Quote:
|
Originally Posted by 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.
|
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.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Ducimus
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.