Why Licenses Do Matter

[Maruk]

Few years later, it is again time to address some licensing issues and uncertainties related to re-using and modifying other creators content. Most importantly, I believe addon makers and users need to understand that the fact something is possible or easily available technically does not mean they really can take it and do whatever they like with it.

There are various aspects to consider, but before we go any further, I recommend and urge You to read the following link (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=66013) that details models released by BI for further modification so far for Arma 1. Note that none of the Arma 2 or Arma 2: Operation Arrowhead were released for addon makers to be used so far. I will be unable to comment any further until later next week but I will follow up this topic as soon as I can.

I believe Creative Commons (http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/) provides very good overview of various types of author's rights and I believe it becomes important for addon makers to understand those rights so I made a short excerpt from CC website (all info is courtesy of Creative Commons, available under cc-by license) and I can tell BI is currently evaluating if CC+ style of license could be used for this addon making community:

Public Domain (Universal License) (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/)
–
cc 0

The person who associated a work with this document has dedicated the work to the Commons by waiving all of his or her rights to the work worldwide under copyright law and all related or neighboring legal rights he or she had in the work, to the extent allowable by law. Works under CC0 do not require attribution. When citing the work, you should not imply endorsement by the author.

Attribution (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/3.0/)
–
cc by
http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by/3.0/88x31.png

This license lets others distribute, remix, tweak, and build upon your work, even commercially, as long as they credit you for the original creation. This is the most accommodating of licenses offered, in terms of what others can do with your works licensed under Attribution.

Attribution Share Alike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/)
–
cc by-sa
http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-sa/3.0/88x31.png

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work even for commercial reasons, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. This license is often compared to open source software licenses. All new works based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also allow commercial use.

Attribution No Derivatives (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nd/3.0/)
–
cc by-nd
http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nd/3.0/88x31.png

This license allows for redistribution, commercial and non-commercial, as long as it is passed along unchanged and in whole, with credit to you.

Attribution Non-Commercial (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/)
–
cc by-nc
http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc/3.0/88x31.png

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, and although their new works must also acknowledge you and be non-commercial, they don’t have to license their derivative works on the same terms.

Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)
–
cc by-nc-sa
http://i.creativecommons.org/l/by-nc-sa/3.0/88x31.png

This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature.

Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/)
–
cc by-nc-nd

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, allowing redistribution. This license is often called the “free advertising” license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

Additonal Rights Under Custom Terms (http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus)
–
cc +

CC+ is CC license + another own agreement. It is not a new license, but a facilitation of more permissions beyond any standard CC licenses.


-
(a bit side step, but this is also an interesting concept worth checking so I include it here for completeness):

Founder's Copyright (http://creativecommons.org/projects/founderscopyright)
–
The Framers of the U.S. Constitution understood that copyright was about balance — a trade-off between public and private gain, society-wide innovation and creative reward. In 1790, the U.S.’s first copyright law granted authors a monopoly right over their creations for 14 years, with the option of renewing that monopoly for another 14. We want to help restore that sense of balance — not through any change to the current laws — but by helping copyright holders who recognize a long copyright term’s limited benefit to voluntarily release that right after a shorter period.

[JdB]

Thank you for clarifying :)

[Maruk]

Just wanted to point out that this link doesn't work. Has two unused URL closing tags in the hyperlink.

Thank you for clarifying :)

The link is fixed now. Thx.

[wld427]

thats a bunch of jibberish......

I think what we are all looking for is a yes or no clear cut answer...

may we reskin BIS units in arma2 and OA
may we forward port items form A1,A2 to OA
may we take items from arma2 P3d and use them in arma2 and OA without backwards porting.....


the last that was uniformly spoken was that items may be forward ported not backwards.

[Zipper5]

last that was uniformly spoken was that items may be forward ported not backwards.
Well that at least makes sense. People playing ArmA could get Arma 2 or OA's content for free if that wasn't the case. ;)

I am a bit confused at this, though. Are these licenses that we in any way have to acquire, or are BIS adopting one or all of them in terms of modding your games to give us more freedom but still keep copyright protection?

Or is it something else entirely? :p

Thanks in advance.

[Maruk]

This is no jibberish but very simple and clear description of pretty much all possible licensing models (there are in theory more possible variants but surprisingly these seem to be the only that make sense) for addons.

I am afraid there is no way to put it more simple.

It is important to start with basics before we can get any further.

But there are also few things that really need to change in this wonderful addon making and sharing community:



users should understand licenses more
licenses should be clearly specified with every release
addon makers should respect rights (see the first post what are the important rights in this regard) of other addon makers



thats a bunch of jibberish......

I think what we are all looking for is a yes or no clear cut answer...

may we reskin BIS units in arma2 and OA
may we forward port items form A1,A2 to OA
may we take items from arma2 P3d and use them in arma2 and OA without backwards porting.....


the last that was uniformly spoken was that items may be forward ported not backwards.

[Zipper5]

But there are also few things that really need to change in this wonderful addon making and sharing community:



users should understand licenses more
licenses should be clearly specified with every release
addon makers should respect rights (see the first post what are the important rights in this regard) of other addon makers

Ah okay, that sounds fair. So basically adhiring to and acknowledging fair use?

[Maruk]

At this stage it is more about trying to open up more discussion in this community about licenses in general.

CC licenses seems to be the easiest to understand and best structured licenses available that could be of good use for this community potentially.

I also would say more standardized license templates would help significantly.

Now you download an addon but usually you do not know under what type of license it is released.

Usually, anyone creating content as hobby want contribution (cc-by), often there are other terms as well that can be relevant (non commercial use only) etc.


Well that at least makes sense. People playing ArmA could get Arma 2 or OA's content for free if that wasn't the case. ;)

I am a bit confused at this, though. Are these licenses that we in any way have to acquire, or are BIS adopting one or all of them in terms of modding your games to give us more freedom but still keep copyright protection?

Or is it something else entirely? :p

Thanks in advance.

[Dwarden]

'Global context related to whole thread'

"
please be patient
as we are working on updating all the details related to these concerns,
we will aim for good of the Community (as always) and our own aswel

it will be ready sometime soon after GC

... in meantime please read and study what Marek posted
http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1715392&postcount=1
especially the link (in bold and underlined) about ARMA 1 MLOD release etc.
"

...
in case of further questions (and if You don't want discuss them in public thread) then feel free to contact me :bounce3:
...

[scubaman3D]

Good info.

The Counter Strike community uses Creative Commons licenses often since downloading and modifying user-made material is so common there. Often times all the author would like is 1) to be asked/notified and 2) to be given credit.

Thats fine for user content but the implications are still against those in the community who practice retexturing any content or modifying cfgs to add custom values for armor, bullet strength, whatever.

In fact, this is how I got my start in addon making back in ArmA1. I unpacked pbos and using the BIS-provided textures from the addons, added additional layers in PS and re-released my own custom camo. I understand that the implication now is that I violated the EULA for ArmA by doing this.

The fact is that we cannot believe that my example regarding adding data to BIS textures or making replacement cfgs with custom values is "right" while modifying debinarized models is "wrong". If you claim one violates EULA, you must claim the other does as well.

[Fox '09]

basically what I've been thinking, scubaman. I just don't like the way it has been said. Especially when there are addons out with no problems, which contain stuff from 'hacked' ODOLs. So why has it been said that there are problems?

(http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=103577)

[DaSquade]

Well Fox, only GOD knows why....but that isn't really the subject of this topic (more below) and i don't think Maruk is waiting on a flamewars anyway.
I'll stick with my own personal vision: keep following the rules! (yes, i also drive most of the times too fast and do other things that aren't allowed. Nobody is perfect, but theft...no sir, i do hard honest work for my money and i'm proud of my own name).

Like Maruk posted and i quote:

It is important to start with basics before we can get any further.

But there are also few things that really need to change in this wonderful addon making and sharing community:

* users should understand licenses more
* licenses should be clearly specified with every release
* addon makers should respect rights (see the first post what are the important rights in this regard) of other addon makers


But i must admite i also never read my EULA or even full understood my contracts (what ever they are). I agree most addonmakers start with someone else work and often with BIS material. People need to start somewhere and yes often even the material BIS is willing to share is often not enough (even for learning material). On the other hand, personally i learned what i know from 'friends' within the community. If you respect others work (and the future lisences) and show them you are willing to learn and work hard for your goal, it will bring you a step closer.

Anyway, approving the original post or at least what is begint it.

[callihn]

As I had once already mentioned in requested features, which apparently NOBODY reads, if servers had the ability to override the file with another using the same file path on the server and in an addon loaded after the original it would allow people to make modifications without touching the actual content of the addon, including BIS content without having to modify someone else's files. This concept was born back in Quake I and has been around that long, the coding is trivial even, yet now it's 2010 and we have games that are not mod friendly.

[PuFu]

I support what Maruk said.

Most addon makers start with things are small, and easy to do. Only later they begging working on their own stuff. Fact is that so far BIS has choose to let some stuff fly by is sort of understandable, but then again, i am grateful there is some clarification on this subject.

The CC license is something that i have used in the past myself, and have been happy with the way it has been layed out, and explained.

Even if one would be using Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives type, the person is still free to use it for educational purposes, allowing such person to use it to learn stuff from without breaking any license agreement that might have agreed with when downloading said content, which is also something that is in this grey area for BIS files, and that has been discussed recently on these forums.

Either way, i am sure Maruk and Dwarden have started such topic to get a view of their community, and clarify stuff that have never been straighten out in the real sense so far, and all of it going towards making life easier for the modding community.

Look further to more of this.

[Max Power]

The fact is that we cannot believe that my example regarding adding data to BIS textures or making replacement cfgs with custom values is "right" while modifying debinarized models is "wrong". If you claim one violates EULA, you must claim the other does as well.

Agreed. It's not the type of data that should guide your actions, but the license the data falls under.

All data unless otherwise stated is 100% copyrighted to the author by default- the most restrictive license possible.

[[APS]Gnat]

Good thread, await more info.
One items for clarification I think; Borders.
Is there licences you can restrict to a game or community.
i.e. Attribution Non-Commercial, but ONLY within ArmA, ArmA2 and ArmA2OA

[NoRailgunner]

I thought most work of community is cc by-nc-sa (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) ?
And only few people do use/need the more restrictive cc by-nc-nd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) ?

[[APS]Gnat]

I thought most work of community is cc by-nc-sa (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/) ?
And only few people do use/need the more restrictive cc by-nc-nd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) ?

I would have said most addon makers are cc by-nc-nd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Most of us don't want 100 user variations being distribution as "new" addons.
Readme's typically ask new authors to seek permission.

[JdB]

Gnat;1715968']I would have said most addon makers are cc by-nc-nd (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/).
Most of us don't want 100 user variations being distribution as "new" addons.
Readme's typically ask new authors to seek permission.

Correct, BIS enforces this through the "ATTN: Addon Makers - Rules of content permissions."-threads (though either I failed to spot it, or there isn't one for ArmA2...), as well as forum rule #20, which is the best possible solution for the community on this forum. All you have to do is ask for permission, and 9/10 times people will let you change their addon under a few conditions (i.e. use different classnames so it doesn't overwrite the original work, give credit, do not allow others to alter the edited addon any further without asking for permission from the original creator etc).

The people that don't ask for permission mostly do not give a sh*t about ownership, or "can't be bothered" to ask for permission (which is the same thing, in an effort to make it sound less immoral). If you're going to alter someone's work, any normal person would check out the readme, and subsequently find out that he needs to request permission. That also means that they won't care for any EULA or license of any type, but will just distribute "their" work through other means (sites that don't care about the origin of content, or are set-up specifically for distributing stolen content, hosted in countries that don't care about copyright, where it's mostly impossible to take legal actions).

It's also a cultural problem. Most of the problems we've had regarding misuse/downright theft of Intellectual Property has been with people that are, to put it less offensively, not the best at English. Some times it's down to misunderstanding due to the language barrier, more often they understand perfectly what they are doing wrong, but don't have to care about the consequences. In some parts, it's just more accepted to take what you want.

[NoRailgunner]

Aren't there more people in addon/mod making who agree to use/change stuff as long as proper credits are given and its clear who made the original model?

To me

No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work. sound more like a very strict rule that cannot changed easily without changing license conditions eg authors have to switch from cc-by-nc-nd to cc-by-nc-sa for all people. Somehow more like authors cannot give exclusive rights to one person/few people only...

[DaSquade]

NoRailgunner, if you look at it differently it is perfect clear (at least to me).
cc-by-nc-nd: don't fuck with the files (even if you CAN).
cc-by-nc-sa: feel free to use my hard work, but show respect and tribute me in the readme.

At least that is how i see it and feel free to correct me.
It is up to the addonmaker to take a stop and think twice before attaching his license. In the end it is about the principle and idea behind it. In the same line i think the person that alters someones work that allow it due to the license, should aswell follow that line and use the simular license (that was the idea behind "ATTN: Addon Makers - Rules of content permissions" JdB mentioned).

By the way, i totally agree with JdB without stricking everybody over the same brush (dutch speeking) and that is the idea BIS is aiming for 'within the community'.
What happens outside the community is sadly the freedome of the net and civilisation.

As to your question about 'exclusive rights'....well maybe that is sometimes the case why people start taking the wrong road. In the end the real author does what he wants (as he owns the IP of his work no mather what).

[Miles Teg]

Well the way I see it is that Priority #1 for BI must be towards protecting their own interests. What I see as most dangerous to those interests is the practice of hacking their binarized .p3ds which can then potentially be used by other game communities with no licensing. In other words it benefits other software companies while offering zero return to BI. The good news is that, from what I can tell, I don't think this has happened so it's only a very minor threat.
What I hope is that as BI clarifies its licensing agreements, that it will focus on providing examples of proper crediting/licensing information that we should include in our addons (if based on BI work). I also hope that they will consider how the modifications of BI material benefits not just the community, but also the revenues of their company as a healthy mod community will attract new sales potentially for many years just as Operation Flashpoint did.
Even today there is still a vibrant hardcore little OFP community with older computers or people who just enjoy the THOUSANDS of outstanding addons and mods for that game.

In contrast compare BI to Novalogic who at one time was one of the main competitors in realistic first person tactical shooters. They had the potential of surpassing BI and in many ways were far ahead of their time, but they failed to capitalize on what they had in part because of extremely poor support for their mod making community. Hence their nickname "No-Logic" by the old "Delta Force" community that I originally came from before coming to the Operation Flashpoint community back even before the demo was released. Eventually games like ArmA and BF2 left the Novalogic games (Joint Operations, etc...) in the dust as far as sales, name recognition, and popularity. So essentially what I am saying is that it is an example to BI of the what happens when a game lacks a strong mod/player community that can sustain it in the face of stiff competition from similar games by other companies.

I have to say that for me, my loyalty to the BI company comes from their excellent mod community support. I have been there from the very beginning in the old OFP demo days and one of my Mod team members (Uziyahu) even helped with the sound effects for OFP. So BI is like family to me and I hope they always maintain that sense of family that maintains a very hardcore and loyal following that helps tremendously in marketing their software. Case in point. PC-Gamer's review of ArmA2 based upon MP gaming with the Tactical Gamer ArmA2 community (using the ACE mod which TG beta-tests). This was totally independent of BI. Yet this beautiful article was based on experiencing how ArmA2 was MEANT to be played and resulted in a surge of new players to the game. While TG is a player community, it also is closely tied with the ACE mod and a whole host of addon makers and mission makers that are all connected and working together to take the fantastic game that BI has given us and taking it to a whole other level of realism and immersion.
The other benefit of a healthy mod making community for BI is that it also allows for BI to identify and recruit the best talent from the mod making community as well as looking at how far some of these talented individuals can push the boundaries of the game engine (and looking at what works and what doesn't as well as what the community seems to want in a game).



I have no doubt that Maruk wants to see our very vibrant and awesome mod community continue to thrive and work together, but I also can understand their need for proper protections of their work and copyrights. I hope that the new upcoming clarifications will strike a good balance with clear examples of how we as addon makers should respect and acknowledge the hard work of the BI ArmA2/OA development team.

Chris G.
aka-Miles Teg<GD>
Team Leader of the Lost Brothers Mod (which as far as I know, is the oldest surviving active mod from the OFP days)

[Mr Burns]

Well the way I see it is that Priority #1 for BI must be towards protecting their own interests. What I see as most dangerous to those interests is the practice of hacking their binarized .p3ds which can then potentially be used by other game communities with no licensing. In other words it benefits other software companies while offering zero return to BI. The good news is that, from what I can tell, I don't think this has happened so it's only a very minor threat.


With only very little insight as to what BI are planning here (info in 1st post isn´t adressing any of the real questions the community has right now, but this is subject to change and getting more clarified as Dwarden pointed out), i´m only going to comment this for now: http://www.gtainside.com/download.php?do=comments&cat=358&start=0&id=26176&orderBy=

It has happened, and i´m sure it happens alot more than we as a community get to know.
In this case i support BI, sue them, make ´em bleed, do whatever is needed to protect your IP.


Anything else i might have to say (and there´s alot cooking) needs to wait until further details are available.

[Miles Teg]

Ooof...ouch I guess I was wrong. The ODOL hackers I guess have been distributing it in other games. Usually they are not stupid enough to say where they got it from though. I agree they deserve at a minimum letters to all parties involved in releasing and distributing that addon and then a lawsuit if they continue distributing such copyrighted material.
I know other companies like the LucasFilms people go after unlicensed Star Wars mods ferociously... one reason why none of those old Star Wars mods ever got released past a few addons. Once LucasFilms gets wind of their Intellectual Property being used unlicensed, the letters from their lawyers start getting issued and the problem usually stops right there.
Same deal with the WarHammer 40K stuff. That's not even about models or textures but just basic ideas, designs, and themes.

[[GLT] Legislator]

Interesting matter ... I really hope this topic is not going into a bad direction. While I agree that BIS content must be protected, I fear for the modding community. Giving credits / asking for permission is must-have for every modder, I agree on that one. Using BIS content outside of A1, A2, AO is forbidden, I agee on that one too. I wouldn't even allow backward porting from AO to A1 for example.

But what about forward porting? What about updating old BIS content by the community and requiring the latest BIS game? What about changing config values? What about changing textures, missions and sounds?

[Miles Teg]

Yeah. I'm pretty sure the BI decision makers will make the right decision on this issue. If they don't.. well 80% of the mod community will likely disappear overnight and take their talent to other games. That would be very sad. What I fear is that some at BI may argue that this is the way to weed out the newbies and keep only the top addon makers who make everything from scratch. If so then... that could possibly be the end of my mod after all these years of being loyal to BI as we are heavily dependent on retextured BI addons. It would be very sad. But again... I seriously doubt anything draconian is going to be decided. That's not how BI has handled things in the past. What I hope is that we will just have guidelines for including BI copyright information and credits if we retexture any of their work while the modification of ArmA2 and OA ODOLS would require direct permission from BI and conditions (or simply not be allowed). I think that would be a fair and common sense solution without getting bogged down in legalistic lawyer talk. But then again what seems fair to us may not seem fair to the BI design team. I hope that ultimately, egos can be put aside and the focus can be put on what is best for BI's financial growth and whether stopping the usage of BI ArmA2/OA material will benefit or harm BI's financial growth in terms of sales of ArmA2, OA, and future addon packs (like their British military pack).
My opinion is that any harsh measures would have a very negative impact on projected sales of their products. Furthermore the addon makers who would leave the community would likely never go back to supporting any future BI product. Hence the reason for (I hope) a balanced and logical approach to dealing with the issue.

Chris G.
aka-Miles Teg<GD>
Team Leader for the Lost Brothers Mod Team

[Feint]

Ahh, how great would the world be if there weren't any thieves (or lawyers). But seriously, the Grand Theft Auto community is a perfect example of an uncontrolled group of people who hack anything and put it into their games. I saw the Littlebirds from Modern Warfare 2 in GTA4 a few weeks after that game's release.

It's an interesting topic. I think there's also the consideration of what is legal in terms of international law and what is enforcable. I think many of the GTA people think, "I know this is probably illegal, but until the FBI bangs down my door, or I get banned, I'll keep doing it." That's not an excuse, but...well think of it this way: Superpowers have been stealing technology (http://www.popularmechanics.com/technology/military/news/3319656) from each other for years in order to make money or gain a military advantage. We've all seen the similarities between Chinese and American Hummers, Soviet and American aircraft, etc. And then a game maker comes along and has to license those designs from both parties (the original, and the stolen) so that they can have fun and make money. Then mod makers come along and modify those models and textures for free and THEY are accused of misuse of that property. This accusation comes along mainly because a lawyer can say that it's stealing because the modmakers are sidestepping the royalty-paying step.

But the day that John Carmack released the first "demonstration" version of his game Doom, everything changed. Words like shareware had to be invented. A new world was created based on popular opinion. For the first time, a game could become more popular because a limited version of it was free and sales would increase more than they would if the game never had a demo version. BIS hopped on board and allowed players to modify their game helping to create and further the world of mod-makers and helping to spark the talent, creativity and imagination of millions. I think that since these events, the old definitions of "stealing" and "fair use" need to be updated. The GTA community is a great example of creativity, but also a great example of where we don't want the ArmA community to go. I personally think the ArmA community is very fair-minded and professional (mainly because of the example set by some great moderators and site owners) and we are just a few steps away from a mutually beneficial arrangement between BI, modmakers and legal license holders.

[[APS]Gnat]

Great thoughts guys. Very interesting points of view.
BIS's Huey in GTA is a bit of a shock.
But it does prove a point I made elsewhere, there is ALWAYS a risk of ODOL hacking before any "public" tool.
It shouldn't be "OMG, someone might be able to open my addon now, shit! No more stuff is coming from me now"
.... close to paranoia and fear mongering.
No, I am not refering to people who need to manage their own 3rd party copyright for their models. If youre selling models elsewhere, you can expect completely different issues to deal with, not typical of what most of us have to deal with. Lets be clear who we're talking about. The community contains "free" addon contributers (majority) and those who mix in a bit of Commercial.

And lets face it, the OFP community didn't implode when a tool was released. Lot of heated views, but the community still moved forward.

My policy is I'm not making any posts etc that might allow any non-ArmA community member easily track down any tool that might allow ODOL hacking.
The less that is said, the lower the instances of BIS or User models being hacked.


The GTA community is a great example of creativity, but also a great example of where we don't want the ArmA community to go. I personally think the ArmA community is very fair-minded and professional (mainly because of the example set by some great moderators and site owners) and we are just a few steps away from a mutually beneficial arrangement between BI, modmakers and legal license holders.
Agree.


Using BIS content outside of A1, A2, AO is forbidden, I agee on that one too.
Agree, for the comminity, and only the community.
It might be hard for BIS to hammer 3rd parties who hack User addons (to either sell or use in another game), because they can't be expected to have confidence that the model was 100% the Users own,
But they should hammer (or at least try, to Feint point about "only when the FBI knocks") 3rd parties outside the Community for their own models.

[Darkhorse 1-6]

The AH-1Z is also on that site, and I reported 6-7 models that were ripped from AII and put on turbosquid a couple months ago. Those have since been removed.

[Placebo]

I reported 6-7 models that were ripped from AII and put on turbosquid a couple months ago. Those have since been removed.

Since removed but they expected us to leap through numerous hoops to get them removed :(

[TRexian]

Great that BI is encouraging the discussion of the licensing issue.

As for ripping of models... that's why my models suck. Not because I'm an untalented slob of a 3d artist, but because I think the best way to prevent people from ripping them is to make them so bad that no one wants them.

Yeah... that's why.

:)

[JdB]

The best way of keeping the amount of theft of your content low is to only distribute your addons to a limited amount of people (and even that has failed with alphas and betas). Non-surprisingly, not many addonmakers choose that type of "license", though some are almost forced into either doing that, or retiring entirely. No amount of licensing will ever make everyone's problems go away, no matter if they only mod as a hobby, or semi-professionally.

[[APS]Gnat]

Since removed but they expected us to leap through numerous hoops to get them removed :(
The pricks! (both those who pinched them and the Squid for making it difficult)
But I am glad to hear BIS (and some community spotters, GJ! ) are snuffing out leaks.
Do you also pursue others? Like those in the GTA community?
The community could also help here I suspect, like all 5,600 active members spaming, er, I mean emailing the "author" at the same time, at least once a week.....

EDIT

I am guessing you are referring to xxxxx ..... ODOLExplorer had quite a few downsides .... impractical for the common thief to use.
No, I was refering to the ODOLExplorer tool. And it wasn't that "impractical". 10mins and many of the problems could be fixed. Lets face it, theives likely only want the first LOD anyway.

As I said, my policy is to keep detail of any tools (and authors) to a minimum.
I'd appeal to others to do the same

[callihn]

....All you have to do is ask for permission, and 9/10 times people will let you change their addon under a few conditions...

From my experience it's been closer to 1/3, I've asked three times and been denied twice. Out of those two times, once was to use leaked code that is already in the wild and being used already without proper permission and while giving credit to the wrong person, basicly the author came at me like I was the original theif and the second was to fix a broken addon and make it multiplayer compatible, which several people had already done without permission and without giving the author credit, I was told no I could not and they would not. The really sad part is that in both cases their refusal only helps those that are already using it without permission, since any competition would have to find another source or do it themselves from scratch.

[wld427]

I was thinking if BIS would give us a few more degraded models like they did with the soldier model, it would stop people from having to open thier odols to find out how to make stuff work propperly.

or maybee return a modders PMs every once and a while when we do ask permissions to do something.


I agree with gnat on the sniffing out issue. i think its our duty as BIS fans to help them sniff out when thier content has been stolen and elt them know.

[Miles Teg]

That's actually a very good point wld427. Placebo you might want to pass along that suggestion (if Maruk doesn't see it first) that downgraded example models would be EXTREMELY helpful. The #1 reason why people search out tools for hacking ODOLS is so that they can see an example of the PROPER way a BI addon is put together. Often, looking at configs is very confusing until you see what memory points and proxies they refer to in the model and where they are placed. The recent backpack sample tutorial someone posted is a good example of a template and I know has helpd me ALOT! Most likely however that knowledge came from looking at a OA ODOL file even if the model is their own model... either that or they did a lot of trial and error experimentation and carefully analyzed the configuration to figure out the names of memory points.
Whatever the case it helped alot of addon makers tremendously as far as learning to make custom backpacks (as BI backpacks often did not match a particular type used by a particular country or had the equipment they wanted in them as default).


As for the issue of copyrights of individual addonmakers.... PLEASE lets not go there right now. That is a seperate and MUCH more complicated topic and I advise that people concerned with that look at past posts by BI on that subject matter (which was thoroughly hashed out in the ArmA1 forums). That was a very painful and heated process and there is no need to go through all of that again.

Chris G.
aka-Miles Teg<GD>
Team Leader of the Lost Brothers Mod

[Placebo]

Gnat;1717130']The pricks! (both those who pinched them and the Squid for making it difficult)
But I am glad to hear BIS (and some community spotters, GJ! ) are snuffing out leaks.
Do you also pursue others? Like those in the GTA community?

Absolutely, any that are reported to me I'm obliged to follow up on, previously I've had dealings with the GTA and Men of War (http://www.orriekm.net/news.php?readmore=5) in particular.

[STALKERGB]

TThe recent backpack sample tutorial someone posted is a good example of a template and I know has helpd me ALOT! Most likely however that knowledge came from looking at a OA ODOL file even if the model is their own model... either that or they did a lot of trial and error experimentation and carefully analyzed the configuration to figure out the names of memory points.

Yeah my tutorial was based purely on Trial and Error information, I'd figured it out pre-ODOL tool release afaik (well I at least wasn't aware of such a tool when I worked the backpack system out).


Obviously, as has been said, the people who want to get the ODOLs hacked will do so, regardless of licenses or tools on offer and this is clearly wrong. I think at the same time there are alot of people who would only want to use them for a mod/addon in OA/ARMA2 which although goes against the EULA is meant with the best intentions in mind (with the very odd exception). I think alot of the confusion over breaking the EULA comes from the acceptance of certain things such as retexturing a unit via hex-editing, which as far as I understand technically breaks the EULA as does unbinning a BIS config/RVMAT but then not accepting other similar EULA breaking acts (such as the ODOL issue atm).

Although the models can be sold whereas configs and RVMATs couldn't really be, the policy variation probably makes it hard for some modders to know if they should be doing something. At the end of the day, all the files are property of BIS and reverse-engineering one thing shouldn't really be treated too differently from reverse-engineering another.

Hope that all made sense lol

Anyway, I'm gonna be very interested to see what BIS come up with for this, it is clearly a tricky and delicate situation for them cause its only fair they protect their own rights but I guess at the same time they wouldn't want to effect the community too much...

[BigMorgan]

If a user is clueless about what is and is not a permitted use of BIS materials in Arma 2/OA is there someone who can say "yes that's ok" and "no it is not"?

Because the risk of guessing wrong (potential forum ban and being ostracized by the community as a "thief") is so high.

Is it safe, at least, to assume that something hosted on Armaholic or AA.info is OK?

[Mr Burns]

Is it safe, at least, to assume that something hosted on Armaholic or AA.info is OK?

No.



Obviously, as has been said, the people who want to get the ODOLs hacked will do so, regardless of licenses or tools on offer and this is clearly wrong. I think at the same time there are alot of people who would only want to use them for a mod/addon in OA/ARMA2 which although goes against the EULA is meant with the best intentions in mind (with the very odd exception). I think alot of the confusion over breaking the EULA comes from the acceptance of certain things such as retexturing a unit via hex-editing, which as far as I understand technically breaks the EULA as does unbinning a BIS config/RVMAT but then not accepting other similar EULA breaking acts (such as the ODOL issue atm).

Although the models can be sold whereas configs and RVMATs couldn't really be, the policy variation probably makes it hard for some modders to know if they should be doing something. At the end of the day, all the files are property of BIS and reverse-engineering one thing shouldn't really be treated too differently from reverse-engineering another.

Hope that all made sense lol

Anyway, I'm gonna be very interested to see what BIS come up with for this, it is clearly a tricky and delicate situation for them cause its only fair they protect their own rights but I guess at the same time they wouldn't want to effect the community too much...


More truth has never been spoken before. I fear teh forums are gonna implode after this, so be assured that i agree on every single word of STALKERGB's statement. There´s nothing else to say *implosion*

[Placebo]

Is it safe, at least, to assume that something hosted on Armaholic or AA.info is OK?


No.

It is safe to say however that Foxhound and Old Bear are extremely conscientious and especially concerned about respecting the copyrights and permissions of BIS and addon/mod makers and if something on AA.info/Armaholic is found to be a bit "naughty" they will remove it as soon as they learn of the problem. I chat to them both regular on MSN and they're as fine an example of community leaders as I've come across in the 9 and a bit years I've been doing this (I'd have included Cervo in that list but he went all girly and retired because he had a baby, hire a nanny you cheapskate ;))

[Mr Burns]

It is safe to say however that Foxhound and Old Bear are extremely conscientious and especially concerned about respecting the copyrights and permissions of BIS and addon/mod makers and if something on AA.info/Armaholic is found to be a bit "naughty" they will remove it as soon as they learn of the problem. I chat to them both regular on MSN and they're as fine an example of community leaders as I've come across in the 9 and a bit years I've been doing this (I'd have included Cervo in that list but he went all girly and retired because he had a baby, hire a nanny you cheapskate ;))

hehe, poor Cervo! And mostly the same goes for that partly forgotten and rebel´ish german page. But even though being very conscientious about legal matters & authors rights, it took us one real (and expensive) lawsuit with the MGM/Stargate thingie back in the OFP days to learn that even though if you think everthings ok, it still might be fishy to others. That´s all i wanted to say with the "no" part, didn´t want to imply arma.ingo & armaholic are bad pages http://forum.trillian-deutsch.de/images/smilies/trillian/yahoo/trillian-209-yeah.gif

[Big Mac]

Just one question. Why is it all of a sudden you people are getting so hyped up about this crap? Back in the OFP days and even ArmA1 you didn't care and further more the modding community is what made OFP a game still played still to this day.

I believe you people are using copyright against the modding community when in fact copyright is to protect your content from people stealing your content for use in their own game to turn a profit and as far as I know no addon maker has made a dime off their work while you people rake in the bucks off both yours and theirs.

[R0adki11]

I understand the issue about having rights etc, but i would like BIS to give use a proper to statement to say what is allowed etc. And i completely understand why BIS needs to protect its content in its games from theft etc. But please don't kill off this great community by restricting us what we cant do.

When i have done Graphic design works i normally have used the Creative Commons licensing and used either:

cc by-nc

or

cc by-nc-sa

Though at the moment if im unable to Hex edit or use hidden selections to change your current own game content to add new skins etc, which current all my addOns are at the moment, hen all my current addOns may as well be put in the recycle bin.

Yours a faithful addon maker, making addons since OFP.

[Darkhorse 1-6]

What the community needs, is a yes or no on a few things, the other, more complicated things could be addressed later, but currently the issues that are causing confusion are these 2.

#1 - Is Hex-Editing ArmA II/OA Models allowed, as long as the proper credits are given and as long as it is for the game it is in, and not any other?

#2 - Is Re-texturing BIS models allowed, if the model uses Hiddenselections, it's made clear it's a retexture, and proper permissions are given?

[W0lle]

There will be answers, in the meantime please stop acting as if BIS has removed the modding tools from your hard drive and forbids all future modding.

In the meantime all comments which attack BIS (for no reason) and remarks like "DLC rules" will be removed. If that doesn't help we have other ways to cool you down. Please don't force us to use them. ;)

[[APS]Gnat]

All the respect in the world to BIS and the way they have managed their games and community for so long.

hmmmm ..... which triggers a thought.
Is BIS having to clarify this now (after years of letting it slide, in a good way) because of DLC ..... ?
DLC may not be BIS's own content / IP, so the "rules" the community has used to-date may be NOT what the new DLC/IP creators want. Sort of understandable.
Similar situation to the Queens Gambit stuff never having its mlods released.

@<hidden> Mac
FYI, there are a few community members who also produce commercial content, but obviously their generous free community addons dont make them a cent, in theory.

[Big Mac]

There will be answers, in the meantime please stop acting as if BIS has removed the modding tools from your hard drive and forbids all future modding.

In the meantime all comments which attack BIS (for no reason) and remarks like "DLC rules" will be removed. If that doesn't help we have other ways to cool you down. Please don't force us to use them. ;)If my blunt question and statement was taken as an attack it was not my intention. I only wish to see this whole ordeal come to an end with a solution that is mutually beneficial for both BIS and the modding community.


@<hidden> Mac
FYI, there are a few community members who also produce commercial content, but obviously their generous free community addons dont make them a cent, in theory. That I did not know, thank you for informing me.

[ProfTournesol]

@<hidden> Big Mac : please be a little patient, we have been waiting for this question to be dealt by BIS for quite a long time, now it is in the pipe, that's great. However we will very carefully follow how and where it goes.

[zyklone]

It was always interesting to correlate downloads of my GPL licensed ofptools package and then watch some guy from the same city a few days later release a tool which could magically read .PBO and .BIN.
I don't think people steal because they're evil, it's just because they're too lazy to do the right thing..

I think Mikero was the only one who ever did the right thing and opensourced depbo.dll..
The license seems to magically have disappered in the latest versions though. ;)

[T_D]

I think Mikero was the only one who ever did the right thing and opensourced depbo.dll..
The license seems to magically have disappered in the latest versions though. ;)

There is a ReadmeGeneral.txt here (http://dev-heaven.net/projects/mikero-pbodll/files) stating this:

Licence: Eula.
-------------

Source code when provided in this product is Free. You are free to use it for *any* purpose whatsoever.

main.cpp is provided as example code of how *THIS* tool interfaces to DepPbo.dll

IT SERVES NO OTHER PURPOSE.



the dll is supplied with a .lib for those developers wishing to access the api via (say) visual basic.

It, the lib, has no other purpose and is not necessary for a 'user' to install anywhere

[Cotala Studios]

I am very glad I read this thread. It really cleared up a lot of questions I had. I still feel bad for some of these mods such as Project RACS, simply because they worked on it for 3 years, and their intentions were nothing but good, however, I understand that BIS has to protect its own interests. I just hope this doesn't discourage modders from starting such projects as RACS in the future.

[Inkompetent]

I am very glad I read this thread. It really cleared up a lot of questions I had. I still feel bad for some of these mods such as Project RACS, simply because they worked on it for 3 years, and their intentions were nothing but good, however, I understand that BIS has to protect its own interests. I just hope this doesn't discourage modders from starting such projects as RACS in the future.

Well, at the same time no decision has been made about anything. Rather just informed that licenses is a hot topic at BIS at the moment, and that we're bound to see a formal license-policy sometime soon.

It's not likely anything will change (much) considering BIS's own content used exclusively for mods in their own games, since that's such a big part of the addon community. It'd be like shooting themselves in the knee with a shotgun if they screwed that part of the addon-making community, and they are very aware of that.

I wouldn't be worried about PRACS. On the other hand I think it is good that more people are getting their eyes opened for licenses, both for addon- and mission-makers and users. :)

[[FRL]Myke]

It'd be like shooting themselves in the knee with a shotgun if they screwed that part of the addon-making community, and they are very aware of that.

Are they? They are that aware that BIWIKI pages are updated almost on a daily basis. And i don't even speak of MLODs as those are a special case but the various config references. Almost everything is incomplete and/or outdated.

Although i know that they are pretty busy, i doubt it would hurt when some of the developers would spend one hour per week to update BIWIKI reference pages.
And don't argue with "everyone can participate" as there are things that only a developer can know for sure how certain things work and influence the game.

But going OT, sorry. I'm just not as sure about how much BIS really cares about the mod community. This leads back to topic: BIS don't get a dime with user made british stuff but they can get more than a dime if they sell a british DLC.
So honestly, how interested would you be to support modders that probably can deliver the same content in equal or even superior quality that you try to sell?

[Inkompetent]

BIS has the advantage of being able to spend 100% of their affected devs' time on making the DLC. They don't have another day job to take care of first, then do the moddeling in their spare time. They can make more stuff and make it better and in a shorter time than almost any community addon-maker can, and they have the benefit of fully understanding the tech in the game.

The thing they can do, and seems like they are doing, is to do even more than the community can keep up with, like the thing with even giving a new map with the British DLC pack. It's quite a lot of incentive that not really any addon-making group can compete with.

On the other hand I don't know how BIS economy looks, so might be that they want to limit addons in some ways.

Still, I'm quite sure they'll (even if not supplying us with MLODs) keep supporting their addon community, and simply attempt to out-do it with all their DLC, bringing 'superior choices' with a lot of stuff in one pack.

[[FRL]Myke]

BIS has the advantage of being able to spend 100% of their affected devs' time on making the DLC. They don't have another day job to take care of first, then do the moddeling in their spare time. They can make more stuff and make it better and in a shorter time than almost any community addon-maker can, and they have the benefit of fully understanding the tech in the game.


Agree but on the other side, community addon makers have one great advantage against BIS (or any other game developer for that matter): no deadline.
This limits the amount of details and effort that can be put into a single object as it has to be done within a certain time span while a community addonmaker can fiddle and polish it until it fits his needs.
So on the long run, community addons will overpass BIS content while BIS can release new content in shorter time.

[STALKERGB]

The BIS DLC can also keep things simple for users, rather than needing to go get 7 or 8 different addons to play as the brits you can just use the DLC which is one single download and forget package. Modders are hard pressed to do something similar as its often hard to get a similar sized package put together between different mod teams.

And BIS content is always gonna be a high quality so users aren't gonna hesitate to get hold of it but with mods the quality is an unkown until you use it really.

Anyway, I think BIS will continue to support the community, I don't think its in their interest to cut off support or anything like that.

EDIT: To reply to Myke's post, yeah modders have the ability to, for example, stay more up to date with equipment ect on their infantry/tanks/planes or whatever but thats possibly where both DLC and addons can co-exist, I'll cite my own units as an example. The infantry in the DLC are wearing slightly older body armour compared to my infantry so both sets portray slightly different time periods rather than both being examples of a brit soldier from say, 2008. So rather than them conflicting they actually complement each other as the user may wish to use one set for a particular mission then the others in a seperate one.

[W0lle]

No one ever said that BIS will cease to support the community, or even the modding. I really don't know how someone can come to that conclusion just because the initial post is about CC licenses.

And please, can we leave the DLC discussion out here as it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about licensing addon, mods or missions.
Focus on the purpose of this thread and not on rumors made by others. :)

This whole "BIS gonna release DLC and hence it will stop the modding" makes me just

http://armaholic.eu/wolle/stuff/facepalm.jpg

[[FRL]Myke]

No one ever said that BIS will cease to support the community, or even the modding. I really don't know how someone can come to that conclusion just because the initial post is about CC licenses.

And please, can we leave the DLC discussion out here as it has absolutely nothing to do with the discussion about licensing addon, mods or missions.
Focus on the purpose of this thread and not on rumors made by others. :)

This whole "BIS gonna release DLC and hence it will stop the modding" makes me just

*removed link to popular facepalm image by quoter*

Well, a good way to stop rumours is to present facts. Until then, guesswork probably will continue. I'm sure you're well aware how disconcerted a lot of people are. Take wld427 and P:RACS just to name one popular mod. So far, BIS said something vague like "might be that some of you probably are working/have released addons that possibly might conflict with our EULA in one way or another".
How should we threat this? No concrete info is given so far.

Let's bring it to the point: reverse engineering is not allowed. So far so good.
Addons require a config.cpp. Actual references to configs on the BIWIKI is vague if not even incorrect or simply missing.
So to create addons (not talking about retex or any other BIS MLOD's, say from Armed Assault) one would know what should be in a config and which value does what ingame.
How could one learn this? Right be-PBO BIS addons and unbinarize configs...which is ...not reverse engineering in a mild form?

Or how about retexturing? Usinf BIS textures as a base would conflict with copyright issue as they are property of BIS. But how should a retexture be done else? Did BIS released UV map templates for it? Or how should one make a new texture fit to the model if not by taking BIS textures as a template?

Too many open questions and possible issues which leave a concerned community behind.

So please, get this topic sorted asap since this does cause headache to a big part of the community.


Thats where i see the place for...
http://i79.photobucket.com/albums/j137/chevalier_tialys/1267812378477.jpg

[[APS]Gnat]

+1 to Mykes questions.
These are THE questions, if thats what Maruk was trying to create discussion on ......

But after re-reading over and over Maruk first post ...... I'm not convinced that while he talking about Addon maker licenses, he's really also talking about BIS's own licenses
....... or he's trying to talk about both :(
Obviously they can be / are linked, in many small innocuous ways, as Myke suggests.

Its a Parent-Child relationship us addon makers have with BIS. We children wait for a little more parenting before we devolve to our evil ways, again.

[Cotala Studios]

+1 to mykes questions.

I think that giving all of the fancy terms and stuff for the liscenses is great and all, and many probably understand the fine print, but it would be nice if BIS could come out and say "You can do x, but you cannot do y"

[PuFu]

Myke hit the nail on the head..
Without proper documentation on biki, or other places, without a lineup of example MLODs similar to the Soldier Sample (i am personally missing other creatures such as dogs etc together with their bones, backpacks, etc), an addon maker will always hit some walls, and while this is done as a hobby, and no one forces it upon us, it is hard to hit the sack after you have spent countless hours working on a model, config, etc just because there is just not enough info around.

I guess what so far has been looked over by moderators and developers, needs to be clarified one way or the other. And if the answer is: you are not allowed to reverse engineer anything from configs to models, how can the lack of information be sorted out in a manner that will allow the community to continue work without needing to unpbo and unbinarize configs, rvmats etc..

[Cotala Studios]

This is probably a dumb idea, feel free to shoot me down if it is, but how about BIS does 2 things.
1) release proper documentation on addon making
2) release a sort of 'bikey encoder' that EVERY addon maker must use in order to release their addon. This would make it so that the addon maker makes the addon, encodes the addon, distributes it, and only BIS has a copy of the unencoder.

or

somehow make it so that for retextures for example, the afore stated encoder is used on the AddOn itself, and the .paa is left unlocked.

or

finally, BIS could make a 'mission editor kit', that gives example models, completely unlocked, with a 'no commercial open source' liscense, that shows pretty much the essentials of creating an AddOn, but none of the goodies that make it a 'BIS' addon, and then make it so that all official addons that come with the game are completely unviewable.

Personally, i think the last idea is the best option, however this would be rather difficult to emplement, at least not without a massive patch that replaces every file in the game.

[[APS]Gnat]

Good ideas in some ways, but as soon as you start restricting the ability to learn from other peoples work then the community that has been around since OFP is at a high risk of drying up.
Sure, people could offer parts of their configs and scripts as learning material for newbies etc, but if ALL content is locked in a PBO, then its not so easy.

My general idealism;
Missions: If I make a mission, people can play with it, learn from it, release a variation anytime. Just a credit expected.
Scripts: If I make a script, people can play with it, learn from it, release a variation anytime. Just a credit expected.
Configs: If I make a Config, people can play with it, learn from it, release a variation anytime. Just a credit expected.
RVMATS: If I make a rvmat, people can play with it, learn from it, release a variation anytime. Just a credit expected.
Textures: If I make a texture, people can play with it, learn from it, release a variation anytime. Just a credit expected.
Sounds: If I make a Sounds, people can play with it, learn from it, release a variation anytime. Just a credit expected.
3d model: If I make a 3d model, people need to ask permission. Permission may be granted on the basis of intent of use.

Basis for all above;
- Non Military use only. I do not support my stuff being used in the commerical military product from BIS licencees
- 3d models is restricted because its one of the few things people can actually abuse and make money from.

[Defunkt]

I don't see that the time 3D artists invest in making a model should be any more protected than the time a mission maker invests in their endeavours. If the model is being sold (outside of this community) without permission that's a separate issue with its own redress and no more or less likely to happen because of the license it was released with here within the community.

[Tankbuster]

You've answered your own question. Isn't it because the model can be used outside the game, but the missions can't?
The problem has been that the redress you mention has never been used. As Maruk said earlier, just because you can technically do something and someone has made software to make it easy, that doesn't make it right.

---------- Post added at 09:04 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:00 AM ----------

It seems to me some kind of developer network administered by BIS is required. Bringing the content creators a little closer to the developer would enable increased IP security, while allowing for a limited release of better tools and potentially, improved training and knowledge sharing.

+1 for Cotala's point on documentation. The existing stuff is just laughable.

[Defunkt]

I didn't actually ask a question. You either respect IP or you don't, it's got nothing to do with how you or others value the property, its value is for the owner to decide.

[Tankbuster]

Oh I see. Yes, I agree completely.

[[APS]Gnat]

And some missions can take FAR more hours of development that a 3d model, but the way I feel seems to be similar to most Mission makers of the years (OFP/ArmA, huge or small missions), the majority are usually happy if another expresses genuine interest in a modified re-release.

Yes, +1 "its value is for the owner to decide"
Yes, +1 Tankbuster on the "Creators Network" idea.

[Inkompetent]

That's true, Gnat. The mission-maker community seems quite open about sharing. But it still doesn't mean they should be less respected license-wise. Just so happens to be that they seem to generally prefer the open kinds of licensing as of yet :)

[Tankbuster]

At a purely materialistic level, it would seem odd that model makers are more parental about their productions that, for example, mission makers. Back in the real world of course, it's plain and obvious.

Mission making may take longer than a model, but there are many more mission makers than there are model makers, partly because mission making is easier because we are given most of the tools straight away. However, there's much more to an addon than the model.

[[APS]Gnat]

However, there's much more to an addon than the model.

Sure, but "back in the real world" no ones ever likely to make cash from your hard work on a mission, but after a bunch of hard work on a 3d object some prick may rip it, call it his own, and make nice little cash wad out of it.
My "hobby" is free for this community, but not for a minute do I consider it "free for the world".

[TRexian]

Gnat;1723897']
My "hobby" is free for this community, but not for a minute do I consider it "free for the world".

+1

On a related note, I am near to a humble release of my own - a mines/IEDs package. My impression is that BI would like to make a somewhat formal structure for community licenses? Would there be someone within BI management to contact as a liaison regarding beginning to implement such a structure? I'd be very willing to take a step down that road by incorporating a Creative Commons license in my upcoming release.



Mission making may take longer than a model, but there are many more mission makers than there are model makers, partly because mission making is easier because we are given most of the tools straight away. However, there's much more to an addon than the model.


I think part of that is because mission makers may not be as familiar with IP rights as modelers, partly because it is not as clear cut. If you regard a mission as a "story," there may indeed be some IP rights that attach to it as a creative work. Personally, I'd encourage mission-makers to seriously consider using such a license, also. Otherwise, they could see one of their "stories" appear in a commercial product. ;)

[Tankbuster]

Mission making may take longer than a model, but there are many more mission makers than there are model makers, partly because mission making is easier because we are given most of the tools straight away. However, there's much more to an addon than the model.

Righty, it seems I've been, in roughly equal quantities, talking bollocks and misunderstood.

In conversation with a mod maker, I understood that making the model, ie, the basic grey object, was a quick and straightforward process and formed a minor part of the whole addon creation process. However, I misunderstood what said mod maker was telling me and I now appreciate and understand that this part of addon making is rather longer than I thought.

My comments above should be reappraised in light of my now better understanding the creative process better.

Thanks. :)

[TRexian]

hehe

Very mature post! :) Good on you!

For me, I kinda have a foot in both worlds - I enjoy making missions, and mods. They are just different. Kinda like the difference between decorating using art, and actually making the art.

But I have to quarrel a bit with this:


... making the model, ie, the basic grey object, was a quick and straightforward process...


Whoever said that has never seen me try to model. ;)

[Bossgator]

What a thread for me to make my first post, being such a volitile topic. But I figured maybe an outside perspective might a bit less subjective.

I'm looking to get back into the modding scene after nearly 4 years out of it, and I returned to my old game, BF2 dare I say. And sure enough, the community really hasn't changed other than to dwindle, due to a lack of support from the makers, and so far no prospects of a new editor.

Then recently a fellow clan member mentioned ArmA and Project Reality. Though Ii had played PR a little years ago, I wasn't really familiar with ArmA. Never gave it a second look because in 2006 I was basically happy with the gameplay of BF2 and really wasn't looking at playing anything else because I had not found a FPS with the game style I liked, and I'm surely not into the "run around with your hair on fire lone wolf" style of some certain games I think we all know.

So, I go take a look at ArmA really for the first time. Right out of the box folks, I stand and applaud your community from what I see so far. Looks very professional and people seem to actually reply to questions with answers rather than some nasty comment about using a search function. Very refreshing. Isn't a forum suppose to be for people helping people and generally interacting on a given topic to make something that anyone can enjoy? I mean seriously, Where else does a person get sincere questions answered if the active people in a forum badger people for bring up old topics and threads? MAYBE they should reorganize their forums, and maybe update tutorials and such. Just a thought.

So I digress, but that is partly why I'm now stepping into the world of ArmA for the first time, and considering it as the game to mod for to replace the Battlefield series.

About ArmA, it looks great from what I've seen in the photo thread. And there seems to be decent info in the forums too. The solutions found in the forums reflects what the community is like. Better answers means more people actually care about doing things right as reflected in this very thread.

Having BA in Digital Animation/Multimedia(modeler/texture artist, though I think I should have focused on level design instead), I can fully relate to the thread topic. And as I have read this thread, the moral of the story has slowly evolved down to one certain fact; If BI wants to protect their assets, they must maintain control over the entire situation. Once you toss stuff out there on the internet, it's very tough to keep it close to the vest, that's just an unfortunate fact. So what do we do?

For BI, it seems to me that like one person said, get closer control of modders and manage them closer. They also must acknowledge that they can't release stuff and keep it all protected fully. Some will get out at times, so the thing would be to not try to block the implementation of said assets, but rather implement a restrictive process of those assets operating on a given server. Sitting at home using stolen assets in a single player has it's limits. People want to game online with friends, and that is where those assets will be used most, in multiplayer mods.

So the protection I think should be focused on the end use side, and not as much on the development side. Coders figure things out. That's what they do fortunately. If they didn't, none of us would enjoy video games. Just block the use of a given mod from running on servers that are BI-approved servers. If the mod passes a kind of BI inspection, then it can be released by the approved mod team to be placed on approved BI servers.

Ultimately, BI and other game companies need to ask themselves just how serious they want to be about allowing mods, maps, and custom content to be used with their base game structure. I think a company must be either fully commtted, or fully out of modding completely.

An approval process in some way will have to exist to begin to get things under some kind of content use control. Having license documentation is only part of it. You must exercise that license for it to mean anything. That goes for anyone that creates original content of any type. That in my opinion is the burden of being original.

[JdB]

Looks very professional and people seem to actually reply to questions with answers rather than some nasty comment about using a search function.

And 4 paragraphs about control of addonmakers by BIS

That happens here too, just because we are friendlier here doesn't mean we go through the trouble to dig up what has been written a thousand times before, or write it down again, just because someone can't be bothered to search for it himself ;)

About the last 4 paragraphs, when BIS first released tools for modeling in OFP, they only gave it to people that showed talent, and sent them a certificate of sorts with an access code to use it. They did control access more closely before, but I'm not sure there are that many good ways to do it again. It wasn't until they stopped the limited distribution, and opened the program up to everyone, that the modding of OFP really took off in a massive way. Any kind of access control would mostly trouble new addonmakers, it wouldn't stop thieves.

[[APS]Gnat]

Right out of the box folks, I stand and applaud your community from what I see so far. Looks very professional and people seem to actually reply to questions with answers rather than some nasty comment about using a search function. Very refreshing.
Welcome to our little corner of the world. Thanks for the comments.



Just block the use of a given mod from running on servers that are BI-approved servers. If the mod passes a kind of BI inspection, then it can be released by the approved mod team to be placed on approved BI servers.
No, sorry, I have to disagree.
There are many reasons this is not the "BIS Success Formula", especially because it flys in the face of how large OFP and ArmA grew (and grows!) from a Indi developer, with a huge fanbased free addons community.
..... and it would create Elitism.
Hate, Hate, Hate those who lock themselves away, pretend they are the leaders and hord any new knowledge.
The Open community formula (as seen in these forums), is open for all to start an addon or a mod, open to start a server, open to help others.
No strings attached.


I think a company must be either fully commtted, or fully out of modding completely.
No, I think BIS truely proved you can run down the middle of that.
Sure, its not all roses, but to date (7+ years !! ) its worked well.

[Bossgator]

Hate, Hate, Hate those who lock themselves away, pretend they are the leaders and hord any new knowledge.
The Open community formula (as seen in these forums), is open for all to start an addon or a mod, open to start a server, open to help others.
No strings attached.

I hear ya. I don't advocate elitism for sure. openness is a good thing as it really does take a team effort to get things done. But at the same time, restricting the use of something could be construed as a form of elitism. But in this case it's just protecting property rights and thus restrictions and limitations are warranted. The key is in how you exercise those restrictions.

The more open your front door is, the greater the chance of a fly getting in.;)

[NoRailgunner]

Just block the use of a given mod from running on servers that are BI-approved servers. If the mod passes a kind of BI inspection, then it can be released by the approved mod team to be placed on approved BI servers.
#1 sounds like a concept of some greedy managers/beancounters to grab ideas and to keep this content "out of sight" from public mp until its announced as paid Boosterpack/DLC/...
#2 sounds like console marketing - community made content is very restricted or not allowed to make + use by developers/publishers.
#3 sounds like BIS has to burn time & money - only to "approve" the work and the changes made by modders/scripters.

A fly, Sir, may sting a stately horse and make him wince; but, one is but an insect, and the other is a horse still. (Samuel Johnson) ;)

[Tankbuster]

. (Samuel Johnson) ;)

He'd have felt right at home here, with his tics, depression and Tourettes Syndrome.

[-Martin-]

After reading those licences I'm confused as hell, I don't even know what this topic is about properly and how it should affect me when I release my island :crazy:

What type of license do I use, where do I put it WTF? Where are the good old days that made our community so big, just make an add-on, write a disclaimer in the read me and that's it!

So I made an island, I used BIS textures for the sat map and so on. I used some BIS buildings and also ported some over from AmrA 1 and OFP. I also used some of my own buildings with BIS textures. So am I breaking some licence here?

Why cant BIS just write a small list clearly saying what we can do and what we cant instead of using some complicated license system?

One thing I know is that if BIS restricts even one thing for us that we cant mod e.g. re-texturing their units the community will grow smaller and smaller until it disappears. Its bad enough not being able to look at the ArmA 2 MLOD's for help when you need to. BIS needs to think about how important the community is to them and even about their place in the video game industry because so far not many people even know about them :p

[Maruk]

If you are confused by CC types of licenses, it is a bit worrying as I did not manage to find any licenses better prepared and easier to understand...

Also, I believe I made it very clear what this thread is about: Why licenses do matter, and what type of licenses in general are used by people releasing their creative work under various types of open licenses for which I used well established Creative Commons as an example.


After reading those licences I'm confused as hell, I don't even know what this topic is about properly and how it should affect me when I release my island :crazy:

[-Martin-]

If you are confused by CC types of licenses, it is a bit worrying as I did not manage to find any licenses better prepared and easier to understand...

Also, I believe I made it very clear what this thread is about: Why licenses do matter, and what type of licenses in general are used by people releasing their creative work under various types of open licenses for which I used well established Creative Commons as an example.

Well if its me who creates the island I don't have to choose a CC license or do I? Because basically my island consists of BIS material which I used under the BIS EULA so anyone who wants to use that is also subject to the EULA, I don't give any permissions because its not my property.

For my material that I have crated I will give permission to anyone to use it for learning, creating their own addons or using it on their island etc... I don't mind, but if they want to use it in another game they have to contact me first.

So I guess the only thing I have to do is write this in to the read me file:


You are free to use my island for learning or creating your own island, all BIS models are subject to the ArmA 2 EULA, if you wish to use my models outside of BIS games, contact me first!

Right?

What we need from BIS is a basic list of thing that we can do, not being dumped on to a long EULA. Something like this:


1) You are allowed to use OFP and ArmA 1 models/textures in ArmA2 but not allowed to use ArmA 2 models in any older game.

2) You are not allowed to extract models which have not been release by BIS in MLOD format

3) You are not allowed to use BIS models/extures in any other game etc...

That's what I call supporting the community which will in return support you back! :smile:

Just make a list and put it in to a thread for example "Permissions to use BIS material for addon makers" Put links to the MLOD models that have been released there and that's it. Then there will no longer be any confusion if people can use that or if they can use that etc...

[STALKERGB]

Just make a list and put it in to a thread for example "Permissions to use BIS material for addon makers" Put links to the MLOD models that have been released there and that's it. Then there will no longer be any confusion if people can use that or if they can use that etc...

But in there lies some of the confusion, for example, why is it ok to reverse engineer a texture or a config but not a model? BIS will need something that covers all bases rather than have different rules for different parts of an addon. I guess thats part of what they are working out at the moment...

@<hidden>, hope Gamescom went well :)

[[APS]Gnat]

Also, I believe I made it very clear what this thread is about: Why licenses do matter, and what type of licenses in general are used by people releasing their creative work under various types of open licenses for which I used well established Creative Commons as an example.

Sorry Maruk, I don't believe you've made it clear at all.
We understand how these licences work with OUR material, what we don't understand is how it works/how you want it to work with YOUR material.
Its unclear if your trying to change the direction of the community when it comes to using BIS's material, or just our own material ..........

Trying to get to your primary reason for the first post;
Is your post not really about BIS's materials & licences directly, your post was to give addon makers a better source of guidelines or license "options" for addon makers OWN material?

If thats the case, can we then assume BIS has no new issues with their provided materials/licenses/EULA and the community typical use of such, and nothing significant needs to change about what the majority of addon makers have been doing over the years with BIS material?

[TRexian]

Ditto to Gnat's post.

I have additional questions.

I've noticed that there seemed to be an uptick over the summer in allegations of somebody-stole-someone-else's-work (*cough* rpg addons *cough**cough*). Is part of the goal to foster more standardization among modder licenses, to make "enforcement" easier?

On a related note, will BI consider community licenses to also restrict the use of community mods in other BI* products?

[Soul_Assassin]

i think the CC license explained in the first post is in regard to addonmakers protecting their own work.

[R0adki11]

I agree with Soul Assassin, addOn makers do need to understand how to protect their own work within and outside the community. Then the other side of the coin as it were is how addOn makers are allowed to use BIS content. I.e. from MLODS, Configs, Textures etc and how an addOn maker can put an disclaimer about the sources they have used.

[Cotala Studios]

Maruk, your failure is that you fail to give yes or no answers. You just keep saying the same thing that you said in the OP. If the OP had made things clear as you claim, people wouldn't be asking questions. Just do what almost every other Q&A thread on this forum does and as people ask questions, directly answer the questions, don't blow them off and tell them to read the OP.

[[APS]Gnat]

His last post was Friday. it is of course quite likely he took the weekend off.
....we'll wait.

[-Martin-]

Well I don't think that CC licenses will help any add-on maker protect their work from being stolen. I don't really think that this happens a lot in our community, I believe that all addons should be open for everyone to see. So here is a small guide to what we as addon makers can do to protect our work.

First of all, Addon-makers want credit for their work, but the truth is many people don't really care about who makes the add-ons as long as its cool and you know, they can have some fun. I must admit that I also don't think about the guy who made the addon too much because I feel like its not only him but the whole community who gave it to me. If I wanna find out more, just read the "read me" file and I can see his name etc... :smile:

How to protect your work?

I think that the thing that we addon makers worry about so much is that nobody releases our work before us, for example I'm making and island so I wanna release it first and get the credit. To make sure nobody takes your work do this:

1) Start a thread in the BIS forums, not on some small site that nobody knows about but here, so everyone can see your addon and name.

2) Never ever ever ever and once again NEVER send any of your models or islands to anyone who wants to see them for example to learn before you release the island or addon on the BIS forums no matter how much they ask (I also got many people asking me to send them my work so they can see etc... But that's not gonna happen because once my stuff is on their computer its theirs to do what they want with it)

3) Don't send your addons for BETA testing to anyone, I mean whats the point to risk like that? Put the link here in the forums and we will test it for you and then just release the final addon.

4) Send your addon to a site like ArmedAssault.info and they will gladly place it in the news for you so everyone can see by who it is.

I believe that after the final addon has been release and I'm going to work on a another project I should leave it open to the community so others can modify it, learn from it etc... The only condition is that they put my name as the original creator. The only thing I don't want is for someone to release my addon before me and that that he made it. :smile:


On a related note, will BI consider community licenses to also restrict the use of community mods in other BI* products?

I don't think that BIS will restrict anything because we are basically their life line in the civilian video game industry but I think they just want to make some rules and tidy things up as the community grows. But I don't think that complicated stuff is the answer, we just need straight forward yes and no answers! I guess I will make a thread about how people can properly protect their addons and write a read me file about this...

[Maruk]

I provided some additional information why I started this topic here http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1715435&postcount=6 shortly after the original topic but I will try to say it again:

my intention is to establish broader understanding in the community about licenses. I also hope that better and easier to understand licenses for the official content and/or user made content can arise from this discussion to be used by BI and our community.

I posted overview of various Creative Commons licenses as they cover pretty much every possible license that is suitable to sharing copyrighted material in one form or another.




Ditto to Gnat's post.

I have additional questions.

I've noticed that there seemed to be an uptick over the summer in allegations of somebody-stole-someone-else's-work (*cough* rpg addons *cough**cough*). Is part of the goal to foster more standardization among modder licenses, to make "enforcement" easier?

On a related note, will BI consider community licenses to also restrict the use of community mods in other BI* products?

[[FRL]Myke]

So let me see if i got it right. This is primarly about licensing for addonmakers, what options they have and also how other should/can threat the respective addons. So far so good.

Remaining open questions:
- is the community still allowed to create and publish retextured units/vehicles using hiddenselections?
- is the community allowed to use BIS textures as template for above mentoined retextures?
- How about hex-editing for units that don't have prepared hiddenselections? allowed or forbidden?
- are we allowed to unbin ArmA 2/OA config files to learn about it? Basically i would consider this reverse engineering in it's widest term so by this meaning it would be forbidden by the EULA.
- if the above question is answered with "unbinarizing config is forbidden", what are the plans to give the addonmakers proper reference material in form of complete and detailed BIWIKI pages?

not directly related but also interesting, although a little relating due to a "tool that shouldn't be named":
- is BIS planning to release certain MLOD's like they did back in Armed Assault?
Would give us the opportunity to fix ourselfs certain model related bugs and flaws.

[callihn]

Well, just for giggles entertain these thoughts....

As a mod/mission author who exactly gave you permission to run your code on my machine, I bought A2/A2 OA not your software and I had no knowledge of it not being part of the game I purchased while it was running on my machine, but then I find it and make changes and now I have to get your permission to use it?

Seriously, looking at it from that angle who is doing who wrong?

It's like having the forbidden fruit dangled in your face all the time with Jesus waiting on the major release points.

I of course always leave credits in tact and in fact often give some that went unnoticed, but permission, seriously, who gave you permission to put your mission on my machine if you are not BIS?

Further I do not believe anyone on this planet can look at your code to "learn from it" without in some way using parts of it and what if ( which is more often than not the case ) there is no other way to do it? Since you did it first the rest of us are just screwed since you now have a scripting patent on it?

Anyway, thought I 'd put that out there for the chewing, just saying.

[-Martin-]

I dont see why we need some complicated licensing system for this, there's basically 4 things we can allow/disallow people to do with our addons:

- Use the addon only in game as it is
- Open the source files for learning (yes/no)
- Modify the adddn and release it (yes/no)
- Use it in your own addon/game/project (yes/no)

So just write in the read me e.g:

I give permission to modify this addon and release it if my name is put as the original author and to use the addon for learning.

Its simple like saying A, B, C... No CC need, no confusion needed.

See Maruk, it can be more simple :smile:

[PuFu]

As a mod/mission author who exactly gave you permission to run your code on my machine, I bought A2/A2 OA not your software and I had no knowledge of it not being part of the game I purchased while it was running on my machine, but then I find it and make changes and now I have to get your permission to use it?
[...]
I of course always leave credits in tact and in fact often give some that went unnoticed, but permission, seriously, who gave you permission to put your mission on my machine if you are not BIS?
You serious?

1. No one is forcing you to download any mods, or missions. You can still play the vanilla game and missions...really!
2. If a mission or mod is coming with a readme, and/or a license, it is your duty to read it, and if you don't like what you read there, you are free to deny the said license by deleting it(being that a mod or mission).


I dont see why we need some complicated licensing system for this, there's basically 4 things we can allow/disallow people to do with our addons:

- Use the addon only in game as it is
- Open the source files for learning (yes/no)
- Modify the adddn and release it (yes/no)
- Use it in your own addon/game/project (yes/no)

So just write in the read me e.g:

I give permission to modify this addon and release it if my name is put as the original author and to use the addon for learning.

Its simple like saying A, B, C... No CC need, no confusion needed.

See Maruk, it can be more simple :smile:
You are wrong, sorry. I really doubt you have read the CC licenses. Those are straight forward, easy to understand, and opposed to your ABC list, those are international recognized, can be used in a court of law.
I fail to see what the confusion is really...


Myke;1726598']
Remaining open questions:
- is the community still allowed to create and publish retextured units/vehicles using hiddenselections?
- is the community allowed to use BIS textures as template for above mentoined retextures?
- How about hex-editing for units that don't have prepared hiddenselections? allowed or forbidden?
- are we allowed to unbin ArmA 2/OA config files to learn about it? Basically i would consider this reverse engineering in it's widest term so by this meaning it would be forbidden by the EULA.
- if the above question is answered with "unbinarizing config is forbidden", what are the plans to give the addonmakers proper reference material in form of complete and detailed BIWIKI pages?
While i understand that this might be not the best thread to talk about the above questions Myke(and a lot of other) have, a clarification would be more than welcome on those, or at least a similar thread discussion it

[callihn]

You serious?

1. No one is forcing you to download any mods, or missions. You can still play the vanilla game and missions...really!
2. If a mission or mod is coming with a readme, and/or a license, it is your duty to read it, and if you don't like what you read there, you are free to deny the said license by deleting it(being that a mod or mission).


You are wrong, sorry. I really doubt you have read the CC licenses. Those are straight forward, easy to understand, and opposed to your ABC list, those are international recognized, can be used in a court of law.
I fail to see what the confusion is really...


While i understand that this might be not the best thread to talk about the above questions Myke(and a lot of other) have, a clarification would be more than welcome on those, or at least a similar thread discussion it


The only person that has been wrong so far in this thread is you, since you seem to think your opinion is more valuable than that of others, everyone has a right to their opinion. You might not like it but it's something you best get used to.

Yes, I'm very serious and in case you haven't noticed none of the addons tell you from the server browser they are third party content nor do they tell you that during download or prior to play or even in the mission while playing in the majority of cases.

This is a game, I have no "duty" here what so ever, period, my only duty is done, I paid at the checkout.

Personally I'm sick and tired of hearing about all this theft, file a law suit or STFU already!

But like I've said several times now most of this could be cured if we had a file override system, then nobody would have to edit someone else's content outright because they did not want to give permission or could not be found or refused to even answer, it's like kiddie care around here.

I'm just glad there are good folks out here freely giving code to the community like Xeno, Bushlurker, Loyalguard and Tankbuster, to name a few, rather than sitting on it until it rots so they can control it's every usage like tyrants.

Personally I'd rather not run third party content if it's just forbidden fruit being waved in my face.

[PuFu]

The only person that has been wrong so far in this thread is you, since you seem to think your opinion is more valuable than that of others, everyone has a right to their opinion. you might not like it but it's something you best get used to.
really? This is not about an opinion here, it is about how the game works


Yes, I'm very serious and in case you haven't noticed none of the addons tell you from the server browser they are third party content nor do they tell you that during download or prior to play or even in the mission while playing in the majority of cases.
LOL! There is no official addons in the first place. So if you have to download an addon you are getting 3rd party content. Same goes for mission. It is not rocket science. So stop beating the bush already...
(PS: all addons (or 99%) have a readme file, all missions(or 99% of them) have credits in the objective tab


This is a game, I have no "duty" here what so ever, period, my only duty is done, I paid at the checkout.
Maybe you actually bought the wrong game. What gives BIS game playability and long lasting fun is community made content, being it missions, islands or units/gear.
If you, on purpose (all you have written above shows nothing but your unwillingness to grasp the way A2/OA works), deny the fact that 3rd party content is the property of the original author, and you need permission (if not stated otherwise) to modify said content, then you are the living proof that broader understanding in the community about licenses is needed.


Personally I'm sick and tired of hearing about all this theft, file a law suit or STFU already!
Sorry, did I said anything about a theft?

I am not sure why you need to be aggressive in your posts.
You are the first person to state:

who exactly gave you permission to run your code on my machine, I bought A2/A2 OA not your software and I had no knowledge of it not being part of the game I purchased
when i thought it was more than clear everything that you need to download is not property of BIS, and you use it at your own risk..

EDIT:

I'm just glad there are good folks out here freely giving code to the community like Xeno, Bushlurker, Loyalguard and Tankbuster, to name a few, rather than sitting on it until it rots so they can control it's every usage like tyrants.
Not really the discussion about who makes his own code available to community or who doesn't. It is about the possibility to protect your own work using a license agreement (CC or else), from allowing/denying commercial use to denying any modification. It is up to the author which one he'll pick.
Are you saying that having no license (or a very blurry view on the subject) is better than allowing in a decent manner the original author to protect his work??

[STALKERGB]

Well I understand the CC licenses Marek listed, I take it that those are just to help us with our own releases.

As pufu reiterated, it would be great if we could get clarification as to what we can do with the BIS content, obvioulsy for use within BIS games. Although I'm sure its been said before, I think up to date samples of models/configs/etc would lower the amount of reverse-engineering as (hopefully) the information would be already out there for people.

[-Martin-]

can be used in a court of law.

Taking someone to court for "stealing" an addon? Come on dude...:bored:

The thing I hate the most is when people start bringing law in to this game, I believe that there is a place where we can live without police and law for a few moments of our life, which is our community. It doesn't mean we should start stealing each others models, have respect for addon makers!


You are wrong, sorry. I really doubt you have read the CC licenses. Those are straight forward, easy to understand, and opposed to your ABC list,

I don't see what's wrong about the ABC list, I my self have never heard of CC licences until now and I've been making mods for a lot of games, so if I saw that little CC picture on some addon I (and a lot of other people) wouldn't even know what it means, then lies ahead the task of finding out what it means. What is the point? Just write a damn sentence in the read me saying you don't want anyone to open or modify your add-on that everyone can understand.


Anyway I think this thread has served its purpose and it will start and argument soon so best would be to go back to addon making :yay:

EDIT:

Anyway, if your addon is good it doesn't matter how many CC license you got, people will still open it to learn form it so why make life hard, just leave the addon open. I remember when I joined the OFP community I hated all the addon makers who barbarised everything because I really wanted to see how something was done, but I still have the greatest respect for addon makers who left everything unbinarised and even commented in the config.cpp what everything does :smile:

[Soul_Assassin]

Taking someone to court for "stealing" an addon? Come on dude...

yeh you can. Unlikely though, however if someone rips your models/textures/mission ideas/sounds and other material, and uses them for profit, you can defenately take them to court and make it worth ur while. Imagine u made some units, new models new textures and didnt license them. Then imagine your surprise when the next Call of Duty game comes out with your models, sells 3bn $ worth of games and you got waxed. Since you didnt license you got squat to say about this. If you use a CC, and that would happen, then you could wax them too.

[MadDogX]

Anyway, if your addon is good it doesn't matter how many CC license you got, people will still open it to learn form it
Actually, at least as far as I understand it, the CC licences do not stop you from "taking a look inside" an addon just to see how it works. It's mainly about controlling how your work is (re-)distributed, not what people do with it in the confines of their own hard drive.

Even if I were to release an addon under CC by-nc-nd (attribution, non-commercial, no-derivs), which is the most strict baseline CC license available, there would still be nothing to stop you from opening it up and taking a look behind the scenes. It's just what you do after that, that is important.

Say, if you were to unbinarize one of the models to learn how something was done, then create your own addon using the same technique - without copying any part of the original model, of course - I believe that would be fine.

The only thing you would not be allowed to do is take any part of my original addon and directly include it in your own work, because that would be breaking the no-derivs clause.

[NoRailgunner]

Just curious about this


Can I use a Creative Commons license for software? We do not recommend it. Creative Commons licenses should not be used for software. We strongly encourage you to use one of the very good software licenses which are already available. We recommend considering licenses made available by the Free Software Foundation (http://www.fsf.org/) or listed at the Open Source Initiative (http://www.opensource.org/). Unlike our licenses, which do not make mention of source or object code, these existing licenses were designed specifically for use with software.

arent addons / mods / missions somekind of "software"? Guess that an expert/lawyer can be more specific on this subject.

[PuFu]

The thing I hate the most is when people start bringing law in to this game, I believe that there is a place where we can live without police and law for a few moments of our life, which is our community. It doesn't mean we should start stealing each others models, have respect for addon makers!
I am not affraid of someone stealing my addon and re-releasing as it own within BI community, but rather someone selling or using my model outside of BI games.


Anyway, if your addon is good it doesn't matter how many CC license you got, people will still open it to learn form it so why make life hard, just leave the addon open.
binarizing is not for copy-protection only. a binarized addon is also optimized to work with BI engine.

BTW: Licensing an addon means you have set a set of rules in place, and have stated it is your own work.
For instance, you can have Attribution Non-Commercial Share Alike
(http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/), which allows other to use and build upon it, but deny any commercial use. It doesn't need to be Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/) for everything out there..
you can also add your own license on top of any CC (for instance use only within bi engine)


Actually, at least as far as I understand it, the CC licences do not stop you from "taking a look inside" an addon just to see how it works. It's mainly about controlling how your work is (re-)distributed, not what people do with it in the confines of their own hard drive.

Even if I were to release an addon under CC by-nc-nd (attribution, non-commercial, no-derivs), which is the most strict baseline CC license available, there would still be nothing to stop you from opening it up and taking a look behind the scenes. It's just what you do after that, that is important.
That is true. You are allowed to learn from it with CC, unless there is an additional statement on top of existing CC license (which is also possible)

[MadDogX]

arent addons / mods / missions somekind of "software"? Guess that an expert/lawyer can be more specific on this subject.
It's a grey area, but really when you think about it, addons and mods do contain a form of "artwork" (3D models, textures, sounds) and missions can be seen as a story, which is essentially also art.

I believe by "software" they are referring to actual programs, tools etc.

[NoRailgunner]

Only believing in something can be opposite from knowing it exactly.
For example
1) are all retextures artwork?
2) are all sounds artwork?
etc

Does CC by-nc-nd also mean that anyone who got the permission can use it, change it and sell it with his own license?

Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/#) if you get permission from the copyright holder.

[MadDogX]

Only believing in something can be opposite from knowing it exactly.
Well, the thing is there are multiple "correct" definitions of what software actually is:


software
–noun

1. Computers . the programs used to direct the operation of a computer, as well as documentation giving instructions on how to use them. Compare hardware ( def. 5 ) .

2. Anything that is not hardware but is used with hardware, esp. audiovisual materials, as film, tapes, records, etc.: a studio fully equipped but lacking software. Source: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/Software

So software can either be defined as "programs that direct the operation of a computer" on the one hand, or anything that exists only as ones and zeros on the other hand. Strictly speaking, only the latter definition applies to Arma2 addons and missions, but that's because it encompasses anything and everything that exists in digital form, so it is unlikely that the text you quoted was referring to this definition.

My "belief" was based on this.



For example
1) are all retextures artwork?
2) are all sounds artwork?
etc
A rather philosophical question if you ask me, although in the context of games I would say that any sound, 3D model or texture should be regarded as artwork, since they are generally created by artists. But let's not turn this into a discussion about what makes something "art". ;)


Does CC by-nc-nd also mean that anyone who got the permission can use it, change it and sell it with his own license?
Of course, that is always the case. If you are able to obtain a special license from the copyright holder, you can do whatever he permits you to do.

[-Martin-]

binarizing is not for copy-protection only. a binarized addon is also optimized to work with BI engine.

That's true, but don't say that some people don't binarise their addons just so that people wouldn't be able to open the models, I know a lot of guys who do it just because of that. I think addon makers should also release MLOD models for download if anyone wishes.

If you look at OFP now, there are plenty of units that look nice, and if you make an island and you want some troops to accompany it, why make them again if they already exist and all you have to do is modify them, because the game is so old you can't get a hold of the author anyway. But OFP has a tool to convert models to MLOD, so you could convert the units of course but then get yelled at for "stealing" the addon. This isn't the case in ArmA now because there isn't a conversion tool but all I'm saying is that addon makers shouldn't be so protective of their stuff towards the community, yeah their model looks good and they spend a lot of time on it, but why eat all the credit and not let anyone else have a chance to learn?

Protecting your models commercially, that's a whole different thing and everyone has the right to protect their work and that's where CC licenses would be really good, I agree with that for 100%, nobody has the right to sell your stuff.

I just think that addon makers shouldn't license their addons to the community but keep everything open and release MLOD's of their addons once they move on to a new project.

Actually in the beginning I was sceptical about CC licenses but now I see that they could be a good way for the community to release MLOD's without people exploiting them commercially :butbut: Good work Maruk!

[TRexian]

my intention is to establish broader understanding in the community about licenses. I also hope that better and easier to understand licenses for the official content and/or user made content can arise from this discussion to be used by BI and our community.


Thank you for your clarification. I agree, the more people know about this, the more accurate people's expectations will be, and the community will be better overall.

Thank you for your efforts. :)

[PuFu]

[...]

Actually in the beginning I was sceptical about CC licenses but now I see that they could be a good way for the community to release MLOD's without people exploiting them commercially :butbut: Good work Maruk!
Glad you seen the use of it afterall. :)

[Mr Burns]

Finally having clicked the Creative Commons link reading quickly through it i´m getting a little bit confused, hopefully it´s just the language barrier ..

As i see it, there´s basically two options:
1) You allow others messing with & redistributing your work (in many different flavours)
2) You disallow others messing with & redistributing your work (fewer different flavours)

But one particulary important fact for the ArmA community is left untouched by creative commons licenses, i.e.: proper rewriting of classnames, name tag´s and other necessitys the community has learned to follow in order to not botch something up that someone else created.

Now imagine you go easy on CC-L and release something for everybody to play with, learn from, remix, build upon, etc. - and the next day or week your addon get´s re-released with the same .pbo name, same classnames, just some minor texturing or model changes, thus effectively overriding your orginal addon. That surely would´nt be fun, and as far as i know hasn´t happened in the community for years, at least not intentionally.


Of course the knowing community won´t forget their ArmA modmaking do's and dont's overnight, but newcomers might stumble and fall in this partly grey area between ArmA & CC.

[RKSL-Rock]

Finally having clicked the Creative Commons link reading quickly through it i´m getting a little bit confused, hopefully it´s just the language barrier ..

As i see it, there´s basically two options:
1) You allow others messing with & redistributing your work (in many different flavours)
2) You disallow others messing with & redistributing your work (fewer different flavours)

But one particulary important fact for the ArmA community is left untouched by creative commons licenses, i.e.: proper rewriting of classnames, name tag´s and other necessitys the community has learned to follow in order to not botch something up that someone else created.

Now imagine you go easy on CC-L and release something for everybody to play with, learn from, remix, build upon, etc. - and the next day or week your addon get´s re-released with the same .pbo name, same classnames, just some minor texturing or model changes, thus effectively overriding your orginal addon. That surely would´nt be fun, and as far as i know hasn´t happened in the community for years, at least not intentionally.


Of course the knowing community won´t forget their ArmA modmaking do's and dont's overnight, but newcomers might stumble and fall in this partly grey area between ArmA & CC.

Thats where you need to add additional clauses. CC structure does allow for that.

[Mr Burns]

Thats where you need to add additional clauses. CC structure does allow for that.

Thanks, all fine then.

Still the whole licensing thing is not my cup of tea, writing up a waterproof license and understanding it to it´s fullest would prolly take me longer than making any of my not so elite (and until further clarification by BI probably EULA breaking) addons. Same as -Martin- i´d likely never take anything to court that happend on the internets, a) because my stuff ain't worth it, b) it´s the internets. Still doing it for the fun, and for the fun others might have with it.


But i also understand now that CC isn´t going to be some random evil thrown at us by BI.

[STALKERGB]

In a similar light to Mr Burns (and as mentioned the probably EULA breaking addons), the latest rendition of my 3 Rifles addon (unreleased) probably breaks BIS EULA too. Now my question is are BIS going to clarify if say, reverse engineering configs, textures or models (or anything else for that matter) is OK if the material is for the game the original content came from.

For example: if I took stuff from OA for an addon and then released my addon for OA is that allowed?

Slight change in topic with that but I'd thought I'd ask...

[Maruk]

Few quick notes:
as I mentioned, CC+ licenses should allow to add additional clauses to standard CC types of licenses (that I consider otherwise very well thought) but it is subject to further investigation if it can work well for use in this case or not.

I also see many people are more concerned about BIS licenses. Note that everything we released is accompanied by license defining further use. However, it is pretty clear that our existing licenses do not always fit with the community needs so we are certainly looking to make things more clear and easier to understand in the end for everyone.

Generally speaking, from BIS perspective, it is important that if we allow to modify re-use our work we are able to limit use of such derivative work only to the same product where we released it (or in some cases to its follow ups).

Examples of things we do not want to see and do not want to allow with majority of our content:

* Our work is modified to be used in 3rd party games or applications

* Release of our content available in a particular product (e.g. BAF or Arma 2) to another product (e.g. Operation Arrowhead) where it would not require it anymore


In a similar light to Mr Burns (and as mentioned the probably EULA breaking addons), the latest rendition of my 3 Rifles addon (unreleased) probably breaks BIS EULA too. Now my question is are BIS going to clarify if say, reverse engineering configs, textures or models (or anything else for that matter) is OK if the material is for the game the original content came from.

For example: if I took stuff from OA for an addon and then released my addon for OA is that allowed?

Slight change in topic with that but I'd thought I'd ask...

[STALKERGB]

@<hidden>, thanks for replying, completely understand about the taking from one BIS product and putting into another BIS one, clearly doesn't make much commercial sense for you to allow that!


Generally speaking, from BIS perspective, it is important that if we allow to modify re-use our work we are able to limit use of such derivative work only to the same product where we released it (or in some cases to its follow ups).

That clears a bit up for me, if the derivative is created for the same product as the original BIS work then generally speaking its ok.


we are certainly looking to make things more clear and easier to understand in the end for everyone.

Good to hear! I guess you guys will post any new developments on that front...

[Foxhound]

* Release of our content available in a particular product (e.g. BAF or Arma 2) to another product (e.g. Operation Arrowhead) where it would not require it anymore

So, porting BIS addons from Arma 2 (for example) to OA without the need for Arma 2 is not allowed, but if you keep the dependancy it should not matter, right?
Its the same for many community addons, "use my work but do not include it, make it dependable of it".

I think I recall a few Arma 2 addons being ported to OA lately, I better disable those.

[Zipper5]

Foxhound,

* Release of our content available in a particular product (e.g. BAF or Arma 2) to another product (e.g. Operation Arrowhead) where it would not require it anymore
From what I understand, he's talking about the stuff included only in vanilla Arma 2 being ported into OA as a mod, and vice-versa. Not community made addons.

[ProfTournesol]

I fully support what Gnat, -Martin- and some others stated about the way the community addon makers can / should be allowed to use BI materials for non commercial purposes to create BI games addons.

What Marek just stated seems to be fully consistent with this position, so that's great :)

[Foxhound]

Foxhound,

He's talking about the stuff included only in vanilla Arma 2 being ported into OA as a mod, and vice-versa. Not community made addons.

Ehm, yes. Thats what I meant of course ;)
I have added an extra "BIS" note now.

[Zipper5]

Ah yes, that wouldn't be allowed for fairly obvious reasons. People can play with Arma 2 without actually buying Arma 2 then. :p

[-Martin-]

He's talking about the stuff included only in vanilla Arma 2 being ported into OA as a mod, and vice-versa. Not community made addons.

This is one thing that I don't understand, since ArmA2 and ArmA2: OA are two whole different games for BIS which I don't know why when they share the same name, in my opinion it should be something like OFP and OFP: Resistance.

So if I'm making an island for ArmA2 now, and now people buy ArmA2: OA how will they play on my island if they only have Arrowhead and I cant use the BIS objects like trees and houses from ArmA2 in a ArmA2: OA version? :sad:

BIS should allow us to pack objects from ArmA2 so that our islands can be used in Arrowhead for people who don't have the original ArmA 2, can you explain what I should do in this case Maruk? :j:

EDIT: I don't know if BIS realises this but people will now download the original ArmA 2 illegally so they can play with the older islands that don't work in Arrowhead. I thought that ArmA 2 stuff would work in Arrowhead, but now when we cant even use the trees from ArmA 2 in Arrowhead to get get our old islands in to the game I would have never given BIS 500 Czech Crowns for OA http://kolobok.us/smiles/icq/ireful.gif

[Zipper5]

How many people do you know solely have OA anyways? I've yet to come across anyone. Most seem to have Combined Operations. In fact, I recall a poll on here recently showing this, but I can't find it at the moment.

Still, I understand where you're coming from. That's an interesting point.

[Defunkt]

BIS should allow us to pack objects from ArmA2 so that our islands can be used in Arrowhead for people who don't have the original ArmA 2, can you explain what I should do in this case Maruk? :j:
I see no reason why BIS should be expected to do so, as an island maker you have simple straight-forward choices;

1. Make an A2 island that only uses A2 objects and only requires A2.
2. Make an OA island that only uses OA objects and only requires OA.
3. Make a CO island that uses A2 & OA objects and requires A2 & OA (CO).

Why do you presume BIS owes players something else? You play the product/content you purchased.

[DaSquade]

Edit: Nvm, Defunkt said it clearly.
It might reduce freedome and add extra work for addonmakers (variants), but that is kind of the topics point.
*Learn about Licenses and IP (even for stuff you paid for, that doesn't mean you truely own it and can share it with others that don't).

[-Martin-]

How many people do you know solely have OA anyways? I've yet to come across anyone. Most seem to have Combined Operations. In fact, I recall a poll on here recently showing this, but I can't find it at the moment.

Still, I understand where you're coming from. That's an interesting point.

I think this is a very serous point that Maruk must answer. I don't want to sound rude but are people gonna have to pay 500 Crowns extra for ArmA 2 just for a few models of trees that don't show up in Arrowhead if they wanna use an old island?

I understand where BIS is coming from, that people could play ArmA 2 and Arrowhead just for the price of one game but I still ask BIS, at least let us
use ArmA 2 vegetation for our islands to be able to use them in Arrowhead.


3. Make a CO island that uses A2 & OA objects and requires A2 & OA (CO).

Some people have ArmA 2 some people have Arrowhead, some people have both bot not everyone, so how can people who only have Arrowhead play on my island when the vegetation is missing?


Anyway, maybe something that needs to be adressed as like in Martins case, some are walking in that grey zone.

I think that there are more people walking in that grey zone like me, because in that shop I was in which is a very large game shop in a big city didn't even know about Combined Arms? BIS didn't write on the box that older ArmA 2 islands would not work in the game so I feel that BIS is kind of ripping me off because in order to enjoy the new stuff in OA and stuff from ArmA 2 I have to buy Combined Arms... Or can I merge the stand alone OA with ArmA 2?

[Defunkt]

Some people have ArmA 2 some people have Arrowhead, some people have both bot not everyone, so how can people who only have Arrowhead play on my island when the vegetation is missing?
The answer is of course that they cannot but I fail to see on what grounds or according to what natural law this is wrong. In an era where support for modding can no longer be presumed I think modders should be doing all they can to encourage users to get with the program and support BI by adopting Combined Operations as the new baseline. Those who don't wish to own both will still enjoy outstanding value for money in the purchases they've made but if they don't want the full noise (and access to all those mods targeting CO) that's their choice.


I must admit that I also don't think about the guy who made the addon too much because I feel like its not only him but the whole community who gave it to me.


I believe that after the final addon has been release and I'm going to work on a another project I should leave it open to the community so others can modify it, learn from it etc...

Frankly your position seems to be based on "acknowledging ownership of IP is inconvenient and therefore we shouldn't".

[-Martin-]

Those who don't wish to own both will still enjoy outstanding value for money in the purchases they've made but if they don't want the full noise (and access to all those mods targeting CO) that's their choice.

But I do own both ArmA 2 and AO, I just asked how islands will work in ArmA 2 and OA for people who only have Arrowhead. And I also want to know if I can merge my two copies of ArmA 2 and OA in to one game like combines arms?


Frankly your position seems to be based on "acknowledging ownership of IP is inconvenient and therefore we shouldn't".

That's not true, I think every addon maker deserves every bit of credit for his addon, I just don't think addon makers should close them selves up like they are the Elite and do this just for credit but instead to help other new members who wish to join the community be letting them learn from their addons and possibly even modify them if they know that they will never work on that project again. I don't know how to explain it, if you make addons just because for the love of it you will understand what I mean :smile:

I used to make maps for a game call Wolfenstein: Enemy Territory, and when I began it was just so hard because all the maps that I downloaded had a read me file which basically said "you are not allowed to use my map for learning, modify it etc..." and it was just so difficult to start because all the tutorials just tell you have to make a room with nothing, but what do you do after that? So I was very glad when I found the site of one guy who supplied the source files for all his maps and he even wrote tutorials on how to make a map and everything, so I'm very thankful for that and for sharing his knowledge with me instead of being like everyone else.

[DaSquade]

Hate to say it Martin, but you are missing the point a bit (or not trying to understand it maybe). BIS considers ArmA2 and OA both as standalone platforms, eventhough there is an official ArmA2: CO and an workaround tool to merge them to a standalone game with official mod.
Logic wise each game/expansion you pay for individually (CO is two sperated downloads, although you pay for a package), needs to be considered to have it own license and IP. So that is why BIS tries to hammer the 'requires XXX' license. Sad for you and others, but if you use two or more games/expansions/mods, you will need to make a choise like Defunkt mentioned. Nothing says you can make X amount of variants like a version that only uses ArmA2 objects (for those who only have arma2), a OA version (that only uses OA objects) or a combined version (that uses both arma2 and OA object). As long each version of the map has the 'requires gameversion' code in the cfg (not sure if there is actually a code that defines ArmA CO).
Again it might be extra work and don't fit your plan, but it is something we should respect. Same as orginal topic idea, respect the 3th party addonmakers license.

This topic isn't really about the fact how open addons should be. Like mentioned, the tools (official and non official, although not perfect) are there in case you want to use it for learning.

[-Martin-]

Hate to say it Martin, but you are missing the point a bit (or not trying to understand it maybe). BIS considers ArmA2 and OA both as standalone platforms, eventhough there is an official ArmA2: CO and an workaround tool to merge them to a standalone game with official mod.
Logic wise each game/expansion you pay for individually (CO is two sperated downloads, although you pay for a package), needs to be considered to have it own license and IP. So that is why BIS tries to hammer the 'requires XXX' license. Sad for you and others, but fit you use two or more games/expansions/mods, you will need to make a choise like Defunkt mentioned.

Hm thanks for the explanation :smile: its hard to swallow but that's the way it is. I guess if I merge my games I will make addons for people who have Combined Arms. I'm planing a desert island for my next project anyway so I guess these wont be much of a problem.

EDIT: Nah I'm always trying to understand everything and I don't have a problem with it :smile: it's just that things are usually so mixed up that its hard to understand, anyway thanks for expleneation guys, now I know what to do in the future.

[DaSquade]

Glad you understood it, reason of this topic :) .
I guess it will be harder for the end user to swallow. Like you said, most of us do addon making for fun, not for credit ;) .
I guess the file hosters will need to make a new addon section (arma2 only - arma2: OA only - arma2: CO).
*Sideremark: i always wondered why BIS adjusted the forums and put OA under the same arma2 section ;). That might of confused many and lead to wrong thinking.

[Mr Burns]

I´d rather like to see only one file section, that being CO.
OA alone (imho) isn´t a complete enough game in terms of equipment, and A2 lacks in terms of features, hence CO being the future and me not accepting anything else :p




I see no reason why BIS should be expected to do so, as an island maker you have simple straight-forward choices;

1. Make an A2 island that only uses A2 objects and only requires A2.
2. Make an OA island that only uses OA objects and only requires OA.
3. Make a CO island that uses A2 & OA objects and requires A2 & OA (CO).

Why do you presume BIS owes players something else? You play the product/content you purchased.

I´m sorry to say, but even though i clearly understand the reasoning behind your statement, it still stinks alot and i couldn´t disagree more. Following those guidelines some of the best community made islands would be a goner, Duala for example uses (or used) a whole lot of assets from ArmA1. If your vision goes real, no more Isla Duala (and many other excellent islands). This is only one tiny example of how complicated the choice is that BI have to make.

Most of the views expressed in this thread stem from the experience that once upon a time nobody did care, and suddenly it´s going to change from black to white.

In this case we need more hard facts, and less guessing.

[Defunkt]

Spare us the melodrama, Duala is hardly a "goner", it will run fine with either A2 or CO, Maruk has already said forward porting (A1 > A2) will be provided for.

[Mr Burns]

Spare us the melodrama, Duala is hardly a "goner", it will run fine with either A2 or CO, Maruk has already said forward porting (A1 > A2) will be provided for.

It´s a thin line between melodram and comedy :D

My intention wasn´t whining .. it´s just that now anything else than sole original work in an Addon can be considered hacks and whatnot. If forward porting from A1 to A2 is said to be fine i must´ve overread it, my bad. That doesn´t make the whole situation more obvious though, as i´ve said before, suddenly something you did for many years isn´t right anymore. This doesn´t need an explanation as i understand (we´re only customers afterall) but some reasoning behind it surely would´nt hurt.

[Defunkt]

Sorry, my last probably came across a bit harshly. I guess what I mean is while we wait for details let's allow common sense to guide us. BI's motives seem fairly obvious and reasonable and they must realise a healthy modding community (Duala permitted with A1 objects) will drive more A2 sales than if they sit on the A1 IP for no commercial end. Conversely they obviously can't allow modding to undermine the viability of new projects (OA, BAF), I'm fairly confident it's all going to work out.

[Maruk]

So, porting BIS addons from Arma 2 (for example) to OA without the need for Arma 2 is not allowed, but if you keep the dependancy it should not matter, right?
Its the same for many community addons, "use my work but do not include it, make it dependable of it".

I think I recall a few Arma 2 addons being ported to OA lately, I better disable those.


It depends. It sounds like many people still do no realize difference between:

a) original work (made from scratch)

b) derivative work (modification of an existing work creating by someone else)

With the original work, it is solely decision of its creator how to license it etc. But in case of derivative work, he should also respect terms of license by the creator of the original work he based it upon. I believe this is aspect where addon makers in this community should learn not to use other people work if they do not have license to do so and they do not know terms for such use.

So for example taking Arma 2 content, porting it to Operation Arrowhead and releasing it in a way that it would not require Arma 2 anymore is not something BI would be happy about for obvious reasons: users interested in Arma 2 content should purchase Arma 2.

Also, some other notes here simply shows that many users do not bother to familiarize with the existing licenses for BI content.

E.g. we released entire content of Arma 1 under share-alike license that allows its usage in any future BI game (including Arma 2 or Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead) subject that any creation based upon it should still allow other users to further modify and distribute it.

[MadDogX]

E.g. we released entire content of Arma 1 under share-alike license that allows its usage in any future BI game (including Arma 2 or Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead) subject that any creation based upon it should still allow other users to further modify and distribute it.
Are there similar plans for Arma2?

[Defunkt]

I guess what everybody would like to know (and what may serve as a convenient starting point for the nitty-gritty) is, will releases like the one below (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=105224) continue to be accepted?

http://img25.imageshack.us/img25/4729/arma2oa2010081116423964.th.png (http://img25.imageshack.us/i/arma2oa2010081116423964.png/)

In its favour there is no attempt on the part of the maker to undermine the appeal of any current BI product (to the contrary in fact, it adds a certain small amount of value) but the same or similar practices could conflict with a current product or one not yet planned. And there are degrees, if this UH-1 happened to have come from the ArmA1 MLOD release would it be permissible to release an updated version of it with RVMAT data extracted from ArmA2 applied? Is an RVMAT content or a configuration which may be legitmately re-used?

However you called it in this case, how are such matters to be adjudged and how should add-on makers know what will and will not be permitted?

[MadDogX]

Is an RVMAT content or a configuration which may be legitmately re-used?

However you called it in this case, how are such matters to be adjudged and how should add-on makers know what will and will not be permitted?
Even if they were considered to be part of the content, it would be very hard for anyone to prove that an RVMAT was "stolen". After all they are fairly small and all look very much alike. Like config files, they simply contain standardized text data that is necessary for addons to work correctly in the game.

I think a definite distinction needs to be made between configuration files and actual art assets.

[-Martin-]

Even if they were considered to be part of the content, it would be very hard for anyone to prove that an RVMAT was "stolen". After all they are fairly small and all look very much alike. Like config files, they simply contain standardized text data that is necessary for addons to work correctly in the game.

Well I think that BIS is still very generous and cool about this unlike other companies. This is infact what made BIS games so great, that after you play the game and finish all the campaigns you still have a reason to play it for years to come unlike other games that you buy for £40 and then just uninstall them.

I think that BIS is just worried about stuff that other people outside the community can misuse, such as models. But how are they gonna misuse an RVMAT or Config that only works in ArmA 2?


But I thinks its bad enough not being able to open the AmrA 2 models, bringing this to RVMATs and Configs would just be a giant blow to the community because I must admit that almost all the RVMAts that I use are modified BIS one's, why sped so much time pointlessly writing the same thing? Please guys, stop the madness damn it :crazy:


in a way that it would not require Arma 2 anymore

Can you give and example Maruk? Does packing SOME (few trees, grass and bushes) of ArmA 2's vegetation fall under this?

[Maruk]

Extracting models (like trees) from Arma 2 and releasing it as an addon for Operation Arrowhead is not something we allow you to do at the moment, correct. And I believe it is very clear why we do not allow such thing. If you want to create such terrain, the only way is that you refer to models from Arma 2 and Operation Arrowhead that can be easily integrated and run together (and majority of users in mp use it this way already).

The same would be extracting OA content and releasing it for Arma 2, or extracting BAF content and releasing it for OA or Arma 2: we simply do not allow such use as it costs us a lot of money do develop the content and we are in business of selling the content.

I understand that there are some peculiarities, like configs or rvmats. There I think best solution is that once BI defines suitable license and release all such files for further use by the community to resolve it, as those currently stay in grey zone a bit despite there is not any real problem in having those used by the community freely.


Can you give and example Maruk? Does packing SOME (few trees, grass and bushes) of ArmA 2's vegetation fall under this?

---------- Post added at 01:06 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:54 PM ----------

No. There is different situation now.

Operation Arrowhead is able to use Arma 2 content and we are selling both games (combined, or independently) as complementary products.

Users that have just Operation Arrowhead should by Arma 2 in order to get its content and vice versa.



Are there similar plans for Arma2?

Originally Posted by Maruk http://forums.bistudio.com/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1728126#post1728126)
E.g. we released entire content of Arma 1 under share-alike license that allows its usage in any future BI game (including Arma 2 or Arma 2 Operation Arrowhead) subject that any creation based upon it should still allow other users to further modify and distribute it.

[Herr_kalashnikov]

No. There is different situation now.

Operation Arrowhead is able to use Arma 2 content and we are selling both games (combined, or independently) as complementary products.



Thats a real shame .. lets hope thats the last time we see a standalone addon package then?

[Defunkt]

Speak for yourself, I'd love to see an 'Arrowhead' every year.

[Herr_kalashnikov]

Sure just dont make it standalone so u get the issues Maruk described. What i read from his short reply is that the A2 sample models are not gonna be released due to the possibilty of them beeing used in standalone OA which is a shame wouldn't u agree ?

[MadDogX]

Sure just dont make it standalone so u get the issues Maruk described. What i read from his short reply is that the A2 sample models are not gonna be released due to the possibilty of them beeing used in standalone OA which is a shame wouldn't u agree ?
Actually, sample models should still be a possibility, AFAIK. They just aren't going to release the entire content, like they did with ArmA1.

[[FRL]Myke]

Extracting models (like trees) from Arma 2 and releasing it as an addon for Operation Arrowhead is not something we allow you to do at the moment, correct. And I believe it is very clear why we do not allow such thing. If you want to create such terrain, the only way is that you refer to models from Arma 2 and Operation Arrowhead that can be easily integrated and run together (and majority of users in mp use it this way already).


Although i understand that point fully as long it is about units, weapons and vehicles, i do not understand it for trees, bushes and all sort of structure which might be needed to create islands.
It's not like the usual player would have "ArmA 2 in OA without owning ArmA 2" as for those people bushes and trees have no real value unless used on a island.

So please, think again about this particular case. Although i already can hear the argument "so they should buy ArmA 2 then" on the other side it would put BIS in a better light if they allow (or even provide) certain island-relevant objects to be ported across A2 and OA.
Finally, such an addon could make people interested to see more from the game those objects came from and then possibly decide to buy it definately. Some kind of appetizer. ;)


And please please, think about to release MLOD's for A2/OA so we can at least finally fix model related bugs and flaws.

[[APS]Gnat]

I understand that there are some peculiarities, like configs or rvmats. There I think best solution is that once BI defines suitable license and release all such files for further use by the community to resolve it, as those currently stay in grey zone a bit despite there is not any real problem in having those used by the community freely.

Thanks for the clarification on this (and future formalising), and discussion on other cross-dependant addons you mentioned.
It seems very resonable to me that if any player wants to use user made addons that originally came from ArmA2, then they should have a copy installed and running.

"I own a copy of ArmA2" isn't really enough.

[ceeeb]

I've used a Creative Commons license in the past - I found they state clearly what the user can do with minimal reading (most people won't read licenses). I have no idea about the legal pedantics of the full license text, but their website made me confident.

Another reason licenses are important is conditions of copyright that applies to all works unless stated otherwise (I'm not sure of how it works around the world, I've only looked into the situation in Australia). As far as I understand it, redistributing an addon without any usage license violates the author's default copyright conditions.

[-Martin-]

Finally, such an addon could make people interested to see more from the game those objects came from and then possibly decide to buy it definately. Some kind of appetizer.


And please please, think about to release MLOD's for A2/OA so we can at least finally fix model related bugs and flaws.

This is true, I just hope that BIS isn't using our addons like a "feature" for people who bough standalone Arrowhead to say like "hey you know, you can't run all those great community made islands in Arrowhead, but if you buy ArmA2 you can!"

Hows about new never see stand alone games with the same name again? It would have been far better (for us) if only Combined Arms was released with ArmA 2 and Arrowhead together, something like OFP: GOTY.


the only way is that you refer to models from Arma 2 and Operation Arrowhead that can be easily integrated and run together (and majority of users in mp use it this way already).

I don't understand, can someone explain?

But at the end of the day Maruk is right and its too late to change it now. At least we can merge Arrowhead standalone with ArmA 2 :smile:

[TRexian]

This is true, I just hope that BIS isn't using our addons like a "feature" for people who bough standalone Arrowhead to say like "hey you know, you can't run all those great community made islands in Arrowhead, but if you buy ArmA2 you can!"

hehe

I hope they do, and I hope it works! :)

That would serve to encourage BI to continue to allow the great community development. :D

[Mr Burns]

In terms of island content, what if people start using only stuff that´s found in the demos (A2 or OA)? Another stumbling stone right there..


And i´m agreeing with Herr_kalashnikov when he expresses his disappointment over how things are going to be now that OA had to be a standalone expansion.

[IceBreakr]

Hehe -Martin-, I though of that myself, too ;) actually I don't mind that - A2 now costs around 10-12 pounds only so its a bargain for all the content you can get.

What I don't like is that binarization of my map fails when I use OA clutter ;)

[Maruk]

You raise some really good points.

Creative Commons has very strong legal background and they cover nearly all countries with their licenses.

You are also right that lack of specific licenses in addons is dangerous and there is always possibility of misunderstanding.

Some examples relevant to this addon making community:

* nearly everyone expects to be given credit for creation made (attribution, by)

* but it is not always clear if particular addon is released for other people to modify (share-alike), on related note, I found it nearly amusing that most of addon makers expect BI content is or should be share-alike but they feel seriously upset (and rightfully, as it is their work!) when someone is modifying their work and releasing it (well, sometimes even without giving them proper credit)


On related note: I believe share alike licenses are very beneficial for the community and that is why we released Arma 1 under such license. I recall from the discussion that even that raised quite some hot topics where some addon makers did not like the idea they would have to release their content under share-alike terms.



I've used a Creative Commons license in the past - I found they state clearly what the user can do with minimal reading (most people won't read licenses). I have no idea about the legal pedantics of the full license text, but their website made me confident.

Another reason licenses are important is conditions of copyright that applies to all works unless stated otherwise (I'm not sure of how it works around the world, I've only looked into the situation in Australia). As far as I understand it, redistributing an addon without any usage license violates the author's default copyright conditions.

[ProfTournesol]

I found it nearly amusing that most of addon makers expect BI content is or should be share-alike but they feel seriously upset (and rightfully, as it is their work!) when someone is modifying their work and releasing it (well, sometimes even without giving them proper credit)


Well, yes and no. I don't think BI and community addon makers works can be considered on the same level.

Community addon makers are working for free, to grow the community content, which is obviously a commercial / strategical asset for BI.

BI is a commercial society with a very particular strategical positioning on a niche market, which has very cleverly "invested" in building an afficionados / customer community since 2001, by feeding them with (more or less) documented tools, (more or less) commented configs and (more or less) various samples, and a very good policy of constant patching / upgrades.

Therefore, i don't find shocking that community addon makers take for granted to re-use and modify BI materials in order to freely grow your own immaterial assets, even if they sometimes forget to say it in their readme.

[[APS]Gnat]

Well, yes and no. I don't think BI and community addon makers works can be considered on the same level.
.................

Yes, agree with the whole post ProfTournesol

[TRexian]

Well, finding humor in it and not understanding it are 2 different things. :)

I understand the community modding side of it - the sense of "entitlement" that's developed. But, I can also see the humor/irony of it. :D

[JdB]

On related note: I believe share alike licenses are very beneficial for the community and that is why we released Arma 1 under such license. I recall from the discussion that even that raised quite some hot topics where some addon makers did not like the idea they would have to release their content under share-alike terms.

I feel this is mostly due to sentiment. BIS makes a profit out of their work, while addonmakers do not. It is in BIS's interest to have sites filled with addons, so people continue playing your game, so they will be looking forward (and aware of, as the marketing isn't that huge for BIS titles) to buying the next installment.

Of course they should ask permission first if that's what you asked for when you release sample models, or when someone makes retextures or reconfigs of models that haven't been released, but for BIS the use of BIS content within the games that it's allowed for (including forward porting) is beneficial to your sales figures. Addonmakers don't have sales to look forward to as a reward for their efforts, so mostly they at least want to be shown the respect they deserve by being asked for permission to redistribute or modify their work, whether it's based on BIS content or completely custom made content. I.e. we allowed everyone that wanted to, to edit our OFP mod as long as it's restricted to OFP without having to ask us for permission. The people that did use it within OFP, still asked us for permission even though they didn't have to. That has nothing to do with licenses, readmes or EULAs, but everything with appreciation for our efforts, credit/recognition is the only reward we are ever going to get for what we do. We don't mind sharing, we just don't want to share without the need for someone to acknowledge our efforts thought both asking for permission and crediting, not giving up control over what is for over 95% content we fully own the property rights to.

That mind-set is not legally sound, but then again sentiments hardly ever have any value in legal proceedings.

[-Martin-]

but they feel seriously upset (and rightfully, as it is their work!)

I completely agree with ProfTournesol, so we bought BIS a new studio in a forest beside Prague, we bought them expensive cars, we got them well known and they feel upset about a few add-on makers taking their models for granted? :butbut:

I think that we as the community just feel upset that after all these years of our loyal work BIS is still so detached from us. We don't want to steal your models, we just want something to work with and to learn from. Releasing the ArmA 1 MLOD's was the best thing you did for us since giving us the tools to create addons.

Please try to understand how hard it is for us to find decent textures and time to learn evertying which we could learn much faster from the MLOD models, were as you have a whole studio and plenty of time.

Sorry if that sounds too harsh but I just don't know how else to say it:o

PS Maruk. Not everyone takes your property for granted, I always fully respect your decision not to release the models to us and I always give credit to BIS because thanks to them I've learned a lot of new stuff that other companies just keep closed for them selves :smile:

EDIT: I know that is BIS works together with the community more, they will become even more well known, their profits will increase, the quality of their work will be even better then it is now and we as a community will be even more happy and stronger. Eventually more developers would follow BIS and gaming could return back to PC like it was in the old times!

[Zipper5]

We don't want to steal your models, we just want something to work with and to learn from.
The point you seem to miss is that other's do steal and have stolen models either made by BIS or by addon makers for BIS' games, and those are only the ones we know of.

[JdB]

The point you seem to miss is that other's do steal and have stolen models either made by BIS or by addon makers for BIS' games, and those are only the ones we know of.

No license from, or restricting access to files by BIS is ever going to prevent that behaviour. The only useful topic for dialogue that we can have, other than that of licensing our own work, is about the rights of BIS and addonmakers within BIS games, since we have zero control over anything else, and other than reporting violations of ripped BIS content, there is nothing we can/need to do about it anyway. The licensing of our own work is also restricted to the way our content is handled by/within this community imo, technically it isn't, but in effect it is, since most of us lack the knowledge and financial means to take legal actions against a thief anyway.

[-Martin-]

The point you seem to miss is that other's do steal and have stolen models either made by BIS or by addon makers for BIS' games, and those are only the ones we know of.

Dude, you do realise that if I wanted to steal a model from bis it would take me 1 search on Google, 1 download and about 5 minutes of work? You can't stop people form doing that. How exactly does an addon maker steal a model from BIS for a BIS game, you mean forward/backward porting or?

EDIT:


No license from, or restricting access to files by BIS is ever going to prevent that behaviour. The only useful dialogue that we can have, other than that of licensing our own work, is about the rights of BIS and addon makers within BIS games, since we have zero control over anything else, and other than reporting such violations, there is nothing we can/need to do about it anyway.

Exactly, its like you will never stop anyone from stealing your car if they want to. But we have the power to remove posts with addons that have been taken from other without permission, we have the power to tell other sites to remove that content, we can do this by using licenses like Maruk suggested (he means it n a good way for us) and BIS can do this using the EULA. I remember when that guy released the ODOL converter for ArmA 2 how BIS used that power, today you won't find it on any site.

[JdB]

Dude, you do realise that if I wanted to steal a model from bis it would take me 1 search on Google, 1 download and about 5 minutes of work? You can't stop people form doing that. How exactly does an addon maker steal a model for a BIS game?

Of course the intentions are very different, one aimed at financial gains, the other as a hobby, with the added bonus of improving the community of our favorite game (-developer), but technically it still is a breach of the license, stealing in a way.

[NoRailgunner]

-Martin- stop acting like a little dramaqueen!
Doing stuff to pay the bills and invest in further developments, professional staff and equipment isnt the same like doing it for your own pleasure. BIS are not your personal servants serving content for free and how you like it. BIS decisions are made to keep them in business. Do you really think that the world is fluffy and always friendly? Maybe you just have to wakeup and go out of your house...

[-Martin-]

-Martin- stop acting like a little dramaqueen!
Doing stuff to pay the bills and invest in further developments, professional staff and equipment isnt the same like doing it for your own pleasure. BIS are not your personal servants serving content for free and how you like it. BIS decisions are made to keep them in business. Do you really think that the world is fluffy and always friendly? Maybe you just have to wakeup and go out of your house...

No need to insult, but maybe you haven't noticed that we are the future free investment which will make sure that people look forward to the next BIS product? :j: I give up on on this thread, it's no use... Going back to work on my island :P

[NoRailgunner]

Sorry but you need to look at it from different views. ;)
Only hypothetical - what if all of the content from BIS were free to use, change and sell? Do you really think that BIS could "survive" long enough to release a new game?

[-Martin-]

Only hypothetical - what if all of the content from BIS were free to use, change and sell? Do you really think that BIS could "survive" long enough to release a new game?

If they free to use and sell - BIS would go bankrupt

If it were free to change and use in the community - Bis would not live to release a new game, but to release 5 games because its what they have been doing since 2001.

I'm not angry at BIS or the community for anything, at the end of the day the ultimate choice is made by BIS, we can just be happy that we got such a great developer and let them know what we want.

But I think that this thread won't change BIS's mind about the MLOD's, they have enough work to do on Carrier Command and anything else they are working on, this thread has gone a bit off topic and I think I said all that I have to say, even if it did sound like a drama queen (I'm not too good in putting what I think on paper or screen) so I retire from it :biggrin: Going to work on my stuff and hope that one day BIS will release the MLOD's!

[Darkhorse 1-6]

PS: Maybe my impression is wrong, but it might be time for a clear statement how EXACTLY the future relation cooperation between BIS and the community should look like?

AFAIK The relationship between the community and BIS will not change. BIS just wants the community to understand the licenses, so that they can attempt to avoid people breaking the EULA. I understand that, and it's the right thing to do, especially at this point in time.

But I also agree with others that we need a straight yes or no answer on several points, such as...

1) - Are retextures of BIS units that use hiddenselections* allowed, as long as it is clearly stated in the readme that it is a BIS model? *For the game it was created in of course.

2) - Is hex-editing of BIS units allowed at all? If so, what steps need to be taken to ensure the author of the "addon" (retexture etc.) has the permission of BIS?

3) - Since backwards porting has never been allowed, and we now know forward porting of ArmA II content is not allowed, does it affect the ArmA 1 license? I don't think it would, but I don't know if "No forward porting" applies to ArmA II only, or all BIS products.

[Fox '09]

not at all, that only applied to the arma 1 sample model liscence

[-Martin-]

Well guys, I think this is what we have basically learned so far from this thread about BIS licences (and is what we are waiting/taking about in this thread for so long):



We are allowed to use content from older games (which belongs to BIS), Operation Flashpoint, Elite, Armed Assault 1 in Armed Assault 2.



We are NOT allowed to use content from Operation Flashpoint and Elite which is the property of Codemasters such as voice sounds.



We are NOT allowed to use content from any Armed Assault 2 game and use it in an older game such as ArmA 1.



We are NOT allowed to use content from ArmA 2 (such as vegetation, units, vehicles) in Arrowhead or vice versa (at the moment because BIS is in the process of marketing the game)



We are NOT allowed to use any BIS content (which we are allowed to right now) for anything besides BIS games which must be supplied without charge.



We are allowed to moderately use/open binarized text content such as config.cpp, .rvmats, briefings etc... to modify/learn from for our addons (because it doesn't hurt BIS in any way)



We are NOT allowed to re-texture BIS models in ArmA 2 using methods such as Hex



We can use BIS content (such as textures, sounds) for our addons as long as they remain in the game where the texture is from (e.g. The texture is from Arrowhead, the addon stays in Arrowhead).



We are NOT allowed to reveres engineer any binarised .p3d model in ArmA 2.



We are allowed to use our own addons in any game we wish as long as the content is 100% ours. (Note, that it is a breach of the BIS tools license agreement (illegal) to e.g. sell models that have been crated in Oxygen 2 Personal Edition or other BIS program like TexView provided to us for FREE by BIS even if it is 100% your work! If you wish to use your model outside BIS games, it is better to use another program such as Maya for which an Oxygen plug-in is available for free and can be used to create models for BIS games.)



When modifying someone else's work make sure that you change the tags so that it doesn't over ride the original addon (not necessary if the original creator says it's not)



We should include BIS as the original creator of a model if we use a BIS model, as a sign of respect of what BIS is allowing us to do and to let others know that the model it's entirely created by you.



We are to include the name of the original creator of the addon, are we to modify someone else work/be the work not 100% ours (on condition that the original author requests this).


EDIT: So now the list is complete, clarified by Maruk him self, would be great if someone put this in to a sticky topic because its kind of hard to find here for people.

[JdB]

We are allowed to use our own addons in any game we wish as long as the content is 100% ours.


This particular point is more complicated than that. It's not just the content that you created that matters, but also what program(s) you used to create them in. If an addon has been edited with an editing tool made by BIS at any point, then the BIS license agreement that comes with the tools is applicable. For example, selling models made in Oxygen2PE is illegal, even if you are the copyright holder for the full 100%, the same goes for things like selling textures compressed with Texview2 etc.

[Zipper5]

ArmA was not published by Codemasters.

[-Martin-]

ArmA was not published by Codemasters.

Ops damn I accidentally copy pasted that :p Edited and fixed


This particular point is more complicated than that. It's not just the content that you created that matters, but also what program(s) you used to create them in. If an addon has been edited with an editing tool made by BIS at any point, then the BIS license agreement that comes with the tools is applicable. For example, selling models made in Oxygen2PE is illegal, even if you are the copyright holder for the full 100%, the same goes for things like selling textures compressed with Texview2 etc.

That's a really good point, I'll add that in there, but is it really possible to know what program was used?

[Defunkt]

We are to include the original creator of the addon, are we to modify someone else work/be the work not 100% ours.

This is redundant in a summary on permissions pertaining to BI's property, the addon maker will stipulate such conditions and they will vary from addon to addon.

[Maruk]

The point of this topic is not to discuss particular licenses to particular products (BI or fan made). My intention was to:

* make people aware of the simple fact any content comes with a license and before anyone starts using it or re-distributing it, it is important to know what the license is (btw, this is nothing new, licenses were binding all the time and the fact many addons did not include any clear license does not mean there is no license attached to them)

* improve the existing licenses by BI so that addon makers can use our content in a way it work mutually

* propose a template licenses for most common use by community addon makers and a scheme that will be very easy to understand (but as I see even CC seems to be too difficult for some people here so it seems a bit hopeless effort...)

Those weird and silly theories about terrible BI doing some terrible moves to hurt the entire community (probably before we destroy the Earth...) I leave ignored as they do not bring us anywhere closer to productive output.

And btw: BI was always selling content, either packed in full game or in form of addon like was Queens Gambit, so why is someone surprised by it now is hard to understand.

[-Martin-]

bring us anywhere closer to productive output.

So we must start a new thread to get an answer to the list that everyone is waiting for?

EDIT: I don't mean to sound rude, just asking because I know that this topic has gone way off topic.

[STALKERGB]

* improve the existing licenses by BI so that addon makers can use our content in a way it work mutually

* propose a template licenses for most common use by community addon makers and a scheme that will be very easy to understand (but as I see even CC seems to be too difficult for some people here so it seems a bit hopeless effort...)

Good to see these two points, I think most people who read the CC license probably understand them, maybe just don't know what they were meant to be applying them too, BIS content or addon makers content. It might be useful to go through each CC type using an addon as an example something like "if you were using the cc by license then your addon can be edited and redistrubuted by others as long as they credit you for your work"

...although the license pretty much says that anyway.

[Maruk]

Answers to what? If hex editing or ripping content from a product and further re-distribute it is allowed?

Of course it is not and it never was for any BI game...

[-Martin-]

Answers to what? If hex editing or ripping content from a product and further re-distribute it is allowed?

Of course it is not and it never was for any BI game...

Thanks for clarifying :bounce3:

EDIT: List is updated and finished, would be great if someone could put it in to a sticky thread so that we never even have to ask those questions again because its kind for hard to find here for people. Now back on topic :wink:

[NoRailgunner]

Arent only those two CC licenses are interesting for most addon makers?

CC by Non-Commercial Share Alike:
This license lets others remix, tweak, and build upon your work non-commercially, as long as they credit you and license their new creations under the identical terms. Others can download and redistribute your work just like the by-nc-nd license, but they can also translate, make remixes, and produce new stories based on your work. All new work based on yours will carry the same license, so any derivatives will also be non-commercial in nature.

CC by Non-Commercial No Derivatives
This license is often called the “free advertising” license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.
So if the decission is made he only has to copy and paste the legal stuff into the readme of his addon plus adding credits to BIS and the game.

What are with bugs and issues that can be fixed by community eg model related flaws?

[[GLT] Legislator]

I hope Maruk doesn't get the impression that the majority is against them or against licensing in general. In fact it's the opposite. The amount of questions beeing asked shows that a lot of people care about BIS and their content and respect it. When I read the first posts of this topic I thought "OMG, did I something wrong by using content A of game B for game C?". Now I'm really glad that it wasn't the case.

The truth is most people aren't expects when it comes to licensing. Most people are good at creating stuff, but when it comes to legal issues, it's always a pain for everyone to get things right. It's good to have a clearification of the meaning of this topic now.

By the way ... is BIS going to release a waterproofed CC eula for modders that can be applied to every mod? To understand a licence is one thing, but to write a correct text regarding legal issues is another thing.

Finally, I don't think the support on both sides (BIS & community) will break or anything like that. I can only speak for myself, but I'm looking forward for anything that comes from BIS not meaning I'm going to exclude community stuff :o Both belong together like parents and children.

[Maruk]

Well, you are not the only one creating the feelings I expressed...

But continuing in this a bit off topic discussion:
I am afraid the model you propose would not work commercially at least for two reasons:

* the hard-core active user community is not large enough in our case and we have to attract new people to replace those that leave for any reason (e.g. RL commitments)

* our company employs a lot of developers and pulling out major engine update is not something most of them could ever do

Also, I repeat: BAF is not the first time we sell content only, Queens Gambit was before, CM made Red Hammer is another example (I know, it was not clearly BIS one).

And also, licenses do matter not only because of content-only releases but also because we retain data compatibility between most of our releases (to big benefit of addon making community).


But last but not least: addon makers have to learn to provide clear licenses with all their work and respect each others licenses.


Just my proposal:
- Charge me every year 50-100€ and deliver every year a major engine upgrade + bugfix package and I am fine ;)
- provide with the upgrades a decent content package and let the community complete it


Pro:

- less marketing and product management effort for BIS
- less problems for customers managing ArmA2:OA:BAF:<endlessaddon>

Cons:
- <to be filled by Maruk> ;)

[-Martin-]

Well, you are not the only one creating the feelings I expressed...

But continuing in this a bit off topic discussion:
I am afraid the model you propose would not work commercially at least for two reasons:

* the hard-core active user community is not large enough in our case and we have to attract new people to replace those that leave for any reason (e.g. RL commitments)

* our company employs a lot of developers and pulling out major engine update is not something most of them could ever do

Also, I repeat: BAF is not the first time we sell content only, Queens Gambit was before, CM made Red Hammer is another example (I know, it was not clearly BIS one).

And also, licenses do matter not only because of content-only releases but also because we retain data compatibility between most of our releases (to big benefit of addon making community).


But last but not least: addon makers have to learn to provide clear licenses with all their work and respect each others licenses.

It's true what Maruk says, I have no problem with paying a few bucks for some new content that I will enjoy for a long time to come and its not the first time they done it, look at OFP, Resistance, its the same like ArmA 2 and Arrowhead, the engine got a few improvements, new models and islands and a campaign, just the way we use material in these two games has changed a little (which is something new to us and we have a hard time swallowing it).

But I would say that BIS games are very under priced, I mean I pay'd like £20 for Arrowhead, when Flashpoint: Dragon Rising came out it cost £40, I have to admit that I didn't buy Dragon Rising because I knew what to expect from the first moment, but I bought all my BIS games because I knew what to expect, but still I believe ArmA 2 is under priced compared to what it offers.

Over time, BIS work has gotten better and better and we also expect better support for the community, like better documentation, more sample models etc... But it is important that we license our work because it's not like in the old days when nobody cared, BIS is now popular, more people are interested in them, in us (addon makers) and because we make such good models usually only protected by a few lines in the read me more people will want to "steal" them so its important that we adapt to this.

Am I kind of getting the idea Maruk?

[-Martin-]

Maybe there are more guys like me?

I agree with everything you said :smile:


Maxiumum support includes regular updates of modding tools
Maxiumum support includes regular release of example models soon after the release of a major engine update
Maxiumum support includes a decent, updated documentation of all functions supposed to be used by the modding community

Modding tools - Well BIS hasn't done such a bad job with those, I mean the always release a new version with every game eventually, I don't have a problem with any tools for ArmA 2, there is a little bug in Oxygen where one of the tool bars keeps on disappearing, and TexView 2 which has been crashing since 2001.

Documentation - Poor, poor, poor, the outdated BIS Wiki just isn't doing it. Where are the functions of ArmA 2? When I was looking for the named property to display train tracks on the ground, guess what? It wasn't there because nobody updated it since ArmA 1. We don't need a tutorial on how to model, I'm writing those my self, we just need a list of all the new engine functions, what they do etc...


Achieving that will gain more activity in the modding community.

Exactly, not a lot of guys got the time and patience to fish around for days trying to find stuff, then they just give up.


I prefer that BIS is concentrating on core engine functionality,

2011 is coming up, BIS games still have no way of going under ground, when its so simple to do, just make a way to delete a bit of the terrain in Visitor, put a model in the empty space and you got a tunnel.

2011 and BIS AI still cant drive, when I played that mission in Arrowhead where you can walk around tat city in peace the bus was driving in to stuff and killing people, I'm used to that from OFP but look at games such as Mafia 2, look at the way AI drives there, when somebody sees that in ArmA 2 the re surly thinking "you gotta be kidding me man".


Anyway, we are to far away from the thread topic, sorry for that.

This thread will always go off topic, because people just wanna say what they care about the most, but BIS isn't seeing that/possibly getting angry that we are not satisfied? Don't look at us like we are "the community" and others who aren't here on the forum are "the other customers", we are your customers the only difference is that we are here on the forum and others are not, but that doesn't mean that everyone else out there is satisfied, they got the same opinions like us, maybe the reason why they aren't here is because they aren't so satisfied :rolleyes:


the hard-core active user community is not large enough in our case and we have to attract new people to replace those that leave for any reason (e.g. RL commitments)

How do you plan on doing that?

[MadDogX]

Aren't we going a bit far off topic here? If you want to blow off steam about missing engine features and bugs, you might want to create a new thread for it. Or if you really want to give BIS advice on how to run their busines, a more direct approach like an eMail or PM may be more appropriate.

Posts were deleted.

[Placebo]

Deleted all SoEinPursche! posts, banned members don't get a say, multiple duplicate accounts get people banned....

[Kiki]

Well I Read the whole thing two times and finally understood.
Thank for all these clarification.

[STALKERGB]

Just to bring something up from another thread, (I think the dePBOing 1.54 one) Marek said:


As to releasing sample content, sure, as always we will do it. But I suggest a bit more patience.

Could someone maybe clear up what that meant? Something along similar lines to what was released for ARMA2 (the sample character/config/texture etc) being released at some point in thew future?

[Baff1]

As far as is humanly possible I like to see things as "open source" as possible.

I think this benefits me, the end user, the most.

I also believe that this benefits BIS, a gamemaker for whom the moddability of their products is a massive selling point, not to mention a recruitment aid.


The legality of copywrights is a thorny issue.
No one likes to see someone else profiting from their own work without a cut.
No one likes to see their work butchered and artistic control lost.

That's a serious blow to motivation. A perceived injustice.

And that is the massive downside to this kind of a project.



With regard to most of the models made for this game however, the copywright does not belong to the modders themselves. Despite the enormous commitment they make to release them, the work is not their own. Typically it is a copy of someone elses.

The copywright for a HUEY model for example belongs not to any mod maker or even to BIS. It belongs to Bell.

Those that use it without Bell's permission are guilty of the same injustice to the Huey's designers as they themselves are experiencing when their own work is plagiarised.
(This kind of double standard, I have to say, doesn't wash with me at all. Not one bit).


So while many addons may well be lisenceable, most are not.

It's clearly a very sensetive issue to many of those who release mods. And understandably so. I think it would be very wrong to underestimate the amount of time and effort they put in to creating these things and the good will they display by sharing them with me.
But this still changes nothing. The work is not their own IP, it is a copy nothing more. Talk of copywright infringement or Intellectual Property is at best misplaced.

Further to this actually taking this kind of thing to court could result in the kind of legal action that would shut down all mod making for all gamers longterm.
This modding community is fundamentally based on copywright infringement. It's an integral part of what is going on here and that should not be forgotten. There is such a thing as copywright law and the modders here are by and large not on the right side of it. They need to be aware of this. It's not a grey area, what they do is illegal, but thankfully too low key to reasonably expect to have invigilated.

That's not to say it can't happen however. A 3D model of a Ford was ripped off from it's creator and used in an advertisement. The modellor took the guy who ripped him off to court and in doing so attracted the attention of Ford who then successfully sued them both for copywright infringement.
Far better for all to stay below the radar than to make an issue out of this.



In the end I feel you have to take the good with the bad. I would rather see this game continue to be as open sourced as possible and lose the contributions of those modellers who feel they cannot publish within this framework than see the game become too prohibitively encrypted to facilitate the easy modification of it's files.




I certainly like the idea of templates being released by BIS. That would make for an excellent set of community tools.

[RKSL-Rock]

As far as is humanly possible I like to see things as "open source" as possible.

I think this benefits me, the end user, the most.

I also believe that this benefits BIS, a gamemaker for whom the moddability of their products is a massive selling point, not to mention a recruitment aid.


The legality of copywrights is a thorny issue.
No one likes to see someone else profiting from their own work without a cut.
No one likes to see their work butchered and artistic control lost.

That's a serious blow to motivation. A perceived injustice.

And that is the massive downside to this kind of a project.



With regard to most of the models made for this game however, the copywright does not belong to the modders themselves. Despite the enormous commitment they make to release them, the work is not their own. Typically it is a copy of someone elses.

The copywright for a HUEY model for example belongs not to any mod maker or even to BIS. It belongs to Bell.

Those that use it without Bell's permission are guilty of the same injustice to the Huey's designers as they themselves are experiencing when their own work is plagiarised.
(This kind of double standard, I have to say, doesn't wash with me at all. Not one bit).


So while many addons may well be lisenceable, most are not.

It's clearly a very sensetive issue to many of those who release mods. And understandably so. I think it would be very wrong to underestimate the amount of time and effort they put in to creating these things and the good will they display by sharing them with me.
But this still changes nothing. The work is not their own IP, it is a copy nothing more. Talk of copywright infringement or Intellectual copywright is at best misplaced.




I certainly like the idea of templates being released by BIS. That would make for an excellent set of community tools.
I'm sorry BAFF but that's a load of old bollocks. You aren't related to Max Power or Walker are you?

To use your example of the UH-1 and Bell... The addon maker does own the IP and copyright to the model he makes providing it is solely his own work. By making any model, picture or representation of any Bell product you are not undermining Bell's Intellectual property, copyright or depriving them of business. Now if you were start claiming that it was endorsed by Bell or using their brand names, logo's or materials to promote your work you would be in breach of their copyright. But making a UH-1 model doesn't even come close. There are plenty of precedents if you want to do some proper research.

But if your interpretation was in any way correct you could kiss good bye to any and all Flight Sim addons, GTA, pretty much any simulation product ever made. Not to mention most anything that uses anything from the real world as a reference. Photographs, video, most of videos ever shot in fact. using your interpretation of the law would have any TV shows Movies etc having to pay royalties for showing a Bell helicopter in a film or show.

This sort of use is covered by fair usage clauses in the copyright and IP laws. As long as you don't actively promote your product with their brand names you are fine. But even then, you still own the models you make.

[Baff1]

I'll see if I can find you that court case I was talking about Rock.

(P.S. I have the greatest respect for you and your work mate and I don't wish to undermine your efforts in anyway).


In the meantime..heres a little exert fromt he Society of Digital asrtists forums that re-inforces what I am saying... while I hunt the aforementioned case down.




Alex8704-18-2008, 04:28 AM
Hi, I was just wondering, is it legal to make 3d models of cars like Toyota, Honda etc. and then sell them? Do you need permission?

What if I buy a 3d model of an Audi car, and put it in a commercial game of my own? What if I change the manufacturer logo and car name and just have the car design itself? Could they sue me because the cars design is of their own car design?

Thanks,
Alex.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------


JesseDavis04-18-2008, 04:51 AM
Hi, I was just wondering, is it legal to make 3d models of cars like Toyota, Honda etc. and then sell them?

No. I know you need to change the logo, and name. Logo and name completely, but I believe theres a general percentage of change for the design with guidelines you need to follow. Not entirely sure about that though, because i've seen knockoffs on turbosquid.


Do you need permission?

Yes. Their name, their company, their design. They don't necessarily want to be associated with you at all. If you want to sell part of their company, you need their permission.


What if I buy a 3d model of an Audi car, and put it in a commercial game of my own?

still need their permission. Any reference to any company or product (for monetary gain, or anything with your logo on it) needs paperwork filled.

What if I change the manufacturer logo and car name and just have the car design itself?

again, you need to change the design a certain percentage (you probably need to consult some sort of real legal advice) to make money off of it without permission.

Could they sue me because the cars design is of their own car design?

yes, easily.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-622345.html

There is another good thread on it here you might enjoy.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-866339.html

Another here at 3dtotal forums.
http://forums.3dtotal.com/showthread.php?t=53060




I fully expect that Flight Sims and GTA are all expressly required to ask permission to use lisenced models. I'm not saying they all have, but they are open to be sued if not. I bet GTA has all the requisite permissions, it being such a controversial title.


I'm not sure how far this relates to free releases however. I expect it still applies. You can damage a products reputation by association.


Here's a case history for you to look up.
Not the one I was referring to, but along similar lines.



"The US Court of Appeals for the Tenth Circuit has affirmed (PDF) a ruling that a plain, unadorned wireframe model of a Toyota vehicle is not a creative expression protected under copyright law. The court analogized the wire-frame models to photographs: the owner of an object does not have a copyright in all images of the object, but a photographer may have a limited copyright over a particular image based on artistic choices such as costumery, lighting, posing, etc. Thus, the modelers could only copyright any 'incremental contribution' they made to Toyota's vehicles; in the case of plain models, there was nothing new to protect. This could be a two-edged sword — companies that produce goods may not be able to stop modelers from imaging those products, but modelers may not be able to prevent others from copying their work."

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/21/203240

Here s another related one.


In recent months, 3D model repositories such as TurboSquid have been served with DMCA takedown requests for 3D models of a variety of commercial and military vehicles based on trademark infringement for the vehicle names. This came to a head near the end of March when Lockheed Martin issued a takedown order for models of a B-24 bomber modeled by John MacNeill. TurboSquid complied, but now the Electronic Freedom Foundation has stepped up in MacNeill’s defense, issuing an open letter to Lockheed’s licensing agency in an effort to get his models back up.
http://www.blendernation.com/eff-goes-to-aid-3d-modelers/




Edit.
I surrender.
I'm pretty sure it was a Ford I read about. Those forums mention BMW being quite hot on suing people over this too.
CBA with a protracted Google hunt sorry.

[RKSL-Rock]

...
(P.S. I have the greatest respect for you and your work mate and I don't wish to undermine your efforts in anyway).

Well you seem intent on trying to undermine the entire basis of community modding all the same.


In the meantime..heres a little exert fromt he Society of Digital asrtists forums that re-inforces what I am saying to you... while I hunt the aforementioned case down.

http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-622345.html

There is another good thread on it here you might enjoy.
http://forums.cgsociety.org/archive/index.php/t-866339.html



I expect that Flight sims and GTA are all fully required to ask permission to use lisenced models. I'm not saying they all have, but they are open to be sued if not.

I'm not sure how far this relates to free releases however. I expect it still applies. You can damage a products reputation by association.
Actually the company that made GTA as well as several others have all been to court over the illegal use of branding and copyrighted materials. Most removed the illegal branding i.e. logos etc and no further action was taken. While some, notably Konami got their arse handed to them by BMW and Ferrari. The Penalty and subsequent license fee was huge.

And I know for a fact that the Flight Sim community have been through this particular hoop a few times with Fiat, Beech and Boeing. None of which ever won a case as far as I am aware.


...
Here's a case history for you to look up

http://news.slashdot.org/article.pl?sid=08/06/21/203240

Not the one I was referring to, but along similar lines.


... a ruling that a plain,unadorned wireframe model of a Toyota vehicle is not a creative expression protected under copyright law.
... in the case of plain models, there was nothing new to protect.
There are several key phrases there. And its worth putting this in a proper context. The models in question were being sold as a representation Toyota product. Illegally using thier brand to promote MESHWERKS, INC's model. The ruling goes on to refer to "plain unadorned wireframe models" in relation to the right of creative expression to be protected under copyright law.

This is because the model itself was nothing more than an untextured mesh of the Toyota product, as such it didn't represent any form of unique creative content. e.g. textures animations etc. IE nothing to seperate it from Toyota's design. Textures, features etc may have been enough to do that.

This isn't the case in ArmA, FSX or any other community where the publically available models could be said (and have been) be extensively and creatively reworked and in most cases do not provide any threat, ability or conditions in which to deprive, defraud or deny profit from the respective brand name owners.

I've been through a few copyright/ip theft cases myself. And the first step was always to establish my ownership of all the IP related to the material. My own experiences have included representations of Airbus, Westland, and EADS products. In all 3 cases there was a clear ruling under copyright law that I was the sole owner of the IP and was not making a claim on anyone's Branding or copyright. There are provisions for it in the Berne convention and in various international copyright treaties going back 50+ years.

The IP laws are amazingly gray at times but they are enough precedents that show rulings about the artist's right to make representations of publically available products. Of course commercially, you cant use someone else's brand names and logos without a license but there is absolutely nothing to stop you making an "artistic representation". Eg Cayota, Sundat etc.

So I am totally confident when I say you are wrong. We own our own models. I have 3 court rulings with my name on it that support that position.

[TRexian]

Here's an interesting question - I think we all accept that textures/models are subject to licenses, but what about sqfs? Generally, "patent" law covers "how" things work. But, you can't patent ideas.

Personally, I don't think any one modder or group can claim that someone "stole" an implementation of something. For instance, my mine addon relied heavily on work done by a guy named Pingu (who I believe has now left the community). Interestingly, ACE's mines employ a very similar system. But, I don't think either one of us "stole" it from Pingu.

Does BI have a position on how people can use sqf techniques from other addons? Or is there a commonly-accepted community standard on that?

[Baff1]

Well you seem intent on trying to undermine the entire basis of community modding all the same.




Actually the company that made GTA as well as several others have all been to court over the illegal use of branding and copyrighted materials. Most removed the illegal branding i.e. logos etc and no further action was taken. While some, notably Konami got their arse handed to them by BMW and Ferrari. The Penalty and subsequent license fee was huge.

And I know for a fact that the Flight Sim community have been through this particular hoop a few times with Fiat, Beech and Boeing. None of which ever won a case as far as I am aware.




There are several key phrases there. And its worth putting this in a proper context. The models in question were being sold as a representation Toyota product. Illegally using thier brand to promote MESHWERKS, INC's model. The ruling goes on to refer to "plain unadorned wireframe models" in relation to the right of creative expression to be protected under copyright law.

This is because the model itself was nothing more than an untextured mesh of the Toyota product, as such it didn't represent any form of unique creative content. e.g. textures animations etc. IE nothing to seperate it from Toyota's design. Textures, features etc may have been enough to do that.

This isn't the case in ArmA, FSX or any other community where the publically available models could be said (and have been) be extensively and creatively reworked and in most cases do not provide any threat, ability or conditions in which to deprive, defraud or deny profit from the respective brand name owners.

I've been through a few copyright/ip theft cases myself. And the first step was always to establish my ownership of all the IP related to the material. My own experiences have included representations of Airbus, Westland, and EADS products. In all 3 cases there was a clear ruling under copyright law that I was the sole owner of the IP and was not making a claim on anyone's Branding or copyright. There are provisions for it in the Berne convention and in various international copyright treaties going back 50+ years.

The IP laws are amazingly gray at times but they are enough precedents that show rulings about the artist's right to make representations of publically available products. Of course commercially, you cant use someone else's brand names and logos without a license but there is absolutely nothing to stop you making an "artistic representation". Eg Cayota, Sundat etc.

So I am totally confident when I say you are wrong. We own our own models. I have 3 court rulings with my name on it that support that position.
Don't get selective with that quote please mate.
Read it all.
That which agree's with and that which does not.
Clearly I could have just posted the half of it that works in my favour if my attempt was to be misleading in some way or there were area's of the subject matter I did not wish to acknowledge.

The purpose of these discussions is for us to learn about and explore the whole subject not to prove any points.




The reason BMW was able to sue is because they own the copywright for their designs, not the modeller who faithfully reproduced them.

It is they who issue the lisences to use them, not the 3d artist who reproduced them.

I completely agree with you that I do not forsee any for the brandnames involved or recreated in this game being upset by their inclusion.
I feel certain that if you ask their permission, they will give it freely.

It's not like this is a game featuring a Toyota who's brakes fail everytime it drives past a school full of children or something or for that matter a pimp wagon running hoes between drug deals and cop killings.



Intellectual propertywright is there to protect creatives artists. Not modellers but creatives.
If what you are attemping is to faithfully and exactly reproduce designs, as the average ArmA model does, then the term IP doesn't apply to your work.
A modeller fits closer to the Toyota cases example of not adding anything to the design. That in fact is one of their major goals. To faithfully and exactly reproduce the design.
And the brandnames of those designs are the focal intrest of those who download them. I want a MP5 not because it's a cool looking gun, but because it is an MP5 the gun the SAS use. Publishing an MP5 mod is capitalising on Hechler and Koch's design in everyway. They are not creating an new IP. They are deliberately using an existing one.

Now I think you have a case to copywright the functions and features and embellishments you make to that code. Your methods of opening bay doors or cargo master scripts etc.
But the basic ArmA model is an attempt to be a faithful reproduction of someone elses design. I'd be intrested to hear how many of these have you had copywrighted? If you have that would make me re-evaluate my understanding.

I recognise that you yourself embellish these models. That you add working bits of functional and original code for example.


And strictly speaking you still need to get permission to do that, just as you personally would wish people with yours do the same.
After all people who reskin your models... are they not just embellishing them? Or if i changed the flight model, the weapons loadout or converted it to run with ACE?

And like you every modeller would have to seek the copywright for his model in order to own it. And the companies who designed that model would be able to and have the opportunity to protest it if they wished.



Now clearly in my opinion that is just taking things too far.


And that's why I think the whole attempt to try and lisence mods and force people to get permission or to add some super encryption to use them is a step in the wrong direction.

I think it goes against the spirit of the community even if not your own personal ethos and the ethos of your friends.

It's a game. If you want to turn it into a career, good for you, but no need to killjoy it for the rest of us. No need to turn into some giant mock legal battle please.

The spirit I would rather see fostered is one of co-operation.

How about modders just turn on their software open up whatever the hell they like the look of and diddle about with it and see what they come up with?
You know? Just have fun.



How about if you make a standalone game with your work encypted that no one can mess with and sell it to me, who will gladly buy it.
As I'm sure will many of us.
You want to make money and protect your work which is something I think we can all understand.
The standard of your work is indeed excellent and well worth paying for... if you have outgrown an amateur enviroment... take that next big step and I promise you, I will buy it if you make it. I love the stuff you do.
I cannot underline enough what an enormous fan of your releases I am.

But these games I feel have always been a bit more open source than that and I think that is a large factor in their success. Yes it's the mods that make them so good, but more precisely it's the ability to easily make mods rather than any specific mods or modders in particular. The harder you make it to do this, the more it suffers overall.

[RKSL-Rock]

Here's an interesting question - I think we all accept that textures/models are subject to licenses, but what about sqfs? Generally, "patent" law covers "how" things work. But, you can't patent ideas.

You maynot be able to copyright ideas but you can patent concepts defined by procedures or methodologies. But I guess its down to how the idea is represented.


Personally, I don't think any one modder or group can claim that someone "stole" an implementation of something. For instance, my mine addon relied heavily on work done by a guy named Pingu (who I believe has now left the community). Interestingly, ACE's mines employ a very similar system. But, I don't think either one of us "stole" it from Pingu.
Well if someone copied and pasted parts of your original script then I think you could. But if you were to use the same concept but with different code then it wouldn't be theft. People do often come up with similar solutions to a common problem.

But in your own example I guess it depends on how much you used of Pingu's original work. And how much of that original work still exists in your addons.




Don't get selective with that quote please mate.
Read it all.
That which agree's with and that which does not.
Clearly I could have just posted the half of it that works in my favour if my attempt was to be misleading in some way or there were area's of the subject matter I did not wish to acknowledge.
Which is pretty much what you are doing. You arent acknowledging the distinction between unlicensed use of branding and copyright and the fair use of "shapes and forms" as allowed under international law.


The reason BMW was able to sue is because they own the copywright for their designs, not the modeller who faithfully reproduced them.

Not true. They were able to sue because they were using the BMW logo and branding. Nothing more. The actual shape of the models had nothing to do with the precedent or the law.


It is they who issue the lisences to use them, not the 3d artist who reproduced them.
Anything any artist creates is their own IP. No one can take that from you. The issue is, "do you have the right to use/exploit someone else's name for gain". And under international law you do not. In the case of 3D models and even photography there are a huge number of cases that have repeatedly proved out the "Fair usage" rights.

You seem to be under the impression that a 3D artist who makes a model of a BMW and claims IP rights to that model is also trying to claim rights to the design of the car. This is utter rubbish. The case you cited before seems to blur that distinction but there is a distinction there. The fact that other cases you also linked to have also been overturned supports the fair usage clause in law. Lockheed, Boeing and BMW have all been forced to back off at various times. When they have succeeded its been because people were unlawfully using/exploiting their trademarks. Nothing more.


Intellectual propertywright is there to protect creatives artists. Not modellers but creatives.
Sorry but you are wrong again. Modellers are creatives. That has also been established under law.


If what you are attemping is to faithfully and exactly reproduce designs, as the average ArmA model does, then the term IP doesn't apply to your work.
Can i ask what your basis of expertise is in this particular topic? While you seem to be posting informed comments the facts do not match any of your statments its just coming across as uninformed opinion.


A modeller fits closer to the Toyota cases example of not adding anything to the design. That in fact is one of their major goals. To faithfully and exactly reproduce the design.
And the brandnames of those designs are the focal intrest of those who download them. I want a MP5 not because it's a cool looking gun, but because it is an MP5 the gun the SAS use. Publishing an MP5 mod is capitalising on Hechler and Koch's design in everyway. They are not creating an new IP. They are deliberately using an existing one.
And it is the use of that brand name that is the focus of the point of law. If i rename the BMW model too "Super Sports car", removing any reference to their brand then there is no legal way BMW can sue. Unless of course I've taken their models.


Now I think you have a case to copywright the functions and features and embellishments you make to that code. Your methods of opening bay doors or cargo master scripts etc.
But the basic ArmA model is an attempt to be a faithful reproduction of someone elses design. I'd be intrested to hear how many of these have you had copywrighted? If you have that would make me re-evaluate my understanding.

Again you are suggesting that the modeller is trying to claim rights to someone else's design. They are not. They are claiming right solely over their representation of that design. Nothing more. You are trying to apply the concept of Copyright and IP laws in an uninformed blanket fashion that just doesn't happen.

If you actually had some experience of the practical application of it you know there are caveats and clauses that prevent someone from trying to do what you are doing. I'm not legal expert but I've been dealing with the use and creation of IP and copyrighted materials for a large part of my working life (Sub contracts Project management and Procurement). It is almost impossible to apply the laws to the global level you seem to think exists.


I recognise that you yourself embellish these models. That you add working bits of functional and original code for example.

And strictly speaking you still need to get permission to do that, just as you personally would wish people with yours do the same.
After all people who reskin your models... are they not just embellishing them? Or if i changed the flight model, the weapons loadout or converted it to run with ACE?

And like you every modeller would have to seek the copywright for his model in order to own it. And the companies who designed that model would be able to and have the opportunity to protest it if they wished.
Again you are assuming too much. Your entire argument is flawed because of your intial assumption that the artist is claiming ownership of someone else's design. If we were talking talking about brand names then you would atleast be partially correct. But we are not. We are talking about the creation of artistic/creative representations of real world objects. Which as i have repeatedly said is allowed under the fair usage clauses.




Now clearly in my opinion that is just taking things too far.


And that's why I think the whole attempt to try and lisence mods and force people to get permission or to add some super encryption to use them is a step in the wrong direction.

I think it goes against the spirit of the community even if not your own personal ethos and the ethos of your friends.
Again you are mis interpreting the situation. I think Marek's purpose - and Marek please correct me if im wrong - was to raise awareness of the licensing of BIS objects and content. And to open a discussion about how to provide the best support for the addon making community without undermining BIS's IP. And at the same time help those in the community that may want to or need to license or protect their work understand their legal options.

Like a few other people in this community you are not reading this situation properly. You seem to want this debate to be about restrictions not about solutions.

The fact is that there are people out there ARE stealing BIS and community made content. They are profiting from it, there are already quite a lot of sites hosting ripped content from this game and community. And by doing so underminging BIS' ability to continue operating as a business. Not to mention driving honest addon makers either underground or out of the community for good. Neither scenario is good for you or anyone else here.


It's a game. If you want to turn it into a career, good for you, but no need to killjoy it for the rest of us. No need to turn into some giant mock legal battle please.
Oh please. You are the one misquoting laws and trying to undermine the concept of community IP rights. And don't try to suggest i have any other agenda here. I've already had quite successful career making 3D content both full and part time for the last 10 years. And in that 10 years I've released or helped people release a hell of a lot of free HQ content to this community. Not to mention helping quite a few people in this community get started. Are those the actions of someone trying to turn a quick buck?


The spirit I would rather see fostered is one of co-operation.

How about modders just turn on their software open up whatever the hell they like the look of and diddle about with it and see what they come up with?
You know? Just have fun.
There is a lot of cooperation. Sadly there is also a lot of theft, abuse and uninformed tripe spread around. Personally i cannot see any downside to people being aware of their rights. And no one here is proposing anything that would place restrictions on the community that weren't already in existance.


How about if you make a standalone game with your work encypted that no one can mess with and sell it to me, who will gladly buy it.
As I'm sure will many of us.
You want to make money and protect your work which is something I think we can all understand.
The standard of your work is indeed excellent and well worth paying for... if you have outgrown an amateur enviroment... take that next big step and I promise you, I will buy it if you make it. I love the stuff you do.
I cannot underline enough what an enormous fan of your releases I am.
Again you are trying to imply I have some "sinister" agenda to make money out of BIS' games when I really don't.

But if you want to buy some of my commercial work, stump up the £1.2 million for a Thales flight simulator, or the $3.2 Million for the Lockheed Systems one. They all use some of my commercial models. I don't actually get royalties but I do get some repeat business when they want customisations and upgrades.


But these games I feel have always been a bit more open source than that and I think that is a large factor in their success. Yes it's the mods that make them so good, but more precisely it's the ability to easily make mods rather than any specific mods or modders in particular. The harder you make it to do this, the more it suffers overall.

I agree it is the mod making community that greatly reinforce this game's appeal. The sheer scale of its moddability is the draw for me. But the entire purpose of this debate isn't about encryption or restrictions. Its about raising awareness of the EULA and licenses. protecting both BIS and Mr Addonmaker's rights and at the same time trying to find a way for BIS to support that same addonmaker without giving away all their silverware, furniture and the shirts of their backs.

If you want more content and games, patches and upgrades from BIS then we need to support them properly. Respect thier rights and IP and work with them to find a positive solution to the issue. That means understanding their rights and licenses as well as out own.

... this entire topic is about establishing clear guidelines and rights to use BIS and community content. I want to see BIS continue to make these games. I want ArmA3, and ArmA4 a shed load of engine enhancments, decent physics at a lot more besides. I dont see that happening without us cooperating with them to make things better.

If you want to see that as a negative move then I have to question your own motivation.

[TRexian]

You maynot be able to copyright ideas but you can patent concepts defined by procedures or methodologies. But I guess its down to how the idea is represented.

Sure but then you aren't patenting the ideas, but the procedures/methodologies. :)

You can't patent nuclear fusion or the color red. You can patent ways to make fusion or the formula for red dye #12.

In the community, IMHO one ought not be able to "claim" a system for loading cargo onto trucks using game logics, or keeping track of set mines with a global array. :D



Well if someone copied and pasted parts of your original script then I think you could. But if you were to use the same concept but with different code then it wouldn't be theft. People do often come up with similar solutions to a common problem.

I think that is exactly right. And, ultimately, we all have the same goal - improving upon a wonderful product.

But, at the end of the day, there are limited variations of how to create things, move things, or delete things... the idea of "use the same concept but with different code" is almost meaningless. Not completely, but almost. BI has provided a wonderful structured syntax, but it isn't like writing a novel....



But in your own example I guess it depends on how much you used of Pingu's original work. And how much of that original work still exists in your addons.


Quite a bit - but more importantly, his functionality is at the core. I really just extended it. Although, working through it has given me ideas for new methodologies that might be better..... ;)

That's one of the great things about the creative process - there are always new things to try.

[Darkhorse 1-6]

You can't patent nuclear fusion or the color red. You can patent ways to make fusion or the formula for red dye #12.

But they will try. ;)

People have actually patented certain Genes in the human body, so say somebody thinks they might have the cure for a particular cancer or disease, well if some pharmaceutical company (or any company) has patented the gene for that disease the researcher has to pay an enormous amount of money to do testing to see if he has cured it.

[yanhchan]

I wish we could backwards port some things to Arma I, the engine in Arma I was much easier to deal with at times for simple troop movement.

[Mr Burns]

As i see it, there´s basically two options:
1) You allow others messing with & redistributing your work (in many different flavours)
2) You disallow others messing with & redistributing your work (fewer different flavours)

But one particulary important fact for the ArmA community is left untouched by creative commons licenses, i.e.: proper rewriting of classnames, name tag´s and other necessitys the community has learned to follow in order to not botch something up that someone else created.

Thats where you need to add additional clauses. CC structure does allow for that.

A follow up question to this one: Who´s up for writing an "ArmA Standards License"?

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/CCPlus
Using CC+ would be easier if there was something that everybody agrees with / uses.

[wld427]

Answers to what? If hex editing or ripping content from a product and further re-distribute it is allowed?

Of course it is not and it never was for any BI game...

May i ask blatantly about this.

To be clear we are not allowed to reskin BIS units by hex editing.

therfore to use a completely un molested C130 the only changes would be to make custom skin and apply it via hex edit on the vehicle. Why is this is not permitted?

if we are to fear the BIS lawyers if we do this...... then may we please get all vehicles in game to use hidden selections so we dont have to hex edit your models?

[Bushlurker]

I'm interested in this point too, since I'm currently engaged in "hex editing" some Arma 2 autumn trees to provide some summer-looking trees...

Since they're for use in my "Arma 2-only" terrain I was kinda hoping this was OK...


Quote:
Originally Posted by Maruk
Answers to what? If hex editing or ripping content from a product and further re-distribute it is allowed?

Of course it is not and it never was for any BI game...



I suspect/hope that what was actually meant by the quote above was.....


Answers to what? If hex editing or ripping content from a product and further re-distribute (beyond the Arma2/BIS "game world") it is allowed?

Of course it is not and it never was for any BI game...
[italics bit= my interpretation... I'm hoping Maruk took "re-distribute" to mean - in other games, etc - as opposed to simple object or vegetation recolours for reuse within Arma 2 itself]

Heres hoping Maruk will clear this point up for us - I've been working for 8 months on my island, I wouldn't want to have to redo it in autumn colours :confused:


B

[Soul_Assassin]

You can't patent nuclear fusion or the color red. You can patent ways to make fusion or the formula for red dye #12.

sure you can, more specifically you can patent the steps you need to take to achieve fusion or to make color red. Untill someone comes up with a radically different way, effectively fusion would be patented.

There is a high profile case now, with the guy who patented online Ad popups, online searching etc, suing ALL the big companies. CLICKY (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-11117587)

[wld427]

May i ask blatantly about this.

To be clear we are not allowed to reskin BIS units by hex editing.

therfore to use a completely un molested C130 the only changes would be to make custom skin and apply it via hex edit on the vehicle. Why is this is not permitted?

if we are to fear the BIS lawyers if we do this...... then may we please get all vehicles in game to use hidden selections so we dont have to hex edit your models?

are you guys ignoring my repeated request to answer this simple question or do you just not have the guts to answer without conferring with your lawyers? This is a very simple question. It needs to be answered for all of us because you state above that it is not permitted yet new addons of hex edited skins are released daily..............

examples....

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=106761
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=106059
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=83275
http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?t=97429

I am not trying to be disrespectful. In fact it is quite the contrary. If this is considered Illegal and not permitted i will remove all such content form my mod. In fact i will remove my mod all together in order to protect your IP. I am trying to work with you here not against you.

[Icewindo]

@<hidden>
Yep, some clarification would help there. Because of no released mlods for ArmA2 people started hexediting in the first place. It's safe to say that there are far more hexedited/mixed addons for ArmA2 than addons solely depending on ArmA1 MLODs or own work.

You would need to take like 70% of the addons down if the policy needed to be enforced. Eagerly awaiting that.

[[FRL]Myke]

@<hidden>
Yep, some clarification would help there. Because of no released mlods for ArmA2 people started hexediting in the first place. It's safe to say that there are far more hexedited/mixed addons for ArmA2 than addons solely depending on ArmA1 MLODs or own work.

You would need to take like 70% of the addons down if the policy needed to be enforced. Eagerly awaiting that.

I would even say, starting with ArmA 2 you can remove >95% of addons released, unless they are 100% ports of Armed Assault addons.


Honestly, I hardly see any real reason to start depboing BAF that would not conflict with BIS interests and licensing policy.
Source: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1731283&postcount=12

I guess that the very same license is in use for ArmA 2 and OA.
The BIWIKI doesn't hold any updated info about configs of any sort. Most is suitable for Armed Assault, ArmA 2 specific config reference is just missing.

But....
every addon has a config.
From where do have all the people adequate config references to create their own addons? De-PBOing BIS addons and unbinarize the configs? Most probably.

BWMod already throws new errors with latest beta patch which are related to new/changed config settings.
It's not up to BIS to fix those issues, it is the issue of the BWMod team.

But...
how should they know how/what to fix? De-PBOing original BIS .pbo files and unbinarize configs? Re-read Maruks statement.

[[GLT] Legislator]

So many addons might be created while breaking licence rules ... hmm ... still on the other side BIS is making profit because of the existence of the large mod variety. A few weeks ago I met someone who was fascinated by ArmA II and its huge community content. He bought a new PC just for the sake of playing ArmA II. I recommended him OA and BAF too and he was exicted. That's one more satisfied customer who was not only attracted by the game itself but because of the many high quality mods. I doubt he was the only one in the past few years.

Now I'm asking myself if I see through pink glasses or not. Maybe someone can express his opinion to this.

[namman2]

i'd like to understand how banning hex editing will help stopping model theft (wich does not need any hex editor)

[Defunkt]

i'd like to understand how banning hex editing will help stopping model theft (wich does not need any hex editor)
Why should you assume that's the point?

[NZDF CRASH]

hex editing is changing texture paths and proxy paths and nothing else which in theory is outright stupid to go after as you would wipe out a fair chunk of the community work thats been released already

[Defunkt]

hex editing is changing texture paths and proxy paths and nothing else which in theory is outright stupid to go after as you would wipe out a fair chunk of the community work thats been released already
But it's not really the community's work is it? The largest part by a long chalk is BI's and, while actual conflicts might be few in practice, how does one allow such a thing without putting BI's right to generate revenue from their own IP in future products at risk? I believe BI will always support modding, meaning the creation of wholly original content like mikebart's island objects or Rock's aircraft, but it might depend on this community coming to terms with the fact they're not required to deliver the shirt off their back with the $50 game they sold us.

[NZDF CRASH]

by community content i mean the repaints that are out there incase its mispercieved

[RKSL-Rock]

hex editing is changing texture paths and proxy paths and nothing else which in theory is outright stupid to go after as you would wipe out a fair chunk of the community work that's been released already

Its always technically been against the EULA. BIS has just tolerated it. But now we are looking at "paid for DLC" it makes sense for BIS to protect their assets.

But I do understand where you are coming from. A number of projects I have planned would have included repaints of stock BIS units. I had intended to use the hidden selection method but as we all know, not all the models support this.


So how about:
We ask BIS to patch in support for hidden selections on the models that don't have it. Which removes the need to hexedit models and ensures that no model is used outside of its original game eg:
OA models aren't used in vanilla ArmA2
ArmA2 models aren't used in OA
Everything can be used in CO.

BIS draw a line and say "no more hexedits will be tolerated from this date". Anything made before that are obviously still considered property of BIS as per the EULA and should not be reused in any platform other than its original.
In future BIS grant us a license with the tools to repaint (only - not repath or otherwise edit) the models providing they are used solely within the ArmA product they were first released for.
That way the "need" to repaint/reuse/re-config addons is supported without the breach of the tools or the need to edit models in anyway. I guess the biggest issue would be the licensing of textures but i'm sure it could be looked at.

What do you think could it work from the community point of view? Hopefully BIS will also take a look to see how it affects them.

[Tankbuster]

Its always technically been against the EULA. BIS has just tolerated it. But now we are looking at "paid for DLC" it makes sense for BIS to protect their assets.

But I do understand where you are coming from. A number of projects I have planned would have included repaints of stock BIS units. I had intended to use the hidden selection method but as we all know, not all the models support this.


So how about:
We ask BIS to patch in support for hidden selections on the models that don't have it. Which removes the need to hexedit models and ensures that no model is used outside of its original game eg:
OA models aren't used in vanilla ArmA2
ArmA2 models aren't used in OA
Everything can be used in CO.

BIS draw a line and say "no more hexedits will be tolerated from this date". Anything made before that are obviously still considered property of BIS as per the EULA and should not be reused in any platform other than its original.
In future BIS grant us a license with the tools to repaint (only - not repath or otherwise edit) the models providing they are used solely within the ArmA product they were first released for.
That way the "need" to repaint/reuse/re-config addons is supported without the breach of the tools or the need to edit models in anyway. I guess the biggest issue would be the licensing of textures but i'm sure it could be looked at.


Eminently sensible, Rock.
Especially the point about hidden selections. If I understand them correctly, and I often don't! :p this could be done within a matter of hours.

[[FRL]Myke]

Eminently sensible, Rock.
Especially the point about hidden selections. If I understand them correctly, and I often don't! :p this could be done within a matter of hours.

Making a model make use of hiddenselection is a matter of minutes. I would say, 10 mins per model. This already includes config changes aswell.

[Defunkt]

Something like that though BI will need to think it through from all angles themselves, there's nothing inherent to hidden selections that prevents people re-using BI's IP in a manner they might want to reserve for their own future projects.

Certainly I think mutual respect for both party's (BI & their community's) goals is the way forward and this might require a greater willingness by BI to discuss matters on a case by case basis. It may be that projects like RACS and CAA could find a home in an approved initiative like CWR. Certainly I'd like to see a community team given approval to bring A2 units up to OA standard (adding FLIR etc) which would ideally then be signed for multiplayer by BI and delivered to only CO owners. These are examples of things (forward-porting) that I expect BI would agree they couldn't really sell anyway.

[RKSL-Rock]

Something like that though BI will need to think it through from all angles themselves, there's nothing inherent to hidden selections that prevents people re-using BI's IP in a manner they might want to reserve for their own future projects.

Certainly I think mutual respect for both party's (BI & their community's) goals is the way forward and this might require a greater willingness by BI to discuss matters on a case by case basis. It may be that projects like RACS and CAA could find a home in an approved initiative like CWR. Certainly I'd like to see a community team given approval to bring A2 units up to OA standard (adding FLIR etc) which would ideally then be signed for multiplayer by BI and delivered to only CO owners. These are examples of things (forward-porting) that I expect BI would agree they couldn't really sell anyway.

Any sort of forward porting undermines BIS' sales so i dont see that its an option.

The issue for BIS is sales. They need to keep selling A2, OA and CO. They need to protect their product lines. To do this they need to make sure A2 content isnt availalbe to OA only consumers. Hex edits make that sort of misuse possible. There isnt a way to prevent them being used in standalone OA without providing two different formats tuned to each exe.

[Defunkt]

Any sort of forward porting undermines BIS' sales so i dont see that its an option.
Potentially yes but what I'm proposing is limited forward-porting by agreement. If BI were to release a package upgrading A2 classes with all of the new OA features and desert skins as well I would certainly buy it but there would probably be an outcry of "should've been added for free" and as such they might be better off pursuing some other DLC project and instead agreeing to allow a team of community modders to carry out this upgrade while ensuring it only goes to CO owners (thus driving A2 sales). I see this as similar to the blessing CWR has received, BI have said they don't intend to update OFP to the latest engine and with that possibility out of the way the path is cleared for an approved community initiative, might be the same with ArmA1/RACS.

[-Martin-]

BIS draw a line and say "no more hexedits will be tolerated from this date". Anything made before that are obviously still considered property of BIS as per the EULA and should not be reused in any platform other than its original.

I don't see why you guys are still going on about hex editing, its not allowed and it never was so there is no need to draw any lines. This is what Maruk him self wrote:


Answers to what? If hex editing or ripping content from a product and further re-distribute it is allowed?

Of course it is not and it never was for any BI game...

Why isn't it allowed? Because it's basically taking a model which BIS is marketing right now and changing it your self. It's like going in to a car
factory, taking one of their cars and painting it by your self and then giving it to people for free.


Its always technically been against the EULA. BIS has just tolerated it. But now we are looking at "paid for DLC" it makes sense for BIS to protect their assets.


I don't think that BIS was tolerating it, they just don't have enough time to check every single addon and warn every addon maker, but if it got out of had I'm sure they would react. :p

Before I thought hex editing was good for the community but now I see its not, nobody learns to model by doing it, nobody brings any new models in to the game by doing it all we are getting is the same thing in a different texture, it would be far better if people make their own models which are new and interesting, possibly even better then the original ones.


In future BIS grant us a license with the tools to repaint (only - not repath or otherwise edit) the models providing they are used solely within the ArmA product they were first released for.


I think if they wanted you to "re-paint" their addons they would tolerate hex editing :p


There isnt a way to prevent them being used in standalone OA without providing two different formats tuned to each exe.

But why would BIS waste so much time making new formats for the same engine and making things more complicated then they are? Starting from the point that everyone here already has a copy of ArmA 2, now they want Arrowhead, they have two options, buy Combined Arms or stand alone Arrowhead, even if you buy stand alone Arrowhead you can still merge it with ArmA 2 like me so there is no problem, once you have that you don't need to port any models and similar stuff. It's not that expensive, cost me £10 for stand alone Arrowhead.

These are the basic rules you need to follow when making and addon, it's not really that complicated.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1729296&postcount=170

[RKSL-Rock]

I don't see why you guys are still going on about hex editing, its not allowed and it never was so there is no need to draw any lines. This is what Maruk him self wrote:



Why isn't it allowed? Because it's basically taking a model which BIS is marketing right now and changing it your self. It's like going in to a car
factory, taking one of their cars and painting it by your self and then giving it to people for free.



I don't think that BIS was tolerating it, they just don't have enough time to check every single addon and warn every addon maker, but if it got out of had I'm sure they would react. :p

Before I thought hex editing was good for the community but now I see its not, nobody learns to model by doing it, nobody brings any new models in to the game by doing it all we are getting is the same thing in a different texture, it would be far better if people make their own models which are new and interesting, possibly even better then the original ones.



I think if they wanted you to "re-paint" their addons they would tolerate hex editing :p



But why would BIS waste so much time making new formats for the same engine and making things more complicated then they are? Starting from the point that everyone here already has a copy of ArmA 2, now they want Arrowhead, they have two options, buy Combined Arms or stand alone Arrowhead, even if you buy stand alone Arrowhead you can still merge it with ArmA 2 like me so there is no problem, once you have that you don't need to port any models and similar stuff. It's not that expensive, cost me £10 for stand alone Arrowhead.

These are the basic rules you need to follow when making and addon, it's not really that complicated.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1729296&postcount=170

Martin I think you've missed the point of a lot of what has already been said. We were discussing alternatives to hex editing, and what to do if people want to use BIS's content but in a different camo scheme. Which has been a big issue for a lot of people in the past.

Just saying OK now its illegal you are all in the wrong after so many years of "allowing" it without also saying "look here's a possible alternative" is a bit off.

Instead of focusing on what we cant do how about focusing on finding a solution. ;)

[-Martin-]

Martin I think you've missed the point of a lot of what has already been said. We were discussing alternatives to hex editing, and what to do if people want to use BIS's content but in a different camo scheme. Which has been a big issue for a lot of people in the past.

Just saying OK now its illegal you are all in the wrong after so many years of "allowing" it without also saying "look here's a possible alternative" is a bit off.

Instead of focusing on what we cant do how about focusing on finding a solution. ;)

I think even if you do find a solution BIS will never listen to you :sad:

[RKSL-Rock]

I think even if you do find a solution BIS will never listen to you :sad:

I think with an attitude like that BIS wont listen to you. History has shown that if we support them they will support us. They may not answer every request or demand but they do atleast try.

Marek, the CEO of the company, not some paid rep takes the time to post in these forums that should say something for their approach to the community. They may not explain every action they take or the ones they dont but i do beleive they atleast listen.

[vitaliy0001]

The Arma 2 product is not just the game on it's own - it also includes less tangible benefits such as the potential to customise and enhance the gaming experience by way of the editor, addons and mods. It has already been mentioned here, that not a few purchases have been instigated by the latter benefits.
Those benefits exist due to the legal and social environment maintained by BIS and the community respectively. The relative lack of red tape and bureaucracy facilitate this. No one likes red tape. No one.

It is, indeed, undesirable to BIS, that content from a game that it expects additional payment for, is available to those who only paid for the game's predecessor. But is the value of that content high enough to justify spending time and resources on measures to prevent that transfer and/or strangling the mod makers with red tape and bureaucracy? After all, the person who bought A2 already paid for the development of the engine, most of the models and features that are present in OA. A set of new missions and a few new models and features is the remainder. What if the person does not want those missions? He just wants the models. Is it that much unreasonable to allow him that especially as he as already paid for the lions share of the development costs?
Personally, going by the morals on which I was raised, I think not.

But if one "rips" OA in it's entirety into A2, then that can be considered piracy, just like illegally obtaining any other game or program. The only exception is that the pirate already paid for most of the cost of OA... which again leads back to the point: is it worth it? Is it worth fighting this? It is only of serious consequence when the person already has a pirated copy of the original game, which, if that is the case, makes no difference in the respect of this "licence" crap - if he pirated A2 he'll just as easily pirate OA. It's an entirely different issue, with which BIS already deals with relatively effectively. In any case, the person who paid for A2 will pay for OA if he wants it.

So there's no need to stifle the mod makers with bureaucracy and red tape, thus reducing the value of the Arma 2 product. People who have paid for the game should be able to make use of all the possible enhancements available to them. These same people will buy OA if it is of value to them. Again personally, I think it is a bit much for a company to expect full payment for a product which does not cardinally differ from the predecessor - what new things are they offering? It's still almost the same game. If you think about what costs were incurred in developing A2 as opposed to OA, and their respective prices, I'm sure one ratio will be a lot fatter than the other.

It would be silly to reduce the value of the entire product, just for the sake of some models. Especially when in the end, a realistic profit margin will be achieved anyway.
Just remember that pride and greed are deadly sins...

[RKSL-Rock]

The Arma 2 product is not just the game on it's own - it also includes less tangible benefits such as the potential to customise and enhance the gaming experience by way of the editor, addons and mods. It has already been mentioned here, that not a few purchases have been instigated by the latter benefits.
Those benefits exist due to the legal and social environment maintained by BIS and the community respectively. The relative lack of red tape and bureaucracy facilitate this. No one likes red tape. No one.

It is, indeed, undesirable to BIS, that content from a game that it expects additional payment for, is available to those who only paid for the game's predecessor. But is the value of that content high enough to justify spending time and resources on measures to prevent that transfer and/or strangling the mod makers with red tape and bureaucracy? After all, the person who bought A2 already paid for the development of the engine, most of the models and features that are present in OA. A set of new missions and a few new models and features is the remainder. What if the person does not want those missions? He just wants the models. Is it that much unreasonable to allow him that especially as he as already paid for the lions share of the development costs?
Personally, going by the morals on which I was raised, I think not.

But if one "rips" OA in it's entirety into A2, then that can be considered piracy, just like illegally obtaining any other game or program. The only exception is that the pirate already paid for most of the cost of OA... which again leads back to the point: is it worth it? Is it worth fighting this? It is only of serious consequence when the person already has a pirated copy of the original game, which, if that is the case, makes no difference in the respect of this "licence" crap - if he pirated A2 he'll just as easily pirate OA. It's an entirely different issue, with which BIS already deals with relatively effectively. In any case, the person who paid for A2 will pay for OA if he wants it.

So there's no need to stifle the mod makers with bureaucracy and red tape, thus reducing the value of the Arma 2 product. People who have paid for the game should be able to make use of all the possible enhancements available to them. These same people will buy OA if it is of value to them. Again personally, I think it is a bit much for a company to expect full payment for a product which does not cardinally differ from the predecessor - what new things are they offering? It's still almost the same game. If you think about what costs were incurred in developing A2 as opposed to OA, and their respective prices, I'm sure one ratio will be a lot fatter than the other.

It would be silly to reduce the value of the entire product, just for the sake of some models. Especially when in the end, a realistic profit margin will be achieved anyway.
Just remember that pride and greed are deadly sins...

So what you are saying is that BIS should let anyone do what they want within their franchise? They should Create expansions, engine updates/fix and modifications and let other convert/port them for free?

Its been explained repeatedly on these forums by both BIS and community members that the sales of A2 and OA or the BAF DLC were ever going to be enough to sustain that kind of environment. Its unbelievably naive and more than a tad arrogant to propose this. Do you honestly think that you £25/$40 is enough of an "investment in BIS" to entitle you to free updates for the rest of your days? This entire discussion isnt about "red tape" its about raising awareness of the legal and moral reality of this community. That "unfortunate" reality you agreed to when you installed the game.

BIS is a business, yet you seem to think they are a charity. I think you are forgetting the rising cost and overhead of everything around you. The practical reality, no matter how unpleasant it is , really is that to keep trading and developing games BIS has to protect their IP.

Expecting them to give you the shirts of their back is not only unrealistic but insulting too.

[STALKERGB]

This whole issue has so many different approaches and arguments for BIS it must be hard trying to balance community and company. Personally I'd love to see a reasonably free approach towards modding for assets used WITHIN THE ORIGINAL GAME they came from. So OA stuff edited for use in OA. I have no idea how likely that would be and how easily that could be enforced but assuming it could be I guess that helps protect BIS' seperate products.

[wld427]

I don't see why you guys are still going on about hex editing, its not allowed and it never was so there is no need to draw any lines. This is what Maruk him self wrote:



Why isn't it allowed? Because it's basically taking a model which BIS is marketing right now and changing it your self. It's like going in to a car
factory, taking one of their cars and painting it by your self and then giving it to people for free.



I don't think that BIS was tolerating it, they just don't have enough time to check every single addon and warn every addon maker, but if it got out of had I'm sure they would react. :p

Before I thought hex editing was good for the community but now I see its not, nobody learns to model by doing it, nobody brings any new models in to the game by doing it all we are getting is the same thing in a different texture, it would be far better if people make their own models which are new and interesting, possibly even better then the original ones.



I think if they wanted you to "re-paint" their addons they would tolerate hex editing :p



But why would BIS waste so much time making new formats for the same engine and making things more complicated then they are? Starting from the point that everyone here already has a copy of ArmA 2, now they want Arrowhead, they have two options, buy Combined Arms or stand alone Arrowhead, even if you buy stand alone Arrowhead you can still merge it with ArmA 2 like me so there is no problem, once you have that you don't need to port any models and similar stuff. It's not that expensive, cost me £10 for stand alone Arrowhead.

These are the basic rules you need to follow when making and addon, it's not really that complicated.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1729296&postcount=170

your argument basically supports banning modding completley

if i am paying good money for anything i will paint it whatever colors i want.

I think BIS is starting to enjoy the controversy since they wont answer a simple question. If anyone else would notice they are simply fueling the controversy by being silent on specifics and posting worthless fluff about licensing.

[Fox '09]

hex editing is so 2001 .... we can use moveobject. what's the story on that now?

[MadDogX]

your argument basically supports banning modding completley
Perhaps you would like to highlight the part where he does that, because all I'm seeing in that post from -Martin- is an understanding and acceptance of BIS' copyright...


if i am paying good money for anything i will paint it whatever colors i want.
... An understanding and acceptance that you obviously lack.


I think BIS is starting to enjoy the controversy since they wont answer a simple question. If anyone else would notice they are simply fueling the controversy by being silent on specifics and posting worthless fluff about licensing.
:rolleyes:

[Deadfast]

hex editing is so 2001 .... we can use moveobject. what's the story on that now?

MoveObject is just an automated HEX edit.

[Maruk]

Few aspects to consider:

1) you can always try to contact creator of the original content and ask for permission beyond standard license. The copyright holder may or may not give it to you.

2) BIS interest is not really conflicted if you do not freely re-distribute modification of its content from one game to another unless it is permitted like it was from Arma 1 to any future BIS game.

This may give you a good guideline how to make your content in-line with BIS interests, so few examples of what is not good for BIS:

* taking content from OA and re-distributing it to A2 in a way it no longer requires OA

* taking content from Arma 2 and distributing it to OA in a way it no longer require Arma 2

* taking content from paid addon (e.g. BAF) and re-distributing it to a product that does not have BAF installed

This is in fact much more important for BIS than particular technical approach used during mod creation.


Re: simple re-texes via official selection: yes, it would be nice to have it for all models. However, the amount of work is significant due to high number of models present...

[[FRL]Myke]

Re: simple re-texes via official selection: yes, it would be nice to have it for all models. However, the amount of work is significant due to high number of models present...

I would offer myself to prepare all models for hiddenselections for BIS. Of course i would sign a NDA for such a work.

[vitaliy0001]

So what you are saying is that BIS should let anyone do what they want within their franchise? They should Create expansions, engine updates/fix and modifications and let other convert/port them for free?

Yes they should - it's part of the product. Or do you propose they pay the full price of OA just to have a few models in different colours?


Its been explained repeatedly on these forums by both BIS and community members that the sales of A2 and OA or the BAF DLC were ever going to be enough to sustain that kind of environment. Its unbelievably naive and more than a tad arrogant to propose this. Do you honestly think that you £25/$40 is enough of an "investment in BIS" to entitle you to free updates for the rest of your days?

AS Jan Pražák himself said - "ARMA 2 definitely is a success in terms of sales. It seems that despite the world economical crisis, Bohemia Interactive can again stand on it’s own feet for a while and focus on game development without having to worry about satisfying a bottom line or meeting financial targets, in this day and age that’s pretty rare, but one could say it reaffirms our ambitious development philosophy as not being completely cuckoo!"

As well as - "When people buy one of our games we see it as a commitment between ourselves and the gamer to continue to work hard to ensure the experience is the best it can possibly be."

What was that about arrogance, dear?



This entire discussion isnt about "red tape" its about raising awareness of the legal and moral reality of this community. That "unfortunate" reality you agreed to when you installed the game.

Legal and moral? One does not necessarily imply the other. Here's my moral - I payed for a product, and want to make use of every single available enhancement I can get my hands on. I bought a relationship with BIS, and wish that BIS treats me the way I want to be treated.


BIS is a business, yet you seem to think they are a charity. I think you are forgetting the rising cost and overhead of everything around you. The practical reality, no matter how unpleasant it is, really is that to keep trading and developing games BIS has to protect their IP.

And I'm a consumer. I am what puts bread on BIS's table. Lots of bread. Enough bread, according to Jan, to keep developing high quality products. The actual reality is, however, that to keep trading and developing games, BIS must provide value to customers, for which they are willing to pay. As I mentioned above, that value consists of the legal and social environment created by BIS, apart from the game itself, which, for something like A2 is just as important as the latter.

Really, what is BIS losing by allowing porting and editing? I think "not much" will not be an understatement.


Expecting them to give you the shirts of their back is not only unrealistic but insulting too.

Who is asking for the shirts? The whole topic was about a few models and textures... On their own, these objects are not of significant value to BIS, but to specific members of the community, who wish to spend time and effort obtaining and editing them, they are of a much higher relative value. Now BIS must decide - does it become a bitch and attempt to extract maximum possible short term surplus at the consumers expense, or does it cover it's costs and takes a reasonable profit margin, thus sustaining a liberal and happy modder community. If BIS takes this away by imposing obscure licences, it is highly likely that their revenue will decrease in the future.

[PuFu]

your argument basically supports banning modding completley
Modding community is much more than using existing models, and modifying those


if i am paying good money for anything i will paint it whatever colors i want.
And you are allowed to do just that, as long as you keep it for yourself.


I think BIS is starting to enjoy the controversy since they wont answer a simple question. If anyone else would notice they are simply fueling the controversy by being silent on specifics and posting worthless fluff about licensing.
I think for everyone else BIS stance is pretty obvious: any form of reverse engineering is forbidden(see the A2 EULA you agreed on when you installed your game).

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________


Yes they should - it's part of the product. Or do you propose they pay the full price of OA just to have a few models in different colours?
OA is a commercial product, that features more than a few models in different colors. You are free to choose not to buy it, of course.

As maruk said, you are NOT allowed to port any content from OA to A2, or the other way around. I find that anyone with some common sense will understand why


AS Jan Pražák himself said - "ARMA 2 definitely is a success in terms of sales. It seems that despite the world economical crisis, Bohemia Interactive can again stand on it’s own feet for a while and focus on game development without having to worry about satisfying a bottom line or meeting financial targets, in this day and age that’s pretty rare, but one could say it reaffirms our ambitious development philosophy as not being completely cuckoo!"

As well as - "When people buy one of our games we see it as a commitment between ourselves and the gamer to continue to work hard to ensure the experience is the best it can possibly be."

While all that is true, he never said that that hard work should be free.
There is, from my POV, already a ongoing commitment towards released games (see the number of fixes, patches and beta patches). That is something that goes under the same quote.


Legal and moral? One does not necessarily imply the other. Here's my moral - I payed for a product, and want to make use of every single available enhancement I can get my hands on. I bought a relationship with BIS, and wish that BIS treats me the way I want to be treated.

You are mistaken the Intellectual Property with the license you signed when you installed the game (which i believe you should read again), which grants you use of the said product. You do not OWN anything. SO no, you didn't buy a relationship, but a license to use the product.

The bolded part from your post is still valid. You are allowed to make use of any available enhancements released for this game (patches, beta patches, addons). This discussion is not meant to prevent you from doing it.


And I'm a consumer. I am what puts bread on BIS's table. Lots of bread. Enough bread, according to Jan, to keep developing high quality products. The actual reality is, however, that to keep trading and developing games, BIS must provide value to customers, for which they are willing to pay. As I mentioned above, that value consists of the legal and social environment created by BIS, apart from the game itself, which, for something like A2 is just as important as the latter.
That is true. But buying BIS products allowes them to work on improving further the franchise. Being it patching the game (which for BIS means introducing new features as well, not just fixing existing bugs), creating new expansions, DLCs, or developing a new game altogether


Really, what is BIS losing by allowing porting and editing? I think "not much" will not be an understatement.
If i was allowed to rip the entire OA and release it as an addon for A2 players, they would be loosing the said players as customers.

They still allow editing freely, as long as it is within the specified license. I don't understand why is that so hard to grasp.


Who is asking for the shirts? The whole topic was about a few models and textures... On their own, these objects are not of significant value to BIS, but to specific members of the community, who wish to spend time and effort obtaining and editing them, they are of a much higher relative value. Now BIS must decide - does it become a bitch and attempt to extract maximum possible short term surplus at the consumers expense, or does it cover it's costs and takes a reasonable profit margin, thus sustaining a liberal and happy modder community. If BIS takes this away by imposing obscure licences, it is highly likely that their revenue will decrease in the future.
It is not about the few models and textures. It is about a business model. They need to take a stance. BIS can't say they allow hex editing for re-texturing, but not allow ripping models and changing it. It is still reverse-engineer, in both forms.

The modding community is already liberal enough if you ask me. I haven't seen BIS hunting down anyone who hex-edited their models and released it as their own addon.

The purpose of this thread is to get the modding community familiar with the license agreements, as well as rectify the grey areas in their own license.

[RKSL-Rock]

Pufu just beat me to the punch. Couldn't have said it any better.

[wld427]

see thats the entire problem. everyone who responds to what i have posted either is not reading what i posted or have thier own ideas clouding thier rationality.


I am not asking to forward or backwards port any damn thing.

I am asking if i can hex edit a new texture on a completely unmolested BIS c130J.

So just to clear any other misgiving up.... using A2 models with A2 and CO or using Arrowhead content with OA.

I dont need another sermon from you pufu. I am asking someone from BIS to answer this simple question.

If the answer is no then i will end my modding in this fashion. I dont care if its released on a regular basis, or if BIS is looking the other way. I want to know thier absolute stance on this situation.

If it is not permitted then why are they still letting it go on everyday.

Again i am asking for an answer to this question out of respect to BIS. I honestly dont care what the rest of the community has to say or how they feel.

WE NEED BIS TO CLEAR THIS UP

---------- Post added at 10:02 AM ---------- Previous post was at 09:57 AM ----------


Few aspects to consider:

1) you can always try to contact creator of the original content and ask for permission beyond standard license. The copyright holder may or may not give it to you.

2) BIS interest is not really conflicted if you do not freely re-distribute modification of its content from one game to another unless it is permitted like it was from Arma 1 to any future BIS game.

This may give you a good guideline how to make your content in-line with BIS interests, so few examples of what is not good for BIS:

* taking content from OA and re-distributing it to A2 in a way it no longer requires OA

* taking content from Arma 2 and distributing it to OA in a way it no longer require Arma 2

* taking content from paid addon (e.g. BAF) and re-distributing it to a product that does not have BAF installed

This is in fact much more important for BIS than particular technical approach used during mod creation.


Re: simple re-texes via official selection: yes, it would be nice to have it for all models. However, the amount of work is significant due to high number of models present...

so does this mean as long as the addon is dependant on the original content whether it be OA or Arma 2 it is OK?

[PuFu]

see thats the entire problem. everyone who responds to what i have posted either is not reading what i posted or have thier own ideas clouding thier rationality.
actually i did.


Again i am asking for an answer to this question out of respect to BIS. I honestly dont care what the rest of the community has to say or how they feel.

WE NEED BIS TO CLEAR THIS UP
Then your best bet is to send your question directly to BIS via e-mail (dwarden and maruk are actually answering permission questions like this). At least they answered mine.

[wld427]

actually i did.


Then your best bet is to send your question directly to BIS via e-mail (dwarden and maruk are actually answering permission questions like this). At least they answered mine.

honestly do you think i have not tried that......

[Soul_Assassin]

honestly do you think i have not tried that......

well then come down and wait. Until a formal answer is presented assume:

EULA prohibits reverse engineering. Hex = reverse engineering the original files (you are providing essentially an edited ODOL). This applies to ALL ArmA2:CO files included in the game. Hence Hexing is prohibited. This is exactly what the EULA states. If after a while BIS provides guidelines on how hexing can be defined in a legal way, then you can lift this assumption.

So cool down and wait. Noone owes you anything (and I mean that, no, you didnt pay $40 dollars for a game engine license and a collection of models to be used as you wish. You pay for the chance to play the Game As It Is Sold). For the time being just concentrate on projects that do not use other peoples content (well BIS content anyway :))

[wld427]

and you also missed the part where i informed you i do not care of the communities opinions or comments. This is not an issue for you, me, the next guy, or anyone else but BIS to answer.

I am trying to get BIS to answer my questions. It is as simple as that.

[Soul_Assassin]

and you also missed the part where i informed you i do not care of the communities opinions or comments. This is not an issue for you, me, the next guy, or anyone else but BIS to answer.

I am trying to get BIS to answer my questions. It is as simple as that.

and Im telling you that no matter how much you yell and shout, BIS will only let you know when they are ready, not sooner. Just like your addons come out when they are done, and not sooner.

Also if you dont care about anyones opinion then go live in another forum and wait for the news on armedassault.info :mad:

[Defunkt]

so does this mean as long as the add-on is dependant on the original content whether it be OA or Arma 2 it is OK?
I believe you're correct in this interpretation, the problem that I then see is that AFAIK (and somebody more knowledgeable should feel free to correct me) there is currently no way to guarantee that dependency that is more secure than a few lines in a text-based config which begs the question; is this secure enough?

You'll never stop knowledgeable people from making their own edits for private use but it's a pretty good bet that having acquired said knowledge they're big enough fans to have bought everything anyway, what BI need to be concerned about is those knowledgeable people making it easy for less devoted members to acquire content they didn't purchase especially if it is also distributed here with a key/signature that might allow it to become ubiquitous in MP also.

As Rock has proposed, a re-release of models with hidden selections and the correct dependencies, using whatever PBO-encryption BAF currently incorporates and signed with BI's own key (which would make untampered versions massively more valuable) seems to me to address most of these concerns. If BI didn't wish to devote the resource a hand-picked community team (Myke has already offered) could be entrusted with BIS finalising the signed PBO's themselves. As said, I’d like to see a similar partnership entrusted with upgrading all A2 content (use again dependent on A2 ownership) to OA standards.

[STALKERGB]

I believe you're correct in this interpretation, the problem that I then see is that AFAIK (and somebody more knowledgeable should feel free to correct me) there is currently no way to guarantee that dependency that is more secure than a few lines in a text-based config which begs the question; is this secure enough?

This is probably the case for vehicles/aircraft but actually, you can guarantee dependency slightly more securely with OA spec infantry. If you incorperate the backpack system onto your infantry models then anyone trying to use the infantry in only ARMA2 (rather than the required OA or CO) will crash their game. The backpack proxy creates an error (i guess if it can't find backpacks) and crashes the game outright. SO in a weird way that helps act as a form of protection. Yes someone could still reverse engineer the model and remove the proxy but they have to completely re-weight the model which is a task and a half...

[wld427]

and Im telling you that no matter how much you yell and shout, BIS will only let you know when they are ready, not sooner. Just like your addons come out when they are done, and not sooner.

Also if you dont care about anyones opinion then go live in another forum and wait for the news on armedassault.info :mad:

buddy you are just going to have to get over the fact that i dont care what you have to say. This is the propper forum for me to discuss these issues as i am a rather very loyal supporter of BIS.

also talking down another community forum that supports the game on here is very very inappropriate.

In the end this is BIS's responsibility to answer. not yours.

sorry if i seem rather blunt but your comments are rather irrelevent to my request for a response from BIS.

[Zipper5]

Contact BIS via PM or email, wld427.

[namman2]

Few aspects to consider:

1) you can always try to contact creator of the original content and ask for permission beyond standard license. The copyright holder may or may not give it to you.

2) BIS interest is not really conflicted if you do not freely re-distribute modification of its content from one game to another unless it is permitted like it was from Arma 1 to any future BIS game.

This may give you a good guideline how to make your content in-line with BIS interests, so few examples of what is not good for BIS:

* taking content from OA and re-distributing it to A2 in a way it no longer requires OA

* taking content from Arma 2 and distributing it to OA in a way it no longer require Arma 2

* taking content from paid addon (e.g. BAF) and re-distributing it to a product that does not have BAF installed

This is in fact much more important for BIS than particular technical approach used during mod creation.


Re: simple re-texes via official selection: yes, it would be nice to have it for all models. However, the amount of work is significant due to high number of models present...

what've understood from this post (i know you dont care wld427) is that you may make any mod you want if the models are anything but A2 or OA or BAF models so this way if one wants to play A2 he should buy it ,same for OA and BAF ,what they care most (BIS) is not to take 1 model from these 3 games and but it in another one because this would make that game useless because you already get what you want for free ,but i guess it should be ok as STALKERGB said OA infantry dont work in A2 alone so this make the problem A2 and BAF models.

[wld427]

Marek finally was able to return my message.

in the end its ok to use things as long as they are 100% dependant on the game version in wich they came from.

[PuFu]

Marek finally was able to return my message.

in the end its ok to use things as long as they are 100% dependant on the game version in wich they came from.
That's great news for you. GJ!

[Tankbuster]

Eddie, good to hear. Looking forward to your stuff in particular.

[Bushlurker]

in the end its ok to use things as long as they are 100% dependant on the game version in wich they came from.

Thanks for that update Wld... good news for legit recolouring then... Excellent... I can go ahead and turn "shed_m02" into a pie 'n bovril stand :D


B

[[GLT] Legislator]

@<hidden>:
Now that's good news :) I told you to relax. Thank you for updating us and thank you BIS for clearing the legal things up! :yay:

[Icewindo]

Marek finally was able to return my message.

in the end its ok to use things as long as they are 100% dependant on the game version in wich they came from.

So uhm as I recall you only asked for hex-editing, was this answer general?

E.g. does this answer include using ArmA2 OA models, modifying these and releasing new addons based on them while adding a proper ArmA2 OA dependency?