Why Licenses Do Matter

[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?

[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 ?
And only few people do use/need the more restrictive cc by-nc-nd ?

[[APS]Gnat]

I thought most work of community is cc by-nc-sa ?
And only few people do use/need the more restrictive cc by-nc-nd ?

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

[JdB]

I would have said most addon makers are cc by-nc-nd.
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...