I can't speak for anyone else, but for myself I don't consider you opinion as a lone one. I don't agree with all you have said, more specifically the wording, but I do agree with what I consider to be the "meaning": that the .exe should not be distributed (modded or not).

I understand your use of 'vandalizm' but don't agree with it. At least by a legal definition there MUST BE malice involved on the part of the perpetrator and I feel there was not. I could go with copyright infringement or something along those lines. But to be considered vandalizm there must be intent and malice. I don't believe he intented to do any harm (He may do harm by messing with the .exe but the harm was not intended, therefore no vandalizm) , and I don't feel there was malice.

Using the paint the house example: It's could be possible to damage your home with a coat of paint by filling the pores in the wood with paint and then a 'stain' could not be properly applied even after stripping the paint off. So damage was done, he would be liable for the damage. But I don't think the charge would be vandalizm since there was no intent to do harm, and no malice involved. If he painted purple bunnies all over the house that would make it a totally different story.

I totally agree with you about not distributing the .exe. I also agree with Mikhayl "Let's wait and see what UBI says". In fact every single thing we do in here is violating the license agreement. They include a mission editor but if you use it and distribute the missions, it violates the agreement. So we can do what UBI allows us to do. And I think the distribution of the .exe has stepped over the line, but it's not my decision to make, nor, with all due respect is it anyone elses other than UBI.

You comment his "MOD/Hack" violates 2/3rds of what "is not permitted". Our Japanese Campaign will violate all them, without ever touching the .exe.

Peabody

It would be OK to alter the exe that you bought with permission from the publisher. Just as it is OK to paint my house with my permission.

Actually, Ubi owns the software that resides on your machine. Altering their product necessarily affects them. They have the right to determine the fate of their property, not us. We can offer and they can accept or not, but we do not have the right to decide what is right or wrong in this.

It is possible that they would also object to transportation of objects from game to game, especially outside the Ubi family of games, or from a game you do not own. There has been extensive discussion on Subsim as to whether that is permissable. Dan has weighed into some of those threads and not expressed any problem with it. However, at any time, Ubi can reverse their earlier decision and prohibit modding their game, putting mod sites out of business.

Ubi designed this game and intended for modding to take place. But it is still their call what the boundaries are. As people who benefit from their having created the game I believe it is just common respect, when extending the boundaries of what modding has been so far, to ask Ubi if they think it is proper. Your first question would be one of the first important questions to ask.

I stand behind my inflammatory language, including looter, vandal, biting the hand that feeds us, etc. It is the height of impudence to interfere with property of another in any way, including enhancing it at your expense, without respecting their opinion. We can only mod because Ubi produces a game we willingly paid our money to use.

They produced it in a moddable state, and they can produce unmoddable games easily in the future. Dan has already warned that they were very close to a decision not to allow modding in the future.

Why do we have to feel entitled to automatically use or alter someone else's property? I'll proudly say we have no such right and take whatever abuse comes my way. I take the abuse as validation of my position, so fire away. A sense of entitlement accompanies all wrongdoing.

Ubi has earned, with the money we voluntarily paid, the the sole and absolute right to determine, reasonably or unreasonably, the rules for using their product. They have to power to enforce their position and there's nothing we can do about it. Shouldn't that engender a bit of caution?

Just a warning. I'm gonna rant a bit here.

I realize Ubi's position (and most software distributors/producers/developers) is that they've sold me a license to use the software. Specifically, I have not purchased the software itself. Oh, yeah... and I have to follow their terms to use the software. It's almost as bad as Disney telling me to rush out and "buy the DVD today", when I can't... I buy a license to view the DVD (again, following their terms and conditions).

I call bs. It's my computer. That's where the line's drawn. I installed software on my PC, it's my right to do with it what I want.

Note that this doesn't mean I can distribute it. It doesn't mean I can copy it and hand it to a friend. Cracking it and uploading it to The Pirate Bay is off limits. That's crossing the line, between my computer and everything else.

I've got an analogy of my own. I own a '97 Subaru Outback wagon. The engine's from a '95 Impreza (dropped 0.3 liter, but I gained a non-interference design). The rearview mirror is from my ol' 92 Loyale. The ECU is from a '97 Legacy GT.

Now, if Subaru imposed the same terms and conditions upon that vehicle as most EULA do on software, none of the above modifcations would have occurred. I'd have to bring the car into the Subaru dealership for all maintenance, scheduled or otherwise (no modifying, reverse engineering, decompiling, etc. the software by a third party).

I'm expected to simply roll over and let whoever owns the rights to a piece of software do whatever they want, as long as it's in the EULA, including limiting my use of their software? Yeah, right. *sarcasm*

Now I'm probably wrong, from a legal standpoint. Quite frankly, I don't give a darn. Someone wants to stand up and sue me 'cause I altered software on my PC, that wasn't distributed, that did not interact with any other software/computers, they can go right ahead and do so. I'll be martyr. A darn vocal one, at that.

Oh, and if Ubi wants to cut off the modding from future products, they can go right ahead. They'll cut off my funding. I've always considered myself a loyal Ubisoft fan. I've followed the Il-2 Sturmovik series, buying every expansion up to and including 1946. I've bought every Silent Hunter product except the first (including Destroyer Command). They want to put out a SH product that prevents modding, when they've allowed it in the past, they can go right ahead. I'll take my cash and go home. That's my official position.

Ok, I'm done ranting.

Good one Lucky, it was more common sense than ranting :O:. I've avoided to say my thoughts about this issue so far but...

I can't understand why we are not allowed to mod anything outside the DATA folder but at the same time change anything in that folder. S3D editor was made by analising the act files and, altough I'm not sure about it, GWX also seems to do things outside the Data folder. I've said it before, that we're not interested in changing the game's engine, and I can very well understand why Ubi would want to protect it's technology from backwards engineering (including the complier). But their decision to include the game's scripts, including AI, commands, cameras and interface behavior into compiled files was a mistake and a huge blow to modding. I hope that they have realised the benefits in having a modding community and will try to improve on it by giving us more choice, maybe even tools.

However, there are particular files that are indeed offlimits to any game. Those are the files that are resposible for copy-protection. You can't make a mod that includes (or changes) the exe file. That's a very big nono. And I don't understand while the file is still available for download.... :nope:

I don't know what I would do if SH5 turns out to be un-mod-able.
:wah::wah::wah:

@ "deadok":

On behalf of all those here WHO DO APPRECIATE the effort you made to both create and share with us this well intentioned mod for our favorite sub-simming software, thank you very much.

Although there may be reason for caution with regards to the method you used to accomplish your mod, it's value, your intentions, and your talent do not deserve to be treated in an offhand or negative way any moreso than any other mod/modder has been or should be.

While most here would expect that you would willingly comply with the desire of UBI and/or Neal should either directly indicate that this type of mod - as opposed to other mods effected by different means - is unacceptable, we none-the-less appreciate your work and attempt to help make a great product even better for all of us.

@ "theluckyone17":

Cool beans. I'm glad that we understand each other now and thank you for the mature, personable, and constructive feedback. The truth is we pretty much agree with each other! :yep:

While it is perfectly acceptable to disagree with someone in an intelligent and meaningful discussion, it is not acceptable to purposely make personal attacks against some and generalized attacks against groups of other people just because they remain silent or disagree with you.

"We run the forum with as few rules as possible but we aim for a civil tone, so no personal attacks. You may have noticed other Internet forums are filled with aggression, insults, and general immaturity. Check that at the door here, this forum is different. Our members appreciate thoughtful discussion and a mature tone. Please adjust accordingly."

It doesn't matter if you consider yourself a martyr or how self-righteous you feel about something, doesn't even matter if your point of view is "correct" or not, two wrongs don't make a right.

Isn't it about time this thread got locked? Or does the OP and the rest of us really need to be subjected to more of the same? If this thread isn't going to be locked, then isn't it about time for someone to apply some back-pressure to the reins?

Respectfully submitted.

:timeout:
Guys, this seems to be getting really out of hand.

RR, you have defended your point well, insults and all, as well as everyone else defending the OP.

Perhaps Hack was used in the wrong context. Perhaps it wasn't. Let's calm down and start looking at this from a different POV. That means ALL of us by the way. With no response from Neal or Ubi, we must assume it is okay, or at least willingly overlooked.

RR, I guess that means cool it with your views of the copyright system. Everyone interprets that system in their own unique way, I appreciate that.

Skyhawk et al, stop getting at RR's throat because of the way he expresses his views and ideals, he has shared his opinion, which is exactly that, an opinion, so stop bashing him for it.

I'm not a moderator, I know, but someone's gotta stem the chaos and insults.

Agreed. All of us have the same goal in mind: improve SH4. We're all entitled to our opinions.

I certainly hold the opinion that RR's a valuable member of this forum. Most of the other names I recognize in this thread are, too. For those I don't recognize, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt.

Hey, drinks at my place, and we can argue 'bout it here. Y'all have to buy your own plane tickets, though :O:.

its about 500 round trip from 'ole IL, but I'm not drinking age :O:
coke please!
and thank you for your understanding, LuckyOne. Skyhawk left me a PM saying I am pro RR's opinion, and some other nasty things (I merely browsed it and I'm not going to detail over something I did not completely read) then added me to his ignore list.
this drama is unnecessary.

Deadok, if we didn't scare you off, welcome to the forum and keep up the work, good wrk hopefully :)

:har: I'm almost old enough to drink three times over, and I drink coke, so we can share a table.
It's too bad it turned into PMs and Ignores. Just noticed the plural of PM is PMS, I wonder if that has something to do with it? :har:
What does it matter if you are pro anybody? Everyone has an opinion, the world would be quite boring if we all agreed on everything.
Regardless of what your opinion is on the topic, I respect your right to disagree with me and to voice your disagreement and I hope we can still be friends. Like I commented, I disagree with RR about using the word vandalism, that does NOT mean I don't respect him as a person. He is much more better with the English language than I is. ;)

@Deadok, I also hope this does not scare you off.

Peabody

The willingness and/or need to publicly misrepresent a private message speaks volumes "Sledgehammer427".


I did not say you were pro-RR, I said you were displaying pro-bias towards RR and then tried to make my point by explaining the difference between calling someone a criminal (which RR did), and my replies to his comments which you termed "bashing", whose sole purpose was to say that it wasn't necessary to be so condescending and deragatory towards "deadok".


Was it the part where I conveyed that I chose to not participate in this thread any further of my own accord rather than your well-intended but misguided "pearls of wisdom" that made me see the light or was it the fact that I did not use any explicatives, curse words, or make any personal attacks towards you or RR that you found so nasty?

After all, the only things I spoke about in a negative fashion were merely based on my opinion, so no need to "bash" me for it either, unless of course like some others you think the rules should be applied to some, but not to all, and especially not to you.

Perhaps you should report the PM and get me banned if it is so offensive. But we both know that isn't the case. I agree, that enough is enough, and that is precisely why I took my comments to the message system.

I will say one last thing though. There is only one member here at subsim who has been a victim in this thread. That member is "deadok", NOT RR.

"deadok" came here to share something with this community in a positive and meaningful way. RR took that effort, made an issue of it, then took carte blanche with the forum rules in driving him away.

I have yet to hear anyone refute the arguements I made to this effect with logic and sound reason, and have only gotten "grief" for the effort. But you will notice I am not claiming to be a martyr or the victim of abuse.
If you have anything further to say to me, do it via the subsim message system, I have taken you off my ignore list.

Assuming you did not in fact read the entire private message as you've stated, then perhaps you should do so before you make unfounded, public accusations about it. Assuming of course that you don't feel the need to honor a private message with the common courtesy of keeping it private, save for sharing it with the moderating team if in fact you think it is in violation of the forum rules.

Have a nice day, I know I will because I did not just stand by and watch while someone got mugged on the side of the road.

Now, make any comments you like knowing that I choose not to reply in this thread again. There is nothing more to say, if what has been said hasn't been convincing enough.:yep:

OK, I just noticed that the current SH4 moderators are on vacation. Since I can't close the thread myself I have given notice to Neal but as Subsim moderator I think I can say clearly here:

NO, THIS IS NOT ALLOWED STUFF HERE. NO MATTER WHAT YOU DID TO THE EXE, IT HAS CROSSED THE RED LINE.

I understand there is no bad intention here, but this has been discussed already many times in the SH3 forums and the answer is NO, no exe or dlls hacking is allowed.

Please do not further post here until Neal comes and states his opinion. I can't close the thread, but I sure can give infractions to anybody who keeps posting here.

Thanks

Hitman (As moderator)

Link removed in first post.

Thread closed...Pending review from Neal.

My understanding is hacking the main game executable is not allowed. I appreciate the intent to add a mod to the game, but as Hitman said, that's forbidden.