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

[jw custom 56]

As I understand it, encryption is a legal lock. Breaking it is illegal. Binarization is just data translation. It's open to be read by a reader, legally. This is of course outside of an in addition to the license on the ip contained within the binarized files.

Someone code a program in c++ and then compiles it to code the machine understand, this code can still be tampered with yet it's illegal(unless it's stated otherwise). Then some people encrypt it to avoid people from tampering with it, but that doesn't make it more illegal just more difficult.

Dunno if it could be compared this way though.

At the end of the day CG, I dont care about military communications specialists, I dont care about people breaking DVD copy protection, I dont care about any of that. All I care about is that I dont want people like you poking around in my pbos.

So it hasn't anything to do with stealing/selling now, it's about people not being allowed to look and learn how people do stuff... cool!

[[frl]myke 14]

So it hasn't anything to do with stealing/selling now, it's about people not being allowed to look and learn how people do stuff... cool!

Is simply asking that hard?

[jw custom 56]

Myke;1781405']Is simply asking that hard?

So you wanna encrypt so you can be asked if people can have a simple look at your data?

It seems a little drastic to implenht encryption for that :confused:

[[frl]myke 14]

So you wanna encrypt so you can be asked if people can have a simple look at your data?

It seems a little drastic to implenht encryption for that :confused:

Read: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1781366&postcount=350

Then come back.

Besides that, it was meant as answer to "people not being allowed". By thinking about it...yes, it is about people are not allowed unless they asked (or stated otherwise from beginning). In my part of the world it is normal to ask first and mostly you get a "yes, of course. Here" or at least a good reason why it is no.

Edited November 3, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[soul_assassin 1745]

So you wanna encrypt so you can be asked if people can have a simple look at your data?

It seems a little drastic to implenht encryption for that :confused:

BUT it's MY data!! why is it any of your business? Why are having the last say on weither I can lock MY data? You can choose not to lock YOUR data, and I'm not gonna come around and complain about it.

[jw custom 56]

Myke;1781419']Read: http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1781366&postcount=350

Then come back.

I already read that' date=' i was quoting Max Power which stated all he cared about was that nobody could snoop in his pbo's.

So i really can't see why i should re-read your post, maybe you should re-read my quote.

---------- Post added at 01:02 PM ---------- Previous post was at 12:58 PM ----------

BUT it's MY data!! why is it any of your business? Why are having the last say on weither I can lock MY data? You can choose not to lock YOUR data, and I'm not gonna come around and complain about it.

Sure it's your data but whats wrong with people wanna see how you solve problems, do stuff?

This makes me feel that mainly this is about people don't wanna share knowledge, they wanna keep stuff secret for themself like "see what i can do, you can't haha".

[[frl]myke 14]

it's about people not being allowed to look and learn how people do stuff... cool!

Is simply asking that hard?

So you wanna encrypt so you can be asked if people can have a simple look at your data?

By thinking about it...yes, it is about people are not allowed unless they asked (or stated otherwise from beginning). In my part of the world it is normal to ask first and mostly you get a "yes, of course. Here" or at least a good reason why it is no.

And now, if you ask why people should have to ask me, read the post i've linked previously. It is all about context.

This makes me feel that mainly this is about people don't wanna share knowledge, they wanna keep stuff secret for themself like "see what i can do, you can't haha".

It could also be that it is like "see what i can do, if you're interested, ask me and i'll provide sample and howto for you so you can adapt it easily into your work."

Systems are more complicated these days so don't underestimate the direct contact to the developer himself.

Edited November 3, 2010 by [FRL]Myke

[CarlGustaffa 4]

RKSL didn't choose not to release because of people like CG.

"People like CG"? :p I don't think he has anything to worry about from me. We're infantry only and don't use addons that require addon dependencies. I know I portray myself here often as "the bad guy", but the examples I use tend to be strictly hypothetical.

I just like to have the option of using a bit of common sense. If I felt I had to ask about every bit I do, I wouldn't stick around for long. It would just be too uncomfortable and quell any kind of progress.

But yeah, you seem to get the idea. Open source (or, derivative work) would cease to exist, and instead of a few being over protective like now, we'd end up with everyone being over protective.

@DM:

I want my work to be closed source. Plain and simple.

And I don't want it like that. Equally simple. No need to get upset because we have a difference in opinion.

I dont want you poking around in it.

And I like to poke. ;) It was always possible. And it was always tolerated. I don't see the reason why that has to change. It will seriously hinder development, progress, and innovation.

Reasons or not whisper, being able to encrypt the pbos would make it all go away...

As would I go away. Guess it's a double win for you then if that happens. ;)

Models I care nothing about. Other than the fact that protecting them can also be exploited, I have no objections to protecting them. At least they have commercial reasons behind it that actually makes sense, I guess even to most of us nay-sayers. It would have to be done in such a fashion that if a dispute arises, BIS or moderators can open ANY model and verify that it is indeed genuine.

But locking PBO's in general, is nothing but selfishness or having reasons to hide something. Nothing good will come out of it. Less missions, worse quality missions, and everyone (which is now only a very few) gets over protective about what they do and nobody wants to share.

I find it truly awesome that everyone wants access to BIS models and configs, but wants to hide their own. You want openness, but not to support it yourself.

I dont care that you want your work to be open source. You would still be free to make your work open source (but then you couldnt complain about it when someone else used it, even in an encrypted pbo, because you released it open source)

Now that's actually a bit worrying... Looks to me like you want to use Share Alike stuff in an addon you don't want to release as Share Alike yourself? Not only are you breaking the license, but you're also able to hide the fact that you did it.

When I read a license, I have to put a great deal of common sense into what I do further with the information I learn when I decide to poke around. So I poke around in Mando and grab everything and put it into my mission. Common sense tells me that I ask to avoid raising hell. So I copy a few rather simple lines to guide a missile into my mission. Common sense tells me I doubt he would get angry with it. Besides I would consider it an idea, or even knowledge, because there is no way I would be able to use that information "as is". You on the other hand, don't have to anymore, since you can claim it 100% your own and nobody can verify it. Guess it's that broken record again ;)

Protected missions? I don't think we have a single mission that isn't significantly changed to suit the size of our squad, or implement some of my own changes (like squad loadouts), or even fix them to make them playable (and yes, I do report the bugs I find, and since I can tamper with it, I can tell him how to do it). Never ever have I seen a license that prevents me from doing that. That would change when everyone gets over protective.

@[GLT]Myke:

Had id several times in the past that i got bug reports about some of my works which turned out (after some time) that the bug was caused by the people themself, poking around, changing things in ways that couldn't work.

Yeah, sort of valid I guess. But that goes both ways too. A bug reporter may find a valid bug and give you precise instructions on how to fix it. Also time consuming bugs can come from different game versions (like the updated fired eventhandler).

Myself, i have released the instruments i've modelled for the F-16 as open source aswell the RWR including model, model.cfg, config.cpp and scripts. Also i already wrote some tutorials (another one about detailed proxy weapon handling on planes and choppers is planned).

And of course that is very awesome. Me like. Maybe everyone is contributing in this way, that would be excellent. But give it time and see what happens. Protectionism becomes the norm (even if some of you continue to share openly on the forums despite having locked pbos). Also the new guy who doesn't know what the hell he's doing. Open - I de-pbo and tell him how to fix problems. Closed - do you think I would ask for permission? No, I'd just delete it.

Slightly off topic, but since it deals with licensing and me being thought of as such a copy-cat around here, I thought I'd post it here.

I recently got permission to include something that is not yet released, and received scripts and needed resources. I plan to release as Share Alike Derivatives Allowed. When I asked if my license (I'm required to follow that license since it's already derivative) was ok by him, I didn't get an answer. That license allows others to modify his work. That might not be intentional. What do I do, and why?

[jw custom 56]

Myke;1781431']And now' date=' if you ask why people should have to ask me, read the post i've linked previously. It is all about context.

[/quote']

Again i already read it, i think thats a ridiculous reason for implenting encryption.

[[frl]myke 14]

But give it time and see what happens. Protectionism becomes the norm (even if some of you continue to share openly on the forums despite having locked pbos).

Thats an assumption you have no base to prove it. In fact, regarding how most (if not all) highly respected members of this community already do share knowledge on a regular basis, help answering questions in the editing forum, wrote tutorials and expand the BIWIKI, i think it is more than unlikely that a simple option to encrypt pbo's will change that dramatically. And this is my assumption which is based on the daily use of this forum. On what do you base your assumption.

I just like to have the option of using a bit of common sense.

"Common sense" seems to be something different for everyone. For me it is common sense to ask for permission and/or help. For me it is a matter of respect. But also this seems to have a different meaning for everyone.

@JW Custom

it might be ridiculous for you, it isn't ridiculous for me. Wasted enough time with certain "pokers" (not you, CG ;) ) to know that i would like to prevent such timewasting in the future if possible.

[NoRailgunner 0]

Maybe people are against optional lockable files

1) because some impatient people "have to poke" (or can't resist) immediatly + "somehow automatically" in addons as soon as they are released?

2) they fear of beeing locked out a certain time (till stable/final release) or even forever?

3) they fear of more new "exclusive" devgroups/clubs who don't like to share their knowledge with others/public?

4) because of difficulties to check if an addon is really made by the person himself or if he used other peoples work without permission (thief in a safe + locked skin)

5) because BIS should spend their time and money to develop great games and improve/fix current ones instead of releasing half-assed security solutions for free.

...

[Zipper5 74]

BUT it's MY data!! why is it any of your business? Why are having the last say on weither I can lock MY data? You can choose not to lock YOUR data, and I'm not gonna come around and complain about it.

I may be mistaken, not overly acquainted with the terms of their EULA, but doesn't all content that passes through BIS' tools automatically fall under BIS' jurisdiction?

[dm 9]

And I don't want it like that. Equally simple. No need to get upset because we have a difference in opinion.

Yes, but you're still pushing that your open source rights are more important than the rights of anyone who wants to protect their work. How are you not understanding that?

How are you not understanding that by denying people the option to protect their work, you are denying the community from that work as a whole...

I don't see the reason why that has to change.

You dont. but I (and other people do). Just because you dont see the reason, we all have to go without?

It will seriously hinder development, progress, and innovation.

I'm sure we'll all be very sad when there arent 598464641 M4 reskins or similar. BIS' latest licensing announcements essentially ban everyone from making reskins or model adjustments to their A2 models (unless swap selections support the texture changes) and it hasnt killed the modding community.

Just because my released work is locked does not mean that I will stop answering questions or providing help.

I really dont get where this "encrypted pbos will kill the community" mentality comes from. Just because you cant see my configs or p3ds means that you are suddenly unable to create anything new on your own? I find that hard to believe.

DLC didnt kill the community.

Steam didnt kill the community.

The split between OA/CO and plain A2 didnt kill the community.

People being able to lock their pbos wont kill it either...

But locking PBO's in general, is nothing but selfishness or having reasons to hide something

Yes its selfish. I put countless hours of hard work into my models and configs, and I dont want just anyone poking around in them or making changes. It my work, what right do you have to poke around in it?

Its no more selfish than denying the community access to my work by blocking the only remaining option I would have to enable enough peace of mind to release it.

I find it truly awesome that everyone wants access to BIS models and configs, but wants to hide their own. You want openness, but not to support it yourself.

Eh? If you sarch my posts you'll find that I am a supporter of BIS not releasing their MLODs. Why should they release the source files to their current revenue-earning product.

No, their current sample models which were released to aid the modding community (among other reasons) are more than enough for people to get the basics of mod-making.

If you want to include some fancy-pants system that someone has made, ask them about it, dont just go ripping apart their work to try and find out how it works.

Seriously, you open-source people act as if you're the most virtuous people on the planet, but truthfully you're just vultures. Picking apart everything and taking the best bits for yourselves.

Now that's actually a bit worrying... Looks to me like you want to use Share Alike stuff in an addon you don't want to release as Share Alike yourself? Not only are you breaking the license, but you're also able to hide the fact that you did it.

Hypothetically speaking ofcourse, if people choose to use share-alike data without using the share-alike attribution at the moment, is that not just as bad? Again, if you're worried about people using your work incorrectly you would have the option to protect it. The risk you take releasing things open-source is that people will abuse it. And that is one of the (many) reasons I want to be able to protect my work.

But your "rights" to poke around in my data are far more important than my rights to protect it... Right?

---------- Post added at 13:39 ---------- Previous post was at 13:37 ----------

I may be mistaken, not overly acquainted with the terms of their EULA, but doesn't all content that passes through BIS' tools automatically fall under BIS' jurisdiction?

You be mistaken.

[[aps]gnat 28]

Just because you want all your content to be free and open source, doesnt mean the rest of us feel the same way. We're not all peace loving, free love giving hippies :j:

Basically, what you're saying gnat, is that your rights to have your open source content are more important than my rights to create closed source content. By forcing everyone to be open source, you're taking away our rights.

.......

............

Or are you open-source people suggesting that you would use a decrypter if one was available?

You dont read. NO WHERE HAVE I SAID OPEN SOURCE !

I've said I'm OK with people poking around in my stuff. As DMarkwick said, my rights are still protected.

I'm one for the OPTION.

At the end of the day, the rights as discussed in the thread started by Marek mean that you cant go poking around in my data (but you would anyway, right, because its all in the name of learning, fuck the licence and its "thou shalt not modify in any way my content" rules. Right... Right?

Who's modifying? Thats a beat-up! Learning does not mean modifying.

Ford has IP, copyright etc on their car engine technology, but is it illegal for an apprentice mechanic to pull it apart to learn how it works?

Ultimately what people are learning from my or your addons is BIS Technology.

A 3d model is just a shape, done by an artist. The true technology that gets it to work in-game is with memory points, animations etc etc. Thats ALL BIS's stuff, not ours

The pbo encryption would achieve an extra peace of mind for us who are not happy with the idea of people poking around in our business.

Yep, you said it, BUSINESS. Thats what you consider it.

BIS does not allow addon making to be a "business", but some people are dodging that bullet and indirectly using this community and this game to "show" stuff.

As I said, those people are a minority, have motives different from many of us, and any pretence otherwise is a joke.

........ All I care about is that I dont want people like you poking around in my pbos.

At the moment the only option I have is to not release them. That means the community as a whole has to "suffer" because of people like you.

The same can be said of many addon makers - just look at the huge list of aircraft RKSL can no longer release because the models are vulnerable.

So just because you are too selfish to give up the ability (just like access to this forum, the ability to look into pbos is NOT a right.) to look into pbos, everyone else has to miss out on those addons...

Oh boo fucking hoo!

FFS, PBO's have been UNPROTECTED for friggin YEARS, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.......... and now as a participating member of the community you NOW want change ..... or else we will have to live without these peoples uber stuff.

Thats rich. :rolleyes:

[Zipper5 74]

You be mistaken.

Alright, sorry. At least that clears that up, been wondering for a while. :p

[dm 9]

Gnat;1781448']Who's modifying? Thats a beat-up! Learning does not mean modifying.

Just the simple act of opening the pbos counts as modifying/reverse-engineering them. Which' date=' in theory, is prevented by most licences. But you guys are keen to prove that you dont give a fuck about that, as long as you can learn.

Gnat;1781448']Ultimately what people are learning from my or your addons is BIS Technology.

A 3d model is just a shape, done by an artist. The true technology that gets it to work in-game is with memory points, animations etc etc. Thats ALL BIS's stuff, not ours

So they can learn it from the BIS sample models, or if I've made something special, they can ask first.

Gnat;1781448']Oh boo fucking hoo!

FFS' date=' PBO's have been UNPROTECTED for friggin YEARS, EVERYONE KNOWS THIS[/b'].......... and now as a participating member of the community you NOW want change ..... or else we will have to live without these peoples uber stuff.

Thats rich.

People change, times change.

When I started modding I was a kid doing it for fun. Now I need $$$ to survive (bills dont pay themselves and food isnt free, oh if only the whole world was so willing to share everything...), so I seek $$$ out however I can. Like other people in the communtiy, there are certain caveats on that $$$ which mean that you can no longer have my addons if they are unprotected.

Gnat;1781448']but some people are dodging that bullet and indirectly using this community and this game to "show" stuff.

And these people tend to make the best quality stuff. RKSL' date=' RHS (just look at 3dArtist's Tu-95 thread) etc etc. No offence, but the people who have expressed the desire to have the [b']option to protect their data generally make far better quality content than those who are pushing in the other direction. We have to live without these addons (RKSL is an excellent example) because people like you are too selfish to let go of the privalege of opening pbos.

Remember, BI does not officially allow users to open pbos. There is no de-pbo'ing tool as part of the BIS modding tools.

That they havent banned all de-pbo'ing tools outright is testament to their tolerance of this "community" and its bs.

Edited November 3, 2010 by DM

[jw custom 56]

Myke;1781440']

@JW Custom

it might be ridiculous for you' date=' it isn't ridiculous for me. Wasted enough time with certain "pokers" (not you, CG ;) ) to know that i would like to prevent such timewasting in the future if possible.[/quote']

To me it sounds like an "excuse" for hiding your data for the public, not saying your incident didn't happen i truely believe it did i just don't think these are the true reasons people want encryption.

Max Power said it clearly though, he don't want nobody snooping in his pbo's.

[TRexian 0]

Just the simple act of opening the pbos counts as modifying/reverse-engineering them. Which, in theory, is prevented by most licences. But you guys are keen to prove that you dont give a fuck about that, as long as you can learn.

Indeed. I, for one, don't really care. I am not going to claim it for my own, nor even incorporate any of the resources. If I use concepts, then I will give credit. If I am going to use resources, I ask permission.

The bit about 'in theory' doesn't apply to most of the older OFP/A1/A2 mods. There were no licenses.

For my own tinkering, even if there were, I can honestly say I'd still open it up if it had something I thought I could learn from.

So they can learn it from the BIS sample models, or if I've made something special, they can ask first.

Thanks... but... no thanks. Like I said, if I thought I could learn something from a package you've released, I'd be VERY unlikely to ask you just to find out whether you'd be pissed off if I opened it up. Better to ask forgiveness than permission in that case. Now, if I were going to use one of your resources, then I would ABSOLUTELY ask. But not just to look at it.

People change, times change.

Not always for the better, eh?

When I started modding I was a kid doing it for fun. Now I need $$$ to survive (bills dont pay themselves and food isnt free, oh if only the whole world was so willing to share everything...), so I seek $$$ out however I can. Like other people in the communtiy, there are certain caveats on that $$$ which mean that you can no longer have my addons if they are unprotected.

Wait - how much are you making on ArmA mods?

No offence, but the people who have expressed the desire to have the option to protect their data generally make far better quality content than those who are pushing in the other direction.

And, if some of the posts are to be believed in this thread, they are keeping the high-quality stuff away from 'the community.' And yet, look - the community continues to muddle through....

That they havent banned all de-pbo'ing tools outright is testament to their

tolerance of this "community" and its bs.

Indeed. :)

Oh, and Max - 'appeal to convention' is only a fallacy when used to say something is correct or 'right.' In this case, I see the citation to past practice more as a reference to a historical fact. Just as DM just did. That BI has always allowed something doesn't make it 'right.' It just means that that IS the convention, and it has been successful. They do have the ability to change the convention, the argument is whether such a change will likely lead to more or less success.

Apparently, the only success that may be achieved is that the community *might* get some higher-quality models, which may or may not even be playable depending on poly count, and which are very likely to be locked to prevent tweaking. First, I'm not sure that would really be a 'success.' Second, given the Law of Unintended Consequences, there is a reasonable risk that it could lead to fewer open community mods, which could only be considered a 'failure.'

Before you trot out a 'parade of horribles' fallacy, let me point out that none of us has a crystal ball. My speculation is just as valid as yours. ;)

[dm 9]

The bit about 'in theory' doesn't apply to most of the older OFP/A1/A2 mods. There were no licenses.

Wrong. There were always licences.

Wait - how much are you making on ArmA mods?

Nothing, you missed the point: I, like others, can not release the models I make (and get paid for) because they are not secure. Just look at the RKSL thread, he explains it way better than I ever could.

The simple version is:

I make lots of nice models.

You cant have them because the pbo format is not secure.

If the pbo format was secure, you might be able to have them.

(I still dont get how that is so hard to understand)

[TRexian 0]

Wrong. There were always licences.

Well, not always, or at least not that I could find. The ones I did see freely offered the contents for study, etc. Oh, and I have only needed to open a handful of pbos. Most often, the authors posted the important parts either here or at OFPEC.

The simple version is:

I make lots of nice models.

You cant have them because the pbo format is not secure.

If the pbo format was secure, you might be able to have them.

(I still dont get how that is so hard to understand)

The hard part for me to understand is the relevance to this community.

Ok, you have great, hidden, models. Big f'n deal. You act like it would be some sort of godsend for you to release the models to the community.

Newsflash: it isn't a big deal.

The community is doing quite well without them, thank you. Release them don't release them, whatever. Just please stop acting like the best interests of the community revolve around you and your precious, unreleased models.

:cheers:

Edited November 3, 2010 by TRexian

[dm 9]

You're still missing the point.

The OPTION to have encrypted pbo's will allow people (not just me) to release more addons.

Why should the "rights" of the nay-sayers to poke around in data that isnt theirs be more important than the "rights" of the creator to protect their data?

The models I make are just a single example of where being able to lock pbos would be beneficial, and not the "community killer" the nay-sayers make it out to be.

If you read the whole thread, rather than jumping in feet first at the end, you would realise that I'm using my models as an example of how the encryption system isnt a negative community destroying idea.

[TRexian 0]

You're still missing the point.

I do not think that I am.

The OPTION to have encrypted pbo's will allow people (not just me) to release more addons.

Sorry - thread title (grammatical issues included):

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

Not, "do you think it should be an option"... but 'necessary.' Maybe the author meant 'optional', and the thread has shifted to that.

Regardless, I keep coming back to the risk v. reward analysis.

The only reward that has been proposed is that some, like you, MIGHT release higher-quality models, which would be locked.

The risks are more difficult to list, but include:

- more complexity in the software, due to the encryption, which could have unintended negative consequences;

- an increase the popularity of 'closed' mods, which could adversely effect the interest in modding.

Those are just the main ones.

Why should the "rights" of the nay-sayers to poke around in data that isnt theirs be more important than the "rights" of the creator to protect their data?

A judgment by BI that it is more important to cultivate a more or less open-source community. (A bit of an 'appeal to authority' bit there, but you get the idea.)

If you read the whole thread, rather than jumping in feet first at the end...

bwahahahaa

http://forums.bistudio.com/showpost.php?p=1777896&postcount=52

Ok, page 6, but.... in a 30+ page thread, I think that counts as 'towards the beginning.' ;)

Edit:

Oops, found an earlier one - page 3:

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?p=1777265#post1777265

:)

Edited November 3, 2010 by TRexian

[[aps]gnat 28]

I make lots of nice models.

You cant have them because the pbo format is not secure.

If the pbo format was secure, you might be able to have them.

(I still dont get how that is so hard to understand)

Its not hard really.

The PBO and their content has been unencrypted for years.

The community has years of history and goes on, with some AMAZING mods and single addons from various people and groups.

If those who have commercial interests can't "do business" here, we will be fine, we will survive.

The rest of the addon makers here will get by fine without learning from these others.

Those who can't "do business" here will go find another military or flight sim game to release their models into.

But oh shit ........ those game platforms dont allow encryption of addons either. Oh darn :p what are they to do.

[dm 9]

Gnat;1781490']Those who can't "do business" here will go find another military or flight sim game to release their models into.

But oh shit ........ those game platforms dont allow encryption of addons either. Oh darn :p what are they to do.

Well thats a very mature response for this "mature community"...

"We're too selfish to give up our ability to steal other peoples work, anyone who doesnt like that can piss off and play somewhere else"

Nice...

[TRexian 0]

Maturity is often in the eye of the beholder. ;)

"I'm too selfish to share my bright and shiny 100k poly ammo crate because I'm afraid someone will steal it....."

But, to give you the benefit of the doubt, it is probably good for BI to make an informed decision about encrypting pbos. It would be great if you could give some details about one of these models of yours. Maybe it would be worth completely changing the structure of how pbo's are handled.

(If you've already mentioned this, I beg your forgiveness - I was late to this party.) ;) What model is it again? How many polys? Is the config done? Any screenshots of it that you could share? Is it really something you're trying to sell?

I mean, if it is really the same model that you use for commercial purposes, that would be a bit of a risk releasing it for free anyway. That's almost begging for one of your potential clients to use a <censored> to grab it....

But I don't know much. I am an admittedly amateur modeler.

Edited November 6, 2010 by W0lle