Modding Ethics
 

Its about time we had this out. IN PUBLIC... and start formulating the ground rules that prevent further serious problems from developing.

New modders shouldn't have to feel their way around in the dark as many of the reputable modders that contribute here have had to do in the past.

It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included.

The vast majority of the core elements of GW/GWX were designed "in-house."

Where former (now inactive) SH3 modding members and permissions are concerned, emails and/or PM's were sent and several days allowed to pass... If no response was found, modlets were included and detailed credits documented in the GWX manual.

The only time this policy was consciously violated, I take direct blame for. Early on, prior to the release of GW version 1.0 well over a year ago... (our first release) We notified Der Teddy Barr that we were going to include the stand alone ship damage models he had released and properly credited them.

This caused a great deal of heartburn for DTB (naturally in retrospect I suppose) and resulted in a public apology posted in this forum by me... (now archived) I got flamed... and I suppose I deserved it, at the very least for a breach of ettiquett.

As a result, the entire ship damage model system was redesigned from scratch by vonHelsching, Ref, and AG124 over the course of several months.

Many of you have seen accusations made by Beery that we based our work on, or engulfed the "Real U-boat" mod. This is absolutely baseless and untrue. NOTHING modded directly by Berry was included. When confronted directly, Beery did not produce ONE detail... only accusations.

Indeed, and in no small way thanks to Pablo author and keeper of the GWX manual (referred to by us as "Das Buch" lol) I feel that currently, we have the best available documentation and crediting. It protects both GWX modders and external contributors to the GWX mod both past and present.

to be continued shortly...

I don't think the idea of the other thread being closed was for more threads of that nature to spring up elsewhere -

let's leave it where it is before a flaming war starts to ruin what has become a great home to many of us...

Agreed.:yep:

My hope or wish is that we can find some common ground/ground rules that we can all abide & work to rather than rehashing old news.

Thanks for clarifiying that Kpt. I was 100% sure it was the case but couldn't say so on my own volition.:up:

Pssss, Pen, don't feel singled out, eh?;)

This is not a thread to discuss the why's or wherefore's of the issue raised in the, now locked, thread but to rather find some agreement between all of us as to how any modder should proceed if he/she wish to produce a mod.

I think it needs discussing otherwise we shall see this situation again & again.

I believe it to be wholly and completely unethical for one person or team of persons to totally subsume and include a mod package. (especially when still currently and actively supported by its original creators)

Things might have been a little different if Carotio just made a tweaks package to go on top of GWX using JGSME... However, Carotio includes the entirety of the base GWX mod... and appears to depend on the GWX title to draw users.

(...And he wonders why we just might have a problem with that... or why HanSolo78 might have a problem with the same happening to the War Ace Campaign. I think a wooden man would have a problem with that.)

I also feel that lazy crediting is a slap in the face. Case in point: The "Ultimate" sound mod for SH4 "By Gunther Hessler/Hunky_Punk." The individual in question simply lifted a great deal of the sound files from GWX and plunked them into SH4 after crediting the AOTD group... making no mention of the people listed in the GWX sound credits or the GWX mod itself.

Proper crediting is at times a real pain in the a$$. However, if you can release a mod... you can spend a bit of time writing in those whose work came before if you add to their file(s). Even if you don't like the guy... it only takes a moment's pain to do the right thing.

Well, I tell ya what. When you've spent two years creating and contributing (even if it is freeware!!!!) maybe you'll understand why it is that people feel close to their work... and that it truly is worth defending.

More than one person has felt that we... or others have been "unreasonable."

The fact remains that there are too many "unwritten rules" that modders sometimes have to feel their way around in the dark for.

... and the fact remains that some "modders" just don't give a crap.

No one wants to hold back modding in general. If you don't want big flame wars... clear rules need to be in place.

Clear rules have not been in place and the absence of the same breeds rust and mold... and lets any old joe just waltz in and say "I'll take that! Thank you very much!!!"

Didn't this happen with X1 versus Sergbuto? (Ummm... Yeah!)

Probably the most boring and tedious part of modding is making sure things are done the right way. Yes it is a PITA. It akes a little effort. However, if you are a non-modder who enjoys the labor of someone else... and want to thank a modder... Thank them by supporting an ethical process and an ethical evolution of modding.

FYI, I have no problem at all with Penelope... She asked a good question.

First I'd like to point out that I think GWX is great, and I do use it, and on the subject of mods, if I post any mods, I regard it as fair game for anyone to do with them as they will. If they credit me, great, if not, I'm not that bothered. For all I know, there might even be some stuff I did in GWX, I've never been that bothered to find out.

While I'm sure you took the trouble to contact a lot of modders if it was hoped that their work was to be included, I seriously doubt anyone phoned up Peter Gabriel and got his permission to use the intro to Sky Blue on the loading screen, so there is a copyright issue with GWX before you even get to the simulation part that goes way beyond upsetting a modder. Similarly, I doubt Wolfgang Peterson or Bavaria Studios got a call, and there are most definitely some sounds from Das Boot in GWX too.

Originally the SH3 devs tried to get permission to do this (with Das Boot) for SH3 in its early stages, but the cost was prohibitive (seemed like a short-sighted decision to me actually, since it would have amounted to a huge plug for further Das Boot DVD sales, but there you go).

So from this I can only assume that 'It has always been the policy of the GW/GWX dev team to ask for permission for EACH mod made outside of the team to be included.' is not exactly true.
Not trying to be funny here by the way, just pointing out that there are wider issues, than if 'submodder666' or whoever gets their work snaffled.

On the subject of sending emails and PMs to modders to ask permission for inclusion of their mod, a failure on their part to respond should not be taken as a blanket permission from them that you are good to go. As I've pointed out, anyone can do what they like with anything I mod and post on the 'net, but that's just me, and I always stick a read me in there pointing out that some of the stuff I've used might ultimately belong to UBISOFT or whoever.

I think if people make stuff available, they kind of forfeit the right to treat it as 'their ball' which no-one can tamper with, but I do think using the copyrighted work of people outside of the original game files, which do not fall into this category is not a very good idea and ultimately weakens the main point you make, which as I say, is fine by me.

this is the kind of assumption that lead to bad feelings - you don't know anything about me and you already talk down on me? Or do you feel you are higher standing than me because you have posted here two years? I have to remember that... :nope:

Correct me if I am wrong, but the matter in question happend on another board? So you can discuss and make rules and regs all you want, if these things happen elsewhere you have no control over it - and discussing it here (with accusations and name calling) doesn't help matters much either but spoils a good board.

I have been SMod on another board for many years and saw it destroyed (literally) by such things. If you want to create rules (or just list them), then do so but without referencing to quotes and such like, that is all I am saying...

Oh, and if it needs discussing - shouldn't that be in the relevant forum rather than here? ;)

It has been my experience with years and years of flight simulator modding that when anyone creates a mod for flight simulator there was never any hard feelings if that persons mod was taken and slightly changed or improved or tweaked and then reposted as a new mod AS LONG AS credit was given to the original modder.

Lehmann is right, there are too many fuzzy lines out there and not enough codes of conduct to cover everyones actions.

eveyone here has contributed well thought out responses to this thread so far, i hope we can keep it that wayt.

Though i noticed many similarities between RealUBoat and GWX they are two completely different animals suited to two completely different play styles, i have used both mods extensively. was there inspiration drawn from Real Uboats for the creation of GWX? maybe there was and myabe there was not.

All i know is that there are only so many ways to draw a stick figure and have it come out looking NOTHING like the other guy's stick figure - if that makes sense? or what i guess im trying to say is that since SH3 is based on historical events and everyone is shooting for some level of historical accuracy these mods are going to come across with tons of similarities.

Im not really sure where this started... i like GWX, i like RUB, i have only run a cross a couple of mods that while being neat ideas didnt suit my play style and with that said i was under the impression that all of the modders pretty much got along (and i still think for the most part that is the case) BUT I think the modders of these sub sims might stand to learn a bit from the modders of things like Microsoft Flight Simulator, and that is...

Unless the readme file says otherwise any other modder can tweak your mod to make a different one as long as the original modder is HEAVILY thanked and credited for it... If that is not what a modder desires - place it in the readme file (No person(s) may modify this mod without the express written permission of *insert name*) for example.

[ILL USE GWX IN THIS EXAMPLE NOW] though i think another neat idea that might serve to chop off the head of the "hey thats MY mod" snake might be to lose the howling wolf intro to GWX and place like a 20 second clip black screen with white text "The entire GWX team would like to thank all of the subsim modders and community for their continued support. Special thanks go to the following:" and then list every person and their association with every mod incorporated into the game.

just my two bits worth. :D

Well, that's great. However, we (and many other modders) disagree. I think this is enough to make an issue of it. Unless you went by another name before, nothing by you has been included. You would have received a request prior to such a thing anyway.

The precedent was set by good old RUb lol... which included bites from Das Boot in the voice files with the explaination that it was freeware. Nor do we seek profit of any sort... or offer media in any sort of way that we can can make a profit.

You know, if we manage to help Bavaria Studios sell another 10,000 copies of Das Boot... COOL. It helps them and fuels the submarine simulation community. NO money of any sort has lined our pockets... In fact I have turned down offers of "donations" more than once.

It IS exactly true as I stated that for each modification produced by this community externally to GWX... that was included in GWX... permissions were actively sought. Regarding members who have gone to other places and are not reachable... who produced good work... Should those works be lost? Honestly, for those individuals I suppose we could have simply added the work and claimed it as our own with little repercussion if any. Instead we used the best available credits and actively sought those credits.

Everything except original works and intellectual property added to SH3 not using Ubisoft files as a base to work from... certainly does appear to "belong to Ubisoft." We understand that. However, what we refer to are mods produced by the community. If our work helps the Ubisoft Devs build SH5... Then mission accomplished!

So you imply that there should be no rules or even guidelines to establish a way forward.

Well, we also understand that GWX is easy to shoot at because it is a BIG FREAKIN' TARGET, LOL. Every Tom, Joe, and Harry is an armchair expert. We've taken just as much flak as anyone else over the inclusion of Das Boot sound bites etc...

Our true interest is pushing the simulation (and the developers) to set the bar higher and higher... but to do it in such a way that we recognize those who helped it go the distance... After all, all of those guys did what they did for the love of the game... for free... even if he was only "John Q Modder" and only modified a single file.

They deserve a mention.

In the same breath... it is simply bad form... to waltz in and make an actively supported mod your own without common decency.

@Spytrx, No I am not "Talking down to you." In fact I think your view of me is simply colored from a previous difference in view... and I feel this fuels your desire to counter me.

This is entirely the best place I think to address modding ethics. This is a mods workshop after all.

Regarding "feeling close to the work" ... that is not an "assumption" as you say... but the pure and simple truth. Any artist or designer would naturally feel this way after a great deal of time and personal sacrifice to see a thing through.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way. I recognize that you've been other places before... but you have not been here for this story to unfold. No offence, but you joined us last month did you not?

I think that referencing prior problems... including our own... is entirely appropriate. It is why I opened with a mistake that I personally take responsibility for.

The fact remains that permissions should be sought wherever possible... especially concerning "active" modding efforts and projects built by modders that call this place home... and have passed through its halls before.

This is not an unreasonable concept.

I have to go to work unfortunately... Hopefully, the moderators will see the need for this discussion... or it will only be doomed to repeat.

Here we go again:nope:

The way I see it is that there is this problem every each time new users
get in, and over the sudent. we have a lot of new modders, that in fact
is a very cool and good thing, but before you Mod anything you have to
learn some basics , and one of the most importante in any Moding community
is the respect for the others creations or ways of seeing their work, so
Ethic is important in any Modding forum, not only here...

But its like I said before, evrybody wants to mod, at any cost, and passing
over any moral or respect to the fellow modder , and this is not a question
of who posted more posts or opened more topics, its a question that I think
its going thru the pipe here...:yep: :nope:

Nobody owns your heads, but you can noy go into a place and just pic
a tv and change it by incorporating on it a DVD and after just take it to
your home without saying to the TV owner, Can I Sir?:yep: :hmm: :shifty:

To cents or not anyone can agree or desagree with what Kpt. L. posted
but its GWX work Not anyone else, so asking to use anything its imperative
and periode.:stare:

In point of fact, I'm implying the exact opposite. In that it seems odd to suggest setting up guidelines or groundrules to be followed when from a legal standpoint, many have been sidestepped.

It matters not one iota whether anyone states that they are not doing something for profit, you cannot legally take copyrighted work and place it in a product (freeware or otherwise) and distribute it without permission. If I'd duplicated a music CD for a friend, I'd not be doing it for profit, but me saying that wouldn't make it legal!

That I think it is a shame is by the by. Because I've already stated that I think GWX is great. And since Peter Gabriel is hardly a pauper it's probably never going to be followed up, similarly, the inclusion of Das Boot sounds will doubtless not harm Bavaria Studios, but the fact remains that they wanted a vast sum from UBISOFT devs when asked. That such an inclusion had been set as a precedent by RUB might be so, but it is not a legal precedent.

So in essence, what I am saying is that to try and impose rules or guidelines upon things where there is no recourse, while simultaneously breaking rules where there are clearly delineated ones, is not a very firm foundation from which to start, and not that I don't think there should be any at all. My take on this matter for any mods I've personally done, was purely from a personal standpoint on that issue alone.

Taking a moral stance on one point and then glossing over another is bending morals to suit yourself. You can't be 'a little bit pregnant', you either are, or you are not.

I'm not trying to be contentious here, but if one is to set up some rules and 'have it out in public' as you say, then such an issue cannot be simply brushed aside as inconvenient and irrelevant with a 'LOL' as your reply does. I can assure you that nobody involved with GWX would be laughing out loud if they were taken to court over intellectual theft and forced to pay hundreds of thousands of dollars, as I'm sure you must be aware. When you consider this, a free modder getting upset pales into insignificance.

That may be so, but conversely, such a thing may have the very opposite effect to helping the sub sim community. If GWX has improved sales of SH3, Bavaria Studios might be able to take legal action against UBISOFT because of the fact that UBISOFT's profits have improved at the expense of an illegally distributed segment of work. How do you think UBISOFT would react to the notion of producing another submarine sim if that occurred?

If I'm honest, I really do not know where one would begin with setting out some rules, and I assume that the only way subsim could perhaps enforce such a thing would be in a manner similar to the one which makes posting 'hacks and cracks' for software a big no-no.

Although this subject has been discussed many times before, such discussions have often descended into vitriolic arguments, and I would like to think that this thread will not go the same way. I think it might be worth trying to set up at least some sort of 'ethical code' if you will, but there is more to this than meets the eye.