Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0
sickboy

MLOD of all vehicle and soldier models released!

88 posts in this topic

As announced here by Maruk:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....t=67070

You can now download source versions of all models and associated configuration files from ARMA in 3 content archives (all subject to the same end user license, see below):

[*] sample models of all vehicles and weapons (from bistudio.com ~110 MB)

[*] sample models of all models used as part of the environment ( from bistudio.com ~60 MB)

[*] sample models of all creatures  ( from bistudio.com ~67 MB)

Make sure to read and agree to the following license agreement before using the data:

Quote[/b] ]ArmA - Sample Models

====================

Copyright © 2008 Bohemia Interactive a.s. All rights reserved. Unauthorized use is strictly prohibited.

For more information about ArmA addons modelling visit http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Modelling

This archive contains sample models, configs and model configs to be used in BI Editing Tools to create custom models for ArmA.

To distribute or modify or use the ArmA Sample Models in any way, you must agree to the following license:

THE LICENSE

============

1) Bohemia Interactive grants to you a personal, nonexclusive License to open, modify and distribute the ArmA Sample Models for the purpose of designing, developing, testing, and producing non-commercial game content for PC game ArmA and its sequels or expansion packs.

2) You acknowledge and agree that you will not commercially exploit any game content you may created using the models without Bohemia Interactive prior written permission.

3) Bohemia Interactive doesn't give you permission to exploit ArmA Sample Models in any other way, especially not to convert them for use in any other game or engine than ArmA or its sequels and expansion.

4) If you create and distribute a work based on the ArmA Sample Models you must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who will be using it. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

Woops, seems I forgot to mention: Weapons, parts of Environments and creatures  whistle.gif

FAQ:

How should we release our models based on those mlod version then? .pbo and a (packed) folder with the whole source stuff? Or just offer it on request? Or does it just mean its allowed for others to unpack the released .pbo and modify?

I have already answered this. You do not have to provide your sources. You just need to allow others to unpack and modify, under the same license as you received it.

Yes, this is written in a spirit similar to GNU license. If you want to start your work by modifying our sample models, you "pay" us for this by allowing others to start their work by modifying your models.

(Note the license is not that strong as GNU is, in that it is not forcing you to release your "source" MLOD models.)

You do not have to accept this license, in which case you are limited to the first small bunch of sample models, which are released under a license not having this requirement, or you can start your work from the scratch.

I can only reiterate what Suma said before. It can't be described better.

If you don't like the license, best is simply not to copy that single point or face you mentioned from BIS models and make it from the scratch or stick with any other original model (including BI Sample models released in August 2007) you are allowed to freely modify without such obligation. You may also try to get permission to use such model without this obligation simply by getting approval from us.

Please note that we were aware of some the reactions but we carefully decided to put the license this way.

I also can understand there could be some border cases that may not be very clear and where we may need to think carefully about the terms or provide some more explanation.

Anyway, if you follow the whole MLOD story, you may see many interesting and educational aspects in it related to the ownership of intellectual property, licenses etc.

(Such sounds would then need to be placed in another "package", and users instructed to install both packages separately which seems like a useless hassle as the end result is the same as if they would have been in the same "package" in the first place)

This certainly would be useless hassle. We may be open to grant a bit different license terms in some cases where we see good basis for it. In this example, I wouldn't have any issue if the licensed sounds are simply exempt of the open source style license.

On the other hand, our motivation is plain simple: by releasing our content in semi-open source manner we also want to encourage this collaborative behavior in the community overall. But really, nobody is forced to use BI content as basis anyway and there's also good selection of sample content available without such clause present.

Also, we want the community to give more considerations to copyright in general.

Quote[/b] ]2. If I wanted to use certain models to 'clutter' a vehicle (say to strap AT4's to the bonnet) but want to avoid the entire vehicle pack being open sourced because I used the AT4 that came with the recent mlod releases, would placing the AT4 as a proxy on the vehicle remove the possibility of my vehicle pack becoming open source?

When you are placing a proxy, you are not redistributing that content at all (only a link to the file is present), therefore you are not restricted by the license for that content.

In other situations when you want to use some small model, but you do not like the license, the easiest way is not use that small model at all and to make your own.

The spirit of the license is: if you want to get our complete work open and derive from it, you "pay us" for it by providing your work open as well, and letting others derive from it.

I repeat: you do not have do it this way. You can create your models from the scratch or from previous sample pack and distribute them as the corresponding less restrictive licenses (for the first samples and for the tools) allow.

In case there are some corner cases, like you needed to redistribute another work you have not created, but licensed, instead, and the license of that stuff prevents you to distribute it with our license, as hinted by Kegetys, you are likely to be able to negotiate a less restrictive license from us, however we are unlikely to accept license proposals which have the only purpose of protecting your own work and at the same time want to use our work.

Note: We are often is a similar situation when considering what libraries we can use. Some programming libraries are licensed under GNU, which means they are not suitable for us, as we do not want to open source our game.

@ x,x)]
I.e. whilst if I alter your model to my uses, but retexture it. The terms of the EULA says anyone can use my altered model, not a problem, but I assume our textures remain completely off limits without the usual permissions, even if its mapped to your model?

Hi. The usual open-source ideology says to take advantage of open-source licence you must release your work as open source.

You cannot release one addon with two separate licences.

So if you don't like the idea of someone modiffying your addon you have to negociate with BIS. However SUma just answered your question:

Quote[/b] ]we are unlikely to accept license proposals which have the only purpose of protecting your own work and at the same time want to use our work.

Read his post, it is 100% clear. You have to agree to share your work. All of it.

Open source licence DOES NOT mean you don't claim IP. The things you release are still your IP, they can only be used according to licence you provided (in this case open source). And yes, you have to agree to that to benefit from BIS developers' work.

Quote[/b] (ardvarkdb+Feb. 24 2008 @ 15:42--><table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Quote (Pauliness)][quote=ardvarkdb @ Feb. 24 2008' date=15:42)</td></tr><tr><td id="QUOTE">Has anyone had any issues with these models showing up fine in O2 but when you load up Bulldozer they are all messed up, with parts being stretched all over the place or missing?

Otherwise, I'm very excited to start messing around with these models. I don't mind the licensing thing, I've often found I learn the most by just analyzing other people's work, and have no problem giving credit where credit is due.[/quote]

"Actually nothing is missing, just select all (ctrl-a) and from menus select Unhide." wink_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Guess I spam my worries over here, too. Moderators can decide what to do whistle.gif

Sorry for stupid questions but:

Quote[/b] ]If you create and distribute a work based on the ArmA Sample Models you must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who will be using it. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

This means whole content of addons/mods using those sample models goes into "open source"? Not limiting just to the part from sample models?

May I ask what was the need for such change, as there wasn't such clause in first batch of sample models?

Anyway the idea is good to release all models into public... There are just some questions that need to be answered.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi, i think that everything is cristal clear now, those 3 clausules

explain it perfectly; at least for me (and my english is very poor).

The 1St sample models i don't know what they served for, because

they had wrong named selections and other errors; so therefore

they didn't served to work on 'em or just do a config, make a .pbo

and put 'em ingame.

This (working) MLOD models will serve to put 'em directly into the

game with a proper config. And i think that for any answer we've

the MLOD issue thread there "to solve" our doubts.

Thanks to Maruk & Sickboy for this release and the public anouncement.

Let's C ya

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thank you bis.

Bugreport:

I downloaded mine from Armaholic so i will need someone to confirm:

The First 2 LODs of all stryker models are mainly missing/screwed.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I downloaded it from BIS and it's the same for me. I was hoping to get a pcount from it too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thank you bis.

Bugreport:

I downloaded mine from Armaholic so i will need someone to confirm:

The First 2 LODs of all stryker models are mainly missing/screwed.

Actually nothing is missing, just select all (ctrl-a) and from menus select Unhide.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]If you create and distribute a work based on the ArmA Sample Models you must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who will be using it. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

This means whole content of addons/mods using those sample models goes into "open source"? Not limiting just to the part from sample models?

Yes, this is written in a spirit similar to GNU license. If you want to start your work by modifying our sample models, you "pay" us for this by allowing others to start their work by modifying your models.

(Note the license is not that strong as GNU is, in that it is not forcing you to release your "source" MLOD models.)

You do not have to accept this license, in which case you are limited to the first small bunch of sample models, which are released under a license not having this requirement, or you can start your work from the scratch.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Quote[/b] ]If you create and distribute a work based on the ArmA Sample Models you must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who will be using it. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

This means whole content of addons/mods using those sample models goes into "open source"? Not limiting just to the part from sample models?

Yes, this is written in a spirit similar to GNU license. If you want to start your work by modifying our sample models, you "pay" us for this by allowing others to start their work by modifying your models.

(Note the license is not that strong as GNU is, in that it is not forcing you to release your "source" MLOD models.)

You do not have to accept this license, in which case you are limited to the first small bunch of sample models, which are released under a license not having this requirement, or you can start your work from the scratch.

I can find myself in this. Good choice I believe. Unless anyone can point out any bad side of this?

People can base their work off it, or they can use them simply as examples and create their own work from ground up.

Fair deal imo thumbs-up.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I can find myself in this. Good choice I believe. Unless anyone can point out any bad side of this?

People can base their work off it, or they can use them simply as examples and create their own work from ground up.

Fair deal imo  thumbs-up.gif

Possible conflicts in multiplayer leading to server crashes when multiple variations of addons/mods appear? confused_o.gif

@Suma: Thank you for clearing up this issue!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possible conflicts in multiplayer leading to server crashes when multiple variations of addons/mods appear?  confused_o.gif

I fail to see what this has to do with anything huh.gif

Please enlighten notworthy.gif

thumbs-up.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't know, I'm just a paranoid newbie remembering too much OFP horror stories of server crashing...

Another small question:

Does this mean if I use for example M16 clip from BIS sample models on one of my guns, all my 100 guns which don't use that clip in same pack are declared open source too?

You know we Finns aren't native English speakers so we need to clear up this issue totally. Thanks for understanding us, I'm sure it's difficult biggrin_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Possible conflicts in multiplayer leading to server crashes when multiple variations of addons/mods appear?  confused_o.gif

Doesn't addon signing and all that take care of that? If a file is not the same as on the server, the player is not let in.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another small question:

Does this mean if I use for example M16 clip from BIS sample models on one of my guns, all my 100 guns which don't use that clip in same pack are declared open source too?

If you release it as one "package", then yes, you need to release it whole under this license. If that does not suit you, you have two options:

1) release the work separated into two or more packages, and the part containing the "BIS M16 clip" needs to be licensed under this license

2) do not use that "BIS M16 clip" and model your own

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Another small question:

Does this mean if I use for example M16 clip from BIS sample models on one of my guns, all my 100 guns which don't use that clip in same pack are declared open source too?

If you release it as one "package", then yes, you need to release it whole under this license.

How does a "package" get defined? ie. is a PBO file "the package", or a rar archive, a rar archive split into multiple files, or a collection of files on a web server? (This might seem like nitpicking but it isn't, the terms just do not seem too clear, and there could be conflicts with, for example, sounds used from a commercial sound effect CD which can be distributed with-, but not relicensed to this license. Such sounds would then need to be placed in another "package", and users instructed to install both packages separately which seems like a useless hassle as the end result is the same as if they would have been in the same "package" in the first place)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This sounds incredibly dodgy. Making the particular model that uses BIS parts open source I get. Making an entire pack open source, including textures, sounds etc, because one model within it uses BIS parts, makes no sense whatsoever. Good job I don't need to use any of it for my stuff!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You do not have to accept this license, in which case you are limited to the first small bunch of sample models, which are released under a license not having this requirement, or you can start your work from the scratch.

Just to clarify, those models without this license are the original set of sample models released on August 22nd 2007 only, correct?

So, taking the Smartti's example case above: One could take the M16 clip from the weapon released on August 22nd and still deny people permission to edit models using that clip. However, if the clip model were taken from one of the newly released models; say the M4 with Aimpoint, any other person would have the right to modify the models in the 'package' (I agree, that term could do with some clarification) containing this M16 clip.

The above case I just outlined is possibly a bit confusing, but I think the terms of the license are fair and probably beneficial to the community. Thank you very much for this level of community support BIS. Hopefully we as a community can repay your generosity with addons you too can enjoy. smile_o.gif

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 0