In the scene graph each object has a property of a parent and list of children (or just parent if it’s not an object that can contain children). For an object to be it’s own parent would mean that it’s own concatenated transform data (such as it’s concatenatedMatrix) would be used as it’s parent concatenated transform data to combine with it’s local transform data, which would result in it infinitely applying any transform information, such as if you set the x to 10 it’s concatentated x value would be 10 * infinity. Basically, it would go against the idea of what forward kinematics (objects containing each other) is for, and I’d assume that if you attempted it it would throw either a runtime or compiler error saying not to do that.
Edit: looked it up, it’s error #2024, “An object cannot be added as a child of itself.”
I really don’t care if it is directly affects the type of products I’d normally make or not, creating that sort of licensing for specific parts of AS3 like that is 100% unacceptable in my book.
Envato devs have been successfully ignoring this type of idea for as long as I’ve been on envato network sites Hopefully you have better luck that us old timers have had!
But on the real topic: It was fun, and if a reviewer does reject it then I’d hope they’d give feedback as to why so that you could do what you need to get it to any standards they feel it didn’t live up to, so don’t be too worried about rejection, it’s not that bad, we’ve all had it and it helps us.
The biggest feedback I’d give you is to add instructions within the game swf itself, such as an intro screen to start playing, with a quick instructional animation before they actually start, explaining exactly how to play, how the points work, all that good stuff someone may want to know. I say that because I didn’t really read your “how to play” part of the post (trust me, that’s the norm, you gotta force feed instructions to people :P) And at first I was a bit clueless and had to come back and read it then go back to the game and play. Would definitely increase buyers if it was more of a complete package where the game itself could teach the player how to play it, that makes it useful to more people in more situations. And on a side note, having an intro/introduction screen also helps with getting keyboard focus to the flash, since by nature it will involve the user clicking within the swf, making sure it has keyboard focus before they are playing, it’s the most bullet-proof way to get keyboard focus when a game needs it like yours does
Second: When I first clicked to give flash keyboard focus, I clicked the S block itself, and I noticed the next round I had to click again before it would recognize my keystrokes. I did it a few times and it happened each time I tried it that way. Might want to track that down so it doesn’t confuse anyone.
I was thinking: as a start, when the “flag” button is clicked, how about it still shows the content, but sends an alert to the mods? That way, it’s really up to the mods and admins. I can’t even count the number of times things here have been tagged when they shouldn’t have been, and then to only be untagged a week later, when it has already been forgotten…
It used to be that way, and it sucked, so they changed it to what it is now. For example someone posted a link to the sources of one of my files once and it was up for a decent amount of time after being flagged because flagging it didn’t hide it, just let a mod know to come check it some time.
It’s really a case of picking the lesser of 2 evils, and even though it sucks that anyone can flag a post and make it not show for a bit, it sucks more when jerks post links to files they pirated, spam, etc and there’s nothing we can do as a community to hide it until a mod comes along. And it used to happen more often too, because when a spammer knows it’ll get at least a good 6hrs of exposure before the mod sees the flagged post, that’s more motivation to bother with it.
I agree that there’s some really over-active flaggers nowadays though, flagging everything as some sort of self-promo link even if it’s not. The only thing I can think of if is a more strict abuse policy for those abusing flagging, such as losing your ability to flag after too many unnecessary flaggings (with warning emails sent first of course, in case they were honestly trying to help and just misunderstood the rules).
Lastly, I’m not sure it’s worth having a conversation with someone who isn’t an author, a buyer or a staff member. Just my 2 cents.
That’s kinda the note I ended on. After many explanations he still didn’t understand my first simple theoretical example of a non-GPL file with a poor license term and was rebutting it with “but the GPL overrides other licenses” no matter how many times I explained I didn’t mean a GPL file, just a file in general with a poor license term that I was using as an example of a possible situation that mirrored a point I wanted to discuss. At that point I realized I was conversing with someone who was never going to slow down and read/comprehend what was being typed, nevertheless give it actual though to be able to converse about it. So really there’s no point in continuing the conversation.
Because all other things which are NOT text from GPL are simply irrelevant. This is not about what all people in the world think. Even what i think. The only thing which matter is GPL text of license. You are talking about this txt file – but before putting this txt file you have to give me to read full license text which is compatible with license which was written for this product. If inside your some work which is for example based on gpl, you would put txt file which says something contrary to gpl – this what you added has NO meaning. why ? because its addition to work based on already existing license.
I don’t sell on TF, I wasn’t talking about adding to the GPL . Jaff was right, you really gotta pay attention to what you’re rebuking in order to rebuke it correctly. My example was a simile to illustrate the same issue in completely different situation, files where I make my own license, and how it is possible to create a shady license that wouldn’t be legally upheld even if technically agreed to and then subsequently breached. You’re off on some other tangent about modifying the GPL , reel it back in bud.
Ok, second part was about executing this law – would wordpress do that ? i dont know…. and i dont care very much about it. maybe in 40%. What i care in most is that because of GPL i am completely allowed to do everything what GPL allows me to do with themes from themeforest. Or from any other place. GPL allows me to download themes from warez sites and use it for commercial purpose. And buy them here and spread them around as GPL allows me. And this is what i mostly care. Even if i will never do it. Only thing is that GPL allows me to do that and no existing law can touch me. Why ? because GPL says that everyone can. And no other license can win with GPL .
Again, you’re off on something else entirely. I’m not talking about another license modifying/superceding the GPL . I’m talking about the possibility of flaw within the GPL itself where it possibly claims more rights than is has right to claim. Does it truly have the right to modify the license of other files? Because that’s what it does, and that would seem contrary to many intellectual property rights. For example if someone packaged a stock photo in with their theme, both the author AND any buyers could be legally required to cease and desist using that photo in a way it wasn’t licensed to them. The GPL simply wouldn’t have the right to modify the original license of that photo, regardless of whether it claimed that right upon the author breaching the terms. Take it a step further and it’s not that much of a stretch to say that even though the content in question is owned by the person that created the breach of terms, the terms still very likely don’t have the right to claim ownership of that content either, only the right to call it a breach and take other action.
YOU are DEVELOPING for wordpress SO you HAVE TO conform to wordpress license. So it simply does not matter what wordpress will do. Or what anyone will do. The thing that matter the most is that i and you are allowed to do all this things, as long as they comply with GPL .
Again, lack of reading comprehension here bud. The issue I brought up was not whether license rules were broken, it was about the rights of the victim of the broken license terms. When someone breaks the WP license what rights does WP have? They certainly have cease and desist type rights, probably even monetary compensation rights. But can they claim to automatically have ownership of the material that was part of their broken license terms in order to have the right to change the license terms of that material? I’m saying I have doubts that that is within their rights to claim within their license. And that is very relevant to the topic.
I don’t think you were fully giving thought to what I was bringing up though, instead just finding the first evidences you could find to the contrary and posting them, and there’s bound to be plenty of evidence both for and against: it’s law, that’s how it works
But of course licenses are upheld under copyright law, but that doesn’t mean a license can’t have a legal mistake in one where it causes contrast to a law. If I snuck a .txt file in my item download that said “by putting this template on your server, you are agreeing to sell me your home for $1” no court would uphold that, ever. Of course that’s more extreme than what we’re discussing, but it’s along the same lines; someone violating your license doesn’t automatically give you absolute power over them to claim whatever you want about their property.
And of course authors are expected to read/abide by a license, but the question is: what are WP’s rights when the license is violated? Is it that they can demand the author/markeplace stop or even compensate them? (that seems logical) Or is it that they can then basically own that content and license it how they want? (not quite as logical…) Just as I can’t say that by putting my file up on your server your house is now mine, WP very well may be overextending their limits with the license terms in question. I don’t know for sure obviously (no one does, two different courts could make 2 different decisions on it on the same day). But the point is that it’s worthwhile to give thought to how that affects this argument.
EDIT : I should add in: The reason people are getting frustrated arguing against you is that you aren’t actually giving stock to anything against your viewpoint that people are giving. I think most can agree that law is never pure black & white, there’s often valid points both ways, it just comes down to who has more valid points. And when those points disagreeing with yours are brought up you act as if they aren’t valid at all even if there is some pretty obvious validity to them. That’s discrediting you in people’s eyes, and not helping your argument. I actually agreed with much of your argument license-wise, but just added a completely new point that is debatable, but is definitely worth discussing, and you dismissed it as though I just told you 1+1=5. So even after previously agreeing with many of your points, if find myself going “maybe I should read them again, sounds like he really isn’t deciding using as much fact based non-emotional analysis as I thought he was”. Basically: no one trusts a zealot
I believe lawmen is actually technically right according to the WP license. But I also think that there’s something else missing from the conversation: is the WP license correct according most laws? Lets not forget that in most of the industrialized world property rights are defended pretty strictly. It’s probably within WP’s rights to demand authors/marketplaces to stop selling non-GPL content packaged with content derived from their GPL work (though I doubt they will, they seem to not deem what’s happening on TF as the type of abuse they don’t want happening), but is it within their rights to say that since it did get packaged together they can apply whatever license they want to someone else’s work?
Not saying it is/isn’t…but I think it’s a topic worth introducing to this conversation, because we can’t forget that license != law, and if the two disagree law wins
while(container.numChildren == 1) container.removeChildAt(0);
Only removes children if there’s exactly 1. Have 2 and it’ll do nothing, won’t even remove 1 of them. Try this:
while(container.numChildren > 0) container.removeChildAt(0);
That’ll remove all children of the container.