Do you think it's necessary for BIS providing lockable binPBO?

[Defunkt 431]

Ego - must be kept in check !

Well I was going to suggest if you were at all worried about your own EGO getting the upper hand you might try not working on or releasing anything nor displaying any investment of time or care in work that you've then shared. But I see you've already mastered that.

[Fox '09 14]

You're voting on whether to run a poll or not? This thread has truly run its course.

however, still no mention of hitler.

[gossamersolid 155]

Bottom line, if you are THAT afraid that somebody will "steal" your work, don't release it. You can pout like a child and keep it to yourself then.

If you release content here, expect some jackass might steal it. Most people will just learn from it which will lead to more developers for the series in the future.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Bottom line, if you are THAT afraid that somebody will "steal" your work, don't release it. You can pout like a child and keep it to yourself then.

If you release content here, expect some jackass might steal it. Most people will just learn from it which will lead to more developers for the series in the future.

Yep, agree, more sound logic.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Crap. I had a really long answer which I managed to close. So, the short short version (believe it or not, lol):

In spite of my (and others) contributions to the community knowledge base, you dare to say that my (and others) tendency towards protection indicates an unwillingness to share knowledge? Are you insane?

Insane? Might be, but irrelevant ;) Let me quote myself from my opening post:

The bad vibes that comes from "protecting your work"...

And look where we are. We're just discussing the possibility, and it's way over heated already. Trust me, it will get worse. A lot worse. But look again at this reply to me. To me it is clear that the need to protect is from scumbags like me, and that the commercial aspect is used in as an excuse to make it happen.

To address your answer to Rock: Quite simply, you're saying that your urgency overrides the rights of other people. That is sorrily wrong, my friend.

"The right to bear arms" isn't a good one. General consensus across the world. This right is not utilized today the way it once was intended. I think the same way about copyright and so called IP. It's being completely misused. The Rock answer was completely hypothetical. Of all the addons I use for personal use (not clan use), I have only had the need to change or fix three or four of them. And thank God I could, because the only other option would be to not use them at all. Why this is an IP issue worth bothering with, I still don't get. Maybe I'm just that stupid. Or tired. :p

...

Long answer broken down to:

1) I and I expect most others respect other peoples work. Of course we do. But respect used to mean respect not to release it as your own. Not until now had it meant "don't poke around".

2) modify them for your own purposes

* As already explained, avoiding RPT spam since I work closely with RPT. Mod may be too great in scope to expect updates from once a week. Author may be alone on it and/or have different priorities atm to worry about. Some day a fix may come around that eliminates my need to do it. But until that day, I can not live without the sounds, or live with the errors. Sorry if that makes me such a bad person :p

* I de-pbo'ed most of ACE. In one case, I needed to check how script calls were done, so I could use them directly in my mission (i.e. how to spawn a view block object). There was a bit of tracing involved with that. Being able to search, highlight, search, highlight within files sped things up a lot.

* Self help. I'm pretty sure the ACE team appreciates those able to self help rather than ask about every minute detail wasting their time.

* Take part in "how to fix" discussions or help find problems. If I can't pbo my own version from it, how would I be able to help?

* Make a template from one of their configs so as to more easily be able to donate stuff with less work for them to worry about.

So for me own purposes doesn't mean bad purposes. Look, I always try hard to be a good guy, despite my differences in opinion. Around here, that is becoming harder and harder as no matter how good you try to behave, you'll always step on somebodies toes.

3) See reasons in 2) why I think locking pbo's is a bad idea.

But this is a futile discussion. By me saying "I'm using de-pbo", you have already pretty much declared me a bad guy and sees me as some kind of enemy.

As for missions and "use tutorials", I would not have been where I am today without other peoples missions, where Domination in particular stand out. Some tutorials may show what they intend to show, disregarding i.e. good coding practice. Also, for a complete newcomer, even Biki can be quite a nightmare, as examples may be outdated and limited to OFP use, or often how the examples can't be used directly. You need to have a decent basic skillset before Biki really shines wrt usability. "Watch how others do it" is probably the most used, and best, advice that are given in the mission editing forum.

@xxbbcc:

Fully agree with everything you say. In the game we need LP and effective models. Author can, if money is the issue, choose to sell both LP and HP versions himself on these sites and maybe turn a buck or two in the process. But, this is unfamiliar territory for me.

@GossamerS:

I agree fully. Todays thief may well become tomorrows elite modder. Start with "poking around", and become a true master. His experiences in the past may dictate how open he will become himself.

[Darkhorse 1-6 16]

We should not define our community by our unfounded fears of our worst members.

Unfounded? Are you fucking kidding me man?! Think about RKSL Rock, Wld427 (Atleast one mod stole most of his work without permission, repainted it, and called it theirs. Not to mention the incident with the Chinook), The SARMAT guys (They use alot of FS models that shouldn't be open for people to crack), Hell, Even BIS. I found one guy who had ripped 7 models out of ArmA II a while back and put them up on Turbosquid. He even put the Abrams up there as freeware. There are many many other people that such a tool could benefit. It is not your place to say that nobody should have the choice.

Am I saying that any and all addons should be locked? Hell no! What I am saying is that people should HAVE THE OPTION.

You have no right to expect to modify/edit/change/take snippets, of other people's work. If they allow it, fine! If they don't want to allow it, that's their right, as the person who created the model. The user has no rights relating to the addon.

I think Bohemia needs to create a poll, open to addonmakers only, on this issue. Options 3, 5, and 7 would be removed. Addon makers are the ones who would benefit from this, so they should be the ones discussing it.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Darkhorse 1-6

[dm 9]

I love the hypocrisy of the people against having locakable pbo's:

"I think that the people who want to protect their work are selfish because I want to be able to poke around in their work without permission"

:j:

[callihn 10]

No, I do not and in fact I think the EULA should have stated that all contributions to the game become the property of BIS and are freely available for reuse with credit. The reason being is that greed kills games that allow community content, it's quite sickening really and it's not even about money for most but fame, though a few mods have found a way to extort monetary gains also. The point is there are not enough people playing either or enough variations running in my opinion to warrent all this eliteness, if you want to protect your code then keep it in your head, it's better that way for everyone, at least that is how I feel, the community could grow allot futher faster if there were more freely reusable code and other resources such as models, it would be nice to see something like a modular core mission building system with a simple configuration.

I bought ArmAII in January and bought OA days after it's release because a mod I was actively playing just had to use it and honestly I've been mostly disappointed, ArmA had evolved much further of course and BIS has made much of that worthless now or broken to some degree and I do not really see the community getting back to that level. I have asked for permission to fix and use several addons and missions in the past, I've gathered that most people are not going to give you the time it takes to answer and if they do then it is going to be no, even when they have no more use for it themselves and know it is broken.

One interesting point to ponder, if someone likes your work but feels that maybe just a few things should be changed then even if they started coding their own version from the begining they would never be happy until it functioned just like yours with their changes and there is probably only one way to do that.

So if we have lockable pbos then lets have a mthod to allow the user to refuse the content before it runs A.K.A a lockable client interface.

It is not your place to say that nobody should have the choice.

No more than it is yours to say that they should have the choice and the OP did ask for opinions. :rolleyes:

Edited October 30, 2010 by callihn

[Zipper5 74]

"I think that the people who want to protect their work are selfish because I want to be able to poke around in their work without permission"

Sorry DM, but isn't that how this community has always worked? I.E. you're free to look around in my stuff so long as you don't steal parts of it and release it as your own? And then if someone did steal it and release it as there own, we've always unanimously "boycotted" it until the issue was resolved.

I'm reminded here of when PR announced they weren't going to make their mod use CBA so as to be compatible with most other mods. People became annoyed, started complaining, and for a short while the PR team were pretty much driven off. I can only see something similar happening to addon makers who lock their work and only allow those who have their permission to even simply un-pbo it and look around. Sure, if all addon makers start locking their addons, then the complainers will be forced to accept it, but I find it highly unlikely every addon maker will follow suit...

Edited October 30, 2010 by Zipper5

[Sekra 10]

I can only see something similar happening to addon makers who lock their work and only allow those who have their permission to even simply un-pbo it and look around. Sure, if all addon makers start locking their addons, then the complainers will be forced to accept it, but I find it highly unlikely every addon maker will follow suit...

So what in the worlds name is the problem if the option is given for those who want to use it? And the question is not about providing or developing the system since it already exists as we've seen with BAF and will see with other DLC. Or are you guys hinting that there is a tool already to de-pbo BAF stuff too?

There clearly is a demand for the locking of pbo's among the addon makers who make stuff totally from scratch so why not give it to them? If the community will reject them then thats a risk I'm sure they seem to be willing to take from what they are writing here even in this thread.

At least some of you have the balls to admit that the reason is so that you can freely edit other peoples work without permission. That is of course so you can "fix" stuff etc. Sure why would I need a permission for that.. Why would I help the community to make better addons because I can just edit it myself and keep any fixes I make to myself because the community can just de-pbo other peoples work and learn from it. And who cares if I also distribute those addons to my friends? I don't like the addon maker because he doesn't change what I want so screw him and his rights!

So many of the comments here just make me sick in the stomach... I really wonder why anyone would want to give this lot anything for free. I really do...

[NoRailgunner 0]

So which solutions are good to solve this problem?

1) don't do anything = "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil"

2) develop a very restictive and unique copyprotection

3) make only an option to lock/unlock content for creators/authors

4) only force creators time/motivation/money to sue ip theft

5) all agree to disagree and the community will get lost

6) all agree to communicate with the owner before making anything public incl. clans/groups using this changed/tweaked stuff on their public games

7) all agree that "final done" is much better than stuff left as "beta wip" or "somehow tweaked/changed"

[Zipper5 74]

So what in the worlds name is the problem if the option is given for those who want to use it?

Well, in this case, it's looking after the best interests of the modder using it, as it is unknown how the community would react to being locked out of even un-pbo'ing the addon until permission is granted.

So many of the comments here just make me sick in the stomach... I really wonder why anyone would want to give this lot anything for free. I really do...

You are really over-reacting to this. Some of us are trying to have a mature discussion here. To answer your question, modding should first and foremost be about pleasing yourself, if others like your work after that then it's an added bonus. At least, that's how I look at it.

[jw custom 56]

People leave, people arrive. The arriving people learn from example.

Exactly :)

[Tankbuster 1746]

If you release something then you are responsible for it. No matter what happens. It's you who has to fight for your IP and nobody else.

I love your work, but hate your attitude. It staggers me that someone who works so hard for the community holds such a myopic viewpoint.

[Daniel 0]

Sorry DM, but isn't that how this community has always worked? I.E. you're free to look around in my stuff so long as you don't steal parts of it and release it as your own? And then if someone did steal it and release it as there own, we've always unanimously "boycotted" it until the issue was resolved.

That works fine until people start exploiting the work of others for real money. In fact the above system works and has worked perfectly well for missions, scripts, terrain, you name it. Models, however, are more of an issue. Especially for any modders who could choose to sell their models, but choose to release them as ArmA2 addons on the understanding that they don't appear on Turbosquid.

Nobodies saying scripts and other community content aren't "worth" as much as models in sheer hard graft, but you can't deny they can fetch a better price outside of ArmA2.

Hope we can keep a healthy discussion up here, i'm almost sitting on the fence as it is. It's obviously one of the more heated and opinionated topics.

Edited October 30, 2010 by Daniel

[STALKERGB 6]

With regards to the learning from opening addons thing, when I implemented the OA backpack system on my infantry it took me hours to get it working correctly. For all intents and purposes I was having to rely on just poking around OA PBOs and alot of guesswork to get it fully functional. Now why would someone else want to go to all that trouble by opening up my addon and having to go through exactly the same process as me when they could just search for it on the forums and use the community's knowledge to answer their questions.

Obviously not everything can be found on the forums but a good chunk of it can be these days. If all else fails I'm sure you can ask/post about it.

Again, I'm not advocating a mandatory PBO lock but an optional one. If anyone ever feels the need to ask me something I'm normally pretty quick to respond and the times I have asked someone something I haven't had to wait very long.

[dmarkwick 261]

At least some of you have the balls to admit that the reason is so that you can freely edit other peoples work without permission. That is of course so you can "fix" stuff etc. Sure why would I need a permission for that.. Why would I help the community to make better addons because I can just edit it myself and keep any fixes I make to myself because the community can just de-pbo other peoples work and learn from it. And who cares if I also distribute those addons to my friends? I don't like the addon maker because he doesn't change what I want so screw him and his rights!

This is what happens when you choose to believe the worst motivations for the simplest actions. Sometimes I alter stuff because I prefer a different look to something that the author has decided to do differently. Sometimes I simply want something to be a different colour. Sometimes I want an effect to last longer or shorter. It's called tinkering, and is the gravy that comes with the meat of addons. It does not make me a bad guy.

So many of the comments here just make me sick in the stomach... I really wonder why anyone would want to give this lot anything for free. I really do...

If you are starting to wonder why anyone would give stuff away to this community, then I guess you're reaching that stage that other high-profile addon makers reach where they start to regard the community as selfish spongers. If you aint doing it for yourself and the joy of it, you're doing it for the wrong reason.

---------- Post added at 03:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:00 PM ----------

Unfounded? Are you fucking kidding me man?! Think about RKSL Rock, Wld427 (Atleast one mod stole most of his work without permission, repainted it, and called it theirs. Not to mention the incident with the Chinook), The SARMAT guys (They use alot of FS models that shouldn't be open for people to crack), Hell, Even BIS. I found one guy who had ripped 7 models out of ArmA II a while back and put them up on Turbosquid. He even put the Abrams up there as freeware. There are many many other people that such a tool could benefit. It is not your place to say that nobody should have the choice.

I've often said, stuff appearing on Turbosquid is not an ArmA2 problem, it's a larger problem. As for other modding teams stealing stuff, well, I've seen attempts but the community is generally very good at refusing this kind of activity.

Am I saying that any and all addons should be locked? Hell no! What I am saying is that people should HAVE THE OPTION.

It seems BIS have already made the decision that it's all open source. Now, it's easy for me to accept that, as it aligns with my own opinions, so I do accept that there is a real friction about it. However, the point must always come back to your own motivations for making addons in the first place.

Edited October 30, 2010 by DMarkwick

[PuFu 4600]

yes it is much more important. Like 1000% more. Scripts are not even in the same class. To even do MLODs takes 1000$ of software.

That doesn't matter. There are free software available (blender for modelling, gimp instead of PS).

I own (legally) 3ds max. The license cost about 3500$. But i doubt the others using commercial software (modo, max, maya etc) have bought it for doing addons for BIS games. I really don't. I know i haven't

Although not directed at me, my answer is (on the protection of mod level, again, nothing to do with models in particular): No, I'm not too lazy to write a PM. I am however in too much of a hurry to wait for a reply or for the mod to get fixed. Don't use the respect card, it's not about that, and I think you know it. Most of us "poke around" for source of information, messing with it for fun, or for own personal or clan use. There will always be bad apples around "stealing stuff" on a grand scale for the sake of, I don't know, easy fame or something. And there will be "mishaps", where one modders sense of fair use differs from another one.

Ohhh, how you like to turn things around now. You have said modding is about fun, and you do it for yourself first and foremost.

Now, if that is true, who is there to hurry you? Your employer? You will loose anything if you were to send a damn PM and wait 2-3 days for an answer?

* What decryption tools? Thieves get a rather rough treatment around here, despite intent being good which seems to be completely disregarded.

It is NOT about this community. How many times does one need to say it to you? IT is not about the fear of someone from this community stealing from someone else, because that can be taken care after all.

* Disagree. If you put protection on pbo's (again, I'm not talking about models and commercial interests) to protect it from those 1% bad apples, you're also denying it from the 99% honest (ish) people and just causing a lot of frustrations by doing so. Imho, not worth it.

Why are you ppl against the OPTION (which has already been developed by BIS) being given to the addon makers to lock their PBOs.

It has been said before: it doesn't mean everyone will take that step. Some will, some might, some won't.

I still don't get what is the big deal about it.

No, I do not and in fact I think the EULA should have stated that all contributions to the game become the property of BIS and are freely available for reuse with credit.

You obviously never did something yourself for this game.

1. if that was to happen, i wanna see how many would release something. How can my IP be transfered to BIS just because it is used in BIS games?

2. if that was too happen, it should also state that any use outside BIS game is an infrigment to copy right, and since BIS is the owner, it is IT who needs to take legal action and protect it. That is because i have transferred my IP to BIS based on some sort of agreement that says it won't be used outside this game. I doubt BIS is willing to take that step. I would

---------- Post added at 05:18 PM ---------- Previous post was at 05:09 PM ----------

I've often said, stuff appearing on Turbosquid is not an ArmA2 problem, it's a larger problem. As for other modding teams stealing stuff, well, I've seen attempts but the community is generally very good at refusing this kind of activity.

That is very true.

Then again, there is an option already available developed by BIS (see the

BAF DLC, and soon to be released PMC). Would that be against the open source principle, if it would allow the models to be protected?.

It seems BIS have already made the decision that it's all open source.

Really? What is all open source? By reading the Why License Matters thread, as well as having some words with Dwarden, it doesn't look that way from where i am standing...

Edited October 30, 2010 by PuFu

[dmarkwick 261]

That is very true.

Then again, there is an option already available developed by BIS (see the

BAF DLC, and soon to be released PMC). Would that be against the open source principle, if it would allow the models to be protected?.

I don't have any specific problem with models only being encrypted, as I generally don't deal with models, at least the visible kind :) However, I have to acknowledge the people who do, and their reasons for looking at a model might be similar to my reasons for looking at scripts. It's just a generic approach I'm taking, that all content is equal and none more important than the other, author opinions aside :)

Really? What is all open source? By reading the Why License Matters thread, as well as having some words with Dwarden, it doesn't look that way from where i am standing...

Well, open as in non-encrypted and available to anyone who wishes to see it. Maybe open source is not the right phrase, just open.

[PuFu 4600]

I don't have any specific problem with models only being encrypted, as I generally don't deal with models, at least the visible kind :) However, I have to acknowledge the people who do, and their reasons for looking at a model might be similar to my reasons for looking at scripts. It's just a generic approach I'm taking, that all content is equal and none more important than the other, author opinions aside :)

Regarding models: You can't really learn more than by looking at the BIS sample models for A1 that are released. You can't learn to model from it, and the animation and the like are available in the model.cfg, which is embedded in the p3d file on binarization anyway. That is ofcourse unless you want to copy paste some faces in your own project (or worst).

So it isn't for the same reason you got.

I really see no reason against it being encrypted.

Well, open as in non-encrypted and available to anyone who wishes to see it. Maybe open source is not the right phrase, just open.

Everything is encrypted in BIS games. They just tolerate the de-binarization tools. They don't really tolerate the p3d ripping tools though (all post linking to it are not available anymore on BIF).

[dmarkwick 261]

Regarding models: You can't really learn more than by looking at the BIS sample models for A1 that are released. You can't learn to model from it, and the animation and the like are available in the model.cfg, which is embedded in the p3d file on binarization anyway. That is ofcourse unless you want to copy paste some faces in your own project (or worst).

So it isn't for the same reason you got.

I really see no reason against it being encrypted.

Well, I don't know about that, as I said I'm just taking the generic approach :) it wouldn't bother me overly if models could be encrypted.

Everything is encrypted in BIS games. They just tolerate the de-binarization tools. They don't really tolerate the p3d ripping tools though (all post linking to it are not available anymore on BIF).

As I understand it, encryption isn't really what's happening when you PBO something up, you're just placing it in a format the game wants to see, like a .zip or a .doc file. Encryption certainly happens with VBS2, and probably BIS files. And, if there's a PBO ripping tool then I guess all the discussion is fairly moot right? There will always be some ripping tool to do what you wish, and the actual thieves aren't slowed down. As ever, only the casual non-violation members are thwarted.

[PuFu 4600]

And, if there's a PBO ripping tool then I guess all the discussion is fairly moot right? There will always be some ripping tool to do what you wish, and the actual thieves aren't slowed down. As ever, only the casual non-violation members are thwarted.

One of the reason i already said (but echo said i just think of models to be special, when they're not) i am actually in favour of a way to lock/encrypt those p3ds (again, maybe similar to the way signing tools work in relation to the private key) rather than the whole PBO.

[ffur2007slx2_5 11]

Hey, guys. Seems that it's really hard to break the ice if we still argue like that.

I've got a new idea after hours' hard think, maybe it's silly, but I still wanna to show it.

It's really a contradiction for modders because they need both protect their intellectural property rights and extract others' excellent mods for reference.

It's a bad news when green hands find they cannot learn somthing from best examples.

It's also nobady want to see such "revolution" may declear the death penalty to the community.

THE NEW IDEA IS:I think that the new BinPBO tool can provide 10 chances for developers code their work as long as they think it's excellent. And he can no longer code his work once he has used up that function. That means not every work will be locked and only the best can be kept from abuse.

Although my idea looks ridiculous or meaningless and may never be accepted by BIS, I still think it's worth trying in the near future.

ArmA2 and its further version will touch lots of professional fields that every good mods and addons will be a kind of IPRs.

It's unrealistic to against any proper way on protections. We need to judge issues dialectically.

Don't you think it's good to see the community being enlarged while the experienced modders and addon makers still stay here never quit?

[Deadfast 43]

I don't see a problem with giving people the option to encrypt their work.

[Evil_Echo 11]

One of the reason i already said (but echo said i just think of models to be special, when they're not) i am actually in favour of a way to lock/encrypt those p3ds (again, maybe similar to the way signing tools work in relation to the private key) rather than the whole PBO.

If you want to protect just one aspect, p3d files, then most people would say you are treating them as special. All I asked for was equal protection for all development efforts.