Why Licenses Do Matter

[-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

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
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