Well I for one ALWAYS ask permission for anything not made inhouse
No permission - not included

Simple courtesy IMHO

I'm gonna rant on the SH3 to SH4 "conversion" (for want of a better word) trend that seems to be happening at the moment.

I've noticed with the many conversions of units from SH3 to SH4, numerous modders are quick for the glory, but slow to recognise the source. A few people come to mind.

In other words, I agree with you. If I released something and someone added it to a bigger package, even tweaked it, I wouldn't mind. I wouldn't even expect to be asked for permission. However, if the credits merely read "Converted by me, oh, and BTW, thanks to the GWX team", I wouldn't be happy, especially when the full credits are in the GWX manual for all to see. I mean, in six months time that ship I worked on for three months becomes remembered as merely "the ship X converted to SH4".

Now, whether the underlying files belong to Ubisoft is irrelevant (in a purely crediting context). The fact is someone from the community (objectively) "improved" them. Their contribution should be remembered along the way from taking "SH3: the mediocre subsim" to "SH3: the great subsim".

Also, some people make snide remarks when guys like Sergbuto or the Kpt try to address this lackadaisical behaviour. These guys should be supported by the community, not ostracised. And it's usually only the non-modders that get on their high-horse and blame these guys for "ruining it for everyone". To them I say, "come back after you've sweated on making a mod only to see it credited as 'Converted to SH4 by X'". Ironically, it's the snide remarks from the few that stop the many "real" modders from continuing. One can only then convert so many units, if you know what I mean. ;) Simple narrow-minded thinking.

Perhaps even more concerning to the original modders (although it should be the players that are concerned) is that it's not just the credits that are given lazy treatment, it's the "conversion" as well - in some instances only half the job is done. Did anyone not think that the original modders may have ideas for importing their models, with the attention that is deserved, into SH4? Nup. Easier just to hammer it in and get it out "because they can".

Many people seem to forget this VERY valid point. :yep:

Various people have "claimed" GWX files as theirs. I'm sure people have also claimed parts of RUb, or NYGM, or WAC as theirs too. Simple fact is, if we asked twenty people here to tell us when, say, 7 Flotilla started operations, all twenty would go straight to uboat.net and come back with the same answer. Why? Because history is static - it can't be changed. So just because one mod has an IX with 22 torpedos and another mod comes along with the same, it doesn't give anyone the right to accuse the second mod of "mod theft" on that basis alone.

My preference is to contact them as per their preferred channel outlined in their readme file. I always state my wishes in the affirmative. In other words, "We're planning on adding this to GWX, with full credit to you of course, pls let me know if that is not acceptable". If this is done via the modder's preferred interaction channel, then I have no problem using the mod if they do not respond. I must admit though, that every such email or PM I have sent has been responded to with a positive "go for it!".

I agree. Once it's out there you can do nothing about it, and it would be naive to think that you could continue to control its use.

However, from a social perspective, some sense of moral decency from subsequent users would be appreciated, and that is what I see as being argued here. Or if not, then it's what I'd like to see as being argued here. ;)

This is a good point, and one which would certainly undermine any "we ask everyone for permission" argument (for the record I am against the use of copyrighted material for this exact reason). But, we seem to be combining numerous different moral issues here. I would like to see credit improvements first from the minority of "offenders" before tackling copyright infringement, which opens a totally different can of worms going right back to the basic "can we even mod these files?" (and indeed results in a new thread on the topic every few months or so with no resolution, but copious amounts of personal flaming and "bush-lawyer" sproutings.

With all thoes who say once you release a mod its out of your hands, I agrie but... It may be legaly ok but socialy its a diffrent matter. I agrie with LScones, all communitys have unoffical social guidlines. Modding included. And with the increasing # of thoe who dont care and want all the Glory for themselvs thoes become strained. One of the top rules(possibly #1) is m my book(and Im shure evryones) is "Give credit where credt is due". And the ones who break that are only dergrading themselvs.

I can vouch for this to a large extent. I was copied on some of the requests and the GW guys took extra effort to solicit permission on work used with their mod.

That's a fair point. I wasn't trying to change the subject at hand, which as you say is 'modding etiquette', I was just reminded of the old adage about people in glass houses...

And how was that?

I appreciate all the cool things mods have done but I have to speak up and say I disagree that unmodded SH3 was mediocre. That's just not the case.

Perhaps at the time of initial release it was not considered "mediocre", because there was no frame of reference other than SH2, or AOD. But go back to playing the released SH3 now (I mean v1.0) and I'm sure it would be considered that way.

Otherwise, then, if SH3 was "great" on release, what is it now with GWX, or WAC, on top? What's beyond "brilliant"? "Dazzling" according to my thesaurus. But I think SH3 has grown beyond merely "great" to "dazzling". "Mediocre" to "great" - I can live with that comparison. ;)

All frames of reference and all relative. :p

Good thread, needless to say I am 100% on the side of the Kpt. and his feloow modders in seeking some guidelines on this issue. Courtesy ... is that too much to ask? :hmm:

So if I understood Kpt. Lehmann right it is ok to break the copyright of artists (sound, vision, etc) and the software developers (those poor souls that write the original code) because their ware is passed on as freeeware and no profits are sought, but once it has become the work of modders written permission has to be given, even though another modder takes the exact same approach as the original. Yes, in a hypocritical way that makes sense now... :)

Just because Ubisoft have not taken legal actions and Petersen and Bavaria Studio's don't do that either doesn't make it right - the developers of the program have spend much more than two years on writing the code that you so carelessly claim as your own now (even in a heavily modified way) and I doubt that anyone here (me included) wrote off asking permission for it (since it is a big no-no in the ToS and User Agreement right from the start)...

talk about ethics and morals - those programmers do this for a living... :hmm:

That's the thing about the Internet - you make it accessible to the world you loose control over it unless you place a copyright on it (which would be tricky considering the legality of things)...


flame me, burn me down, accuse me of sniping and snide remarks - won't change a thing about the legal stand of it all...


You what? No mate - it stems from the view that if somebody does something to somebody else they can't later complain if the exact same thing happens to them... :)

No one is talking about the legal stand bar you
Ethics
Courtesy

Read the thread properly

Respect keeps the modding communities alive. Too bad there's so many people in the world that are striving only for the personal glory. :nope:

I have - have you?

Ethics - what is so ethical about taking a piece of code that is clearly labelled not to be taken and modified (read the end-user agreement you have with Ubi soft)?
Courtesy - are you talking about the courtesy that is shown to all that have a different view-point here, or the one applied when talking face-to-face?

And if I hear somebody be labelled an thief that automatically makes it a legal question since you are talking about property theft - wouldn't you agree? So I wasn't the only one talking about it - but the first to maybe name it for what it was!

don't give me ethical and courteous if you don't lead with example
this whole thing is clearly blown out of all propotions and I can see that anybody taking a different view to the one of the 'Modders team' is just getting a bruising at best - and as such I withdraw... :nope:

Alas it is an objective reality while there are those who considers that should ask the sanction to free fashions them in which is directly told what not for commercial use and can freely extend. Also speaks also that is wishing to specify to everyone its place, and it can not coincide with desires of the one to whom specify. It also does not cause desire to distribute the operating time. And opportunities at all different, and situations vital too. And simply threat of financial sanctions from those who has for this purpose opportunities also many forces to do for itself only.
(machine translate)

I am mostly in sync with most of Lehmann`s standards - and I personally follow my own rules. I always go forward to get permission (and not just a lukewarm one) even before I include something made by someone else.

But those are just that, the personal standards of Kpt. Lehmann and many others, including myself, but not everyones. And in some way they are double standards, because the distinction between legal (as in Peter Gabriel) and moral claims (us) is problematic, though not completely illogical.

What I think is that it is ok to ask and encourage these rules to be followed by everyone, but I am against trying to enforce them onto any newb and lamer that might come to these forums - I mean I think it is great to try and be a gentleman, a man of honor, but it`s a decision you have to take yourself. There should be no moral police telling you what to do, especially if there is no legal ground you can stand upon.

So: if some loser slaps his name onto some mod that I made - and it can`t be called intellectual theft because neither has the stuff ever belonged to me, nor does he earn a penny with it .. Then I am not giving them applause for that - but what the heck.

I would say thats what tolerance demands.