Licensing issues with porting GL4 to A3

[rksl-rock 1301]

Nope. Don't know how that post could be viewed in such a way to be honest.

Given, your past attempt at veiled references it seems pretty clear. But we digress...

[Dwarden 1125]

RKSL-Rock the point is that this isn't about your models and your IP ... maybe you don't know it but in some GL was even my code ...

this isn't case of sole man project, with strict license and clear ownership and authorship outlined ...

[bravo93 37]

But we digress...

you started it ;) but indeed we digress, I can't think of much else to say other than I support Zorrobyte's proposal.

[rksl-rock 1301]

RKSL-Rock the point is that this isn't about your models and your IP ... maybe you don't know it but in some GL was even my code ...

this isn't case of sole man project, with strict license and clear ownership and authorship outlined ...

Actually i didn't know you had any input into it. I wasn’t actually referring to my models or IP I was talking about the principle. And the apparent endorsement of Bohemia Interactive in the releasing of someone's effort into the community as open source. I'm concerned about the precedent you have now set. You weren’t' clear about your involvement nor were any of the other contributors posting. You were as a BI developer giving consent to port someone's work without explanation.

you started it :) but indeed we digress, I can't think of much else to say other than I support Zorrobyte's proposal.

Started what?

Well i still disagree. Situation normal.

Edited March 31, 2014 by RKSL-Rock

[Dwarden 1125]

i didn't set any precedent, there were many re-releases of abandonware script code this way, with full, partial or none consent for code where wasn't any license preventing such outcome ...

or shall i start digging last 12y of this forums just to back it?

[rksl-rock 1301]

i didn't set any precedent, there were many re-releases of abandonware script code this way, with full, partial or none consent for code where wasn't any license preventing such outcome ...

or shall i start digging last 12y of this forums just to back it?

Its your declaration of abandonware that I disagree with.

Again you seem to be assuming that since there is no license attached to the file that you have the right to declare is "abandoned" and its all up for grabs. The "artist's/Coder's/Creator's" rights are implied under law. Something that i was under the impression BIS had always respected. Marek's and Placebo's previous statment over the last 10-12 years seem to reinforce that impression.

Now we have a "BI Dev" saying its OK to Port old content. That is precedent.

As is the huge number of threads that have been removed due to violations of the Community rules about using content from other people's work over the same period. I just can't reconcile the two situations. But since you are that "BI Dev" declaring it to be OK, then any other voice is just ignored.

[zorrobyte 30]

Actually i didn't know you had any input into it. I wasn’t actually referring to my models or IP I was talking about the principle. And the apparent endorsement of Bohemia Interactive in the releasing of someone's effort into the community as open source. I'm concerned about the precedent you have now set. You weren’t' clear about your involvement nor were any of the other contributors posting. You were as a BI developer giving consent to port someone's work without explanation.

It sounds like we should do some work into coming up with a licence for abandoned projects, a "good faith" licence which sets some moral pointers including a clause in which if an author came back, the mod "maintainer" would relinquish all repos/releases back to the author in which they may do with the code as they see fit including changing the licence.

IP rights are important, I'd never rerelease a work that was intended for profit. However in situations such as if the works were not released for profit (nor legally could be, see BIS's license) and for entertainment purposes only; I fail to see where anyone benefits from a closed source model or at the least assuming closed source for those works which do not have a defined license in situations in not only the dev has fell off the earth for years (or could have perished unfortunately) and the work was a derivative of someone else's work to begin with.

With that being said, my opinions are my own. I respect other author's works even if for noncommercial use. Back when I was doing DWS, I used MSO as a framework, it was under an Apache Licence and I followed the licence, not to mention I was a dev on the project and spent time porting MSO to A3. However a nasty series of miscommunications occurred in which threats were made by a dev on the team that not only appalled me but were insulting. Even though I was following the licence in which the authors set and still have a right to for as long as the licence remains on their project, I instead killed DWS, a then popular game mode which harmed the community. Simply put, no reason to question my motives; I could care less if my username was in GL5 at all and I'm tempted to change the "author" to the "Arma community".

My personal non-professional opinion? If any addon maker wants to stifle innovation and probit the personal growth and enjoyment of others with their work then so be it, it's your choice and the community should either agree with your licence or choose not to use it; instead of bickering, nothing is worse. Sure, there are some valid reasons for limiting derivatives, no one wants to spend time chasing down bugs from some other person's poor modification. But in the spirit of Arma and community, why not be open source? If I got hit by a bus tomorrow, I'd much rather have my work carry on (as we all die someday) and to make the irreplaceable hours I spent for the enjoyment of others to mean something after I'm gone; not for it to die with me.

[kremator 1065]

Well said Zorrobyte. Please don't snuff it ;)

[zorrobyte 30]

Here's the kicker in my opinion...

...If you have to ask anyone if you are doing the "right thing" you probably aren't.

Let's assume this worldview for a moment for the sake of discussion. I felt as if I was in good faith (and still do) by porting GL4 to A3 ie "doing the right thing". By your own framework, I should've simply released the project under any licence as I saw fit with absolutely no interaction from the community. It's not that one wishes to do wrong, it's the fact that people assume they are doing "the right thing" and have twisted worldviews.

Just because you assume you are "doing the right thing" doesn't mean you shouldn't get feedback from those involved, in this case the community. I prefer to not be self assertive, you are free to be so if you wish and do what "you think is best" with no input from anyone if you so desire. I have simply accepted the fact that I am not infallible, something you should look into if you wish to have success with interpersonal relationships or choose not to; no one should tell you how to feel or what to think.

I'm quite done on the topic period. I plan to continue working on GL5 and if SNKMAN wishes to come back and take ownership so be it. If he wishes to file a sophena, so be it; I take responsibilities for my actions. Until that time, I must assume people are most generally good and that he would prefer his work live on and provide enjoyment to others.

And if the BI dev hadnt "officially" authorised the port? Thats another problem I have. Infact its one of the same issues 2-3 years ago when Dwarden was trying to give away other people's rights then too.

I would of released it anyway as the community as a whole supported the decision, instead of catering to the few who not agree. BI has not authorized anything and I feel as if Dwarden as a contributor to the code of GL that he is allowed to have a personal opinion that is not on behalf of BIS.

---------- Post added at 11:05 PM ---------- Previous post was at 10:30 PM ----------

Addons makers don’t get cash they get credit! Support them!

"Author" changed to suit the true "creators" of this port:

The majority of the Arma community, repository and partial legal liability maintained by Zorrobyte - Armed Assault 3 Group Link 5 Core for Arma 3

Edited March 31, 2014 by zorrobyte

[bravo93 37]

It's actually a really sketchy area. I think you've got to judge every case on an individual basis. Like Dwarden's said he has work in this mod...that means he could technically say "I no longer want my work in this mod" which would assumingly mean the whole mod should get taken off armaholic, SixUpdater etc? and the only people who are allowed to remove dwardens work i.e. edit the mod would be Dwarden I assume? So now with Dwardens work removed, Dwarden saying he no longer wants to be associated with the mod and the original mod makers inactive for years, would that effectively mean nobody could re-upload the mod as the other contributors who've been inactive for years didn't know the mod had been updated and redistributed? Also I'm pretty sure you'd have to fiddle with some of their work in order for the updated mod to work ;)

The mind is officially boggled.

The point is if the above statement is correct there'd technically be loads of issues. However we're all human beings here and at the end of the day we should be able to use our initiative on things like this. So if someone's not been active for 7 years then chances are he's not going to come back. Obviously according to the rule book stealing is stealing but in reality it's completely different.

Edited March 31, 2014 by Bravo93

[Dwarden 1125]

RKSL-Rock but you comparing incomparable, nobody is approving 'takeover of someones protected work' ...

which is what you trying to claim it happened...

i starting to get feeling laterly some members of community are trying to find reasons to just argue about something

[roshnak 41]

Now we have a "BI Dev" saying its OK to Port old content. That is precedent..

The thing is, it's been a precedent in numerous modding commmunities for as long as I can remember. If you exhaust all reasonable options in tracking down the author of a mod, give proper credit, and the mod author hasn't in the past made any indication that he or she would be against continued development/use of the mod by others, then it's generally considered okay to use that content. Everyone is acting in good faith here.

I understand that you are very protective of your work, and release your stuff under a very strict license, and you have every right to do that. I'm sure no one would try to use your work in the event that you disappeared from the Arma community, because you've made it abundantly clear that you don't want anyone to do so. That's not the case with the GL series of mods, which have been developed and maintained by numerous authors over the course of it's four previous releases.

[XMDM 1]

This isn't worth fighting over...if you don't like it...don't download it.

Edited April 1, 2014 by XMDM

[chrisb 196]

I would imagine most mod/addon makers rely on a EULA, plus whatever they put in the 'Readme' supplied with the content they have made available:

http://i62.tinypic.com/2646n38.jpg

The problem is the breaking of that EULA and ignoring of the words written there in the readme, thats the issue.

May seem trivial, but really its a pretty bold statement for someone attached to a game developer to choose to ignore a EULA (even for free content), do you not think so ?

Also, does it not make you think it may put others off releasing free content, when an EULA is ignored, specifically here by someone associated with Bohemia a game developer that uses EULA's itself ?

Do EULA's have a time line i.e. do they run out, I thought they were for the lifetime of the content ?

I don't use GL4 anymore, but I did use it in A3 for the first few months, but to release it (port it) is another thing altogether.

Its certainly being discussed about elsewhere.

I'm not being unfriendly about it, just following on from what was said last year regards content, especially by BI. We all want great content and GL4 is quality stuff, thats for sure, but its protected, well was, who knows..:rolleyes:

Its done now anyway, sad but there you go..:(

[colinm9991 20]

As much as I'd like to see an AI enhancement for ArmA 3, I must agree with ChrisB & RKSL-Rock.

The fact is that the EULA stated "It's not allowed to use any codes, scripts and/or model of Group Link 4 without permission of the author(s)" and so far it seems there is only tangible permission from KeyCat which means zorrobyte must go back to Group Link 2 and port that on to ArmA 3 instead.

[roshnak 41]

The problem is the breaking of that EULA and ignoring of the words written there in the readme, thats the issue.

It's a vaguely worded statement, that zorrobyte has technically complied with. He's gotten permission from one of the primary authors -- potentially two of the authors, since Dwarden apparently also contributed to the project. He's also done everything within his power to contact SNKMAN and give him a chance to decline permission.

FULL CREDIT is being given to the original authors. No one is being harmed economically and no one is claiming credit for work that isn't his or her own.

Frankly, I don't understand what the problem is here. He's followed the steps commonly seen as necessary by most modding communities to use the work. I'm pretty sure this is only a problem because a few individuals are afraid that it will create some kind of slipperly slope situation and their addons will start to be stolen wholeale (it won't).

The fact is that the EULA stated "It's not allowed to use any codes, scripts and/or model of Group Link 4 without permission of the author(s)" and so far it seems there is only tangible permission from KeyCat which means zorrobyte must go back to Group Link 2 and port that on to ArmA 3 instead.

You claim that the only tangible permission comes from KeyCat (one of the original authors); it's just as easy to make the assertion that the only people who have voiced any concern whatsoever are people who had nothing to do with Group Link in the first place, while someone who has contributed a substantial amount to the project has given the go ahead.

[zorrobyte 30]

It's not allowed to use any codes, scripts and/or model of Group Link 4 without permission of the author(s)"

Technically anyone who has ever downloaded and used GL4 by this ELUA should be held accountable as I doubt they have sought explicit permission from every author before putting @GL4 in their modline.

Additionally KeyCat has since stated HERE

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?175475-Group-Link-5-Core-(AI-Enhancement)&p=2657796&viewfull=1#post2657796

That Group Link 2 was to be open and SNKMAN did not have permission to close source his GL ports in the first place.

Mods, please close this thread.

Edited April 1, 2014 by zorrobyte