[WIP|1.7.10] FastCraft 1.25 (Note: All Posts of new Members need to be approved first, so if you press the submit button but no new post appears here, it is in the folder of posts to be approved first, and Player will receive them a few hours later)

    • Official Post
    Quote from cindylo

    Also do you have a handy link to that issue around? Unless it was deleted(wouldn't surprise me) I can't seem to find it.

    https://github.com/CoFH/Feedback/issues/481

    145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // I just don't know what went wrong :(


    I see this too much.

    I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).


    Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?

    Quote from Two

    I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).


    Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?

    You are only required to have stable versions of fastcraft in your update chain, and stable fastcraft is not updated THAT often you know...

    Quote from Player

    Entoarox: Try also comparing the value after C: in the F3 screen between FC 1.21 and FC 1.22. You need a normal (non-flat/void) world, not use Optifine and VSync (implicit/explicit) disabled to see a difference I assume. Bugs may be another cause.

    The first value after C (before the slash) is smaller with 1.22, that is good right?

    Quote from Entoarox

    You are only required to have stable versions of fastcraft in your update chain, and stable fastcraft is not updated THAT often you know...


    And then I have to do that within 3 weeks, which is not always possible (especially when I am not actively playing Minecraft for a while), I would have to check every time I update for potential license changes, I cannot guarantee that the page I host the mod is ad-free (close to impossible nowadays), and I cannot guarantee that all mod-pack systems actually have the ability to disable the use of fastcraft, put the notice in the description or mention it's use in bug reports.


    So currently I do what most other mod-pack creates do as well: say that Fastcraft cannot be included because of the license. But that feels kind of stupid to me, therefore my question to ease the restrictions.

    Quote from Two


    And then I have to do that within 3 weeks, which is not always possible (especially when I am not actively playing Minecraft for a while), I would have to check every time I update for potential license changes, I cannot guarantee that the page I host the mod is ad-free (close to impossible nowadays), and I cannot guarantee that all mod-pack systems actually have the ability to disable the use of fastcraft, put the notice in the description or mention it's use in bug reports.


    So currently I do what most other mod-pack creates do as well: say that Fastcraft cannot be included because of the license. But that feels kind of stupid to me, therefore my question to ease the restrictions.

    Now the bolded section is plainly false, YOU cant include it if you are unwilling to follow the licence but there is no such limit on users adding fastcraft to the pack manually. (The license is for DISTRIBUTION, not usage)


    Further, you choose the launcher for your pack, so you can guarantee the license is followed, by doing your research properly instead of being lazy.
    As to "the page I'm hosting on ad-free", did you actually READ the requirements, ALL of them?
    Because basic banner ads ARE, it is only "wait x seconds to continue" type advertisments or "so much junk we cant see the darned download link" type that are disallowed. (Again, did you even READ the requirements???)
    Next, if you as a pack creator are unable to even check this forum once every three weeks you should not be making mod-packs in the first place, because you wont be able to support a user-base either.


    When it comes down to it, if you are unable to agree to the license as is, especially on the topics you described as the major issues so far, then you obviously are not capable of handling the work of a pack-author in the first place. (It isnt just "put online and forget it" you know, it requires you to actively take responsibility as the first person for your users to report ANY and ALL issues to!)

    Quote from Entoarox

    ]Now the bolded section is plainly false, YOU cant include it if you are unwilling to follow the licence but there is no such limit on users adding fastcraft to the pack manually.


    That is exactly what I said: I cannot include Fastcraft because of the license issue, so I can only recommend it but not include it. This however is rather annoying for the users of the pack and many are either not reading that part or it is too annoying/complicated for them to do.


    Quote

    Further, you choose the launcher for your pack, so you can guarantee the license is followed


    I do not choose a launcher for my pack, I can select one of those available. This is an important difference, because I cannot make sure that a launcher will have the required options and I especially cannot make sure that a launcher still has such an option in 1 year. So if I have to limit my options just because of one mod, that mod won't be in the pack.


    Quote

    As to "the page I'm hosting on ad-free", did you actually READ the requirements, ALL of them?


    Yes I did, but you are obviously not a legal expert.
    "The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free"
    Free of charge I can do, but ad-free is beyond my abilities if I host that mod let's say on Curse, because it is up to them to decide whether there will be ads or not. And again I cannot guarantee that it will be ad-free now or in the future, so I cannot include Fastcraft again.


    Quote

    if you as a pack creator are unable to even check this forum once every three weeks you should not be making mod-packs in the first place


    For once have you considered that this is not my job? I might have other things to do or be on a business trip for a month or two, or even just have vacation somewhere, where I can not check this. And then the license also says that I would be forced to include the latest Fastcraft version even if that completely breaks the mod-pack. So again, as the license is very strange here, it is better to not have it in the pack in the first place.


    Quote

    When it comes down to it, if you are unable to agree to the license as is, especially on the topics you described as the major issues so far, then you obviously are not capable of handling the work of a pack-author in the first place.


    Here is another theory: I am an expert on software development and project management and just know a lot more about licenses, legal issues, update hassles and potential pitfalls than you are even aware of. And because of that my request is actually very valid. The fact that most other mod-packs do not include Fastcraft for the very same reasons is a good hint that the license as it stands right now is probably not very fitting.

    Directly from the license:

    Quote

    - The download and the way to get there must be free of charge and ad free, except for a basic banner/text/sponsor ad typically occupying less than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display.

    So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".


    The three weeks rule counts for stable releases, if a thought-stable release interferes with the functioning of a mod-pack, it obviously is not actually stable and thus no longer falls under the license agreement. (And you should be reporting the issue here so Player actually knows it needs fixing.)
    Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.

    Quote from Entoarox

    So again I ask if you actually READ the license, or only skimmed the first few lines and went "screw this, I'm to lazy to actually read the whole thing!".


    So maybe we read in different ways. Does it say "The download and the way to get there must be ... ad free" in this line or not?
    And if it does, does that mean that the download and the way to get there must be ad free?
    Now if my mod-pack is on Curse, and Curse puts a shitload of ads on their page, is that way to download then ad free?


    Quote

    Player is good, but he isnt god, he cant test fastcraft with every possible combination of mods out there, so he has to rely on us users to help him discover issues he might have missed.


    Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.


    Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.

    • Official Post
    Quote from Two

    So maybe we read in different ways. Does it say "The download and the way to get there must be ... ad free" in this line or not?
    And if it does, does that mean that the download and the way to get there must be ad free?

    No, it means that it mustn't use more than 100,000 pixels total on a 1920*1080 pixel display for basic banner/text/sponsor ads. That's the except bit right after the bit you highlighted.

    145 Mods isn't too many. 9 types of copper and 8 types of tin aren't too many. 3 types of coffee though?

    I know that you believe that you understood what you think I said, but I am not sure you realise that what you read was not what I meant.


    ---- Minecraft Crash Report ----
    // I just don't know what went wrong :(


    I see this too much.

    Player: I just wanted to let you know that we plan on using FastCraft in a public mod pack, "M4thCr4ft^2", that will be distributed via the FTB Launcher. Thanks for your work!



    dude stop complaining, your being a lazy person and you're trying to make it complicated and complex, if you don't like his mod and the way it works, just don't use it, got it? now go and stop being a whining baby b/c you can't or won't be able to get him to fix a bug within one second of it's creation, and the fact that you're probably going to answer this saying I don't get a thing, but you know what, I don't care, if you think player will change his license just because you wan't him to, you're wrong, you're not the creator of this mod and therefore you do not have control over it. Even if you are "suggesting a change" it sounds more like you are forcing a change and are trying to confuse us as to what the license actually says.

    Quote from Two

    I'd like to include FastCraft in a modpack, however the license terms feel very restrictive, complicated and partially impossible to fulfill (like: I can't update my modpack every 3 weeks just because of FastCraft).


    Is there a way that you remove/alter some of the more strange license parts (basically everything staring from the part with the banner) or grant special permission to my modpack?


    another thing you can do is create the modpack on the Technic launcher as it is much easier than trying curse when you have FastCraft in it.

    Thanks for the great Mod Player keep up the great work. And to give you a heads up ill be using this great Mod in my pack .... Tri-Storm on the Feed The Beast Launcher.


    Thanks again and keep up the great work Mod Devs

    Quote from Two


    Exactly my point. So he will release something that is perfectly stable with Minecraft and all mods he tested and he will call that a "stable release". Now let's imagine that then my very strange combination of mods and configurations turns out to interfere with Fastcraft in a way that the game crashes, then obviously this is obviously not Player's fault. Now let's assume Player is on vacation or not doing any updates for whatever reason for three weeks, then I would be forced by the license to remove Fastcraft for the time being, because he released a version called "stable release" and I would have to update to that.


    Now I am pretty sure what I highlight here is not what Player wants to archive with his license, that is why I am asking for a change.

    And once more you fail to read properly, As the very issue you bring up I already answered not even 2 paragraphs before, player promotes a build as 'stable' if no issues have been reported with that build, thus, the second anyone runs into repeatable issues with that build, it no longer counts as stable, thus it no longer counts for the licence terms.
    (Of course, you will be required to report the issue in order for that build to be able to be marked as problematic, but if you fail to do so it is your own mistake and not in any way Player's fault.)