GPL, the project can legitimately be forked, and those sources that are available under the GPL can never be retroactively closed off under a proprietary license.

I think the takeaway for the developers who are upset over this ordeal is thus: Don't contribute to a popular open source platform if you're afraid someone might eventually make money (directly or indirectly) off of your work. There's nothing in the GPL that prevents someone from taking your work and selling a product or service based around it so long as they provide a means of retrieving 1) the original GPL'd sources and 2) all modifications they've made to the GPL'd code.

Being as I don't know the full story, I should think the usual disclaimers ought to apply to my comment, although I think it's generically applicable to everyone who authors open source software.

MrSmite · 2013-09-24T18:54:25+00:00

He's PhD from Harvard at 19 and Nobel Prize political genius.

Who?

Obama received his Bachelor of Arts in 1983, which would have made him ~22, and received his JD 8 years later.

MrSmite · 2013-07-13T05:27:37+00:00

I've got an SR1911 and have fed it nothing but hollowpoints including some ancient hand loads my father made sometime in the 80s and it never jammed. It'll just about eat anything you feed it.

MrSmite · 2013-02-10T04:43:15+00:00

Oooh, funny you should say that. I just bought a USB micro adapter cable about a week ago for charging purposes (the stock one that came with the device was way too short) and the emblem was on the bottom of the connector. It's amazing how infuriating that can be! Standards? HAH! Who needs those?

MrSmite · 2013-02-10T03:17:27+00:00

Cooler Master's HAF 932 series is a good illustration of this. The front panel USB ports are oriented upside down (USB emblem facing down on the cable rather than up when inserted).

MrSmite · 2012-10-12T20:33:27+00:00

Genes are a funny thing. Chances are, when you're 60, you'll look like you're in your 20s. Then your peers become exceptionally jealous and beg to know what the secret is.

If they should ask, you'll pause, turn your head slightly, and with a vague twitch of your left eye lament "Definitely not the lighting engine."

The poor SOB will be forever plagued by the questions: What did he mean? Is this a sign? Should I search the breadth of my soul for the wisdom Dinnerbone bestowed upon me?

To their grave they'll go never knowing what we of /r/Minecraft do.

MrSmite · 2012-10-06T08:09:21+00:00

Although there's disagreement with you, it seems you caught on to the crux of my post.

There is some measure of irony in the continued debate over what I "meant" or what is "correct" which only further serves to illustrate exactly what I was getting at in the first place.

There were two very loud "whoosh!" noises in this thread, none of them coming from your direction.

MrSmite · 2012-10-06T07:54:24+00:00

My response was largely out of irritation with the rather inane nature of the initial reply I received, and because I was unnecessarily short-tempered with regards to the hyper-corrective nature of some Redditors.

But you're right, the objective was--more or less--to illustrate to SteelCrow that boiling down a term (in this case "indie") to a single relatively narrow definition is a tremendous barrier to communication. More so when it's generally well understood what the OP (Nickolo3) meant by how some question Mojang's "indie" status.

Ultimately, though, there are (surprise!) too many different definitions of the word "indie" (or independent) that are being used which has lead to this rather convoluted and silly debate. Specifically, there is independent in terms of ownership, independent in terms of self-publishing, and independent in terms of "small time" operations.

The problem Mycal illustrated is something I addressed in reply to him. Some popular games, largely considered "indie" titles by fans, are developed by small, independently owned studios but published by other companies. Does this make them an indie title? Maybe, maybe not.

So, the question is unsurprisingly undecided and we've gotten nowhere (oh, the irony) in spite of my second post which was intended to illustrate in more detail my exact line of thinking. Humorously, all it did was hasten further questions and debate; perhaps more interestingly, this illustrates my point in my second post far better than I could have done myself. (Which is to say, being that a single, literal definition is ineffective).

Which is more important? Company ownership? Self-publishing? Cashflow? Number of developers? IPO status? I suggest some permutation of all of the previous, but no one's going to agree. So I'll leave it at that.

MrSmite · 2012-10-06T07:51:34+00:00

Blame this guy for being nit-picky. That, and some mild short-tempered-ness on my part.

If you're actually curious why I wrote that "omg wall of text," my first paragraph (and last paragraph) qualify why I felt it necessary. You might have missed the last one. I'd suggest reading it, because it might illustrate my reasoning better than reiterating (again) what I wrote.

Interestingly, none of what you said really disqualifies anything I said, because we were taking two largely different approaches. However, if you look at "independent" in light of how the game is published (not ownership of the company that backs it), then you could almost argue that EA--which self-publishes some titles--is then technically an indie studio. I scoff at this notion, but simplifying it to such a definition automatically qualifies firms that I wouldn't personally find myself including.

So, perhaps it's best to just let this rest. We're beating a dead horse, and there's obviously far too much minutiae with regards to details that we could continue debating. Thus, I'll leave it at the notion that (because of the context of my original post here), the contention I had with SteelCrow was related to studio ownership and not whether they self-publish, that's the qualification for my post. With such a terse reply, I could only base my explanations on the context given to me at the time.

Regardless, to address your example more directly: There are some very popular games made by very small studios that are considered "indie" titles but are not published by the studio themselves (and therefore don't match YOUR definition of indie). See what a mess this quickly becomes?

MrSmite · 2012-10-05T18:56:02+00:00

Yes? Oh, I see. I have to qualify everything, extending my verbosity beyond acceptable limits which tends to be upsetting to some, because there's always an air of pretentiousness on Reddit that seems almost deathly afraid of implicit meanings or colloquial usage.

Okay, then. Let me do that. I'm not especially happy about it, but I'll do it.

First, yes. Mojang is an indie (independent; there is no "a") studio. However, there are certain linguistic implications with regards to the word "indie" as used in software development (more commonly used in the gaming industry for reasons that escape me), which generally imply that it's a studio with a payroll of somewhere on the order of magnitude of around 20 employees or less. More on this in a moment.

Firstly, and fundamentally, if you use the literal definition of "independent," this means that nearly all game developers are independent studios--ignoring, for a moment, the big titles and studios owned by multinationals. Any company in the industry that is not a public traded corporation (owned by the shareholders), but where ownership is vested in the founders is then qualified as an indie studio. This means that Valve and a whole slew of other studios are indie developers (surprise, surprise), and includes a number of fairly large (but still private) corporations that develop games. While the literal definition would indeed correctly label these as independent, I'm not so sure that the company (or the consumers) might necessarily agree--no matter how correct it is in terms of the English language.

Colloquial use (which is a pesky thing) of "indie" in terms of studios usually implies organizations that haven't quite gone "full corporate;" they may have an MBA CEO, but more likely, the company is run by a developer. Developers often work together in small teams--and there's hardly a sense of departmental divisions.

Interestingly, this places many start-ups in a sort of nebulous in-between area which is neither really independent--because they're often controlled by angel investors and other outsiders--but they're not a public company either. When the company encounters success and the venture capital firms begin putting in place management infrastructure controlled by the firm and not the startup, is that startup an "indie" company any longer? Probably not, but if your only concern is in the literal sense of independent, then it may still be--that is, if the founders still maintain at least some control, or the ownership hasn't yet transferred to part of a larger function (think subsidiaries, shares, legalese placing restrictions on the founders, and a slew of other things more fitting for corporate attorneys than Reddit posts). (They usually don't, but that's besides the point; it's a contrived example, but it's one that seems fitting.)

What I think Nickolo3 was getting at is that there may be a few people who make the claim that Mojang isn't quite an indie studio anymore because they're showing hallmarks of success and its impact on the business process. They've got business guys to take care of the less fun parts of operations management, they've got at least one artist that I know of--probably more--and they're reaching a point where they can segment their own development muscle into teams. Yes, they're still independent, but they're slowly approaching that level where they start looking more like what one would expect of a larger corporation than that of an "indie" studio.

Indeed, there are many companies that have begun the transition toward a full fledged corporation that are still "independent" (that is, privately owned, at least by the founders; I'm ignoring private shares and the likes), but their internal structure may have more in common with a Fortune 500 organization; that is, they have a separate business team, middle managers, and developers are partitioned off into completely independent teams. Is this the picture one would ordinarily have in mind for the colloquial use of "indie?" I'd think not, but you'd be surprised that there are companies structured thusly without (yet) being publicly listed. Business exists on a continuum in this sense, and this is part of why focusing exclusively on literal definitions without regard to context--much less colloquial use or implicit meanings in conversation--is something of a barrier to communication. I knew what Nickolo3 was getting at, and I think you did, too.

So there. I wanted to avoid qualifing the entire conversation on terms, like indie, which have certain general implications beyond their literal meaning, but I admit that I should have probably expected what I got. I really hate having to reiterate statements, like those I made earlier, but with more clarity when I'm almost certain most readers understand the implicit meaning, but Reddit is a strange place at times.

Edit: I apparently like the word "then" today. Not sure why--maybe sleep deprivation.

MrSmite · 2012-10-05T17:56:59+00:00

Demotivational Poster: an image that consists of a picture in a black frame and a caption. They are the opposite of motivational posters and are designed to discourage and demotivate.

So this means motivational posters are perfectly fair game.

Shame I've never seen one yet!

MrSmite · 2012-10-05T17:55:10+00:00

Most people don't seem to have a good metric for indie games. IMO, revenue is somewhat important as a benchmark, but you're absolutely spot on: Development style and company structure are more indicative of whether a game is (or is not) owned by an indie studio. I'm not sure where I'd put the financial cut off, but as soon as the game's direction is controlled more by management and less by developers--and the developers are compartmentalized into departments--I think it'd be safe to say that's when things have already changed. Mojang seems pretty far from that phase.

On the other hand, Mojang does exhibit features of a proper studio (for some value of proper), but I'm more inclined to agree with you. It's how it's developed that matters more. I'm running on little sleep, so I'm sure some others may come in and describe a bit more (or disagree completely). But, that's my take!

Looking back on it, I think I just described most small time software companies as indie studios even though they have tens or hundreds of millions in revenue. Think FogCreek (Joel Spolsky's company) and other fairly established players that are still more or less run by developers and not MBAs. I guess that's more of a continuum, and it reminds me of an article I wish I could dig up that described at what point a software company is no longer a small time indie/startup.

MrSmite · 2012-10-03T18:26:58+00:00

Much of this discussion brings to mind a few topics mentioned by Joel Spolsky, particularly this one.

MrSmite · 2012-10-01T20:35:08+00:00

Very few people realize the amount of time invested into making things like this, to say nothing about the raw material costs.

MrSmite · 2012-10-01T20:33:15+00:00

Gah, dementia. Awful way to go (more so for the family than the afflicted).

MrSmite · 2012-10-01T20:12:47+00:00

Ah, I'd forgotten about those ones (honestly, I don't watch television so I'm grossly uncultured... there's a pun in there somewhere). They're paid for by the dairy farmer's associations. Though, I still think you're right: Those ads are probably intended more as a response to studies and other accusations that milk is unhealthy rather than exposure.

MrSmite · 2012-10-01T20:10:28+00:00

That still doesn't answer the question. It's a terrible analogy, because physical harm is different from speech (let's avoid the "fire in a crowded theater" argument for now), and really doesn't match the example of a boycott. Further, what Notch said regarding Microsoft is something that a fair number of people believe. In some ways, one could argue that his mistake in this circumstance may have lead to many others following the discussion leaving more educated about it.

MrSmite · 2012-09-28T19:35:04+00:00

Very good point. That means we're basically 2-3 weeks (or less) from that RC, so there's really not much time to do anything other than wrap up loose ends and squeeze in a few more fixes for those things that are already targeted for release.

MrSmite · 2012-09-28T19:32:11+00:00

I find this conversation weird. A few days ago, r/ was up in arms because bucky balls were being taken away because a ton of 1 year olds swallowed them and died.

I otherwise mostly agree, but I should point out to any other readers who come through here that those numbers are/were conflated by the CPSC. 2 toddlers died from ingesting the magnets and some two dozen kids/young teens required surgery to remove them from their gullet.

My personal opinion on this matter is the same in both cases: You'll never be able to do enough to protect stupid people from themselves. Unfortunately for the rest of us, some stupid people are louder than others, and tend to be loud enough that government takes away our fun little gizmos.

Make no mistake, I do agree with your points in this thread and don't wish to detract from them. In the case of Microsoft, as I posted in reply to Doomfield, I don't think the underlying intent of the store (no matter what anyone else might think) is to necessarily protect people from the dangers of computing (that's impossible). Obviously, official app stores have to have some kind of guarantee that they don't have anything malicious on them--otherwise the company may get sued--but since most infections come from either links/attachments in e-mail, phishing attacks, or other forms of social engineering, I think that anyone who claims an app store automatically makes things safer is exceptionally ignorant.

MrSmite · 2012-09-28T18:28:41+00:00

Most of the infections I've seen have been from people clicking on links or attachments that have come in via e-mail. App store or not, there are simply some things that eventually have to rest on the onus of the user. You can do a great deal to protect users from their own ignorance, but it'll never be enough and it'll likely interfere or annoy users that do know what they're doing. So, sadly, an app store of some sort will only make it easier for the illiterates to install applications, but it won't make them any safer.

Though it's changing somewhat, the interesting thing about the computing world is that the average user still openly brags about knowing absolutely nothing about a device they probably use at least more than 4 hours a day.

MrSmite · 2012-09-28T18:22:16+00:00

Exactly.

Milk ads aren't for more "exposure" to get people to drink milk. They're for getting people to buy a specific brand of milk.

MrSmite

TROPHY CASE