Content Licensing - Questions and Answers

Kukus: Since it seems like you came to this thread with a specific mod in mind, why don't you tell us which one it is? While I'm not a lawyer and I'd guess most of the other people here aren't lawyers either, there's still a very good chance we'll be able to tell you exactly what kind of rights you have with a certain mod.

ImperialAlex, actually it doesn't matter. For example: we have an edited mod (mod "A") based on any of this APL sample models (not APL-SA) https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_2_Sample_Models, of course it contain changes made by mod author (edited p3d's, new p3d's made by mod author, configs, etc.).

1. In the mod "A" description we see "License: APL". May I edit it and made mod "B"?

2. There is no information about license in mod "A" description. May I edit it and made mod "B"?

3. We have totally new mod "C" (made from scratch) and in description I see "License: APL". May I edit it and made mod "B"?

4. We have totally new mod "C" (made from scratch) and there is no information about license in mod description. May I edit it and made mod "B"?

In all situations I asked for permission from mod authors but didn't get an answer from them (so they didn't give me permission). Please don't answer groundlessly and don't base your response on moral aspect.

ImperialAlex, actually it doesn't matter. For example: we have an edited mod (mod "A") based on any of this APL sample models (not APL-SA) https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_2_Sample_Models, of course it contain changes made by mod author (edited p3d's, new p3d's made by mod author, configs, etc.).

1. In the mod "A" description we see "License: APL". May I edit it and made mod "B"?

2. There is no information about license in mod "A" description. May I edit it and made mod "B"?

3. We have totally new mod "C" (made from scratch) and in description I see "License: APL". May I edit it and made mod "B"?

4. We have totally new mod "C" (made from scratch) and there is no information about license in mod description. May I edit it and made mod "B"?

In all situations I asked for permission from mod authors but didn't get an answer from them (so they didn't give me permission). Please don't answer groundlessly and don't base your response on moral aspect.

You can work it out looking at this chart:

http://www.bistudio.com/assets/img/licenses/images/license_chart.jpg

If the mod itself is released with APL or APL-SA then you're supposed to be permitted to modify it. But only the APL-SA license automatically carries over from the BIS source data: i.e. If the mod is sourced from BIS's APL-SA data you're permitted to modify the parts of it that are sourced from that APL-SA data.

If it's derived from BIS's APL data but not released under an APL license itself, then you should to talk to the author. By convention, items released without a licence are treated as intellectual property with all rights reserved by the author so one cannot assume that they optioned to extend the APL waiver from BIS.

The problem is even with APL-SA BI does not force people to release the source of the derivative.

Hence it means if the source is available, you don't have to ask for permission given you stick to the licenses requirements.

So in practice SA is basically meaningless.

ImperialAlex, actually it doesn't matter. For example: we have an edited mod (mod "A") based on any of this APL sample models (not APL-SA) https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_2_Sample_Models, of course it contain changes made by mod author (edited p3d's, new p3d's made by mod author, configs, etc.).

1. In the mod "A" description we see "License: APL". May I edit it and made mod "B"?

2. There is no information about license in mod "A" description. May I edit it and made mod "B"?

3. We have totally new mod "C" (made from scratch) and in description I see "License: APL". May I edit it and made mod "B"?

4. We have totally new mod "C" (made from scratch) and there is no information about license in mod description. May I edit it and made mod "B"?

In all situations I asked for permission from mod authors but didn't get an answer from them (so they didn't give me permission). Please don't answer groundlessly and don't base your response on moral aspect.

1.) Yes, assuming correct context

2.) No

3.) Yes, assuming correct context

4.) No

What do I mean by 'correct context': The words "License: APL" need to occur in a context where it's obvious that the license of the entire mod is being discussed.

Here's an example of a description that contains the words "License: APL" but in a context where it's clear that they're not referencing the license of the entire mod

Example Description: "This is a little example mod made by John Doe. Credits: BI Arma2 Samples (License: APL)". Here the words "License: APL" simply explain the credits and do not mean the entire mod.

Is it ok for Citylife RPG community to ask for goverment ID to play thier game? Is my saftey being compromised? I told them I was 29 but they still requested to see my goverment ID, I hope I ain't being trolled or my safety or anyone else's safety isnt a concern.

http://forum.cityliferpg.com/topic/148357-effenkool/

As far as I'm aware a company can ask for such personal information, before they do business with you. That however doesn't mean you have to give it to them. It's always at your discretion. If in any doubt, avoid sharing this kind of data. In fact it's probably better to avoid it as much as possible, unless you're dealing with a bank or state institution. 

A subscription to a life server is "non-essential" and likely transient. Personally I wouldn't share that kind of info with them. :)

Looks like a thief plagiarist is claiming a song made by BIS

I have uploaded a video a few years ago (2013) about Arma 3 Beta, it contains original sound track from BIS. So, today, somebody claimed this music, and blocked it in a lot of countries. I checked if the song was the same, but no, the sound use a part that sounds exactly as the one from BIS, probably used a sample or something.
Here is the Original Sound Track composed by Ondrej Matejka and Jan Dusek
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KiRCDhMxkHg

And here is the fucking thief
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tEtX_7Gr08s
By the way, I am not mad because I can't make money or whatever, I mean, my video barely have a few views, is a very old video, nobody watches it anymore. The thing is the claim is false, and it is a blatant plagiarist. so mad right now!