mods, permission, and the like; an idea and a proposal

[skridge]

after all the discussion about mods, and who owns what and getting permission to do this or that, yada yada yada, i had a though.

you may hate it, you may love it, whatever.

how about if mods were released under creative commons (http://creativecommons.org/)? that means the mod is free to be passed around, and to be modded with no permissions needed. that way everyone can use it, it can be fixed if need be, and no one needs to hunt you down thru 2 dead email addresses. i mean, what happens next year when everyone but a few hardcore ppl move on to the next big thing, and some mod needs to be updated.

too bad, that mod is now dead. this is the kind of thing cc license will avoid. or gpl, or anything but nothing. if i can ever produce a car or mod worth distributing, i will use cc for mine.

anyway, it's just an idea for you to talk over. i hope some of you content creator types will consider it so your content can outlive your excitement with gtr/gtl/ etc.

long version is posted @ my site (http://www.minor3rd.com/m3h/?p=44)

[October]

me = big fan of CC licensing.

[LordRa9826]

After i received a negative answer from one modder when asked if he would like to convert his mod from GTR to GTR2 i have to agree with you though i understand the modders too when they want credit for their work.
I think as long as you don't take credit for somebody else's work,then it's ok for further modding if you have the skills to improve it.After all it's the internet.
Sad to say that i'm no modder though so i'm just speaking my mind and nothing else.

[October]

CC by Attribution means anything covered under the license can be changed as long as the original author is *always* credited. This is a legally binding license, folks, and many musicians and artists have already adopted it or something quite similar like:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/2.5/

Should definitely be safe for modders! I hate seeing mod dev teams go "yeah, we'll release it when it's done", pumping up the fans and then ooops! "Our harddrive died..." or the old-time favorite "for personal reasons XXXXX left the mod and took all his work with him." :(

The moddb.com runs contests every so often and I completely refuse to vote on any project or even join their forums unless a given project is covered under some sort of workable license (more in the interest of the other devs than for the fans!) and at least a public alpha is available.

[[RSms]RS]

and the point of this tread is ???

This same discussion has been had many times before, if you have blatantly just copied smeone else work, even if it does mean you have to go through 5 old e-mails to find them you should do it, it's called manners and they don't cost a thing....

[October]

The easiest thing is for serious modders, ones that actually are serious about having something to release to the public, is to *establish a license* and simply make the public aware of it, both in announcements and in a "license.txt" in the file itself.

[skridge]

RS;63259']and the point of this tread is ???

This same discussion has been had many times before, if you have blatantly just copied smeone else work, even if it does mean you have to go through 5 old e-mails to find them you should do it, it's called manners and they don't cost a thing....

manners is a nice concept, but it's time to move to something a bit more realistic, and this is an attempt. copying someone else's work and building on it is what open source is about. it would be nice to see that in the game mod community. the real reason is exactly what i said, there are too many abandoned projects that lots of ppl would like to have. just because the creator is tired of something doesn't mean everyone after that should be denied it.

and as to manners, how many of these modders asked the creators of the game if it was ok, and how many would respect it told no?

it just smacks of elitism and cliquishness. i know when i get tired of working on gp-edit, ill open source it and whoever wants to can take it up and run with it. it would be nice to see a bit more of that in the mod comunity. we all want the same thing, to play and have fun with the coolest toys we can get.

it's time for people to think of the community, and not putting 'credit' above it.

[GTI-Heizer]

Full agree skridge & october :up:

I think the most of the people do not understand the benefits of GPL/CC.
Thats not a license for stealing, thats a license for improving the original.

Thats also gives the author the right to take back all changes to the original relese.

There is a license file that all sources must be named and readme's must be include in following releases, so everyone knows who make the work.

And when enthusiast guys begin to mod and make some improvements, its for me much more worth as a simple 'Great Work' in the release thread. Because there spend free time for making things better.

I have released the GTI as GPL and in near future, i will also release 2 tracks also under GPL.
It will be nice to see if some guys will convert them to rf or GTL, because i have all racing games and like having all the good mods on every game.
And I'm a little to lazy to mod for all games. :D

[KarlosDaJackal]

There are no downsides to releasing under GPL or CC,

The community get better quality releases and more frequent releases. If someone gets sick of working on something the project can live on without them. Open souce is the way to go.

The only reason to not go open source is if you more interested in getting attention for you than for what you created.

I'm typing this is firefox (open source), and its being transmitted via my linux server (if a whole os can be done open source, a few mods should be easy enough)

Imagine if I made a Jordan F1 Buzzin hornets skin, to the best of my ablitlies and released it under a CC license. Then if one of the great skinners round here like Moat decided thats good but could be better, he could just download it, apply his mastery, and re-upload it as a new version, depening on the CC license all he would have to do is say in the upload he used my files, and release his new work under the same CC license.

So everybody who liked the skin would get a new version, I'd get a new version, Moat would get a skin he also likes with only doing some of the work. Anybody who wanted to include the skin in a bigger pack/mod would be able to use it without asking. If Jordan returned to F1 with a few different sponsor, someone else could download it and use it as a base for a new skin, etc, etc, etc.

If I release a skin here It will include the psd/xcf file used to create it, and be release under a CC license. If I make any utilities for use with the Game I'll release it under GPL/LGPL.

Skridge, why not GPL gp-edit now :up:

[skridge]

to put my money where my mouth is, i released the src to my old eaw tool under the gpl today. now everyone can see what crappy code i wrote back in the 90's rofl.

[Betty Swollox]

bloody open saucers........

[KarlosDaJackal]

bloody open saucers........

Thanks for sharing, lol

Do you work for M$ or something? Do you feel threatened by us :roflmao:

[Zoomie]

Just one question about this CC.

I had thought about suggesting this on thr rF forum at RSC, but then I started wondering if you could put a CC license on something if you do not own the original copyright.

Isn't that why the current system developed? To keep modding under the radar so to speak but to ensure that peoples works were still protected in some way.

[KarlosDaJackal]

Just one question about this CC.

I had thought about suggesting this on thr rF forum at RSC, but then I started wondering if you could put a CC license on something if you do not own the original copyright.

Isn't that why the current system developed? To keep modding under the radar so to speak but to ensure that peoples works were still protected in some way.

You can put a license on something you don't own the copyright to. The point is when you create something put it under CC so that others can then use your work and add to it.

[Zoomie]

According to this page you can't put a CC on something you don't have the copyright to.

http://wiki.creativecommons.org/Before_Licensing

You must have the authority to do so. Meaning of course you own the copyright to begin with.

We're talking about legal contracts here that are properly enforcable in a court of law, so we'd better make sure you have the right to make that contract in the first place.

EDIT: An unofficial creative commons license would be fine, but not actually registering the thing with CC.

It is up to the modder to decide what to do though. Some do adopt this approach already, others do not.

[skridge]

Just one question about this CC.

I had thought about suggesting this on thr rF forum at RSC, but then I started wondering if you could put a CC license on something if you do not own the original copyright.

Isn't that why the current system developed? To keep modding under the radar so to speak but to ensure that peoples works were still protected in some way.


if the works are legit, cc is a good thing, if they are not, it doesn't matter anyway.

the real facts are this: unless the mod is legit, it has no rights, simbin, 10tacle whoever owns it. period. it doesnt matter how much work you put into it, if you borrow their models, car files, whatever for your work, it infringes and is illegal.

adding a license to mods will not change this, nor will it cause someone to take notice and do something. it just helps out the community as a whole.

my personal feeling is about 90% of the add on's for gtl/ gtr are infringing and prob illegal if simbin et al decided to get a stiffy about it. which would kill off their game, so they wont.

i think they would take a better view of mods being released under something like the cc which allows everyone else to do whatever, than the way they are now where someone takes parts of the game, and then claims ownership and says no, you cant do anything with this.

[GTI-Heizer]

i think they would take a better view of mods being released under something like the cc which allows everyone else to do whatever, than the way they are now where someone takes parts of the game, and then claims ownership and says no, you cant do anything with this.

Agree. There are many skilled modders here. GPL/CC gives a chance to work together to make improvements. You see it for the Macau track. No one have cry for permissions and the guys here have start to make things better.

I think, thats the way we should go. In the next days, i will release a new track under GPL ( now at beta testing ). There is a little issue with the AI.
So i hope that one other modder may look at this and hopefully fix that.

[Zoomie]

well, if most works aren't legit and it doesn't matter, whats the point of using a CC license then? You certainly can't register it with CC, so you'd have to rely on people to respect your license and the terms of it's use .

ISI and Simbin have the same policy about converting their work to the others sim, so I don't see why Simbin are viewed as the eternal bad guy.

i think they would take a better view of mods being released under something like the cc which allows everyone else to do whatever, than the way they are now where someone takes parts of the game, and then claims ownership and says no, you cant do anything with this.

I think you're speaking for yourself here, not them. They have never done anything to stop a mod, even when their entire sim was converted.



I think you guys misunderstand the licenses somewhat. You have to be the copyright owner to apply such a license. Someone else can't decide for the owner to put a CC or GPL on it. If you convert a track, you don't have the copyright and cannot officially license it, like the Macau track.

If you make a fantasy track with fantasy ads (like vanilla rF), you neatly sidestep the entire IP rights minefield. Anything else and you are walking straight through that field.

You can't apply these licenses officially, but you can unofficially. That, of course, would require relying on people having manners and respecting the terms of use. Slapping a license on something does not mean it will be upheld.
You guys might, others might not. Same as it is now.



GTI-Heizer, you'd better make sure you actually have the copyright to your own GTI, according to skridge, if you used a single file of a particular sim, then the developers of that sim own the rights to your car.

[skridge]

im really glad to see this has turned into a good discussion. the whole mod thing is such a grey area and so un defined. digging in depth into things like this can only help us all understand it better.

thanks guys & girls

[October]

To prevent any further nit-picking of words there are many different and specific definitions of the word "license", the only ones that are truly applicable to the sort of content discussed in this thread are:

a) Permission to do or not to do something(s)
b) A document indicating that such permissions have been granted
c) Freedom to deviate from strict conduct, rule, or practice, generally permitted by common consent, as in poetic license.



I think the real-world catch is is that most modders, out of dire love of their work, simply treat commercial IP and source copyright as if everything was in the Public Domain (free to do with what you will). Right or not (*legally* NOT, just to put a thumb on it here and now).

This applies to pretty much every single addon file released for every single simulation, mod or game. Even car skins bearing trademarked logos are in violation as are billboards on any "real" track... so it makes sense to take a bit of liberty with the real source licenses and copyrights or we would never see anything besides what came in the box and some very generic fantasy cars and tracks , ala vanilla rFactor.

Even the companies are between a rock and a hardplace on this! On one hand they don't want the hard work they have put into a game ending up in someone else's commercial product for profit and on the other hand they know that a game that supports modding will generally be more popular and have a better shelf life (selling more copies) than one that is completely *locked* like the console cartridges of olde. As skridge has said, they *could* pull the carpet out from under the modders feet any time they wanted to but that probably wouldn't be a very smart business move. Keeping content out of other commercial products but let the end user modify and share content based on the original... I think game companies need to look at using some sort of Share-Alike+Noncommercial+Attribution license for some of their content too.

So what you are really looking for is NOT a way to *protect* a mod, skin or whatever... by US law anyway, as soon as you create something you have copyright on it. No visable copyright branding or license agreement is necessary.

What modders need is a way to RELEASE a mod, skin or whatever... to keep inline with the common conventions of the simulation modding world! Current convention is "if you didn't make it you can't upload it" and "you can't change it or convert it for another use without explicit permission". This is all well and fine but many modders, never intending to protect "their" work in this way, end up keeping their efforts from the very people they wanted to share it with because they don't express some sort of license!

To clarify, the sort of "license" we are talking about is simply an acknowledgement that YES, others are free to modify and improve the content, upload the contained file, archive it and otherwise share it without any further permissions, etc., or some variation of those permissions. It is assumed that everyone knows the content, unless completely original and not based on or containing any other content or trademarks, IS based on *something* and yes, most likely that *something* IS already covered under legal copyright and/or trademark. Saying that your skin, your track, your mod or whatever IS based on someone elses work is "attribution" and is at least polite if not entirely legal under this context...

Of course the opposite is also possible... You can specifically include a "license" that says the file can only be downloaded from www.somewebsite.com, can NEVER be modified or used in any other way than the creator (the creator of the license, if not 100% of the content) intended... but as Zoomie has suggested this doesn't and won't stop some people from using it anyway.

You could *legally* CC -part- of a product by being extremely specific about what content is yours, the specific code or modelling you have done to improve a track conversion for example... but this becomes difficult for most to implement and just stuffs a few more landmines in the path of whomever tries to work with it later.

I think it's best if someone just includes a readme file with what ever content they are releasing that simply specifies their wishes... can someone upload it elsewhere? Can someone continue to modify the content *using the supplied file* as a starting point? A readme with these sort of permissions simply helps the content stay alive in community and is likely not to be removed.

If, on the other hand, you don't want others using your work, changing it, or uploading it elsewhere then the only way you can ever be 100% safe is to never make it available in the first place.

It would just be nice to find a way streamline what is already going on, a shift in "common convention" if you like, so really good work by modders, skinners, and yes, "converters" (and anyone else I've missed!), can stay in circulation and be readily available without doing a bunch of link hopping to see if a file that was available a month ago still is today.

[skridge]

i think you hit the ideal there. a read me that says:
parts of this are copyright simbin, 10tacle, whoever. all original works are copyright me. originals parts of this work are released under the creative commons (or insert other license here).

all ip is copyright the original creators.

or something along those lines. maybe we can try to work up a standard cc / not claiming other ip, readme license for inclusion? seems like a good forum project.

ideas?

[WildBat]

My skins are freeware in the absolut sense of the word (For CFS3 too).

People can do what they want with them as long as:

1. they dont make money on them
2. they credit me for them

:D

[willdarling]

I like your preliminary readme.txt Skridge.

I'm inclined to think that it should hold legally too, contrary to some of the previous responses.

Does anyone remember the Game Genie? -It fitted in front of a NES cartridge like a kind of e-condom, filtering the loaded content in such a way as to allow cheating - changing the copyrighted game content. Nintendo tried hard to sue the developers, but lost at every stage. The prinicple was that once someone has bought copyrighted content, they can use it however they like. -Like the author of a book warns you not to copy, or distribute his work, but he cant stop you using it as a doorstop.

IMO this really backs up the GTL-to-GTR2 modders ideas to require a GTL CD check in their install process. Then the users are just getting to use their already paid-for content in a new way. What it still doesn't really cover is putting copyrighted content into a game that was never there in any form to begin with. Like building a Buggatti Veyron for GTR2.

[Zoomie]

This has been my readme with every skin released (obviously varied to suit each car):


Installation (car):

Install to ...\GTL\GameData\Teams\TC-65\Lotus Cortina

You may distribute this set freely so long as you do not claim this as your own work.
This is more of a request than an order that I hope will be respected.
:)


Copyrights property of respective owners

Author: Zoomie


Don't really care about getting credit, but do mind if people take it. I didn't think people would really bother changing a skin since it's less trouble to just make your own so I didn't say anything about it. A 3d model (track or car) is different of course.

If the modders are like some of my programmer/techie friends, they hate documenting anything. Especially if it takes along time to finish the project, documenting is viewed as a waste of time.

I might suggest writing up a template for them to fill out. Make it easy for them to do this. Multiple templates may be needed so they can apply their rights as they choose. It would probably be a license only valid to simmers, but that's the only people that count in this case :D .