Modding Ethic/Courtesy Rules (Agreed)

[Hitman]

I have opened this topic in order to collect all rules of behaviour that seem to get unanimous approval from modders. The purpose of this topic is just to serve as appendex to the thread opened by Kpt. Lehman here: http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114500, collecting the results of the discussion.

Do not post here, post there and express your opinion. If at least we can agree in some minimums, it will help all the community of modders, veteran and new ones, by having a reference in etiquette.

Thanks. And now go to the main topic and add your feedback.:up:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

What purpose does it serve to close the thread in question without any sort of guidelines drawn out of it.

What message does that send?

Is it going to get shoved under the carpet again?

I think it is a fair subject to see through.

Remove all the personal attacks etc. from that thread and there IS real substance there.

[Onkel Neal]

The original thread was hijacked by too much personal animosity. This thread will serve to allow discussion of the common goal of crafting a modders code of ethics that the majority of people will agree to and adopt.

I suggest that this thread be heavily moderated, too. So any hijacking or snotty remarks be removed.

Let's talk about this without pointing out who did what and when. I think most people will work for this.

Neal

[Kpt. Lehmann]

The original thread was hijacked by too much personal animosity. This thread will serve to allow discussion of the common goal of crafting a modders code of ethics that the majority of people will agree to and adopt.

I suggest that this thread be heavily moderated, too. So any hijacking or snotty remarks be removed.

Let's talk about this without pointing out who did what and when. I think most people will work for this.

Neal

Thank you.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Proposals drawn from previous material:

For future mod releases, I think it would be best for the original modders to state in their readme their crediting/use wishes. Doing so will avoid *any* ambiguity.

Said readme needs to be included within the mod download.

For existing releases or new releases which state no use requirements, then:

#1: Ask permission [JJ: via the preferred means outlined in the readme if existing, otherwise via PM or via the modder's mod thread if one exists. If activity is on another board (like a German one, or Ubi's) then find someone that can post there and ask. Some of us are members of various forums for this exact reason].

#2 Do not assume that the individual received the message [JJ: I agree with this, but this policy does not cover where no response is received. If no answer, what's the approach? We need to cover for instances where modders have left the scene. So, use anyway with credits? Use only if x days have passed (a hard one to police considering not all mods contain readme files let alone release dates)? Or not use at all? Hmmm, a toughy. Personally, I think WHERE ALL AVAILABLE AVENUES FOR CONTACT HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED (email, PM, forum, website...) then use with full credits is the best "win-win" solution for both players and modders. Players will benefit from the feature which the latest modder obviously thinks is good enough to add (they could always drop it if they think the dramas of lack of written permission was not worth the benefit of the inclusion), and the original modder will not go unnoticed. But in this instance the question needs to be closed and specific.]

#3 If permission is denied... accept it... and do not use the mod.

#4 "Blanket crediting" is unacceptable and lazy. If you are not sure how to credit something... ASK!!!

#5 If you are called on to correct your credits... don't get offended... just deal with it and fix it.

#6 If an organized mod package is actively supported by its creator... and you want to make an overlay for it that changes the original package to suit your taste... and then release it... deal with 1-5 first... and don't even think of including the entire original mod package. Doing so leaves the impression that you are the primary creator even if you say otherwise loudly and repeatedly... and is a NO NO!!!

(Note: additional comments by JScones based on original work by Kpt Lehmann.)

One thing though that must be remembered is that these are guidelines only. It's up to the individual modder to decide whether they follow them or not - they are not "enforceable laws". However, just like using JSGME has now become a "modder standard", I am sure that over time most modders will see the benefit in following some community-agreed behaviours.

What weare looking for here, is a common set of basic rules that will apply to everyone... designed to protect and recognize modders who submit original works.

Having rules prevents craptastic trouble... by providing a clarity for modders that has not been present here before.

The final results should ideally be posted in all modding forums.

(editing in progress)

[Onkel Neal]

Good comments and ideas.

If you are a modder, I challenge you to actively participate in this roundtable. There are good questions on how to handle credit, using large pieces of other mods, compilations, negotiating with other modders, handling disagreements, etc.

Post your thoughts here; be professional, work together, and let's see if we can forge a code. If you don't participate, you're not helping the cause.

thanks
Neal

[danlisa]

To further expand on the Readme Guidelines.

New Content Mods could include the following in the readme:

A clear & precise statement of the owners wishes regarding re-use or editing of said mod.
Example - <This mod can be used without prior agreement or This mod can not be used without my express permission.>

Relevent contact details.
Example - <You can contact me through Subsim, My username is JoeBloggs, I am also available though Ubisofts Forum, username JonSmith.>

A statement of non-contact.
Example - <If you have been unable to contact me through any of the above channels and have waited a suitable amount of time (TO BE DECIDED ON) for a response then please assume that this mod is no longer supported by me and is free for the modding community to use as they see fit.>

I personally think that 1 week is enough time to wait for a response following a PM or email. This is open to debate though.

I also think that any correspondance sent by the person requesting the use of someone else's mod/files should be saved/archived/printed out. This is to stop the situation where the creator of the mod returns to 'active duty' only to find that his work has been used and where he could claim that no effort had been made to contact him. Although PM/emails will be hard to verify as genuine, a new topic/thread on the modder's preffered forum might help here.

One thing I'm keen on, is to make this process as easy & understandable as possible as not to deter any would be modder who might wish to contribute to the community. Although these rules/guidlines will be easy enough to adhere to, they may be quite daunting to a newbie who just wishes to get something 'out there'.;) We don't wish to stiffle anyone's creative process. As such, I think some leniency and guidance must be given to newcomers, as it has been in the past, this must continue.

2p:88)

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Remember, if you are a modder and you don't participate in the construction of guidelines for permissions and crediting... It pretty much removes your defense when it is your work that is harmed.

It is in your best interest as a modder to be involved in the process that forms the guidelines that protect your hard work from blatant theft or unethical use.

Have a little courage. Be a part of the solution. No one is going to chop off your head.

[JCWolf]

What to say,:shifty:


Is this for reall or not....?
If someone brakes this guide lines what happends!?:stare: :hmm:

[Ducimus]

This is alot simpler then some people will make it.

It really is simple.

1.) Include a permissions in your readme. along the lines of "You may use this mod provided you credit the source, or "you may not use this mod without my expressed permission."

2.) Abide by the permissions written in the readme. ITs right there in black and white for all to see. No ambiguity, no he said, she said, no BS.

3.) No plagurism. See rule number 1.


Problem solved. Simple as that. Enforcing something thats right there in black and whilte (permissions in readme) is much more clear cut and alot easier then some implied list that everyones just expected to know from top to bottom. Furthermore itd gives modders the freedom to work without the constant fear of some mod gestapo breathing down their necks. Additionally, if you as a modder don't really care if others use your work, you dont get unwanted emails or PMs. If you do care about it, then youve already established that in your readme, and its right there in black and white.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

What to say,:shifty:


Is this for reall or not....?
If someone brakes this guide lines what happends!?:stare: :hmm:

Then they are given the opportunity to remove the mod and update or correct its included readme.

In the worst cases where this has been repeatedly and flagranty ignored... it may result in suspension or banning if it is a clear case of theft. Repeat offenders will show their true colors and can rightfully accept the disdain of the community that they bring upon themselves.

Honorable modders who bother to make a true effort of obtaining permissions and proper crediting have nothing to worry about.

[Ducimus]

You know a thought just hit me.... God help the guy who genuinly thinks up something on his own, posts it, and then someone else try and "virtually" sue him over "copyright" infringements.

A few years ago, I can't count the number of times i genuinly thought up something on my own, posted about it, only to find out someone figured it out a few weeks prior. New guys are going to run into that ALOT. Coming down with an moralistic hammer is a great way to stiffle budding creativity or discourage participation.

[Umfuld]

Coming down with an moralistic hammer is a great way to stiffle budding creativity or discourage participation.:yep:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Lets stay on target here. We are talking about hammering out a reasonable code regarding obtaining permissions and proper crediting... not limiting anyone's creativity... but promoting it... and lending it longevity.

Clear guidelines/rules will prevent a great deal of future misunderstanding and untold heartburn. This concept is a good thing... not a bad thing. Its success can only be measured in the end... by all of the problems that never happened as a result of its emplacement.

It just takes a little guts to hash it out.

[Ducimus]

I am on target. What if someone comes out with a mod that mimics some aspect of GWX, almost to the letter. Thats not a far off thought. With many things in modding, theres only so many ways you can go about to achieve a desired effect. In some cases, theres only ONE way to do something. What if someone were to post such a mod, what then? You gonna demand he give you credit when he thought of it on his own? What if he refuses?

[Kpt. Lehmann]

We can talk in terms of gray areas and hypothetical situations all night long.

However, this thread is about hammering out a reasonable set of guidelines/rules to prevent what problems can be prevented.

It is not a cure for cancer... nor an answer providing for world peace... but it is a part of the solution to a problem.

Expecting perfection is unreasonable and not expected. Cases will be handled when they come up... and intellect/logic should prevail.

[JCWolf]

I do bellieve that Ducimus here haves a point 2.

but waths the point of making a mod that already is done or invented???


I will take this idea, of the creaits and permisions on the readme file including contact e-mail or other of some sort in any case, I think the ask permision haves to be a must have on the rule guide lines and on the reademe, this way there is no more, I sent permision or I sent PM and no replie...

A good idea is that the creators send a writed in black and white
as Duc. says permision and when the mod is done he includes the
writed creators permision on the reademe files...

This will prevent future missunderstandings...

Ask permision is for me prioritary isue!!!:shifty:

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Looks like we cross-posted JCwolf... just read the post before yours too.;)

[Webster]

geez guys your on a path where you're gonna need lawyers before it's overwith.

remember that you are putting your mod up for public downloading so REQUIRING permission is a little much. asking that you be given credit is all you should ask.

if you want to dictate that closely how your mod is used then you should put it on its own filefront page and only give the link to those who ask persmission from you to use it if you want that much control over your mod.

if a mod does not state that you should give credit when using it then you do NOT need to give credit for using it. i agree it is the right thing to always give credit weather it is asked of you or not but there is a difference between the two.

as for all the mods out there that don't ask for credit if they are used, then i say it is up to the modder himself to add that to the mod if he truely desires crediting.

i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod.

please lets go this route with this post and not lock in on who gets credit.

[KLARCH]

It is in your best interest as a modder to be involved in the process that forms the guidelines that protect your hard work from blatant theft or unethical use.

I'm not a modder, so I understand if the moderators delete this post, but it seems hard if not impossible to call it "theft" when your mod is given away for free.

I understand you want recognition for all your hard work in making the game more enjoyable, and I agree that this should be the case. What bothers me about this situation is if someone makes a great improvement and is denied permission to use the files used as a springboard for the change, we don't get the chance to have an even better game experience. That would just be wrong, plain and simple.:nope:

[danlisa]

......What bothers me about this situation is if someone makes a great improvement and is denied permission to use the files used as a springboard for the change, we don't get the chance to have an even better game experience. That would just be wrong, plain and simple.:nope:.....

I agree with most of that. However, we are not trying to stop people improving/editing the game we all love. What we are trying to do is make sure that permissions are requested & credits are given. 9/10 if permission is asked, permission will be granted, there may be some guidelines/restrictions placed upon the release by the original modder but that is something we must respect.

Example 1 - I wanted to use GWX's campaign files for the Spy Sat mod, by design these were nessecary. I could have only asked Kpt.Lehmann for permission but I also asked BBW & Rubini as I know they worked long and hard on it. I did this out of courtesy. There were some restrictions placed upon me which were wholy acceptable. It had to be stated that it was not an official approved GWX mod and that it was a realism killer, which went against what GWX stood for.

Example 2 - I want to make a skin for a U-Boat, in my opinion it will be an improvement. I don't want to start from scratch with stock texture files so I decide to use GW/GWX's default grey textures which were made by Fubar. Before I even started to work on those I PM'd Fubar to ask if I could use his work as a base for mine. I waited 4 days. He eventually answered and although he didn't ask me to credit him, I did. In fact, I still have the PM exchange between myself & him which was back in Sept 06.

There will never be a situation where a would be modder comes to the scene and gets flamed & ostracized for releaseing work which may or may not be against any possible guidelines layed out here. This community is just not like that. In fact the new modder will more than likely be helped along & advised in private.

What I have stated here is just common respect, courtesy & undertanding and that is basically what modding ethics boils down to. How nice would it be for a n00b to come into the modding forums and see a sticky at the top asking him to follow the following guidlines. I know I could have used it when I first arrived.

[CaptainCox]

I agree with whats been said hear 100% but...who will finally draw this up, basically who will have the respect or approval to put this down as a set of "guidelines" as it stands now its a lot of opinions which is good. Being relatively new to the SH modding scene I feel that there is a lot of ppl with very responsible attitudes and less of the opposite, and that's great. But as i said, who will final draw this up. Mr.Stevens maybe would be the right guy (only thinking loud here)

[danlisa]

I think Neal or someone appointed by Neal will eventually end up with this hot potato.:lol:
Afterall, the person or persons compiling the guidelines will only be drawing from agreements made in this thread.

However, as yet I don't feel that we've had enough feedback from everyone who might be affected. We must have more input to make it a community chosen route.

[JScones]

This is alot simpler then some people will make it.

It really is simple.

1.) Include a permissions in your readme. along the lines of "You may use this mod provided you credit the source, or "you may not use this mod without my expressed permission."

2.) Abide by the permissions written in the readme. ITs right there in black and white for all to see. No ambiguity, no he said, she said, no BS.

3.) No plagurism. See rule number 1.


Problem solved. Simple as that. Enforcing something thats right there in black and whilte (permissions in readme) is much more clear cut and alot easier then some implied list that everyones just expected to know from top to bottom. Furthermore itd gives modders the freedom to work without the constant fear of some mod gestapo breathing down their necks. Additionally, if you as a modder don't really care if others use your work, you dont get unwanted emails or PMs. If you do care about it, then youve already established that in your readme, and its right there in black and white.
This is certainly the optimum solution for new mod releases. However, this will only cover releases from this point forward, and even then not all of them.

We still have the current releases to consider. And let's face it, there's been a LOT of mods released over the last two years that I can't see being updated just to insert a tweaked readme file. ;)

And what about modders that, for whatever reason, don't insert any "clause"? How do we treat that? With guidelines in existance do we assume that silence means a free-for-all? Or do we fall back to the guidelines for etiquette assistance? Your "simple" solution doesn't cover these scenarios. In other words, we'll be back here again within the month. ;)

Whilst one can very easily over-engineer a process - and we must be mindful of that here - one can just as easily be too untailored in defining a process.

What if someone comes out with a mod that mimics some aspect of GWX, almost to the letter. Thats not a far off thought. With many things in modding, theres only so many ways you can go about to achieve a desired effect. In some cases, theres only ONE way to do something. What if someone were to post such a mod, what then? You gonna demand he give you credit when he thought of it on his own? What if he refuses?
That's true and something that is likely to happen. I don't think it needs to be covered off specifically in any set of guidelines though (otherwise we'll be here for the next month defining every possible circumstance - perhaps we'd be better following the Pareto principle?).

I see reaction to this scenario based a lot on the "integrity renown" of the modder. For example, I am sure people would naturally react to donots76 differently than they would to you in this circumstance. Why? Because you have a higher "renown" and people are less likely to be suspicious of you.

For new modders without "renown". I would certainly hope that concerns would be addressed privately, as they may not know better. But for existing modders who choose not to follow the guidelines and hence not earn "renown", well, I have no sympathy for them if other modders are suspicious of their releases. You reap what you sow. ;)

But I'm sure if wanted some "common sense" approaches like this could be included in the guidelines.

So what do other modders think of the proposal? Would you follow a set of guidelines if they existed? Would you support their use? Or do you think this is merely a waste of time?

I know I see the success of such a proposal as being dependant on community support and a sense of "ownership" through active participation.

[CaptainCox]

I thought about exactly this issue
We still have the current releases to consider. And let's face it, there's been a LOT of mods released over the last two years that I can't see being updated just to insert a tweaked readme file. ;)
Would require a lot of work actually, not only for the individual modder but also what you said as to regards if the mods are no longer followed up by the creator, who is then responsible, or does that automatically make it "free" for the market? etc.

These points from Danlisa would suffice for example
A clear & precise statement of the owners wishes regarding re-use or editing of said mod.
Example - <This mod can be used without prior agreement or This mod can not be used without my express permission.>

Relevent contact details.
Example - <You can contact me through Subsim, My username is JoeBloggs, I am also available though Ubisofts Forum, username JonSmith.>

A statement of non-contact.
Example - <If you have been unable to contact me through any of the above channels and have waited a suitable amount of time (TO BE DECIDED ON) for a response then please assume that this mod is no longer supported by me and is free for the modding community to use as they see fit.>
(http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showpost.php?p=534161&postcount=5)
I also think the points proposed by Ducimus look pretty spot on for a start.

Still...it would not cover the problem of existing mods with no clause.

[HunterICX]

From what I've red about asking permissions and righst to use the particular mod

what I think teams of moderators or the chief of the team should include a Contact Email on the Readme/manual. even for the smallest mod , please include a readme with instructions and a Email so people / mod teams can get in contact with the creator

Ofcourse put a E-mail in it which is used and checked over on a regular basis.
as such its easier to get in contact with the owner of a Mod and things can be handled a lot easier. as we all know that between UBI and SUBSIM forum people may check the one forum more often then the other. and some visit Subsim all day but never or rarely visit UBI. so if you make a central point for requests and permission a Email would come in very handy.

just my thought and if its already done (I may feel stupid right now, as I,m at work at this moment working away a whole lot of paperwork)

[Webster]

asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land. a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.

as for a modder including an email addy for contact - get real, who wants tons of spam and repetative emails every day not to mention the occasional critic.

stating that if this mod is used then proper credit must be given to me and john doe is the reasonable thing to add in your mod code.

it's a good idea to REQUEST that it state this mod is or is not based on realism

as for mods without credits or read me i say anything out there is fair game and free to use without restrictions on how you use it. contrary to some views i have read, it is not my obligation to spend my time and effort searching for a modder who did not include the info i need to credit him when he made his mod download. i will give him full credit as best as i am able to but i would not lose sleep worrying that i couldn't contact him for permission unless the read me stated specifically that request.

i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod.

please lets go this route with this post and not lock in on who gets credit.
http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/smartdark/user_online.gif

[bigboywooly]

Well as this post is about ethics which includes credits thats why its being discussed here

My mods had the emails and contacts at subsim in and never had any problems though not sure everyone would want to use theirs

Versions and release dates are also good but that will apply more to SH4 than SH3 where mods are released now for a particular mod ie GWX,NYGM etc
A couple of years ago yes it would have mattered here though a lot of mods do have dates on anyway

Mods that have no readmes will always be a problem but credit to unknown modder usually covers it
Not a lot else you can do there

Besides very few old mods bar ones already in use in major mods will be dug and used as the game has evolved a lot since then

Permissions are easy to ask for
If its in black and white in a readme its even better

[Kpt. Lehmann]

asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land.


Hardly. In its barest form common courtesy and "the right thing to do" should determine matters at the end of the day here.

a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.

At Subsim.com, I think it is a fair thing to say that it has been tradition to first ask permission. Customarily receiving "no" as an answer is unusual. Some may cite impatience or inconvenience as a reason for not asking. This is a cop-out to circumvent good old common decency.

stating that if this mod is used then proper credit must be given to me and john doe is the reasonable thing to add in your mod code.
it's a good idea to REQUEST that it state this mod is or is not based on realism
as for mods without credits or read me i say anything out there is fair game and free to use without restrictions on how you use it. contrary to some views i have read, it is not my obligation to spend my time and effort searching for a modder who did not include the info i need to credit him when he made his mod download.
i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more
at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod
does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod. please lets go this route with this post and not lock in on who gets credit.

Common basic courtesy is not too much to expect. Expecting you to first ask permission and then credit modders whose work you hope to build upon... is a bare minimum that should be expected.

Non-modders who may have just arrived here. I am not talking down to you or trying to minimize your enthusiasm for submarine/naval simulations. The simple fact is that you have not been here to observe the story unfold that has brought us to this point. You just don't have the vested interest in the last two years of creation that have gone on here... overcoming obstacles.

Failure to make a basic effort to ask permission and credit is just lazy and/or rude.

What I look for here is a common set of basic rules that will apply to everyone... designed to protect and recognize modders who submit original works.

This thread is not opened to set rules than conform to a MAJORITY but instead rules that apply to ALL.


As Hitman stated in a similar thread that went south:
The purpose of the topic is agreeing in some ethics that all of you consider worth respecting. It could well serve as a guide for new modders and orientation for veterans.

Some people here at least try to conduct their modding in an ethical fashion. Some flaunt it that they do not... I think that it should be just fine and dandy that people take issue with the latter in a vocal manner. In this it is a matter of right versus wrong.

This does not violate civil rights or harm the act of creation. Boundaries are in place at Subsim... and you agreed to them when you registered. It is only natural that boundaries/rules for mod permissions and crediting carry into the mods workshops. (not just SH3)

Perfect uninamity in deciding said rules and ethics will naturally be impossible as well... because it serves the interests of those who just don't care who they step on to reach a goal... they will oppose it.

Somewhere between the simple... and the complicated proposals there is a reasonable set of guidelines...

Finally, dealing with it is where a little guts are required.

Otherwise, the sense of calm, friendly decency, and near professionalism that you can find here on the best of days... is just a veneer of polish... over continuously erupting anarchy.

[Webster]

asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land.


Hardly. In its barest form common courtesy and "the right thing to do" should determine matters at the end of the day here.

a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.

At Subsim.com, I think it is a fair thing to say that it has been tradition to first ask permission. Customarily receiving "no" as an answer is unusual. Some may cite impatience or inconvenience as a reason for not asking. This is a cop-out to circumvent good old common decency.

stating that if this mod is used then proper credit must be given to me and john doe is the reasonable thing to add in your mod code.
it's a good idea to REQUEST that it state this mod is or is not based on realism
as for mods without credits or read me i say anything out there is fair game and free to use without restrictions on how you use it. contrary to some views i have read, it is not my obligation to spend my time and effort searching for a modder who did not include the info i need to credit him when he made his mod download.
i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more
at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod
does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod. please lets go this route with this post and not lock in on who gets credit.

Common basic courtesy is not too much to expect. Expecting you to first ask permission and then credit modders whose work you hope to build upon... is a bare minimum that should be expected.

Non-modders who may have just arrived here. I am not talking down to you or trying to minimize your enthusiasm for submarine/naval simulations. The simple fact is that you have not been here to observe the story unfold that has brought us to this point. You just don't have the vested interest in the last two years of creation that have gone on here... overcoming obstacles.

Failure to make a basic effort to ask permission and credit is just lazy and/or rude.

What I look for here is a common set of basic rules that will apply to everyone... designed to protect and recognize modders who submit original works.

This thread is not opened to set rules than conform to a MAJORITY but instead rules that apply to ALL.


As Hitman stated in a similar thread that went south:
The purpose of the topic is agreeing in some ethics that all of you consider worth respecting. It could well serve as a guide for new modders and orientation for veterans.

Some people here at least try to conduct their modding in an ethical fashion. Some flaunt it that they do not... I think that it should be just fine and dandy that people take issue with the latter in a vocal manner. In this it is a matter of right versus wrong.

This does not violate civil rights or harm the act of creation. Boundaries are in place at Subsim... and you agreed to them when you registered. It is only natural that boundaries/rules for mod permissions and crediting carry into the mods workshops. (not just SH3)

Perfect uninamity in deciding said rules and ethics will naturally be impossible as well... because it serves the interests of those who just don't care who they step on to reach a goal... they will oppose it.

Somewhere between the simple... and the complicated proposals there is a reasonable set of guidelines...

Finally, dealing with it is where a little guts are required.

Otherwise, the sense of calm, friendly decency, and near professionalism that you can find here on the best of days... is just a veneer of polish... over continuously erupting anarchy.

so are you trying to set guidlines whereby you can deny access to those you deem in violation of your rules? because as you continue to return to words like enforce and then you state that this forum is not opened to set rules that conform to a majority but instead that apply to all. this sounds like you are saying the majority should not make the rules but must abide by them. that is not open discussion.

don't get me wrong here kpt. i feel you are the injured party in the past drama that occured but as it seems now you are sounding like you want to go overboard and instead of guidlines to follow you want rules and punishments for not following these rules. the punishments and enforcing the rules part is where i disagree with you. that i fear will spell the deathnel here as it will turn off members new and old.


please read my post here which better explains my views on mod ethics

http://www.subsim.com/radioroom/showthread.php?t=114633

[Kpt. Lehmann]

@Webster,

I appreciate your thoughts. I will respond properly in a bit. I have some real life stuff stacking up atm. You've given me some ideas too. (of the positive sort I think.)

[CaptainCox]

I would like to link this discussion to the SH4 section...could a Moderator do that please ?

I also added this to my latest MOD...its a start, any recommendations would be more then welcome.

Captain Midnight's
MORE CBS NEWS! MOD v1.2
Made by
CAPTAIN COX
Added 103 more news events, thats 161 in total!
Added some Captain Midnight radio episodes
and some more commercials
Removed ALL! music as I think people have different
tastes and there is also the copyright issue.
To add your own music to the CBS Radio channel,
simply dump your mp3 files in:
Captain Midnights MORE CBS NEWS! MOD v1,2\Data\Sound\Radio\CBS NEWS

Install:
Simply use with JSGME
If you don't have it get it here:
http://www.users.on.net/~jscones/software/products.html

Enjoy!

DISCLAIMER:
This mod can be included or used with other mods or mod packs
under the condition that CAPTAIN COX is mentioned as the creator
in the readme as well as in any release forum post related to the mod or mod pack
that includes it.

If you still need to contact me as to regards of above disclaimer please contact me at Captain_Cox3@hotmail.de

[JScones]

asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land. a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.
This is rubbish. I release freeware which is used much wider than just the Subsim community. I have certain clauses in my licence agreements that state that contact must be made with me under certain circumstances.

Thus I receive much email, particularly from magazines, seeking permission to use my software. I've never said no, and now I have a nice selection of international computer magazines that have all featured my software on cover cds and the like.

My view is, if people really want what I offer, they will contact me as per *my* wishes. If not, then que sera sera, they don't use my product. Arrogant? Yes, but I stand by the quality of my product and have too much integrity to "sell myself out".

If a modder wants to be contacted each and every time, that's their call. If a modder doesn't want to be contacted each and every time, that's their call.

Just because something is free doesn't mean that you lose all rights as the creator.

as for a modder including an email addy for contact - get real, who wants tons of spam and repetative emails every day not to mention the occasional critic.
Never bothered me. My email address is plastered all through my releases. Spam is very minor (maybe two pieces a day).

Criticism comes too. And questions by the tonne-ful. Permission to use requests, regularly.

My point here is that you can not assume the voice of the community. Each modder can make up their own mind how, if at all, they want to be contacted.

And any guidelines must provide this flexibility.

as for mods without credits or read me i say anything out there is fair game and free to use without restrictions on how you use it. contrary to some views i have read, it is not my obligation to spend my time and effort searching for a modder who did not include the info i need to credit him when he made his mod download.
Agreed. For mine, no readme/credit file means it's released as PD.

i think we are going too far into the minutia of the credit issue where we should look more at helping the modders made their mods better with read me's that explain just what the mod does, any credits given as needed, and what i see lacking in most mods is a date and/or a version number for the mod.
I see the need for a set of mod-use guidelines and a helpful set of modder hints.

The latter being some suggestions for modders on how to compose their readme files. Mainly for the new guys, and not a template per se, moreso a list of points that they should aim to address. For this, a lot has been done in this thread by Ducimus and danlisa. All that's needed to be added is date and version quoting (leaving the *how* up to the modder) and an example of how best to list file changes and record change logs. Fortunately this wouldn't be hard to collate though, as I think *all* of the larger mods do this well.

This aspect will help address future mod releases by empowering the *modder* to decide use-instructions.

This part can be done in about 10 minutes. Just needs to state what should be included, such as:

-mod name
-mod version
-mod release date
-author's name
-mod description

-installation and other related use information (such as preferred settings and so on)

-changelog for each version, ie:
v1.1 (date)
- Added something... (list files changed)
- Removed something... (list files changed)
- Updated something... (list files changed)
- Increased something... (list files changed)
v1.0 (date)
etc

-use conditions and contact information. The stuff that Ducimus and danlisa has quoted in this thread.

(feel free to add/remove items)

That will then get the tips for modders out of the way and if adopted will alleviate a lot of the angst in subsequent crediting.

Perhaps if people find it easier to chunk the issue this way, this aspect can be finalised first and put into place whilst the crediting guidelines continue to be developed? At least the fostering of new modders can be separated from the crediting issue, which tbh I don't see as affecting new modders anyway.

don't get me wrong here kpt. i feel you are the injured party in the past drama that occured but as it seems now you are sounding like you want to go overboard and instead of guidlines to follow you want rules and punishments for not following these rules. the punishments and enforcing the rules part is where i disagree with you. that i fear will spell the deathnel here as it will turn off members new and old.
Yes. I must admit, I am uncomfortable with some of the "punishment" and "rules" talk.

Calling them rules, seeking punishment and all that kind of talk will do nothing other than turn people off quick smart. These are not rules. They are not enforecable. And nor is it up to the administrators of this board to determine guilt (outside of the forum rules that we all must abide by).

They are guidelines. Their adoption should be fostered by the community. The aim here is to avoid ambiguity, confusion and misunderstanding within the community, not provide a piece of paper that can be used to hang someone. People that see the positive result that the guidelines provide will adopt them.

Now people that choose to ignore the guidelines can do so, free from whipping, however, they must realise what doing so does to their credibility and social standing within the submarine simulator community. We've seen one guy kicked out of almost every forum. Another guy has now upset two of the major "supermods" and ends up with closed threads wherever he goes. At least with guidelines in place it provides some kind of moral high ground for the allegers to take over the perpetrators, thus making the allegers less of a target for abuse when raising their concerns.

Conversely, the guidelines will also provide protection for modders that do attempt to do the right thing, but still get "pinged" by a disgruntled modder at some point (ie if an original mod included no readme files or whatever).

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Very well... I can see how the term "rules" does imply organized and enforced punishments for violations.

I will stop using "rules" and "guidelines" interchangeably to prevent confusion.

However, I will not step back from the idea that modding guidelines need to be put in place in the modding workshops here at subsim... and as JScones states, these guidelines should be fostered by the community.

Further ideas later on how to proceed.

Another clarification: What I refer to above as "Finally, dealing with it is where a little guts are required" is in reference to this entire matter. It is a non-specific statement.

[Von Manteuffel]

The "credit" and "plagiarism" issue doesn't concern me directly. I couldn't mod my way out of a paper sack; but I am concerned that the issue could severely damage and/or fragment the Subsim modding community which, I believe, should be prevented at all costs.

Someone earlier mentioned that people might need lawyers if this thread follows a certain path. I've consulted several friends who are lawyers, some of them copyright specialists and the message is plain and simple. Essentially, in most jurisdictions, modders own the copyright of their mods ( if in no other form than owning the intellectual copyright to their work ) The fact that mods are made available for download and use, free of charge is an irrrelevance. A modder can give away, rent, or sell his mods, with, or without conditions, but the means of distribution and terms of use do not remove, or diminish the modder's ownership of his, or her own work.

So, the GWX team own the GWX mod. They released it for free use by players,
( God bless 'em) but just because no money has changed hands doesn't mean that their work, or that of any other modder, is "up for grabs." No-one has the right to use the property ( intellectual, or otherwise ) of another person, or persons without the permission of that person, or persons. In making GWX and other mods available free of charge, the modders are giving us, the users, permission to downlaod and use their work as presented. It is legally, ethically and morally wrong for anyone to use someone else's propertry as a basis for his, or her own work without seeking the permission of the original owner - whether the original owner states that this is a requirement, or not.

For example, believe it, or not, I own this post to this thread. The fact that I have chosen to post it so that people can read it freely does not diminish the intellectual copyright I hold over it. So, if anyone were to use my words in a form which was identifiable as being taken from this post, or seek to publish it anywhere else in the world in other forums, or in print etc. they should ask my permission to do so. ( an extreme and ridiculous example, used purely for effect, but legally accurate.)

So, the situation re. mods based on other mods is, essentially, very simple. Anyone wishing to use a previous mod as a basis for a new one should request the permission of the original modder - preferably before starting work on their new mod. Every mod to every computer game has, in law, an owner. Their rights are inviolable, whether stated, or not. In short, just because you can get something for free doean't mean you can mess about with it, change it, or use it as the basis for something else. The unwritten contract users have with modders is a permission from them to incorporate their mods into our individual gaming experience- nothing more.

True, there are grey areas, but not nearly as many as some people seem to believe.
For example, TedHealey graciously credits me with kick-starting an idea for a radio mod for SHIV in his mind. Before embarking on a mod very similar to his work, I asked his permission - even though he says the idea was partially mine in the first place. Why?
a) because it's the reasonable, open, courteous and honest way to go about things
and b) because it was TedHealey, not I who discovered and posted the way of editing the files necessary to make the mod ( the idea I kick-started) work.

The problem, of course, lies in policing and redress should someone decide, in effect, to break the law. But that's where reasonableness, co-operation, honesty, courtesy and decency come into play - qualities which abound in Subsim.

If those who feel that their work has been misappropriated wish to sue, they can do and they'd probably win - but the only ones who would benefit would be the lawyers. So, in the absence of any form of redress ( and I share Jaeson's worries about "punishments" - as well as doubting that any could be devised which would be effective, or enforceable. He is also correct when he points out that it is not the role of the Subsim Moderators to decide guilt and innocenc) we have to rely on people

a) understanding the law and b) doing the right thing.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

Well said von Manteuffel.

Bless you for taking the time to post that.

[heartc]

Someone earlier mentioned that people might need lawyers if this thread follows a certain path. I've consulted several friends who are lawyers, some of them copyright specialists and the message is plain and simple. Essentially, in most jurisdictions, modders own the copyright of their mods ( if in no other form than owning the intellectual copyright to their work ) The fact that mods are made available for download and use, free of charge is an irrrelevance. A modder can give away, rent, or sell his mods, with, or without conditions, but the means of distribution and terms of use do not remove, or diminish the modder's ownership of his, or her own work.

So, the GWX team own the GWX mod.
I think this is incorrect. Do those lawyers know what an EULA is? Original game files which were modified are still owned by UBISOFT, as the originals are the property of UBISOFT and when we come really down to it, were "illegally" modified in the first place. Now, most companies have no problems with people creating mods - as it might well increase popularity of the game - but if GWX or any Modder / Mod Team would go and decide charging money for their mod or claim any rights to it without first reaching an agreement with UBISOFT - which in all probability would include paying them money for the licence to modify and sell UBISOFTS / the Dev teams IP - they would get severely ***-raped by UBISOFT.

I quote:
1- The Licence

Ubisoft grants the User a non-exclusive and non-transferable Licence to use the Multimedia Product, but remains the owner of all the rights relating thereto.
Any rights not specifically transferred by this Licence remain the property of Ubisoft.
The Multimedia Product is licensed and not sold to the User, for private use.
The Licence does not confer any right or title to the Multimedia Product and cannot be understood as a transfer of intellectual property rights to the Multimedia Product.
2- Ownership of the Multimedia Product

The User recognises that all of the rights associated with the Multimedia Product and its components (in particular the titles, computer codes, themes, characters, character names, plots, stories, dialogues, places, concepts, images, photographs, animation, videos, music and text contained in the Multimedia Product), as well as the rights relating to the trademark, royalties and copyrights, are the property of Ubisoft and are protected by French regulations or other Laws, Treaties and international agreements concerning intellectual property.
3- Use of the Multimedia Product

The User is authorised to use the Multimedia Product in accordance with the instructions provided in the manual or on the packaging of the Multimedia Product.
The Licence is granted solely for private use.

It is not permitted:
- To make copies of the Multimedia Product,
- To operate the Multimedia Product commercially,
- To use it contrary to morality or the laws in force,
- To modify the Multimedia Product or create any derived work,
- To transmit the Multimedia Product via a telephone network or any other electronic means, except during multi-player games on authorised networks,
- To create or distribute unauthorised levels and/or scenarios,
- To decompile, reverse engineer or disassemble the Multimedia Product.
No-one has the right to use the property ( intellectual, or otherwise ) of another person, or persons without the permission of that person, or persons. ... or company - UBISOFT.

In making GWX and other mods available free of charge, the modders are giving us, the users, permission to downlaod and use their work as presented. They cannot bind us to any rights or obligations legally about property which is still UBISOFT's.

It is legally, ethically and morally wrong for anyone to use someone else's propertry as a basis for his, or her own work without seeking the permission of the original owner - whether the original owner states that this is a requirement, or not.Read that quote of yours again. Notice something? ;) Who is the original owner of SHIII and the IP thereto?

So, the situation re. mods based on other mods is, essentially, very simple.
Correct. It is a completely mood point from a legal perspective, since either modder doesn't own any IP over the original or modified files unless he has reached an agreement with the IP holder - UBISOFT - beforehand, which would supersede the original EULA, and has actually broken the License agreement unless he does so when we come down to it.

He is also correct when he points out that it is not the role of the Subsim Moderators to decide guilt and innocenc) we have to rely on people

a) understanding the law and b) doing the right thing.

About point a) - I'm not a lawyer, but I'm not sure the lawyer friends you consulted have finished their degrees yet either...

From a legal standpoint alone, this whole debate is mood.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

From a legal standpoint alone, this whole debate is mood.

No. That's your opinion.

[heartc]

From a legal standpoint alone, this whole debate is mood.
No. That's your opinion.
Care to elaborate on that? Did you reach a new agreement with UBISOFT that supersedes the original EULA, cause otherwise I cannot see how this is an opinion as opposed to a fact.

[danlisa]

@ Manteuffel

A well thought out and presented post, thank you.:up:

@ All

We are in danger of revisiting the age old issue of legality. It has been hashed out & discussed so many times before. I believe we have reached conclusions on this matter to an adequate point.

In short, UBI own the commercial & intellectual rights to the game and as heartc states even if a modder changes/edits files, they still legally belong to UBI but we are not in a court of law, we are in a community where most people wish to do the right thing while making the game we all love better.

Please, lets not go down this path of legality again.

What we are trying to establish here are guidelines which the community can respect and work to. Not only for the sake & ease of any modder but for the benefit of the entire community. This will help with future releases and also, hopefully, lead to a correct proceedure when wanting to use older mods. That's all.

We are not trying to set presidence here, in fact many of the ideas put forward in this thread have been 'unwritten' guides for a long time however, now is the time to get these guidelines agreed upon and 'put out there' for all to see and work too, if they so wish. They will not be forced upon anyone but it is a recourse to fall back on if an issue should arise in the future.

[Von Manteuffel]

Absolutely. The assumption is that Ubisoft, or any other company which licences a game for use tolerate mods because, as you point out, mods cannot be used without purchasing the original game and could well serve to add to a game's longevity.

Since Ubisoft's lawyers have never come a-knocking on the doors of the modders ( I understand that there's even constructive dialogue between the Dev Team and some modders ) the other assumption is that Ubisoft are happy to have their games modded and are content to turn a blind-eye to those parts of the license which deal with modifying, transmitting etc.

That said, if we set aside the essential "illegality" of modding a game, as the developers seem content to do, the basics of intellectual copyright apply to mods and additions not created by Ubisoft. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, but the question as to who owns the intellectual property involved in a mod could be hard fought by both the madders and the original developers. Since modding is not done for personal profit and the developers seem content to allow it to happen, there's a good chance a court would find that the modders own the intelelctual copyright of their own work.

As you say, it's moot, but I do believe we all ought to behave within the spirit of the law and acknowledge the "ownership" modders have over their work.

[heartc]

@ Manteuffel

A well thought out and presented post, thank you.:up:

@ All

We are in danger of revisiting the age old issue of legality. It has been hashed out & discussed so many times before. I believe we have reached conclusions on this matter to an adequate point.

In short, UBI own the commercial & intellectual rights to the game and as heartc states even if a modder changes/edits files, they still legally belong to UBI but we are not in a court of law, we are in a community where most people wish to do the right thing while making the game we all love better.

Please, lets not go down this path of legality again.

I agree, but this is exactly what Von Manteuffel has done and presented the legal situation completely incorrect. So how can members of the GWX team - which are already familiar with the legal situation I assume - confirm his post?
He would of course be completely correct though if the EULA would include the transfer of the IP to the customer, or if GWX would be a standalone product completely build up from the ground.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

From a legal standpoint alone, this whole debate is mood.
No. That's your opinion.
Care to elaborate on that? Did you reach a new agreement with UBISOFT that supersedes the original EULA, cause otherwise I cannot see how this is an opinion as opposed to a fact.

Yes, I do care to elaborate.

It is your opinion that the whole debate is "moot."

[heartc]

That said, if we set aside the essential "illegality" of modding a game, as the developers seem content to do, the basics of intellectual copyright apply to mods and additions not created by Ubisoft. I don't think it's ever been tested in court, but the question as to who owns the intellectual property involved in a mod could be hard fought by both the madders and the original developers. Since modding is not done for personal profit and the developers seem content to allow it to happen, there's a good chance a court would find that the modders own the intelelctual copyright of their own work.

As you say, it's moot, but I do believe we all ought to behave within the spirit of the law and acknowledge the "ownership" modders have over their work.

I really mean no offense, but it's just a fact that from a legal perspective - which you took in your initial post - the situation you described does simply not apply and is incorrect in the case at hand, regardless whether UBISOFT's lawyers would act on it or not. The deal was done and legalities settled the moment you "I Agree" to the EULA on installation of the game.

As to your last point, I agree with you, as this is then not about legality but about "Modding Ethics/Courtesy Rules" which this thread is meant to be about and the original poster knew why he called it ethics as opposed to legality.
It's just pointless though to then derail his own thread from there by confirming a legal description of the situation which does not apply / is incorrect.

Really, I myself would never have a problem with crediting other people for their work and seek their permission if I want to use it or build uppon it, but this really is about courtesy, and as soon as you start trying to formulate a binding ruleset that should even be enforced by the moderators here, you might well end up talking about legality which would make it mood again. And this is what happened here.

[danlisa]

@ heartc

Would you mind if we discussed this via PM? I don't feel this issue of legality etc is required in this thread.

Infact, I suspect a moderator will eventually remove those posts, if only to keep the thread on topic.

EDIT - PLEASE DISREGARD AS CROSS POSTED.

[heartc]

Yes, I do care to elaborate.

It is your opinion that the whole debate is "moot."

I didn't say the whole debate was moot. I said "from a legal perspective alone" it is moot, which is not opinion, but fact. I see though that I should have formulated it as "from solely a legal perspective", which is what I really meant.

[heartc]

@ heartc

Would you mind if we discussed this via PM? I don't feel this issue of legality etc is required in this thread.

Infact, I suspect a moderator will eventually remove those posts, if only to keep the thread on topic.

EDIT - In the process of editing..................

I didn't bring it up, I only commented on it after it was presented incorrectly and approved by people who should know better. But as far as I'm concerned, this point is settled and I will discontinue it here. Thank you.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

...So how can members of the GWX team - which are already familiar with the legal situation I assume - confirm his post?


I have not "confirmed" anything and I have not entered into any legal agreement with Ubisoft.

I interpreted von Manteuffel's statement in the spirit of support that it appears he is attempting to show.

Any "derailment" of the thread I am sure was unintentional... and in accordance with a previous post, I am no longer using the word "rules"... but "guidelines" instead for common courtesy modding ethics.

Let us attempt to return to the topic gentlemen.

[daft]

You know a thought just hit me.... God help the guy who genuinly thinks up something on his own, posts it, and then someone else try and "virtually" sue him over "copyright" infringements.

A few years ago, I can't count the number of times i genuinly thought up something on my own, posted about it, only to find out someone figured it out a few weeks prior. New guys are going to run into that ALOT. Coming down with an moralistic hammer is a great way to stiffle budding creativity or discourage participation.
I'm going to sound like some sort pf crazed groupie now so please don't bee scared (;)) but your insightful and level-headed posts would be a credit to any discussion forum. May you never stop posting on Subsim. :)

[Webster]

[quote=WEBSTER]asking permission to use the mod - forget it, your in fantasy land. a free mod for free download to the public carries no such obligation. asking modders to do this will discourage the sharing of new mods that didn't go to all that trouble.
This is rubbish. I release freeware which is used much wider than just the Subsim community. I have certain clauses in my licence agreements that state that contact must be made with me under certain circumstances.


REPLY = this was taken completely the wrong way, which goes to show how easy words cans send a different message than intended. you were supposed to understand from this that "joe" wasn't able to get in touch with everyone to get "permission" so now joe has to either chance catching tons of flack over posting a mod without following the rules or (and i believe many in this situation will do the later) keep the mod to himself rather than risk drama over it.

now large mods are a little different as the work is often by several modders and has large content so stricter guidelines should apply to those than small mods.

[Webster]

The "credit" and "plagiarism" issue doesn't concern me directly. I couldn't mod my way out of a paper sack; but I am concerned that the issue could severely damage and/or fragment the Subsim modding community which, I believe, should be prevented at all costs.

Someone earlier mentioned that people might need lawyers if this thread follows a certain path. I've consulted several friends who are lawyers, some of them copyright specialists and the message is plain and simple. Essentially, in most jurisdictions, modders own the copyright of their mods ( if in no other form than owning the intellectual copyright to their work ) The fact that mods are made available for download and use, free of charge is an irrrelevance. A modder can give away, rent, or sell his mods, with, or without conditions, but the means of distribution and terms of use do not remove, or diminish the modder's ownership of his, or her own work.


If those who feel that their work has been misappropriated wish to sue, they can do and they'd probably win - but the only ones who would benefit would be the lawyers. So, in the absence of any form of redress ( and I share Jaeson's worries about "punishments" - as well as doubting that any could be devised which would be effective, or enforceable. He is also correct when he points out that it is not the role of the Subsim Moderators to decide guilt and innocenc) we have to rely on people

a) understanding the law and b) doing the right thing.

i think we all share the same sentiments about this but i am sure your lawyer friends did not have all the facts or they would not have told you we can claim ownership of something that is already copywrited and owned by Ubisoft.
as well as who came up with the mod first is a very grey area to argue.

the files in the mods we use come from ubisoft so how can we sue claiming they are ours if Ubisoft already owns them?

i'm only saying the legal part of your comments don't sound correct in that regard.

[Webster]

I agree with whats been said hear 100% but...who will finally draw this up, basically who will have the respect or approval to put this down as a set of "guidelines" as it stands now its a lot of opinions which is good. Being relatively new to the SH modding scene I feel that there is a lot of ppl with very responsible attitudes and less of the opposite, and that's great. But as i said, who will final draw this up. Mr.Stevens maybe would be the right guy (only thinking loud here)


i think the best person to do this would be Kpt Lehmann

as far as i'm concerned he has my respect and i believe the respect of a very large number of other members. being a person who had a large mod pirated gives him unique perspective into the issue and he is fair and level headed. he gets my vote.

[CaptainCox]

Pirated!!! GUYS! I am so out of the loop here. Can someone fill me in, PLEASE! or is it a "hot potato"?

[q65]

I see this as guidelines within the community.
If I were able to produce a mod it would be because I respect community. I would hope that the community would respect me and use my mod and give me credit for what I have done. If someone when in the community doesn't wish to respect me then I have the right to call this person out and let the rest of the community discuss and take action. For the most part I think this has gone this way. I lurk alot.
All this stuff reminds me of the Godfather movies and The GWX is the "Corelone" family. Rightfully so. If you mess with them and disrespect them then you should feel the wraith and swim with the fishes.

[q65]

OHHH I dont mean Swim with the fishes literally I mean it figuritivly and by that I say you are forced outside the community and not given the respect you desire by producing mods for the community. Dont want anyone to think I want someone to actually swim with the fishes.

[danlisa]

All this stuff reminds me of the Godfather movies and The GWX is the "Corelone" family. Rightfully so. If you mess with them and disrespect them then you should feel the wraith and swim with the fishes.

I really like that analogy.:D :rotfl:

But I must say (I know you didn't mean it that way, only as an example:yep: ) for clarity, that although the GWX Crew maybe very active in the defense of their hard work and sometimes it comes off as pack rape ;) but we are never going to go to some of the lengths many think we are capable of.

The GWX Crew is a very friendly and tight knit community within SubSim and as such we will always leap to a crew members aid. Nothing more than that really.:up:

q65, I'm glad you've come out of hiding & please don't not feel that I have in any way misunderstood your post but I needed to state what I did as it could be misconstrude by other members.;)

@ CaptainCox

There have been instances in the past but I think they're best left in the past.:yep: Unless the Kpt needs comment to clear things up.

[U-Bones]

In the end you will just be trading a vague unwritten code that can be ignored at will with a more specific written code that can be ignored at will.

It's the nature of the toothless beast. Add the anonymous and unaccountable layer and you have bitten off more than you can possibly chew. And you will still be unsatisfied, jerks will still be jerks.

[CaptainCox]

@ CaptainCox

There have been instances in the past but I think they're best left in the past.:yep: Unless the Kpt needs comment to clear things up.
Cheers...I get the drift sort a. I leave it at that.

[q65]

I thank you for the help. I'm not looking for trouble with anyone. I think this is a very helpful community and I have enjoyed the discussion alot.
The Modders in this community for the most part are very good people. One or two bad apples but they disappear quickly and I feel in the proper way. They are called out and the community on a whole deals with it and the person disappears cuz nobody pays attention to them. What sucks is when the good ones leave cuz they feel beaten up by these people who feel they have to work outside the community. I applaud Kpt. for addressing this and trying to keep what has been established and keeping my favourite game alive. The group of people take to much grief at times but they are easy targets cuz they are the top dogs and lots of people like to take shots at them.
The GWX mod is a fantastic addition to a good game. I have been playing for a year and a half now and enjoy it more everyday. They are very helpful and respectful and I don't blame them one bit for trying to protect what they have worked for. Respect. They have mine

[Von Manteuffel]

i think we all share the same sentiments about this but i am sure your lawyer friends did not have all the facts or they would not have told you we can claim ownership of something that is already copywrited and owned by Ubisoft.
as well as who came up with the mod first is a very grey area to argue.

the files in the mods we use come from ubisoft so how can we sue claiming they are ours if Ubisoft already owns them?

i'm only saying the legal part of your comments don't sound correct in that regard.
It's an area of legal "niceties" perhaps best illustrated by example. Let's take the Beatles song "Hard Days Night" - copyright Lennon & McCartney/ Northern Songs etc. If someone were to write a comedy pastiche, using some of the original words and the original tune / arrangement etc. ( with permission, of course) then the writer of the pastiche would hold modified copyright on the parts of the song which he/she had changed, while Lennon & McCartney would retain their copyright on the parts which remained unchanged. I once worked with a band who specialised in pastiches of current Pop hits. To perform / record their pastiches, they had to get permission from the original composer(s) / lyricist(s), but once that ws granted, the band owned copyright of the pastiche, or at least the part (usually the lyrics ) they had changed, while the composers of the original retained their copyright. So if someone else performed / recorded the band's pastiche without permission, they had full legal rights to seek redress - even though they did not own the original, only the permitted pastiche.

Essentially, one has ownership of things which one has created, but if that creation is based on someone else's work, one must seek permission to change the original and not proceed until that permission i granted. Once it is granted ownership of the parts changed lies with the person who created the changes, while the original creator owns the original version.
As I've said, these are legal niceties and interesting talking points, but let's keep this thread on-stream and heading towards resolving the key issue of guidelines for modders.

[Kpt. Lehmann]

At some point soon, all the suggested guidelines will be gathered up with the intent to generate a poll... with "agree" or "disagree" assigned to each.

It will not be a cure-all.

It will not cover every conceivable circumstance or "grey area."

... and it will not proclaim guilt or innocence to anyone regarding past conversations and events.

It will be democratic.

There is enough blame to go 'round for every one of us... for something somewhere.

We can all become better people than we are.

[Hitman]

I have been deliberately letting things go on for a while despite the tendency to off-topic that was to be expected, because I wanted that everyone had not only a chance to make contributions, but also to portrait himself accurately in front of the rest. It has happened now enough, and it is time to draw conclussions, not only from what has been said, but also from what has not been said. :hmm:

My main conclussions as external and impartial observer are:

1.- ALL modders have to a certain extent one or two rules of thumb when they make public their work. Nobody yet is a complete anarchist in that regard.

2.- ALL modders don't like too much to see their work degradated

I have a great amount of respect for the work of all who have participated in this thread, but it is sad to see that it has been turned into a Kindergarten as soon as the moderators have let the discussion go on openly.

Now some will not like what I'm going to say now, but here it goes:

The GWX team has been obviously offended sometimes in the past by attitudes and practices from other modders that were far from respectful in courtesy terms. As soon as I saw the original thread by Kpt. Lehman start, I tried to steer the thread towards somethingpositive: A wellcomed set of minimum rules for everyone and from everyone.

But the flow of the conversation has proved to me that a part (not all) of the rules that have been proposed later were tailored specifically against certain person's behaviours. Which is not strange, since those behaviours have been the cause of much anger (Rightfully or not is something I'm not going into). In turn, other people's posts have been clearly made not against the GWX guys proposals -which would have been the logic and correct thing to do- but instead against the GWX guys themselves. And of course, rules have been proposed to ensure that certain actions would now become clearly legitimated if adopted. :roll:

I have said it many times already, but I will now repeat it with other words, just to see if the message is correctly received: Subsim.com will NOT go on a witch hunt among moderators. And it is not letting anyone down by doing son.

It is more than obvious that the arrival of SH4 and the shift of public interest to it, plus the arrival of new blood has produced big changes in the community. I saw that when SH2 appeared (BTW I was also a modder in BIG projects back then), later when SH3 appeared, and I'm seeing it now. Nihil novum sub solem, used the romans to say (Nothing new under the sun). Apparently, the lack of big projects to be started (Almost anything that could be done has been done) has given some people time to remember the old pending affairs. But there is also a big amount of silent observers and readers of the SH3 that are currently astonished and disgusted to see how all this has now surfaced.

And it has to come to and end, even if for *public health* reasons. The forum has to recover its calm, friendly, helpful and productive path as soon as possible. Otherwise, we will have the risk of having it turned in the future into a dinosaurs-graveyard, where angry ex-modders try unendlessly to resolve their pending queries in endlessly disputes and flaming posts, and new users do not even dare to post.

I'm closing this thread for exactly one day. Everyone put the anger aside and re-read everything, think well a proposal, and write it down. There were VERY good ones, so it is not difficult. Tomorrow I will open the thread and any post that does not have in it a list of proposals will be deleted for off-topic reasons.

Once all proposals have been done, I personally will read down them and see if there are rules in common to all proposals. If there are, I will put them in a list and stick them as officially recommended practices and ethics. No democratics or such. This is not a matter of majorites, it is something to be put up by unanimous consensus. Otherwise subsim.com will wash his hands and forget the idea, because all subsim users have the same rights.

That's all, folks. Take it or leave it.:hmm:

[Hitman]

OK it is now the moment to extract conclusions and something positive out of this whole thing. Now the thread
is open again, and every modder is wellcomed to post his proposals.
Here's a few rules for keeping this thread useful:
1.- Only one reply per person, though you are encouraged to EDIT it later if you like what other proposals
say.
2.- Even if you don't specifically copy rules proposed by others, you can indicate that you approve them.
3.- Anything that is not a proposal of rules will be deleted for off-topic reasons.
4.- The thread will be open one week. Next friday I will close it and write down the rules accepted by ALL.
Hitman

[JCWolf]

The Original Idea for me that haves all that I bellieve its correct
and covers most fields was opriginaly posted by Kpt.Lehmman...


For existing releases or new releases which state no use requirements, then:

#1: Ask permission [JJ: via the preferred means outlined in the readme if existing, otherwise via PM or via the modder's mod thread if one exists. If activity is on another board (like a German one, or Ubi's) then find someone that can post there and ask. Some of us are members of various forums for this exact reason].

#2 Do not assume that the individual received the message [JJ: I agree with this, but this policy does not cover where no response is received. If no answer, what's the approach? We need to cover for instances where modders have left the scene. So, use anyway with credits? Use only if x days have passed (a hard one to police considering not all mods contain readme files let alone release dates)? Or not use at all? Hmmm, a toughy. Personally, I think WHERE ALL AVAILABLE AVENUES FOR CONTACT HAVE BEEN EXHAUSTED (email, PM, forum, website...) then use with full credits is the best "win-win" solution for both players and modders. Players will benefit from the feature which the latest modder obviously thinks is good enough to add (they could always drop it if they think the dramas of lack of written permission was not worth the benefit of the inclusion), and the original modder will not go unnoticed. But in this instance the question needs to be closed and specific.]

#3 If permission is denied... accept it... and do not use the mod.

#4 "Blanket crediting" is unacceptable and lazy. If you are not sure how to credit something... ASK!!!

#5 If you are called on to correct your credits... don't get offended... just deal with it and fix it.

#6 If an organized mod package is actively supported by its creator... and you want to make an overlay for it that changes the original package to suit your taste... and then release it... deal with 1-5 first... and don't even think of including the entire original mod package. Doing so leaves the impression that you are the primary creator even if you say otherwise loudly and repeatedly... and is a NO NO!!!

[Madox58]

I will stand by the majority decisions.
I state it here and now.
I will also adopt the statement in a read me as to how any mod I do may be used.
Should I not make that statement, then it is a community release to do with
as one sees fit.

Privateer

[Ducimus]

I have, and will always reiterate the following, regardless:

1.) Include a permissions in your readme. along the lines of "You may use this mod provided you credit the source, or "you may not use this mod without my expressed permission."

2.) Abide by the permissions written in the readme. Its right there in black and white for all to see. No ambiguity, no he said, she said, no BS.

3.) No plagurism. See rule number 1.


As an aside, a minor reality check:

The reality is you really have no control over who does what with your mods, especially after you post it on the internet, which essentually makes it public domain. All this talk bout rights, copyrights, etc. doesnt mean anything when you look at cold hard reality. You post a mod on the internet under a usehandle ( a false name), retaining anonmymity.

So who the hell is "userhandle" anyway? Is there any legality to that as a known entity? Anybody could be "userhandle". You could create "userhandle" on the offical forums, post a mod there, and be an entirely different person.

And whats to say your mod posted here, isn't reposted on the offical forums, and then borrowed by localized forums accross the world, and then 6 months from now you hear about a bavarian version of your mod posted " by anotherUserhandle"?

Thats all i have to say about this, as i have nothing further to add.

[danlisa]

Apart from what I have previously posted.

I would like the term 'Guidelines' adopted rather than 'Rules'.

Apart from the fact that no-one will enforce these 'rules', I feel that the final 'guidelines' are only a recommended format for future modders to follow thus removing the ambiguity when someone wishes to use the originators files.

Just because someone makes their files public does not mean they can be used in a way against their wishes.

[NeonSamurai]

Lets keep this on track please. Flames, arguing, insults, and responding to them are counter productive and will get this thread locked for good if it continues.

[NeonSamurai]

I wasnt going to originaly but im also gona post my suggestions. So Subsim Moderator cap off..


Here is my view.
if you use or base your mod off/on top of another mod you should give credit to them.
Anything which is absolutly copyrighted by the modder (such as unique models, skins etc, anything where there is definatly no grey area as to ownership) they should ask permission if they plan to include it in their mod.
Tweek packs that go on top of existing mods or mods that add new features to existing packs should not require permission from the base mod's creators as long as the original mod isnt included in the pack (just the tweeks or additions in the addon pack). Since tweek packs are largely code changes on top of code changes.I also think that as for credit, if a mod group does the mod then they should be credited as a group not individualy otherwise the readme's will get unnessisarily messy and oversized, not to mention make the person who is writing the readme file unnesissarily difficult. Also credit shouldnt go too far back into history, at most 2 authors back otherwise the credits will end up looking like some family tree.

Plus as for altered/tweeked files, im sorry but those are definatly not owned by the modder, even if you could convince a judge that the work you did changes the files significantly enough to give you copywrite over the altered file, Ubisoft could still pull out their trump card that your not allowed to mod the file to begin with which kills it right there.


As for those of you thinking, well who is he to comment on modding? he isnt a modder!... Well for SH3 in a sense your right, and wrong, I do mod SH3 but only me and some RL friends as i dont want to get into the hassle of credit and permission etc. Ive also done alot of modding for many other games and in other communities. Plus ive also had people steal work from me (and this was original work too) and take credit for it with out them even changing a single thing, or use it without asking. But that is just the way it is, always has been always will be. There isnt any point getting angry and causing a huge ruckus over it as it wont change anything.


Ok thats it. Moderator cap back on

[Beery]

In an effort to be constructive, here is the process I try to use when altering or using someone else's mod or when applying information that tells how to mod a file:

1. If it's a mod I ask if I can use or alter the mod. That applies whether or not the modmaker asks to be contacted for permission. The only time not to contact a modmaker is if he's stated that all his mods are freely available to others. In that case I use the mod and give proper credit.

2. If it's info listed on a public website it's free to use. Sometimes info comes to me second-hand or third-hand (i.e. "Some guy told me this is the way to mod feature X"). I always credit the person who came up with the idea if I know who it is.

3. If possible I ALWAYS credit ALL people involved in creating the mod - that includes all people who have had anything substantial to do with it, from concept through all versions and toolmakers whose tools help create the mod. If my readme is 200 pages long due to all the credits so be it - ALL the people who did the work should be properly credited - after all, no one is forced to read the readme or credits file.

4. If the modmaker asks to be contacted for permission but if he cannot be contacted and if I've tried a bunch of times without success, I use the mod and give proper credit. Many times modmakers make mods then drop off the face of the Earth. I think it's crazy to refuse to use good work simply because the original modmaker couldn't be bothered to stay available for contact.

5. People who steal mods or don't give credit for work done on a mod can either be doing it unknowingly or they may simply be unscrupulous. If they're doing it unknowingly they will give the modmaker an apology and proper credit. If they're unscrupulous they will deny and attack their accuser. These people will eventually get their just reward from the community - you can't fool all the people all the time and the truth has a tendency to come out.

EDITED by moderator (Hitman) to remove a part that had nothing to do with rules proposal

[Hitman]

I have stated very clearly the rules that govern this thread. Please no more off-topic comments here, otherwise I might consider them a conscious and repeated attempt to ignore the moderator's authority.

There are other topics open about the same purpose, go post there and leave this one for the modders rules proposals:stare:

[Dowly]

Now, why did my reply to Berry's number 5 got deleted? It was perfectly ON TOPIC. :doh:

[Hitman]

It wasn't. No modders rules were proposed, it was just a comment about Beery's rules. Read my post as I opened the topic again. Even if you only do it ONCE...at least:nope:

[bigboywooly]

I propose the following " guidelines "

1, All new mods to contain a thorough readme stating if the mod can be used in ANY other mod
Black and white and simple

2, If permission is allowed in the readme then permission should be sought - this needs some form of contact available either subsim or email
If not granted then dont use it
Simple

EDITED: Partially edited by Hitman as moderator, to keep the same criteria for all off topic chat. Notify me privately if someone else makes off topic comments in your opinion so I can revise them. Thanks.

[Reece]

EDITEd by Hitman to remove what was not relative to rules. What follows I take it as a proposal and thus leave it.

I myself try to contact creators & ask for permission & then give credit, or if the creator is no longer around just give a statement & credit!
That's it!!:yep:

[Webster]

DATE AND VERSION NUMBERS FOR YOUR MOD


many mods last over time so knowing how old it is or what the version number is will help in guiding those looking for mods to use.

i would also recommend listing the game version the mod was intended for.

let it be known if it works for NYGM or GWX or RUB etc.

[JScones]

i would also recommend listing the game version the mod was intended for.

let it be known if it works for NYGM or GWX or RUB etc.
Yes, I think this is imperative. :yep:

[P_Funk]

When it comes to works with ambiguity as to the future use of the mod by others, I feel that if a modder has released his work into the public domain, has not qualified its use, and cannot be reached then he was forfeited his right to control it since he has not demonstrated his wishes.

I think that its in the best interests of the free flow of ideas within the community that the above be adopted. Its like if you find a wad of cash on the street and turn it in to the police. If nobody claims it then you have every right to take it yourself. So if the modder in question hasn't qualified the nature of his work's availibility to others then we should assume it is public domain, once all reasonable means of communication with the modder in question have been exhausted.

That I feel is in the best interests of the community and creative development.

But I'm not a modder thats released anything so I'm not sure if my views are valid. Mostly I'm speaking from a pinko-commie, social democrat perspective.:|\\

[Hitman]

This thread will be closed -as previously announced- today. I'm giving now preciser time: About 8 hours from this post I'll close it.

Thanks all who participate:up:

[Anvart]

Waste of time - hypocritical chatter...
:rock:

[danlisa]

Thanks all who participate:up:

Waste of time - hypocritical chatter...
:rock:


Constructively.:roll:

[Hitman]

Closed....

Thanks

Will go through all proposals soon :up: