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

[st_dux 26]

Community content is FREEWARE not Open source.

Authors of freeware have the same rights as payware and commercial publications.

I get what you're saying, but that's just never actually been the case in this community. Everything released in .pbo format is open-source, and if you willingly release something in an open-source format, I don't think it's possible to maintain a reasonable expectation that no one will look through your files.

I think this is a good thing. The open nature of .pbo files acts as a catalyst for creativity and enhances the community as a whole, which is why I would be against giving people tools to stifle it just so they can feel like they own something that has no monetary value.

Seriously, what would encryption be protecting? There is nothing at stake in a free exchange apart from "fame in the community," yet it has never seemed to me that people taking credit for other people's work is an issue in this community. In general, authors release their own content, and from that moment forward it is immediately clear to everyone who created what. The community is so small and authorship so well-respected that it would be nigh impossible for someone to take an already-released addon and pass it off as their own. So again, what would be the purpose of encryption?

Edited November 9, 2010 by ST_Dux

[rksl-rock 1300]

I get what you're saying, but that's just never actually been the case in this community. Everything released in .pbo format is open-source, and if you willingly release something in an open-source format, I don't think it's possible to maintain a reasonable expectation that no one will look through your files...

No its not and never has been. Its just that the tools unauthorised tools to convert formats without permission have been in the open for so long that the poking and plagerism has become a regular part of community life. And when someone stands up and says "I've had enough" they get flamed to death.

Just because I willingly release an addon onto the internet does not mean i relinquish all my rights and claim on the material. It comes with a EULA stating that I retain all those rights and you are granted an non exclusive licence to use it. Not alter or repackage it as you see fit.

Don't make the mistake of thinking that just becasue you dont pay for something means you own it. You don't.

---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:30 ----------

And the same limitations... and a more difficult time showing damages in the event of an IP violation. :)

All the problems, none of the income!

Why do we do this again.....? :D

Oh c'mon we're talking about ownership now. Not damages. Stop trying to twist the debate away from the actual topic again.

[TRexian 0]

Guys, in the course of a spirited PM discussion with Rock - for which I publicly thank him (and I don't think I'm violating any private matters in this, Rock) - I did a bit more looking at the Creative Commons licensing scheme that was recently encouraged by representatives of BI.

Here is a link to the most common CC licenses:

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

They all focus on controlling the re-distribution. For instance, the Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives states:

This license is the most restrictive of our six main licenses, allowing redistribution. This license is often called the “free advertising†license because it allows others to download your works and share them with others as long as they mention you and link back to you, but they can’t change them in any way or use them commercially.

It doesn't say you can't open them up, it just says you can only re-distribute the same package that was originally released.

Also, there appears to be a disclaimer for all the CC licenses:

# Waiver — Any of the above conditions can be waived if you get permission from the copyright holder.

# Public Domain — Where the work or any of its elements is in the public domain under applicable law, that status is in no way affected by the license.

# Other Rights — In no way are any of the following rights affected by the license:

* Your fair dealing or fair use rights, or other applicable copyright exceptions and limitations;

* The author's moral rights;

* Rights other persons may have either in the work itself or in how the work is used, such as publicity or privacy rights.

So, it appears that all the CC licenses preserve the Fair Use aspects, which would presumably include educational uses.

I do not expect this post to convince anyone to change their minds on this issue, I just thought it was interesting. (Thanks again to Rock for leading me to research the issue.)

---------- Post added at 03:33 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

Oh c'mon we're talking about ownership now. Not damages. Stop trying to twist the debate away from the actual topic again.

hehe

I'm not trying to - this is a free ranging discussion that has hit many topics.

Plus, it is almost impossible to talk about legal issues (which EULAs and IP are) without bringing up damages.

ownership = right to collect damages for violation

(Besides, the last line was an effort to inject levity into an otherwise very dry subject.)

[rksl-rock 1300]

Guys, in the course of a spirited PM discussion with Rock - for which I publicly thank him (and I don't think I'm violating any private matters in this, Rock) - I did a bit more looking at the Creative Commons licensing scheme that was recently encouraged by representatives of BI.

Here is a link to the most common CC licenses:

http://creativecommons.org/about/licenses/

They all focus on controlling the re-distribution. For instance, the Attribution Non-Commercial No Derivatives states:

It doesn't say you can't open them up, it just says you can only re-distribute the same package that was originally released.

Also, there appears to be a disclaimer for all the CC licenses:

So, it appears that all the CC licenses preserve the Fair Use aspects, which would presumably include educational uses.

I do not expect this post to convince anyone to change their minds on this issue, I just thought it was interesting. (Thanks again to Rock for leading me to research the issue.)

And when are CC licenses the be-all-and-end-all of EULAs? There are far more restrictive licences permissible under law.

CC are just a basic general framework to work with for anyone to use and adapt that have been proven in courts. Nothing more.

And in terms of Fair Use I think your defination of your rights is at odds with the interpretation under law. But you've never acknowledged anything other than yor own viewpoint in the string of PMs did you.

hehe

I'm not trying to - this is a free ranging discussion that has hit many topics.

Plus, it is almost impossible to talk about legal issues (which EULAs and IP are) without bringing up damages.

ownership = right to collect damages for violation

Actually no its not. Ownership is the acknowledgement of property and the rights attached to it.

Edited November 9, 2010 by RKSL-Rock
clarity

[TRexian 0]

And when are CC licenses the be-all-and-end-all of EULAs? There are far more restrictive licences permissible under law.

Yes, of course, there are. The one included in ArmA2 is one. :)

CC are just a basic general framework to work with for anyone to use and adapt that have been proven in courts. Nothing more.

Well, for our purposes, I think it is relevant that they have been unofficially endorsed by BI. You, apparently, do not think it relevant.

And in terms of Fair Use I think your defination of your rights is at odds with the interpretation under law. But you've never acknowledged anything other than yor own viewpoint in the string of PMs did you.

Well, my interpretation of the law is based on knowledge and experience. Yours, I believe is based on the same. We just reach different conclusions.

As to your second assertion, it is a lie. I did acknowledge your viewpoint, repeatedly. We reach different conclusions, in part because we have different perspectives. I also pointed out to you how the facts you revealed in your PMs (which I shall keep private, of course) lead to your conclusions, but for different reasons than what you suggested.

But again, your efforts to make this personal reflect more on you than on me.

Actually no its not. Ownership is the acknowledgement of property and the rights attached to it.

.... which include the right to seek damages for IP violation. :)

We can discuss the nuanced theories of property, if you want, but I thought you favored keeping this more or less on topic?

[whisper 0]

Yes which is why we (allmighty professional 3D artists ?) were talking about locking the PBO and protecting everybody's work not just the model. Go back and read the thread again. Its the people that want access to config and scripts that are saying "just protect the models".

Sry for the snickery comment on 3D artist, some people's attitude just get on me...

Back to the subject :

Because of all the points already stated, "just protect the models" is a better approach, even in perspective of actually protecting content.

A opened config, script, etc... published under restrictive CC license without possible way to encrypt it is far more protected that the same opened config, script, published with encryption tools available around.

While thinking you are protecting "everybody's work", you're in fact putting other's work in danger.

I don't know where you get the idea that you are going to protect mod makers, mission makers, scripters, by making theft of their open work easily hidden behind encryption.

Look, you (or actually Vilas :) ) tell me there's nothing to learn from 3D model, textures, and such, that's very probably right, I'm not 3D expert enough to tell.

You want a tool to encrypt p3d (isn't it kind of the point of ODOL to not be editable?), why not, even though having access to selection used in different LoD is part of ArmA knowledge we need, but let's act like BI are making a full documentation on everything concerning LoDs, textures usage, etc... updated each time they add a new feature (something they don't do, mind you)

Encrytion tool for visual LoD and textures, woudln't that be far better? It would actually encrypt only what is usable outside the game (making job of thieves resellers harder), while preventing open ArmA2 related work being safely stolen by anyone

Edited November 9, 2010 by whisper

[mr burns 131]

There is not only 3D shapes in an addon.

The allmighty "we are professional 3D artists therefore we deserve special treatment and we'll treat your needs as nothing" behavior could do with a bit of towning down.

What is learned from an opened addon is config, selection usage when available, scripting techniques, and such....

And, again, this is so since 2001 and the source of knowledge of the very people advocating for closing content comes from peeking into BI's stuff

Yes which is why we (allmighty professional 3D artists ?) were talking about locking the PBO and protecting everybody's work not just the model. Go back and read the thread again. Its the people that want access to config and scripts that are saying "just protect the models".

How is it that a small group, of which only two seem to have voices in this thread (DM & Rock, but tbh i dont regulary read here), feel the urge to decide something for the community as a whole?

Not everyone has the gift of an unbelievable perception for IT stuff, most things are learned from looking at other peoples work and then building up on it with ongoing trial and error - this does not imply any sort of thievery, it´s just healthy curiosity. Foremost, this is the fun part in ArmA, learning things you´ve never thought you can do from people who never thought they´d come to enjoy the privilege of teaching others.

If you are not making addons for your own enjoyment, the enjoyment of sharing your knowledge with others and doing something good by making people happy, what is it then?

[st_dux 26]

No its not and never has been. Its just that the tools unauthorised tools to convert formats without permission have been in the open for so long that the poking and plagerism has become a regular part of community life. And when someone stands up and says "I've had enough" they get flamed to death.

Just because I willingly release an addon onto the internet does not mean i relinquish all my rights and claim on the material. It comes with a EULA stating that I retain all those rights and you are granted an non exclusive licence to use it. Not alter or repackage it as you see fit.

Where has BI stated that users are not authorized to open .pbo files? It's not like it would be hard for them to encrypt .pbos if they didn't want people to snoop through them, yet they've never done this.

Regarding fair use, this concept is not restricted to creative commons licenses. It is not fair use to use something that someone else made and claim that it is your own, but it is fair use to use something that someone else made to teach you how to make your own stuff, or to create transformative (as opposed to derivative) works from it. The act of merely looking through a .pbo file, in and of itself, cannot be considered copyright infringement under any circumstances.

[TRexian 0]

The operation of EULAs complicate things more than a little. Microsoft does not take kindly to people de-compiling Word, regardless of their motives.

While related, EULAs and IP rights are technically separate issues. Fair Use violation of a EULA may still be grounds for a lawsuit. (Different jurisdictions handle that differently.)

[jw custom 56]

To flip it the other way round:

why should you be able to poke in other peoples content?

And if you say "learning" then I will say "That's the excuse that is claimed over and over" ;)

Well you answered your own question, to learn, to solve a problem.

I have many times solved mission related problems by looking into BIS pbo's and community made pbo's if need(ACE several times).

So if thats an excuse then i'll call your argument selfish and greedy ;)

[NoRailgunner 0]

How many game developers/publishers are actually supporting their community with a good (almighty?) ip protection feature - for free?

Maybe some addon makers should be more aware what can happen with their work if its released for free/into public. Maybe some work should stay exclusive for making profit, while other things are better free around games/forums? Make yourself a favour and a difference between business/commercial use and game/community usage.

You are not making great game addons in your spare time only for you own frustration, aren't you? :)

[rksl-rock 1300]

Sry for the snickery comment on 3D artist, some people's attitude just get on me...

Np. Its understandable given the heated nature of the thread.

But i'm also tired of the same "we know what you are thinking attitude" too. Too many people around here are leaping to conclusions and making assumptions without bothering to read the thread or understanding the actual topic.

Back to the subject :

Because of all the points already stated, "just protect the models" is a better approach, even in perspective of actually protecting content.

But when that was said, scripters popped up and said "its not fair the modellers get protection and we don't" and so on. hence the discussion about what to protect and what not to. Since configs are actually readable ingame via the browser and considering the issues around protecting individual items it was proposed that locking the PBO was a possible option. Its logical after all.

A opened config, script, etc... published under restrictive CC license without possible way to encrypt it is far more protected that the same opened config, script, published with encryption tools available around.

The problem is that as TRexian and others like him have already said they will not respect a Freeware EULA protected addon.

While thinking you are protecting "everybody's work", you're in fact putting other's work in danger.

I don't know where you get the idea that you are going to protect mod makers, mission makers, scripters, by making theft of their open work easily hidden behind encryption.

I don't think it would be at risk, or more correctly i think it would be at less risk in a locked PBO. Look at how many complaints and abuses of EULAs there are on these forums fomr within the community. Then go onto the 3D models sites, garrys mod etc. You can spend 30 mins searching and find a hell of a lot of community models on them. Either for free or for cash. The EULAs arent protecting them outside of this community.

If someone in this community "steals" from another and they get caught they get a bollocking, maybe banned. Great for the community. But outside then its down to the author to chase the thief down and take action. And that's hard and can be very expensive. And once you do get a result someone else does it all over again. That's because these tools are out there making it easier for people to steal from us.

No I accept people like to look in someone's addon to learn. Regardless of all the arguments to the contrary, I still think its rather rude but I can live with it as long as those other people don't "copy and paste" my work into theirs without permission. If the "theft" was limited to this then I probably wouldn't mind so much. But its not. That is a simple fact.

Look, you (or actually Vilas ) tell me there's nothing to learn from 3D model, textures, and such, that's very probably right, I'm not 3D expert enough to tell.

Well since BIS released the sample MLODs from ArmA1 90% of what you need to learn is in there so you don't really need to "decode" them to poke around inside. The other 10% well the things like OA backpacks by BIS and some exotic animations etc by people in the community I can see why people want to. But its still breaking the actual rules, even though most people seem to think its ok to do. But the fact is in that 10% you can ask BIS or the Addonmakers for help or tuts.

Certainly for the community side of things I don't think ive ever been refused help when I've asked and i've only refused to help 2 people in 7 years. (and that's because they were slaggin me and my mates off) If you want to know something just ask. Someone will always try to help you and there is an awful lot of material online to help addonmakers.

I'll concede that getting info out of BIS on demand is either unlikely or slow. But most of the time I've asked a BIS rep for help or info they've bent over backwards to help me. And if we can be mature about it and get a poll going for the exact information we want maybe we can help them help us?

You want a tool to encrypt p3d (isn't it kind of the point of ODOL to not be editable?), why not, even though having access to selection used in different LoD is part of ArmA knowledge we need, but let's act like BI are making a full documentation on everything concerning LoDs, textures usage, etc... updated each time they add a new feature (something they don't do, mind you)

Encrytion tool for visual LoD and textures, woudln't that be far better? It would actually encrypt only what is usable outside the game (making job of thieves resellers harder), while preventing open ArmA2 related work being safely stolen by anyone

But the tool to convert ODOL or to editable MLOD format was released publically opening the door to thieves far more easily.

Technically to encrypt just a portion of the P3D would be virtually impossible I suspect. Same for the scripts and textures etc given the nature of the tools we use to create and encode them.

Honestly I think a decent set of tuts and proper documentation would help the community more than blindly poking around in addons. I think given the information out there already (which is I admit rather disorganised) you wouldn't lose much by giving us the option to protect our own work.

How is it that a small group, of which only two seem to have voices in this thread (DM & Rock, but tbh i dont regulary read here), feel the urge to decide something for the community as a whole?

We aren't trying to decide something for the community as a whole. Please link to where we say we are?

Both DM and I've said repeatedly throughout this thread that we are asking for the OPTION to lock our own PBOs. As have others like Soul Assassin etc.

Not everyone has the gift of an unbelievable perception for IT stuff, most things are learned from looking at other peoples work and then building up on it with ongoing trial and error - this does not imply any sort of thievery, it´s just healthy curiosity. Foremost, this is the fun part in ArmA, learning things you´ve never thought you can do from people who never thought they´d come to enjoy the privilege of teaching others.

You are falling into the same trap as others have here. People seem to think anyone that advocates an optional lock is calling everyone that wants to peek a theif. And this is an impression that i believe several people here want to promote. There are several issue up for debate.

1. Peeking (without permission) for the purposes of learning even if EULA denies this.
   
2. Decoding with the intent of making a personal edit when the EULA forbids this
   
3. Actually stealing content for use within the community/personal use
   
4. Converting models/textures/scripts for use outside of the community for personal or commercial gain.
   

Each issue has been discussed and debated. Some people are posting at cross purposes and confusing the issue. As i've repeatedly said to Trexian personally im not worried about peeking to learn. Others are and I'm not really sure why but if its for benign reasons i don't see any objections. But again personally I think it would be nice if they asked first.

I'm against personal edits because in my own experience they cause no end of trouble supporting the addons. People edit them, break them etc and pass them out. They don't work as released so we get it in the neck and it damages our reputation and it causes us more work trying to debug an issue they caused.

Option 3 and 4 I think everyone, but the thieving twats that do it, agree is wrong. Its this that people here are wanting to protect us from. The simple fact is that the tools created and released to help you learn also help others steal. Mrburn's you'll know yourself how much work, time and time effort goes into making addons. As much as you want to learn from others you also have to acknowledge that people out there are exploiting these tools. That makes it difficult for addonmakers to freely release content without fear of someone profiting from your good will.

If you are not making addons for your own enjoyment, the enjoyment of sharing your knowledge with others and doing something good by making people happy, what is it then?

I make models for myself and my friends. I only release to the community because I like the idea of giving something back to the people that supported me. But when those people start to exploit me then Its not so much fun. If you were in that position what would you do?

Edited November 9, 2010 by RKSL-Rock
Really bad typing skills and a bit of formating

[TRexian 0]

The problem is that as TRexian and others like him have already said they will not respect a Freeware EULA protected addon.

This is at best incomplete, and at worst an intentional misrepresentation.

For a variety of legal reasons, I do not consider freeware EULAs that prevent "poking around" valid. Not in this context, or any other.

I steadfastly adhere to freeware EULAs that limit repackaging, require crediting, and the general notion that people should do the right thing.

If you were in that position what would you do?

All current ArmA2 addon makers are in that position. We all make the decision that is right for us, just as you make the decision that is right for you.

[rksl-rock 1300]

This is at best incomplete, and at worst an intentional misrepresentation.

For a variety of legal reasons, I do not consider freeware EULAs that prevent "poking around" valid. Not in this context, or any other.

I steadfastly adhere to freeware EULAs that limit repackaging, require crediting, and the general notion that people should do the right thing.

All current ArmA2 addon makers are in that position. We all make the decision that is right for us, just as you make the decision that is right for you.

And if the ,perfectly legal EULA, like that of several mods released here does have a clause that says you may not reverse engineer this content in anyway. What then?

EDIT for Trexian's Edit

All current ArmA2 addon makers are in that position. We all make the decision that is right for us, just as you make the decision that is right for you.

I was asking for his personal opinion. But part of my "decesion" is to ask for better protection so i feel 'safer' releasing into the community. But according to some in this thread I shouldnt be allowed to ask for that.

Edited November 9, 2010 by RKSL-Rock

[TRexian 0]

And if the ,perfectly legal EULA, like that of several mods released here does have a clause that says you may not reverse engineer this content in anyway. What then?

If we agree that 'reverse engineer' means to not open a freeware pbo, then it is invalid IMO (the EULA invalid, the use valid). If 'reverse engineer' means to take a resource, then re-use the same resource (as opposed to the methods) in a different package, then I think that would be valid (the EULA valid, but the use invalid). But again, the focus is on the redistribution rather than the poking IMO.

This is not the first time you've asked me that, though, do you expect a different answer? :)

But according to some in this thread I shouldnt be allowed to ask for that.

Oh no - no one is saying you can't ask for it. Some people just think you shouldn't get it. :)

I don't really blame anyone for asking. You don't know until you ask!

[NoRailgunner 0]

I make models for myself and my friends. I only release to the community because I like the idea of giving something back to the people that supported me. But when those people start to exploit me then Its not so much fun. If you were in that position what would you do?

If you really feel 100% that way - stop it, move to another game/hobby and meet other people. Its simple, pragmatic and healthier than staying with those people/"friends".

[dmarkwick 261]

I make models for myself and my friends. I only release to the community because I like the idea of giving something back to the people that supported me. But when those people start to exploit me then Its not so much fun. If you were in that position what would you do?

To be honest, and I don't mean this flippantly or dismissively, I would move over to the VBS2 community. I have had a (brief) cause to be involved with the VBS2 community, but in the end I simply preferred the ArmA2 community. Not in a personality way, but in a culture way. I much prefer the open and sharing nature that I experience in ArmA2.

[rksl-rock 1300]

If you really feel 100% that way - stop it, move to another game/hobby and meet other people. Its simple, pragmatic and healthier than staying with those people/"friends".

But its not 100% of the community thats doing it is it?

And if there is a way to reduce that small percentage even further by making it hard to steal from us why shouldn't we try to find a way? Because you don't like the possible solutions out there I should stop modding?

[bk1276 0]

We aren't trying to decide something for the community as a whole. Please link to where we say we are?

Both DM and I've said repeatedly throughout this thread that we are asking for the OPTION to lock our own PBOs. As have others like Soul Assassin etc.

?

ive tryied to follow this thread and what i get from it is that some artists/addon makers are pissed off with some members stealing there work

and are asking for a way to encode/encript there work so it doesnt get stollen .

i believe this to be a good idea and it may stop some af the good artists/addon makers from puttin up there hands and saying stuff it we are off and see all they things we showed you that we are working on

your not gettig them

i am in full support of this and if you realy nead to know how to do somethig ask

my tupence worth

[mr burns 131]

And if the ,perfectly legal EULA, like that of several mods released here does have a clause that says you may not reverse engineer this content in anyway. What then?

Heh, did just that with the noBAF beta for the exact same issue you mentioned with personal edits causing troubles. But after i´ve lost interest in updating i clearly stated in this forum that the (BY-NC-ND) license can be disregarded - it was just there to keep it an all-in-one release. In case i hadn´t done that and would somehow disappear, the license would just stand in the way of those following the rules.

Fun fact: I´ve learned a good piece of inheritance (even though it wasn´t enough to get the jackal working correctly, lol) during making noBAF only with the help (staring at it) of allInOne.cpp, which clearly is against the idea of "protected content" in one or the other way too.

Open nature of pbo has more goods than bads from my point of view.

Then again, i´m not someone who does high quality work that needs protection :p

[rksl-rock 1300]

To be honest, and I don't mean this flippantly or dismissively, I would move over to the VBS2 community. I have had a (brief) cause to be involved with the VBS2 community, but in the end I simply preferred the ArmA2 community. Not in a personality way, but in a culture way. I much prefer the open and sharing nature that I experience in ArmA2.

I work in the "wider VBS2 community" commercially on occasion. I also prefer the OFP/ArmA community becasue I 'play' here and without the help of some people in this community I wouldn't have gained the knowledge needed to work there. So I try to repay that debt by helping others make their own addons.

---------- Post added at 17:50 ---------- Previous post was at 17:44 ----------

Heh, did just that with the noBAF beta for the exact same issue you mentioned with personal edits causing troubles. But after i´ve lost interest in updating i clearly stated in this forum that the (BY-NC-ND) license can be disregarded - it was just there to keep it an all-in-one release. In case i hadn´t done that and would somehow disappear, the license would just stand in the way of those following the rules.

Hey but thats your right to either close your work or throw it open isnt it.

Fun fact: I´ve learned a good piece of inheritance (even though it wasn´t enough to get the jackal working correctly, lol) during making noBAF only with the help (staring at it) of allInOne.cpp, which clearly is against the idea of "protected content" in one or the other way too.

But you didnt edit the addons you used did you? You provided an alternative config without tampering with the pre-existing addons did you. So you didnt breach any EULAs. I don't see anything wrong with that. And I think "peeking" incases liek this is perfectly reasonable. You arent taking anything away from anyone else are you.

Open nature of pbo has more goods than bads from my point of view.

Then again, i´m not someone who does high quality work that needs protection :p

Maybe so, but the bad is driving people out of the community. I know its happened in the past and its happening again.

Edited November 9, 2010 by RKSL-Rock
grammar

[TRexian 0]

And I think "peeking" incases liek this is perfectly reasonable. You arent taking anything away from anyone else are you.

To explore this, a bit, if someone "peeked" at a config of one of your mods, so as to create an addon to your addon, but did not release any of your resources, really just added to them, would you consider that 'reverse engineering' or somehow violative of your EULA (assuming you had a EULA similar to what you've described)?

Particularly, if doing so required information about the selections in your model?

[jw custom 56]

I don't see anything wrong with that. And I think "peeking" incases liek this is perfectly reasonable. You arent taking anything away from anyone else are you.

Well thats exactly what people including me in this thread are saying, they are "peeking" to learn/solve problems.

I wonder how many people around these forums who are involved in scripting/addon making etc. who NEVER has looked into bis or other community members pbo's for the reason of solving a problem.

[rksl-rock 1300]

To explore this, a bit, if someone "peeked" at a config of one of your mods, so as to create an addon to your addon, but did not release any of your resources, really just added to them, would you consider that 'reverse engineering' or somehow violative of your EULA (assuming you had a EULA similar to what you've described)?

Since the configs can be read and output without depbo'ing or otherwise contravening the attached EULA yes its fine in my opinion.

The moment you go against the EULA then its not.

Particularly, if doing so required information about the selections in your model?

If peeking requires converting models to do so then no its not acceptable.

[TRexian 0]

Since the configs can be read and output without depbo'ing or otherwise contravening the attached EULA yes its fine in my opinion.

The moment you go against the EULA then its not.

Wait. You still need some other tool to get the configs out of the pbo into human readable format.

And, then, if a EULA said you can't even look at the configs in-game, would that be valid in your opinion?

Or, in a reductio ad absurdum way, what if an addon contained something that the EULA said that no one should even look at - would that be enforceable from your perspective? :) Think of it like a MacGuffin thing....