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

[st_dux 26]

Say you just spent a year making the most perfect model of something. Its perfect, 100% realistic, all the bells and whistles etc etc. you release it, and within 24 hours someone has made a modified version by opening the model, deleting some bits and adding on a ridiculous gun. You wouldn't be best pleased. Some jagoff has just ripped your pride and joy to bits, and released their version at 1:1000th of the effort. Some times you just cant stand to see that happen to your work.

I guess you really cant appreciate it without having actually made something, then seen it ripped apart...

Your model wasn't ripped apart; a copy of it was. Your model still exists in its original form, completely unscathed, and people who enjoy its realistic components will naturally prefer your original to the ridiculous copy. On the other hand, there may be a few people out there who enjoy messing around with ridiculous stuff, and now they're contented, too.

Really, there is no way to literally rip up intellectual property because intellectual property is neither scarce nor tangible. It's just this made up term that people use to get more money out of ideas, and ideas may be copied but can never be destroyed.

Oh, and "perfect" is in the eye of the beholder. There is such thing as objective perfection.

[Daniel 0]

Yes, I don't mind at all people learning from my work.

I mind people acknowledging they reused my code in their own work. It's called credit, and knowing who is the true author.

Which can't be proven when someone re-use my work and put it in a locked pbo. I won't even be able to check, prove, whatever, if the guy used or not my work. He can call it is own as he wishes. As a thief, he is protected by the lock system.

To avoid this, I'll be forced to lock my content, even if I don't mind people learning from my work.

Seeing my free time, that actual answers to request will be long to come. It happened I've been out for more than a year, several times...

That's a very good point.

[max power 21]

The question is not really why would someone need to open someone else's pbos. That is peripheral. The question is why not ask first? The answer is personal convenience, and that answer is accepted by all people like to do poking and rejected by people request to be asked first. The people who want to be asked first have something the people who like to the poking want, naturally they would choose the most direct course to get it, despite its status of ownership. I think this attitude is not justifiable by a convenience argument.

Norsu isn't a name I'm familiar with, but I have often received help from many people :) and if Norsu is a modelmaker then I would say most likely not, as I only make simple models that mostly are not even visible.

Generally any substantial help is referenced in my readmes.

I had the wrong guy. I meant Goeth. It's not important, though.

Edited November 9, 2010 by Max Power

[dm 9]

Your model wasn't ripped apart; a copy of it was. Your model still exists in its original form, completely unscathed

I guess you use that argument when you download tv/movies/music/software? "Oh, I'm not stealing it, just making a copy"

Can I borrow your passport? maybe your drivers licence, oh and a credit card too. I'll give them back, I just want to make copies of them first. Ofcourse, you wont be able to know what I'm doing with those copies, but hey, since you have the original, and its un-changed, thats fine, right?

[jw custom 56]

The question is why not ask first? The answer is personal convenience

Yes of course it is, last time i asked someone for permission it took several weeks before i got a answer but of course i asked for permission because was going to re-use some content.

If i were to ask permission every single time i wanted to open a pbo just to look for a solution i wouldn't get anywhere, but i see it's all for themself now!

So none of you elite addon makers in this thread has never opened a bis pbo to figure out how to do different stuff without contacting bis for permission?

[jagheterjan 10]

BIS sample models are available in non-pbo'd state just to spare BIS all the questions. I never needed more than that and a few friendly people around here to ask for guidance when I bumped into walls.

[jw custom 56]

BIS sample models are available in non-pbo'd state just to spare BIS all the questions. I never needed more than that and a few friendly people around here to ask for guidance when I bumped into walls.

It's far from everybody who open up pbo's to look at a model!! Personally i'm usually looking at scripting and configs and i'm pretty sure many others does the same.

[Fox '09 14]

someone had to find out the new oa cfg values .. there is no published info by bi , or maybe i haven't seen it ?

[jagheterjan 10]

Not that I'm aware of, but I have yet to delve into OA-specific stuff. That'd be typically a situation where I'd have to turn to other modders to help me out on the specifics.

[st_dux 26]

Can I borrow your passport? maybe your drivers licence, oh and a credit card too. I'll give them back, I just want to make copies of them first. Ofcourse, you wont be able to know what I'm doing with those copies, but hey, since you have the original, and its un-changed, thats fine, right?

This analogy doesn't work at all. Forms of identification are not intellectual property; they are recognized legal standards for proving some fact about yourself. If you knowingly use someone else's forms of identification, you are guilty of fraud. Whether you used a copy or the original document is immaterial; the real legal issue here is that you were attempting to deceive someone into thinking that you are someone other than yourself, and this is a crime that is completely independent from theft.

Furthermore, you completely missed my point about the indestructible nature of intellectual property. You say that you want to protect your intellectual property so that it cannot be "ripped apart," but you are treating it as if it were a physical object in the real world made from scarce resources. It isn't. It's a series of 1's and 0's in a virtual world, and as long as you maintain a copy of the original yourself, an infinite number of reproductions can instantly be distributed at any time. If you put your bike up for sale, someone could buy and turn it into scrap metal, but if you put your addon on the internet, you still have the original -- it is not possible for someone who downloads your addon to change the original on your PC. Thus, no one can rip up your intellectual property (unless all copies of the original were destroyed).

[rksl-rock 1300]

This analogy doesn't work at all. Forms of identification are not intellectual property; they are recognized legal standards for proving some fact about yourself. If you knowingly use someone else's forms of identification, you are guilty of fraud. Whether you used a copy or the original document is immaterial; the real legal issue here is that you were attempting to deceive someone into thinking that you are someone other than yourself, and this is a crime that is completely independent from theft.

Furthermore, you completely missed my point about the indestructible nature of intellectual property. You say that you want to protect your intellectual property so that it cannot be "ripped apart," but you are treating it as if it were a physical object in the real world made from scarce resources. It isn't. It's a series of 1's and 0's in a virtual world, and as long as you maintain a copy of the original yourself, an infinite number of reproductions can instantly be distributed at any time. If you put your bike up for sale, someone could buy and turn it into scrap metal, but if you put your addon on the internet, you still have the original -- it is not possible for someone who downloads your addon to change the original on your PC. Thus, no one can rip up your intellectual property (unless all copies of the original were destroyed).

Thats just word games and you know it.

[whisper 0]

Not that I'm aware of, but I have yet to delve into OA-specific stuff. That'd be typically a situation where I'd have to turn to other modders to help me out on the specifics.

And where do you think these other modders get there info from?

For any new stuff done by BI, either BI is going to document it (it happens, but rarely, they don't have time and have more important things to do), or somebody is going to look and share the knowledge. And you can bet how does "somebody" look into BI's stuff ....

[st_dux 26]

Thats just word games and you know it.

It's not word games at all. Treating intellectual property as if it were perfectly analogous to actual property is plainly fallacious. You can't "steal" intellectual property in the same way that you can steal something tangible because intellectual property never costs anything to reproduce; as soon as it is conceived, it is available in infinite numbers. If you steal an apple form a store, the apple is gone. If you "steal" someone's addon from the internet, the addon is still on the internet. It takes some serious word games to make these two things appear to be the same.

Seriously, how could you rip up someone's intellectual property? How does the modification of a copy in any way affect the original? If there is a good answer to this that doesn't resort to metaphor, I would be interested in hearing it.

[soul_assassin 1750]

If I made it, and someone took it and put their name on it, or tried to sell it, it sux, I feel like ive been robbed. If you would have ever made anything, you would know that. There...no metaphore

[t_d 47]

I noticed some technical questions that arised that I would like to answer:

1.) Would BAF/PMC encryption be suitable to lock pbo's?

No! BIS just encrypted the header info not the actual data. That means you could easily scan for an ODOL signature for example and extract the model. So you could still unpack heuristically.

2.) Is it possible to encrypt only parts (the resolution LODs for example) of a p3d?

Yes that is technically possible.

3.) Isn't binarization some sort of encryption?

No it is not! Encryption serves the purpose of making data secret to anyone who hasn't the key to decrypt the data. Binarize does optimise the file formats p3d, wrp and rtm(since A2) by removing unneeded editing info and by incorparating new calculated info into the file so the engine doesnt has to do that while runtime. Even if you use a MLOD for your addon it will be binarized from the game and that's why the loading times are increased then.

Some of my opinions to some arguments used here:

1.) You don't need to look into PBO's, because there is enough documentation available (BIKI, forums, OFPEC etc.)

Let's have a look at what information BIS provided:

-a ComRef with scripting commands and some scripting topics (is it updated regulary?)

-the BIToolSuite (contains some minor info)

-a BIKI with these scripting commands (updated by community), some manuals for their tools, the stuff from Dwarden (Materials, Shaders and surface stuff mainly), Model Config article and maybe some more articles I simply cant remember now)

-some answers to forum questions were answered by devs

-sample models (nearly all for ArmA1 and soldier model for ArmA2)

-you are welcome to complete the list or correct me

So everything else was documented by the community. Where did it get the info from? I would say they looked into the pbo's. Someone has another opinion here?

BTW: The ArmA1 sample models were released because Synide released BIS models as MLODs AFAIK. So maybe we wouldnt have this valuable source of info without his efforts.

2.) It is like [insert some analogy here]

Stop using these analogies and metaphors please, everyone is interpreting these for his arguments and you are just repeating yourself with every analogy/metaphor that arises.

3.) You can't really learn from models.

Agree here to some extent. You just could learn how some stuff like backpacks or destroyable wheels were implemented and therefore you can study the BIS models. You won't really learn how to model something just by looking at it. That's mainly why I released the tool that should not be named btw. To be able to find out how mainly new features which aren't documented work. It was not my intention to support piracy that's why there is no advertisement for the tool. You probably won't find it via google except you know the name. I dont wanted to be elitist like the mods with P3DEdit in Ofp times that's why I did not kept it for me.

Some further thoughts:

I think it all has started with OFP demo where people started modding the game by studying the contents and changing values, hex editing etc. Some sort of modding movement established without BIS being involved there really. And I am pretty sure legally the modding was not allowed (by EULA or whatever, I am no expert for such stuff) but instead of taking action against the modification of their stuff BIS saw the chance and supported the community with modding tools. I am pretty sure that modding wasnt really planned by BIS when they released the game. So some sort of modding spirit evolved that basically says: you can mod(ificate) everything to your needs (of course stealing stuff wasn't tolerated by the majority). So a lot of people probably see this sort of spirit of the community in danger when PBO will be lockable. That's how I see it at least. I am not too sure about the OFP history as I joined the community quite late in OFP times (OFP was released 3 years already I think) so you can correct me on this. (you can always correct me of course ;) )

[TRexian 0]

Nope, you can view configs in the ingame config browser (as was mentioned in this very thread) or via a simple(ish) scripted mission. But even then if that config contains someone's unique work it should be respected.

If you have to use a tool to decode something and the EULA says you cant... isnt it obvious?

Your contradictions make things confusing.

A pbo is a binarized file. The only way to view the contents in a human-readable format (well, I've known guys who 'program' in binary, but they are more like cyborg vampires) is to use something to decode it - either ArmA itself or something else.

And, is there really any difference between an external app and an ArmA script to get to the contents of a pbo?

Now you are being absurd.

Yeah - that is kinda what the Latin bit meant. ;)

But if that content is the author's own work then shouldnt they have the right to restrict its use?

Here is what I am getting at: is there ANY requirement or limitation that the author of a pbo could put in a freeware EULA that, in your opinion, would invalidate the EULA? Or even just a condition that, in your mind, would simply go too far? A requirement that the user must only use the pbo while wearing a pink tutu and yellow horn rim glasses? A limitation that the pbo can only be used on the second Tuesday of the month? ANYTHING?

My understanding of your position is that the author's EULA is akin to divine rule. That whatever the terms are, regardless how legally binding they are, there is a Moral Imperative to abide by them.

But, perhaps I misunderstand your position.

If I do understand your position correctly, then my friend, it is YOUR understanding of the law that is flawed. Not mine. ;)

Oh, and T_D, as a relatively new guy to ArmA modding, I feel compelled to share that my experience with the 'official' documentation found them VERY lacking. It is incomplete in some areas, and incomprehensible in others. The community is a wealth of information, but people learn in different ways. For me, oftentimes, the most effective is to simply look at how someone else solved a problem and mimic it. Particularly those of us without formal training in coding/modeling/whatevering.

(Thanks for the great tools, though.) :)

[st_dux 26]

If I made it, and someone took it and put their name on it, or tried to sell it, it sux, I feel like ive been robbed. If you would have ever made anything, you would know that. There...no metaphore

I'm not talking about claiming false authorship or trying to take someone else's freeware and turn it into a profit-making venture for yourself. You couldn't really successfully do either in this community, anyway. The question is about the possibility of someone using a community-made addon as a base for creating something different (either slightly or substantially), giving the original author full credit for the original addon. My point was simply that the original addon wouldn't be damaged in the creation of a new addon based on it as an essentially infinite supply of originals would still exist.

[WackyIraqi 2]

BIS needs to update the EULA and explicitly state all things made with their tools (or that has to pass through to be usable) should be made open source (I believe the GNU GPL covers the "give credit where due" part). The community moving towards a "I don't want people snooping on my stuff" is nonsense. Don't try and say "Well I have NEVER depbo'd a mission/addon" (even unbinarized), because you're lying. Its hypocritical to bash others for opening addons when you did so yourself back when you first started.

This community thrives on its (so far) openness and should continue to do so. You're not making profit from this so why should there be the need to lock it all down? Sure "I should be able to" remark will be made, hence why I said the BIS needs to put it in the EULA to shutdown those snide remarks. If you want your things locked down/commercial then you should be able to obtain license from them and THEN you can use their "locked pbo" format.

Edited November 10, 2010 by WackyIraqi

[noubernou 77]

BIS needs to update the EULA and explicitly state all things made with their tools (or that has to pass through to be usable) should be made open source (I believe the GNU GPL covers the "give credit where due" part). The community moving towards a "I don't want people snooping on my stuff" is nonsense. Don't try and say "Well I have NEVER depbo'd a mission/addon" (even unbinarized), because you're lying. Its hypocritical to bash others for opening addons when you did so yourself back when you first started.

This community thrives on its (so far) openness and should continue to do so. You're not making profit from this so why should there be the need to lock it all down? Sure "I should be able to" remark will be made, hence why I said the BIS needs to put it in the EULA to shutdown those snide remarks. If you want your things locked down/commercial then you should be able to obtain license from them and THEN you can use their "locked pbo" format.

Ok thats way too extreme. I don't mind people seeing how I do things but how it is taken and used should still be up to me. Models have nothing of educational value in them really (for other modelers), thats why the argument is so hard.

[jagheterjan 10]

And where do you think these other modders get there info from?

For any new stuff done by BI, either BI is going to document it (it happens, but rarely, they don't have time and have more important things to do), or somebody is going to look and share the knowledge. And you can bet how does "somebody" look into BI's stuff ....

I don't know where they would've taken their knowledge from. I'm also not the person to answer that kind of hypothetical questions.

[jw custom 56]

If I made it, and someone took it and put their name on it, or tried to sell it, it sux, I feel like ive been robbed. If you would have ever made anything, you would know that. There...no metaphore

We can all agree on that(almost, there will always be morons).

If you have read what most "nay" sayers here are talking about you would notice it isn't about stealing/selling/re-use other peoples work. You sounds like the whole community is rotten!

So i'm sorry if you feel robbed because i perhaps has learned something or solved a problem by looking at some mod you made.

[dmarkwick 261]

You don't need to look into PBO's, because there is enough documentation available (BIKI, forums, OFPEC etc.)

I should say that there might well be some amount of useful documentation, but two issues spring to mind:

It is not complete or comprehensive.

It explains in a format useful to people who can already code, there is no comprehensive scripting tutorial. If you come into ArmA2 not knowing anything about the methodology of scripting in ArmA2, then the absolute best way to learn is from direct example. There's also the possibility that you learn something you were not expecting to learn, a lot of the problem is that new modders don't know what they don't know.

[jw custom 56]

If you come into ArmA2 not knowing anything about the methodology of scripting in ArmA2, then the absolute best way to learn is from direct example.

Indeed, when i joined these forums i knew nothing about arma and scripting and everytime i got directed to biki i got even more confused. Now that i know the basic biki makes much more sense, not all the time though.

[ProfTournesol 956]

I should say that there might well be some amount of useful documentation, but two issues spring to mind:

It is not complete or comprehensive.

It explains in a format useful to people who can already code, there is no comprehensive scripting tutorial. If you come into ArmA2 not knowing anything about the methodology of scripting in ArmA2, then the absolute best way to learn is from direct example. There's also the possibility that you learn something you were not expecting to learn, a lot of the problem is that new modders don't know what they don't know.

Absolutely.

This discussion saddens me cause what i was suspecting about how this community will evolve comes into reality.

It used to be an "open source" community mainly composed of "amateur" modders, often discovering scripting, modeling and texturing by modding BI games, learning from senior members ready and willing to help, or from reverse engineering BI / other modders contents. That's the community i love and thanks god it still does exist to a certain extent.

But since the first ArmA and the growing complexity of modding, the increase in detail and polycount of models, better texturing or scripting possibilities etc., the amateurship has decreased facing semi professional modders / modding team willing to protect their work from potential commercial theft, and members only asking "OMG when will it be released". Even BI hardly releases sample models for ArmA2 (thanks god it was done for ArmA). What is left of the "open source" spirit of the community then ?

Spending days asking for permission to re-use / modify things has always been the rule and i accept/understand it. But waiting for such permission only to look at p3d or scripts for a learning purpose, that's not acceptable because it's closing the modding possibilities to a little number of members already "knowing how to".

[t_d 47]

I should say that there might well be some amount of useful documentation, but two issues spring to mind:

It is not complete or comprehensive.

It explains in a format useful to people who can already code, there is no comprehensive scripting tutorial. If you come into ArmA2 not knowing anything about the methodology of scripting in ArmA2, then the absolute best way to learn is from direct example. There's also the possibility that you learn something you were not expecting to learn, a lot of the problem is that new modders don't know what they don't know.

You seem to have misinterpreted my post. This statement was one I chose to comment on, a statement written by other users (just in my own words) and I wrote my opinion to that statement beneath that stating that there isnt really much info given by BIS but the community. And this info isn't well sorted or structured.