Reusability, Ports, and Author's Returns

glaber said:

Would this apply to Fsonic too? I have the walk animation in SRB2 the Past because it was used during 2.2 development as a placeholder for the updated sprites and at the time it was marked as reusable (old system), but some time after the frames were added, Reusability/open asset status was taken away.

Click to expand...

the rule about not being able to remove tha reusability tag is pretty recent, it did not exist back then.
fsonic is not reusable so you cannot use the assets from it without prior consent

Why does it always have to be this complicated?
I have less things to take care about when I'm working in actual laboratories at university.
Might aswell have us wear labcoats while we port mods, eh?

Riolucariolu said:

Why does it always have to be this complicated?
I have less things to take care about when I'm working in actual laboratories at university.
Might aswell have us wear labcoats while we port mods, eh?

Click to expand...

i agree that the system may be a bit complex, but all that legal jumble equates to "the mod must be faithful to the original"

Riolucariolu said:

Why does it always have to be this complicated?

Click to expand...

How is it complicated?
The change is in the TL;DR and it's all about allowing ports that are faithful, are complete, are credited, are properly labelled, and aren't duplicates.

The rest of the post that surrounds it is a preface or a conclusion about why a guideline that has been in effect for years has only recently been changed and the lengthy thoughts and considerations that went behind it. You might be interested to read it if you want to know what brought this up, or have been affected by it in some way, or simply because you're curious; but you don't have to.

While I'm not very sure about university laboratories, I'm certain some laboratories do have a lengthy set of rules and guidelines to follow, some of them with a particular precent (an incident, most likely ) behind it.
If something were to change, everyone would be (ideally) notified about it and the reasoning behind it.

I'm sorry for the complexity of the rules themselves but it's very much just distilling what we mean by "the port must be authentic" by listing out what we mean.

amperbee said:

The rest of the post that surrounds it is a preface or a conclusion about why a guideline that has been in effect for years has only recently been changed and the lengthy thoughts and considerations that went behind it. You might be interested to read it if you want to know what brought this up, or have been affected by it in some way, or simply because you're curious; but you don't have to.

While I'm not very sure about university laboratories, I'm certain some laboratories do have a lengthy set of rules and guidelines to follow, some of them with a particular precent (an incident, most likely ) behind it.
If something were to change, everyone would be (ideally) notified about it and the reasoning behind it.

Click to expand...

Agreed. I know my initial post was long -- it's that way because I think giving the community the deep reasoning behind changes is way more respectful than just foisting a change on them with little or no explanation.

It's there for those who really want to know all that info (they exist) -- don't worry too much about it if it's not something you needed to know. :p