Modding Ethic/Courtesy Rules (Agreed)

[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.

[JScones]

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.

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.

[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.>

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)

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.

[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]

Originally Posted by 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.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

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.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

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:

Originally Posted by Hitman

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.

[JScones]

Originally Posted by 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.

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.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

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.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

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.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

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.

Originally Posted by WEBSTER

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.

[quote=JScones]

Originally Posted by 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.

[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.

[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