tain.totalcodex.net

StoneCold wrote:Unfortunately, the old forum system automatically appended the font color code to each individual post. There's pretty much nothing I could do. :-\

Dang... I thought it was something that could be changed in user's profiles to update on all posts...



Vinylrake: Excellent points. Basically I was trying to cover all bases without taking the time to soften it a bit, and unfortunately not everyone abides by the same codes of honor that I would expect them to (though some definitely do) and that I do my best to abide by - thus we have a world filled with lawyers and zillions of statues and things like EULA's. But I digress...



TZ: I definitely agree with you in principle, and as I mentioned above, it was a bit over-the-top and was mainly the result of a bad experience at roughly the same time. It was much more restrictive than I originally intended.

I've come up with the following modified version that I am planning on including with future plugins. I'd like to get your (and everyone else's) opinion of it. I think I covered everything well enough.

In a nutshell, I don't want people posting my plugins on non-OoH sites because I like to have a single place for people to get the most up-to-date version of the plugins - unless I and the OoH vanish from the Myth community, in which case I give permission to post it as long as the rest of the conditions are met (namely proper credit and no commercial posting/use, etc.). As far as extracting/modifying/using in other maps/plugins, I ask that people ask first and give proper credit, and again if people cannot contact me they may proceed as long as credit is given and it is not used for commercial purposes. Anyone who knows me knows that I am very generous in helping others along the twisted path of plugin making - I just want to be sure proper credit is given the same way I do with my plugin mods.

I have absolutely no problem with people putting my stuff on their own CD's and/or distributing them to friends/players as long as it is not done for profit or commercial gain, so the new EULA reflects that as well.

Let me know what you think: New Plugin EULA

I love the new one Baak. It removes my biggest pet pieves about EULA's. It supports building/mapmaking in the myth community, but does try to preserve credit for the hard work of the author.

My only complaint is the light font on that light background

TarousZars wrote:I love the new one Baak. It removes my biggest pet pieves about EULA's. It supports building/mapmaking in the myth community, but does try to preserve credit for the hard work of the author.

Thanks! I'm happy with it as well.

TarousZars wrote:My only complaint is the light font on that light background

Agreed. I want to have the EULA less noticeable. I've tried a new take on it that I'm not 100% happy with (I've tried several color combos), but it seems better.

What do you think?

Baak wrote: Let me know what you think: New Plugin EULA

A very minor item I mention for consistency sake: [The added text is in red]

"You are free to place this plugin on archive media (i.e. CD, DVD, etc. - but not a download site) for your own private collection and/or to distribute among other Myth players as long as you do so without profit or commercial gain and you abide by the rest of this EULA."

You don't need that bit of course, but it makes the paragraphs describing exceptions to the standard EULA more consistent and makes clear the requirement for readmes to stay intact with plugins.maps distributed via CD.

Funny, I started to put that in originally and hesitated. I like it - as you said for consistency.

I've updated it once more - fiddled with the text sizes again and made the background color of the EULA less garish.

I'm concerned about the text sizes due to the fact that I do not have access to a Mac and thus cannot tell if they are way out of proportion (i.e. micro-type).

[Edit: Ok - one last revision: added a list on top and little list icons in both top and bottom sections. Think that's a wrap unless anyone sees anything else they don't like]

You know - I completely forgot to check this on a Mac but I just looked at it on a PC and I can't read the fine print. Maybe it's my eyes, but it's really tiny.

Here's a 256 color fullsize bitmap (so no resolution is lost) image of the fineprint (on a 1024x768 CRT monitor).

I had a feeling it would go to micro-print on the Mac - thanks for the catch, VR!

I've adjusted it - let me know if it's human-readable when you get a chance.

Baak wrote:I had a feeling it would go to micro-print on the Mac - thanks for the catch, VR!

I've adjusted it - let me know if it's human-readable when you get a chance.

Well, I still HAVEN'T CHECKED IT ON A MAC (the previous snap was a Windows XP Pro 1024x768 CRT monitor 256 color fullsize bitmap) but I can now read it on this windows browser/machine combo.

I suspect it will be shrinky-dink sized on a mac due to the whole 96 pixels Windows vs. 72 pixel Mac default-standards. A font that displays at just under an inch high (96/100ths) on a windows monitor is going to display at under 3/4 of an inch high (72/100ths) of an inch on a Mac. At an inch it's not a big deal but once you get down to 8,9 pixel heights it's severe. 9 pixel fonts on webpages are the smallest fonts I can _consistently_ read on a variety of mac monitors. SOMEtimes I can read 8 but 7 or smaller are just too small to be legible on a 15" mac monitor.

I noticed you use a % for your font spec (good web design) but I couldn't remember what the standard size was (that the % is a % of) so I did a search and found this article which says that specifying a font size% less than 75% will generally be illegible for a mac. The caveat is that the document appears to date from 2000 - though the screen resolutions are still the same defaults as far as I know so the info should still be accurate - at least it matches my personal recent experience.

From the article:

For instance, Web browsers for the MacOS have historically defaulted to displaying "medium" text at 12 pixels per em (12pt @ 72ppi fixed logical resolution). Upper- and lower-case characters in the roman alphabet cannot be represented with fewer than 9 pixels per em. Therefore, all font sizes below "75%" are illegible in current MacOS browsers unless the user has expressly chosen a larger value for "medium" than the 12pt default. (Sizes below 9pt, often specified as such by users of MS Windows-based authoring products, are irrecoverably illegible in today's Mac browsers as long as CSS is enabled.) The problem is so severe that developmental versions of the "Mozilla" browser for MacOS even deployed a "font size hack" for a time that forced all text to display at at least 9pt.

It looks fine on a Mac with Safari.

Thanks guys!

I think it's a wrap now - unless someone sees anything else odd.

I'll use this as a template for all my readme's from now on.