Community Patch discussion and development thread

[Legacy_doomknight34]

               

Several reasons why I didnt provided source.

1. I cant use the github, tried it but I dont know how to commit new changes, how to upload my source. Too complicated and I dont want to start a new fork elsewhere - not even know what app would I use and how to set it up. The only way I see is that you teach me how to use github by logging into my computer with TeamViewer or something.

2. I dont like my plugin being ripped, redistributed or divided into several other plugins. But okay - I used the API from NWNX community so I am willing to set my pride aside and provide my sources back to that community.

these two points applies to both NWNX and NWNCX, the below points applies only to NWNCX

3. The client version is different. I did quite a lot things the hard way because nobody wanted to help me and provide me their own resources. It is true that I based my plugin on a source of one of the NWNCX plugins that virusman released, but the adressess and API took me incredible ammount of time because nobody shared their resources with me. And think what you want but when they havent shared, why should I?

4. Safety. While working on a NWNCX I found quite a lot of potentional exploits, hell even the adding counterspell into quickslot can be seen as an exploit and I was considering whether to even add it into my plugin or not. By releasing the source, these exploits might soon pop out.

5. I dont really like the way how NWNCX is done. From the start, I wanted to provide a new nwmain.exe without requiring the C++ redistributables, I dont think that plugin architecture has a sense for a client, or at least, the current plugins that virusman did could be all merged with my nwncx_patch into one plugin. But neither was allowed to me so Im working with what I have.

 

Thus, what I see as a solution is to provide source on inquiry with a certain conditions such as no redistribution. Or become a staff and I will give it to you in a expectation you will help me with additional features.

 

1. I don't know honestly. I don't really use GitHub other than for comparing code or downloading repos. I would contact virusman if you haven't already.

 

2. Well... I don't really see that happening the in the NWN community (except for that one plugin I mentioned). And if it was me I would not care what happened to my code, as long as you make it public. If it's not then I agree - I don't see the point of being open-source if people were making new, fundamental improvements but keeping it all for themselves. What's the point of sharing when you're not getting anything back, right? I would just say you would be the better person if you did.

 

3. When you say that there's no help or tutorial or ANYTHING for developing NWNX or NWNCX. I know you are not lying when you say that it's a real ***** to have to accomplish what you have done so far, and I'm in fact amazed that you have '> Who knows how many hours you've spent trying to figure out what pointer goes to what or something? Or even the right/best tool to look for? And attempt to even manipulate it into functional code. It's not your fault that people don't want to share their resources or addresses to make it several, several times easier. The only pointer I believe I was able to figure out was character XP and gold - anything else complicated such as trying to figure out what changes the cursor is beyond me. I tried looking at some tutorials and such at nwnx's site, but they don't really explain the deeper concepts. I don't even think it tells you that you need to learn about memory hacking to make a plugin. Unless I'm really stupid and there were better ways?

 

4. I'm not sure if I agree with this one. I'm pretty sure most of them are just script kiddies - they know how to use a tool, but they can't make one. I very much doubt that the exploits in your code will be widespread - there were an amount of fixes in the vault, but if you did not understand scripting/coding at all you will never learn from it (unless the uploader was silly enough to tell you how to do it). I'm inclined to believe it was mostly spread in-game or by some other sources. I'm not entirely sure because I do not play NWN online much.

 

5. Unfortunately, I think that's the most that we will get. Due to the way NWN was handled, I doubt we will ever get a source code. Don't even think GOG was handed the code. But it'd be awesome if they did give it out - just look at Doom's source ports for example and how far they have come. Personally, I think they should be separate plugins. Particularly something like NWNCX functions and NWNCX fixes(bugs, exploits, etc), kinda like how the current NWNX plugins are split... And I don't think you can legally provide a modified nwmain executable for distribution.

 

In conclusion, your frustration is kinda the reason for my frustration '> No one really likes sharing, and like to keep it private and to themselves, but I guess you do have your reasons. I'd be quite frustrated too if all that were to happen to me. However it just seems a bit ironic to continue the trend and keep it undisclosed. And I'm not really sure why people don't share or help with you - maybe less people care about NWNCX items than NWNX? Personally, I'm a modder for single-player (I could really care less about NWNX except for the functions) and I think the NWNCX part should get some more love. When I found out about your polymorph and 2da I got pretty excited. There's so much more potential power you can achieve on a client imo.

 

Anyways, I'm not sure if I have enough time to be reliable and dedicated contributor/staff that is "worthy" at looking at the code - have a lot going on atm. But are you sure that keeping it private is going to make development easier? If you are mostly worried about exploits, perhaps you can just show us some functions?

               
               

               

                     Modifié par doomknight34, 02 juillet 2014 - 01:48 .
                     
                  

            

[Legacy_MannyJabrielle]

               

Okay, specific questions I mentioned in our convo '>


How does the CPP interact with non-patched NWN? Specifically:

 

1) Module/PW builder builds their module with the CPP installed, and utilizes some of the CPP content (such as one or both of the PcRs), but does *not* attach the 1.70 or 1.71 haks to the module to require the players to have the CPP.... would they see the the CPP content/changes?  This is assuming that the module builder does not add any of their own over-writing 2da's or scripts, but rather installs the CPP, and builds away in the toolset without attaching any custom haks/or haks which do not overwrite CPP content)

 

2) How would the reverse be handled?  If a player with the CPP installed logs onto a PW that was not built with the CPP, nor have any haks/scripts that overwrite the same files the CPP does, would that player be able to take levels in the PrCs? And how would their spells/special abilities behave on the non CPP server if the server has not modied the relevant scripts itself?  Would other non CPP players see the CPP enabled shou/eye abilities?  Would spells such as invisibility circle and circle against alignment function as per CPP, or the default non-CPP bioware behavior?


From a module maker standpoint... exactly what purpose do the CPP haks mentioned above serve other than to "require" CPP to be installed?  I understand there's some tweaks to the appearance.2da, and then there's the classes 2da's.... but if I merge the CPP haks into my module's haks, would the players downloading the module still be required to install the CPP because the cpp's hak contents are now part of my module's own haks

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Okay, specific questions I mentioned in our convo '>


How does the CPP interact with non-patched NWN? Specifically:

 

1) Module/PW builder builds their module with the CPP installed, and utilizes some of the CPP content (such as one or both of the PcRs), but does *not* attach the 1.70 or 1.71 haks to the module to require the players to have the CPP.... would they see the the CPP content/changes?  This is assuming that the module builder does not add any of their own over-writing 2da's or scripts, but rather installs the CPP, and builds away in the toolset without attaching any custom haks/or haks which do not overwrite CPP content)

In this case, the CPP content won't be accessable/visible/useable. Specifically, any new itemproperties gets lost as if they werent there (item cost parameter property), creatures with shou disciple/eye of gruums levels will lose those levels (or maybe get replaced by barbarian? not sure I havent really tried this), new adjustable traps will do nothing when triggered.

 

This is definitely a case where the builder should add the patch1.71 hak into module properties as he actually relies on that content. Playing such module without CPP will result into incomplete experiences. But it wont crash game, that I know for sure.

 

 

2) How would the reverse be handled?  If a player with the CPP installed logs onto a PW that was not built with the CPP, nor have any haks/scripts that overwrite the same files the CPP does, would that player be able to take levels in the PrCs? And how would their spells/special abilities behave on the non CPP server if the server has not modied the relevant scripts itself?  Would other non CPP players see the CPP enabled shou/eye abilities?  Would spells such as invisibility circle and circle against alignment function as per CPP, or the default non-CPP bioware behavior?

In this situation, all that actually manifest are client side graphical fixes and improvements, almost everything else is controlled by a server with a few exceptions:

- player will be able to take epic spells with the CPP manner (17lvl caster/18sorc).

- player will see Shou Disciple and Eye of Gruumsh in a class list when levelling up. I am not sure whether they will be selectable if conditions will be met, probably yes, but if player chooses any of the two, server will not allow to complete levelling up and player will have to redo levelling

- some NWNCX features such as possibility to select non standard base class and possibility to put counterspell into quickslot will be possible, other features are again controlled by server

 

Player cannot interfere with server files - it doesnt matter what player got in override/haks/anywhere, all that player is able to modify is a visual appearance. You can make all creatures looks like chickens but only you will see this. And so on. So, safety speaking there are no issues.

 

 

From a module maker standpoint... exactly what purpose do the CPP haks mentioned above serve other than to "require" CPP to be installed?  I understand there's some tweaks to the appearance.2da, and then there's the classes 2da's....

Yes there are some additional tweaks so you can call it a purpose. Features and changes that I thought that should be part of CPP but that would crashed game in situation you described in case #1 thus they need to be in hak.

 

 

but if I merge the CPP haks into my module's haks, would the players downloading the module still be required to install the CPP because the cpp's hak contents are now part of my module's own haks

Well, they would still needed it. I mean, by incorporating the patch171.hak files into your own haks, you will be able to use the hidden appearances or new baseitems (stackable miscs) without risking that player without CPP wont see them. But the hak still doesnt contain classes.2da and itemproperty 2das that are handling those two problematic features that player without CPP wont see. You would have to put those 2das into your haks as well (which is minor licence/permission abuse but I dont care). Same for adjustable traps or swinging blade traps - wont work unless you add also scripts for them into your haks/module (again a licensed)

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_virusman]

               

Shadooow, you're saying nobody has helped you with NWNX/NWNCX and/or someone is restricting you in ways to distribute your work. Since you're not mentioning names, I assume it's directed at me.

I think a lot of people in this community know that I'm willing to help anyone here, you just have to ask.

The only thing I cannot do is share nwmain symbols that I have, because I'm bound by the agreement with BW. I tend to honor any formal or informal agreements I make. Other than that, anyone can ask for suggestions, memory layouts, pointers or any other information I have, and I gladly provide that when I can. You've asked me multiple times, and I did.

NWNCX is open source, that means you can modify and redistribute it in any way you like (although technically you must provide sources for such modifications, per GPL terms). Even better, you can send patches, suggest changes, participate in discussions about its architecture. Give it a try for a change.

 

History has shown many times over these years that only open, community-wide efforts end up being something you can actually be proud of. Not just as an individual, but as a part of something bigger like this community.

Let's work together.

 

P.S. I'll help you with setting up git/github - drop me a line, it's an awesome tool to learn.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Yes I was talking about you, but not only you. You actually really helped me, though I needed more. But I knew you can't provide symbols so I could not ask you for adress for any function I needed and the offset of every structure I needed. Or at least I didnt think I can. That took me as doomknight expected numerous hours. From the start it took me 1-3 hours to even find the function adress.

 

Anyway - I actually forgot to mention that I get help. Leo-x helped me really lot, with his help I got basically full symbols - so the question is, if I made them homebrew, is there any legal issue applicable on me distributing those symbols for everyone to use? Not that I would plan to do that...

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_virusman]

               

Add me in the IM you're using and just ask whenever you need something. We can discuss security/distribution issues there as well.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MannyJabrielle]

               

This is definitely a case where the builder should add the patch1.71 hak into module properties as he actually relies on that content. Playing such module without CPP will result into incomplete experiences. But it wont crash game, that I know for sure.

 

Ok, so for a point on clarity... builders who like to *play* with the CPP, but don't want their module to require it, should be sure to build *without* the CPP installed to ensure no CPP specific tweaks/contents get included into their module?


When I do get to writing up the documentation, I am thinking now it may be a good idea to have a "builder's section" that gives some cursory notice about how building/playing with the CPP installed may affected their module if they're intending a non-CPP finished product.

 

 

In this situation, all that actually manifest are client side graphical fixes and improvements, almost everything else is controlled by a server with a few exceptions:

- player will be able to take epic spells with the CPP manner (17lvl caster/18sorc).

- player will see Shou Disciple and Eye of Gruumsh in a class list when levelling up. I am not sure whether they will be selectable if conditions will be met, probably yes, but if player chooses any of the two, server will not allow to complete levelling up and player will have to redo levelling

- some NWNCX features such as possibility to select non standard base class and possibility to put counterspell into quickslot will be possible, other features are again controlled by server

A clarification on the casters and epic spells...  will a 17th level character (pure caster class) taking epic spells cause the same failure to level up as it does with characters taking the PrCs?


NWNCX will definitely be the next topic I'll be asking about (not any time soon though).  I have used nwncx, but only a few times, I'm not familiar with everything it does/can do in general, so I'll wait to ask whatever questions I may have until I have questions that won't be absolutely noobish '>

 

 

Player cannot interfere with server files - it doesnt matter what player got in override/haks/anywhere, all that player is able to modify is a visual appearance. You can make all creatures looks like chickens but only you will see this. And so on. So, safety speaking there are no issues.

 

That answers a lot of my questions right there '> Thanks.  Looking back through this thread I see that has been said before, but I missed it.  It clarifies a lot of the things about the patch I wasn't too sure about.

 

 

Well, they would still needed it. I mean, by incorporating the patch171.hak files into your own haks, you will be able to use the hidden appearances or new baseitems (stackable miscs) without risking that player without CPP wont see them. But the hak still doesnt contain classes.2da and itemproperty 2das that are handling those two problematic features that player without CPP wont see. You would have to put those 2das into your haks as well (which is minor licence/permission abuse but I dont care). Same for adjustable traps or swinging blade traps - wont work unless you add also scripts for them into your haks/module (again a licensed)

As a builder... that point on the license caught my attention, at least 2da wise.... Yes, you did say it was a minor issue you didn't care about, but to keep thinks simple, I might actually suggest making the license clear about 2da's and not covering them.  It made me think of how if I were to want the module I'm working on to be a CPP module, I would *have* to merge the 2da's as I have a custom class of my own in my module, and made some minor edits to default classes (name changes mostly, non FR setting, no champions of "Torm").... Yeah, you said you don't particularly mind, and it's a minor issue, but still something to keep in mind for builders who are mindful of abiding by a license agreement

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

 

Ok, so for a point on clarity... builders who like to *play* with the CPP, but don't want their module to require it, should be sure to build *without* the CPP installed to ensure no CPP specific tweaks/contents get included into their module?

Hmm. Should he? It might be a little inconvinient to switch patch in and out. Imo better to learn what the new features are and dont use them or playtest it without CPP prior to release. Most of the times the missing content wont be a gamebreaker.

 

A clarification on the casters and epic spells...  will a 17th level character (pure caster class) taking epic spells cause the same failure to level up as it does with characters taking the PrCs?

It should but it wont...

 

 

As a builder... that point on the license caught my attention, at least 2da wise.... Yes, you did say it was a minor issue you didn't care about, but to keep thinks simple, I might actually suggest making the license clear about 2da's and not covering them.  It made me think of how if I were to want the module I'm working on to be a CPP module, I would *have* to merge the 2da's as I have a custom class of my own in my module, and made some minor edits to default classes (name changes mostly, non FR setting, no champions of "Torm").... Yeah, you said you don't particularly mind, and it's a minor issue, but still something to keep in mind for builders who are mindful of abiding by a license agreement

Hmm Im not sure you undestood the licence. What is not allowed is to taking CPP content and adding it to your module without any actual modification only in order to get CPP features without need to use CPP itself. As long as you take the content and modify its perfectly fine. The intent is that if you are building a module with CPP and you want CPP features you should either force players to use CPP or leave it on their own responsibility. The only abuse of the licence comes in play if you add for example all the 1.71 spell, feat, trap etc. scripts and perhaps also all 2DAs without any modification to ensure the player gets these features while playing your module even if he doesnt have CPP installed.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Gruftlord]

               

Shadooow/Henesua: i'll try to write a few lines during the weekend about the patch content. i suggested before, that the differenciation between client side, server side and builder activatable fixes would be something that deserves clarification in the patch description and would help people understand the inner workings and the "controversy" part of the CPP much more (specifically why some things about the controversy are due to misinformation/miscommunication).

 

Shadooow, i know CPP is basically your project, and you most all credit for it (and as the recent discussion has shown, your NWNX/NWNCX fixes and knowledge are reasons to think highly of you by now alone, on top of the project as a whole). BUT, this is and was always meant to be a community project. yes, few people wanted to contribute, yes, even fewer did and also yes, many still try to steer away from it (and i have the impression those numbers have dropped with time and revisions of CPP, it is showing it's benefits for the cummuity after all).

But despite this, and in my oppinion actually especially because of this, i would drop the licencing stuff. just make CPP open source, allow people to rip it apart and use whatever they like. you know, those people open to use the CPP do use it by now (about 100 people). losening the restictions will only widen the audience for the CPP.

yes, in some cases, it won't lead to people using the cpp but people using PW haks that contain the or part of the fixes. so what? it just means you got one more builder on CPPs side, that (while maybe not using all of CPPs content) does make use and in some way supports the fixes that have been collected for and in CPP. it will get more people to consider CPP, if only (initially) to rip out some parts of it. it will get people involved in and look into the CPP; and who knows, some may decide they DO like the whole package after all. especially since updates are continuing, some may then decide it is better for them to just use the latest version of CPP, and no longer bother with ripping things out of it. Also, builder support will get regular player to download and use it as a whole package as well.

in the end, what i'm trying to say is: lower the barrier to get people involved with and look at the CPP, and you may convice more people of the projects qualities, which in return will get more people to enjoy the CPP fixes (be it all or just part of them).

 

these are my thoughts on the topic, that's what i see in a cummunity project. these are mere suggestions, but maybe you can think about it.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bogdanov89]

               

ShadoOow, i have the latest 1.71 CPP (installer version) and the latest "Patch 1.71 Add-on" - but i have not yet installed the NWNX_Patch and NWNCX_Patch.

 

Where can i get the latest NWNX_Patch and NWNCX_Patch from, and how to make it work properly with the 1.71 CPP and it's latest Add-ons?

 

Also do i need to do anything special to make it all work when i am hosting online through the nwn game (playing original campaigns with my brother)?

 

Thanks for helping out '>

 

edit: i also got a bit confused when i downloaded the 1.71 Add-ons from the Neverwinter Vault website, because there are two different versions linked:

 

"patch171_addonv2_0" and "patch171_addonv3"

 

One of them is on "http://neverwinterva...y-patch-project" while the other is on "http://neverwinterva...s/patch-171-add" .

 

I guess that one of those webpages still has the old addon file instead of the newest one?

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

 

Shadooow/Henesua: i'll try to write a few lines during the weekend about the patch content. i suggested before, that the differenciation between client side, server side and builder activatable fixes would be something that deserves clarification in the patch description and would help people understand the inner workings and the "controversy" part of the CPP much more (specifically why some things about the controversy are due to misinformation/miscommunication).

That would be perfect. Even better would be if you get an access to the editing that descriptions on new vault, but this feature is not  there yet. Wiki-style editing fits this project imo.

 

 

Shadooow, i know CPP is basically your project, and you most all credit for it (and as the recent discussion has shown, your NWNX/NWNCX fixes and knowledge are reasons to think highly of you by now alone, on top of the project as a whole). BUT, this is and was always meant to be a community project. yes, few people wanted to contribute, yes, even fewer did and also yes, many still try to steer away from it (and i have the impression those numbers have dropped with time and revisions of CPP, it is showing it's benefits for the cummuity after all).

But despite this, and in my oppinion actually especially because of this, i would drop the licencing stuff. just make CPP open source, allow people to rip it apart and use whatever they like. you know, those people open to use the CPP do use it by now (about 100 people). losening the restictions will only widen the audience for the CPP.

yes, in some cases, it won't lead to people using the cpp but people using PW haks that contain the or part of the fixes. so what? it just means you got one more builder on CPPs side, that (while maybe not using all of CPPs content) does make use and in some way supports the fixes that have been collected for and in CPP. it will get more people to consider CPP, if only (initially) to rip out some parts of it. it will get people involved in and look into the CPP; and who knows, some may decide they DO like the whole package after all. especially since updates are continuing, some may then decide it is better for them to just use the latest version of CPP, and no longer bother with ripping things out of it. Also, builder support will get regular player to download and use it as a whole package as well.

in the end, what i'm trying to say is: lower the barrier to get people involved with and look at the CPP, and you may convice more people of the projects qualities, which in return will get more people to enjoy the CPP fixes (be it all or just part of them).

 

these are my thoughts on the topic, that's what i see in a cummunity project. these are mere suggestions, but maybe you can think about it.

Hmm you got a strong argument there, I must agree with what you said, though I still don't like it and don't want to do that. But ok. Gather 5more likes, or start a poll and if other peoples has a same opinion (which I think they have but I want to hear it), then I will remove the "licence" and edit permissions.

 

ShadoOow, i have the latest 1.71 CPP (installer version) and the latest "Patch 1.71 Add-on" - but i have not yet installed the NWNX_Patch and NWNCX_Patch.

 

Where can i get the latest NWNX_Patch and NWNCX_Patch from, and how to make it work properly with the 1.71 CPP and it's latest Add-ons?

 

Also do i need to do anything special to make it all work when i am hosting online through the nwn game (playing original campaigns with my brother)?

 

Thanks for helping out '>

 

edit: i also got a bit confused when i downloaded the 1.71 Add-ons from the Neverwinter Vault website, because there are two different versions linked:

 

"patch171_addonv2_0" and "patch171_addonv3"

 

One of them is on "http://neverwinterva...y-patch-project" while the other is on "http://neverwinterva...s/patch-171-add" .

 

I guess that one of those webpages still has the old addon file instead of the newest one?

You dont need to download it standalone, NWNX_Patch plugins are included in the 1.71 addon, you just need NWNX/NWNCX main package to use it. Read here.

No there are no extra steps to get it work other than executing NWNCX.exe to start a game and your brother neither anyone else dont need this - it will work because you are hosting and act like a server.

 

Seems I forgot to update links, the v3 is what you want of course. EDIT: link updated and corrected.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_MannyJabrielle]

               

I'll have to read over the license myself to see exactly what it says before I could say either way...  I'm fine with it however it is as long as builders can reasonably build their modules AND proper credit for CPP work is given where credit is rightly due.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Pstemarie]

               

Liking Grufflord's comments about licensing simply for the fact that the Community is getting much smaller and I'll all about open source these days. 

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Shadooow]

               

Hm, I forgot I rewrote the licence/permission before I released 1.71.

 

Please do not repackage or redistribute patch content without permission. For any permission issue, treat the Community Patch content as it would be created by Bioware - you would not ripped files from Patch 1.69 to be used with patch 1.68 so please do not rip files from CP to be used without CP. Distributing a patch content for building purposes is allowed, but should be redundant because all 2DAs, spell scripts and include scripts are available for download on this page. Do not post all spell scripts from CP within your project if you only changed spellhook etc. - of course if you modified all spell scripts you are allowed to distribute them.


Only if you or specifically those large CC compilations comply with these rules only then it could be the true patch. So please respect this, you wouldn't do it with any official patch in past and just because this patch doesn't force you to upgrade is not a reason to do it.

(That last sentence sound awful but I dont know how to write it grammary correct so I kept it )

 

This is the only restriction that I feel neccessary. And now I have a question. Is the project itself not open because of this? I didn't checked the "Open - Free & open only if project also open" because I wasn't sure. To allow conversion to other games could be allowed - I thought its nonsense but I guess someone might try to use my spell engine in NWN2 which I don't mind at all. And what "Allow distribute in others work" means is also uknown to me therefore I haven't checked it. Again, including any content from CPP that you modified (and thus need to include it in your work) is absolutely fine with me.

               
               

               
            

[Legacy_Bannor Bloodfist]

               

Hm, I forgot I rewrote the licence/permission before I released 1.71.

(That last sentence sound awful but I dont know how to write it grammary correct so I kept it )

 

This is the only restriction that I feel neccessary. And now I have a question. Is the project itself not open because of this? I didn't checked the "Open - Free & open only if project also open" because I wasn't sure. To allow conversion to other games could be allowed - I thought its nonsense but I guess someone might try to use my spell engine in NWN2 which I don't mind at all. And what "Allow distribute in others work" means is also uknown to me therefore I haven't checked it. Again, including any content from CPP that you modified (and thus need to include it in your work) is absolutely fine with me.

 

Actually, the way you have all of that worded, no one could use any part of your stuff at all, unless they installed the entire package.  It is an either/or type of thing, if you allow part to be used for some other purpose, then you in effect allow all parts to be used or not for any purpose.

 

You would be better off just adding a line that states "Contact me if you have a specific need for a specific piece of this patch, and we can discuss it."

 

Otherwise you are making it much too confusing.

 

Open and Free means no restrictions at all.  Meaning you would allow someone to take any part of your patch and do what they want, including adding that piece to their own release.  So, currently, your patch does NOT qualify in anyway as open and free.