Is the Arma Communtiy getting too obsessed with legal issuse such as EULA's ?

[Baff1 0]

For me, there is alot of talk about peoples "work" going on here.

I've always been under the impression that this is something entirely different. Peoples play.

I applaud all mod makers.

I despair of any of them who are not willing to release their offerings as open source. Why bother releasing them at all if that's how you feel?

You know full well that once you have released it that you have lost artistic control of it.

There is really two mainstream approaches to releasing software as I see it, one is open source. The other is lisenced.

If you are intending to make money from your release, then you should choose lisence. If you aren't, open souce.

Releasing something open source and then pretending you own the lisence or worse releasing something open source and attaching some silly lisencing rules to bunch of children and amateurs with any expectation of it being respected makes you a clown in my eyes.

What cuts the professionals above the amateurs, is not how many lisenced models they own the rights to, it is the speed at which they can turn out another.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Baff1

[dsi24 12]

how hard is it for some of you to follow a simple request, quite a few pages back:

Some of us want to put some brains in our posts, and actually discuss the EULA and IP rights, without some well known brain dead jumping in and and writting offensive posts towards one developer or the other just because it's jazzy

PR:ArmA2 is the perfect example of an EULA (mainly because it has one) and is, AFAIK, the reason this topic was made in the first place (the timing is certainly interesting). People are going to want to go on about this issue that they think they've found, in any thread that is discussing something that ties in with the topic. (and probably in response to a post in any thread that brings up something that ties in with this 'issue' as well)

For me, there is alot of talk about peoples "work" going on here.

I've always been under the impression that this is something entirely different. Peoples play.

I applaud all mod makers.

I despair of any of them who are not willing to release their offerings as open source. Why bother releasing them at all if that's how you feel?

You know full well that once you have released it that you have lost artistic control of it.

There is really two mainstream apporahces to releasing software, one is open source. The other is lisenced.

If you are intending to make money from your release, then you should choose lisence. If you aren't, open souce.

Releasing something open source and then pretending you own the lisence or worse releasing something open source and attaching some silly lisencing rules to bunch of children and amateurs with any expectation of it being respected makes you a clown in my eyes.

What cuts the professionals above the amateurs, is not how many lisenced models they own the rights to, it is the speed at which they can turn out another.

How do you play when every server has different requirements to play on it? When every addon requires fumbling around with the game's file structure or a needlessly complex updater program?

PR:ArmA2 having an EULA/licensing is about nothing more (for players) than ease of use for the player. A stable environment is a PvP environment, and you can't have a stable environment when everyone and their dogs are hosting servers with different, constantly changing, requirements.

Edited August 28, 2011 by dsi24

[-GR-Operative 10]

Wow those PR guys are pretty stuck up

Needing to sign a license just to run a server with their mod?

Who do they think they are? Their mod is only a mod for AA2 and they act like they are in control of both of them. This is ridiculous. People like these shouldn't be supported ever.

Why won't they start charging money for it to come full circle?

Probably because it does include BIS material and they don't want it to be used by anyone out of PR development.

I want to congratulate UK_force for coming here to talk to the flamers. I hope the team knows that most people are willing to play and accept the conditions to do so.

Edited August 28, 2011 by [GR]Operative

[PuFu 4591]

I despair of any of them who are not willing to release their offerings as open source. Why bother releasing them at all if that's how you feel?

You know full well that once you have released it that you have lost artistic control of it.

There is tons of free stuff on the web (for instance a lot of scripts and plugins for 3ds max (yes a commercial product) i use on a daily basis that come with a license). Does that mean those are open sourced? No, far from it.

If you feel that free stuff should be open source, or that you have NEVER seen licenses of sort attached to freeshare, then well...

I feel you don't realise that there are way and way to write down your EULA, from a very restrictive way to open source as you put it. That is still a license.

Have a look here for some which are international renown:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/

PR:ArmA2 is the perfect example of an EULA (mainly because it has one) and is, AFAIK, the reason this topic was made in the first place (the timing is certainly interesting). People are going to want to go on about this issue that they think they've found, in any thread that is discussing something that ties in with the topic. (and probably in response to a post in any thread that brings up something that ties in with this 'issue' as well)

Well, every addon making studio uses a license - RKSL, RHS to name a few. So it's NOT any sort of news, and restricting yourself to one certain group or individual doesn't move this thread any further, and will always end up in the same BS.

Edited August 28, 2011 by PuFu

[dmarkwick 261]

For me, there is alot of talk about peoples "work" going on here.

I've always been under the impression that this is something entirely different. Peoples play.

I applaud all mod makers.

I despair of any of them who are not willing to release their offerings as open source. Why bother releasing them at all if that's how you feel?

You know full well that once you have released it that you have lost artistic control of it.

There is really two mainstream approachces to releasing software as I see it, one is open source. The other is lisenced.

If you are intending to make money from your release, then you should choose lisence. If you aren't, open souce.

Releasing something open source and then pretending you own the lisence or worse releasing something open source and attaching some silly lisencing rules to bunch of children and amateurs with any expectation of it being respected makes you a clown in my eyes.

What cuts the professionals above the amateurs, is not how many lisenced models they own the rights to, it is the speed at which they can turn out another.

There is so much wrong with this post that it is difficult to know where to begin. This is a grotesquely distorted view, and in no way represents the community here.

I say this, because, like the other PR thread, this thread is becoming an embarrassment to the ArmA community. I wish the guys with the absolute refusal to accept viewpoint would just accept that they at least have the right not to use, if they're so damned offended by it.

[max power 21]

For me, there is alot of talk about peoples "work" going on here.

I've always been under the impression that this is something entirely different. Peoples play.

I applaud all mod makers.

I despair of any of them who are not willing to release their offerings as open source. Why bother releasing them at all if that's how you feel?

You know full well that once you have released it that you have lost artistic control of it.

There is really two mainstream approachces to releasing software as I see it, one is open source. The other is lisenced.

If you are intending to make money from your release, then you should choose lisence. If you aren't, open souce.

Releasing something open source and then pretending you own the lisence or worse releasing something open source and attaching some silly lisencing rules to bunch of children and amateurs with any expectation of it being respected makes you a clown in my eyes.

What cuts the professionals above the amateurs, is not how many lisenced models they own the rights to, it is the speed at which they can turn out another.

It's very hard to understand what you mean. On the one hand, you seem to be prescribing some behaviour ie. that you think developers should release their work OS if there is no commercial application for it. On the other hand, with that said, you seem to be implying that that is the way it already is. You say that it's unfortunate that people pretend they own a license after they release something 'open source'.

Now, to release something under one license and then to go back on that license is a bit unfair- and probably impossible, although future versions may use different licenses. But it's as if you are implying that releasing something on any license other than some OS one is clownish behaviour.

This all boils down the the 'laws of teh internetz' argument that is so often cited and refuted on these forums, bundled in a confused ramble that's more personally insulting than usual.

There is no distinction between a commercial work and a free-to-download one when it comes to the willingness of people to accept the license. You think if RKSL released a version of some model he had made for a contract, if that is even possible, it would be any less likely that this thing would be deconstructed and put up for sale than one he made with no ties to any commercial work? Do you think that's even a factor? Moreover, it is the intent of the creator that dictates what license he or she chooses, not potential thieves.'

Your objection to licenses other than an open source license (which I severely doubt you know anything about) is noted. However, this is not a fertile avenue of discussion because there is no common ground here with any creator that believes in licenses or even reality. The only sensible thing you have contributed is that one aspect of licensing and enforcement is the willingness of people to respect it, and we have covered that already.

[DAP 619]

Well, every addon making studio uses a license - RKSL, RHS to name a few. So it's NOT any sort of news, and restricting yourself to one certain group or individual doesn't move this thread any further, and will always end up in the same BS.

Sorry for repeat, but :) Example: One man release his great pack of US Army units. And add EULA with restrictions: "For mission makers: I restrict create any mission where those units can be killed or wounded." Is this a regular right of author? Can author set any restricting for his mod/addon/mission, like in example, and use EULA for this?

[Nutlink 10]

like the other PR thread, this thread is becoming an embarrassment to the ArmA community. I wish the guys with the absolute refusal to accept viewpoint would just accept that they at least have the right not to use, if they're so damned offended by it.

Exactly. I've been rather busy lately, but coming back to see even more PR hate with the thread closed and then seeing this, I'm shocked that these threads are getting more attention than some of the more useful ones around. I'm looking forward to PR, but if want to use British units in a manner not like PR intends, then I'll use other mods.

[max power 21]

Sorry for repeat, but :) Example: One man release his great pack of US Army units. And add EULA with restrictions: "For mission makers: I restrict create any mission where those units can be killed or wounded." Is this a regular right of author? Can author set any restricting for his mod/addon/mission, like in example, and use EULA for this?

It's a difficult question. I think that technically you can limit use. That said, there are obvious problems with creating ridiculous EULA clauses that draw the ire of your users, or that completely wipes out your user base.

[PuFu 4591]

Sorry for repeat, but :) Example: One man release his great pack of US Army units. And add EULA with restrictions: "For mission makers: I restrict create any mission where those units can be killed or wounded." Is this a regular right of author? Can author set any restricting for his mod/addon/mission, like in example, and use EULA for this?

No, that would be completely dumb.

But then again if that same person would create the same US Army units, and script them to be fully invincible (no damage or kills possible), and he would say: you are not allowed to reverse engineer, decompile or re-release these addons without prior consent, he would be well within his rights.

I hope you see the difference here: your theory is based only on words, mine is based on setting up your files as you want them to be.

Of course, one could try to create a replacement pack, using the first addon maker models. Now, doing that, i am not sure if one would need permission or not if credits are provided...but then again, the original addon maker could even force the same addon to be needed server side, and check if the the 2 versions match, in order to allow you to use them (ACE style).

Edited August 28, 2011 by PuFu

[dmarkwick 261]

Sorry for repeat, but :) Example: One man release his great pack of US Army units. And add EULA with restrictions: "For mission makers: I restrict create any mission where those units can be killed or wounded." Is this a regular right of author? Can author set any restricting for his mod/addon/mission, like in example, and use EULA for this?

Why make up such a silly extreme example? We can all do that and go the other way:

If a EULA said "anyone can use this addon but it must NOT be used for commercial purposes" then someone can apply your reasoning and deem it too restrictive, and place it in their commercial product.

Sound fair?

[HR4 Elite 10]

Well, well, being fairly new to this forum, (only a matter of months), this is about as bad as it gets. A community that isn’t a community…

I use many mod’s and thank the mod makers for their hard work and generosity in allowing me to use the mod. They create it, they can restrict or put conditions for its use, most definitely it’s an intellectual right.

But to see this thread, well its saddening, a community blown apart by individual ego’s…

Don’t ask me for proof just have to read this thread...

[DAP 619]

Why make up such a silly extreme example? We can all do that and go the other way:

If a EULA said "anyone can use this addon but it must NOT be used for commercial purposes" then someone can apply your reasoning and deem it too restrictive, and place it in their commercial product.

Sound fair?

This is not about using the product as part or a basis for some another product with same class and aims. This is about management of using product within the limits of main purposes of this product. Without any changes and modification this product itself. Seems, only that limit, which can regulate this question - is common sence.

Edited August 28, 2011 by DAP

[max power 21]

Well, well, being fairly new to this forum, (only a matter of months), this is about as bad as it gets. A community that isn’t a community…

I use many mod’s and thank the mod makers for their hard work and generosity in allowing me to use the mod. They create it, they can restrict or put conditions for its use, most definitely it’s an intellectual right.

But to see this thread, well its saddening, a community blown apart by individual ego’s…

Don’t ask me for proof just have to read this thread...

You should have seen some threads in the past!

But I don't think that because some people disagree on some things that it's not a community anymore. For the most part I see this particular discussion as a step forward.

This is not about using the product as part or a basis for some another product with same class and aims. This is about management of using product within the limits of main purposes of this product. Without any changes and modification this product itself. Seems, only that limit, which can regulate this question - is common sence.

Common sense dictates that the owners of the rights must dictate its use within the limits of the law.

Edited August 28, 2011 by Max Power

[Bee8190 10]

This is not about using the product as part or a basis for some another product with same class and aims. This is about management of using product within the limits of main purposes of this product. Without any changes and modification this product itself. Seems, only that limit, which can regulate this question - is common sence.

What would you suggest than to keep their work ''intact'' and their idea as that is the one of the obvious qualities of PR?

I'am by no means expert in this matter but I seem to be unable to find ''solution'' to keep just everyone happy

[DAP 619]

Common sense dictates that the owners of the rights must dictate its use within the law.

But there is no law, which regulate this question and set any limits :) Never-ending circle? Of course we can use "analogy of law", or "spirit of law", but it can cause more problems than solutions.

Edited August 28, 2011 by DAP

[craig.turner 10]

I would suggest the Creative Commons Licence is not just a "silly" set of rules as was mentioned earlier:

PR indeed has one of these licences too:

http://www.realitymod.com/licensing.html

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/

No Derivative Works — You may not alter, transform, or build upon this work.

Legal Licence for those that wish to read:

http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/legalcode

Who else uses Creative Commons Licences?

Al Jazeera

Flickr

Google

WikiPedia

whitehouse.gov

To name a few ??

.

[HR4 Elite 10]

You should have seen some threads in the past!

Oh dear…

But I don't think that because some people disagree on some things that it's not a community anymore.

"A community that isn’t a community…."

View it as a rhetorical question..

For the most part I see this particular discussion as a step forward.

Step forward ‘no’.. Step back ‘yes’..

You have just said it, if this question is forever argued then forward movement is impossible.

Humankind has argued about this and that for ever, until a settlement or consensus is arrived at then arguments and indeed mud slinging just goes around in circles, a step forward, well ...

Argue amongst yourselves, I’m a definite out on this, mainly because I am not a mod maker. The right to protect your creation is without doubt a very important right, instigating that right however is very hard and sometimes almost impossible….good luck..

[katipo66 94]

Maybe PR Arma2 needs a new community away from this crap, I get the feeling any thread that will ever be started on this forum about PRA2 will be hijacked and hated on by the same.... important people.

[dm 9]

hated on by the same.... self-important people.

I fixed that for you ;)

[HyperU2 11]

Maybe PR Arma2 needs a new community away from this crap, I get the feeling any thread that will ever be started on this forum about PRA2 will be hijacked and hated on by the same.... important people.

They seem to have their own community where no one can agree on anything.

[dmarkwick 261]

They seem to have their own community where no one can agree on anything.

Except the people who actually do the stuff :)

In the final analysis, our bickering changes nothing as far as PR goes, so it's all just.... bickering :)

[max power 21]

But there is no law, which regulate this question and set any limits :) Never-ending circle? Of course we can use "analogy of law", or "spirit of law", but it can cause more problems than solutions.

What question and what limits?

If you are talking about limiting an authors' ability to dictate how their product is used, there are specific laws about that. Common sense dictates that when you enter a contract, you do what you bloody well agree to, or you don't agree at all and choose something that better fits your expectations.

The community friendly way to respectfully disagree would be to contact them and send your feedback. They will either agree or disagree.

Step forward ‘no’.. Step back ‘yes’..

You have just said it, if this question is forever argued then forward movement is impossible.

Humankind has argued about this and that for ever, until a settlement or consensus is arrived at then arguments and indeed mud slinging just goes around in circles, a step forward, well ...

I'm not sure you understand where we come from on this. This thread has some misbehaviour, mostly unrelated to the licenses discussion. Both sides have admitted some common ground and are talking openly without resorting to labels that were established as buzzwords for this discussion in years past. This is a dramatic step forward.

Edited August 29, 2011 by Max Power