Who is the rightful owner of the content created by myself?

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

Hi everyone,

I just had a discussion about licensing and ownership of content created using SQF. Now, we were pretty soon clear about licensing as there's a global thread about it.

But we were not clear about who actually owns the code. Is the creator the rightful owner of that code or is Bohemia Interactive or an affiliated company the owner. If last was the case, where can I read that up?

Kind regards,

Johnny

[nuxil 2]

You are the owner of the code you make. all copyright/ip is yours.

Though you do not have the ownership of the sqf language.

http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?184772-Legal-violations-by-A3L-Arma-3-life&p=2812699&viewfull=1#post2812699

They will own the copyright on the script and if they use the tools to create their own texture then they will own the copyright of the texture.

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

Yeah, that's what I thought. Just today, I spoke to my professor of IT contract law (business related study paths have to take this class at my university). He said, languages cannot be copyrighted as they are only an idea and ideas and principles cannot be copyrighted, so SQF. The interpreter/compiler though can be copyrighted.

That means, not only is all code and every script you create your own IP (intellectual property), you can even create your own compiler for the SQF syntax and use it for your own purposes. BI could not sue you for doing this since you did not use any copyrighted content for that.

Edited November 27, 2014 by Heeeere's Johnny!

[nuxil 2]

you can even create your own compiler for the SQF syntax and use it for your own purposes. BI could not sue you for doing this since you did not use any copyrighted content for that.

Carefull now.

If some part of the language api is patented and you try to make your own implemntation by reverse engineer it or in other ways.

Then you might break some copyright/license and get into trouble.

Just look at the google VS oracle java dispute.

In the case of google vs oracle, oracle won after a appeal. but google filed a cross appeal so i belive this is still a ongoing case.

google is now basing their case on "fair use".

But as i said. Carefull, such claims of yours might not be true in US.

Now in EU its another story.

The europe's top court has desided that the functionality of a computer program and the programming language it is written in cannot be protected by copyright.

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

Carefull now.

If some part of the language api is patented and you try to make your own implemntation by reverse engineer it or in other ways.

Then you might break some copyright/license and get into trouble.

Yeah, reverse engineering is of course a totally different story, I know that and I was not talking about that. I ment your absolutely 100% own implementation of an interpreter for this syntax without snatching copyrighted content.

Now in EU its another story.

The europe's top court has desided that the functionality of a computer program and the programming language it is written in cannot be protected by copyright.

Right. And as I live in the EU, that's the law I'm basing my statements on. The US have some very strange views on certain things anyways. They're probably the only country in the world where you can patent genes. (WTF???)

[eggbeast 3684]

even though you may own something you make for arma, it may be restricted, inasmuch as if you use the tools to make it, the tools license has a condition that you can only use the content in Arma games, and you cannot use it commercially.

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

even though you may own something you make for arma, it may be restricted, inasmuch as if you use the tools to make it, the tools license has a condition that you can only use the content in Arma games, and you cannot use it commercially.

Well, I was only talking about SQF code which you can create with any editor which means that your statement does not apply for that. But I guess it applies for models and other stuff which can only be created with the respective tools.

[eggbeast 3684]

yeah correct, i was just pickin up on people mentioning the tools...

[zorrobyte 30]

How would one handle a project being clearly under an open source license for years then turn around and say, "It's not for use in Arma 3/port"? Does it come down to more of a social concern or is there still legal liability? Apache in this instance.

[maddogx 13]

How would one handle a project being clearly under an open source license for years then turn around and say, "It's not for use in Arma 3/port"? Does it come down to more of a social concern or is there still legal liability? Apache in this instance.

Purely from a legal standpoint, the license trumps everything - unless it comes with some kind of clause saying that it can be revoked for any (or no) reason, in which case the author could do that. CC licenses and the GPL explicitly say that they cannot be revoked, but I'm not sure about the Apache license. You would have to look it up. Anyway, if you have a piece of software released under an open source / free license then you are within your rights to do whatever that license permits, as long as it is still valid.

As far as this forum is concerned, the moderating team does distinguish between legal and personal issues, whereby the former trumps the latter. If you post, say, a derivative addon that clearly breaches someone's license, then the thread will be locked, links will be removed and further action (including a ban) may be taken according to the forum rules.

However, if you create a derivative of an addon/mission/script that came with a license clearly allowing you to do so, then you are legally in the clear and thus not in breach of the forum rules. If the addon maker wants you to remove your addon, it's up to you and him/her to work it out between yourselves. At that point it is indeed a social concern - you won't be punished "officially" for refusing to comply with the original author's wishes, but you might have to deal with a bunch of people who don't like you very much.

Edited December 9, 2014 by MadDogX
clarification

[tupolov 520]

With regards to porting content to A3, I would also point to the guidance provided by BIS (http://forums.bistudio.com/showthread.php?148172-Forward-porting-of-Arma-content)

We urge you to treat each other's work with respect. Please ask for permission before you take someone's mod and port it.

[Heeeere's johnny! 51]

Does "porting" also mean, porting a mod from vanilla ArmA 3 to an Addon as if you would port a Chernarus Mod (ArmA2) to Takistan (ArmA2:OA)?

[x3kj 1247]

Everytime you alter content that has a different author then yourself you definitely need permission.

Putting parts of the authors addon (or all of it - as in repacking) modified or unmodified into your addon is altering content(obviously).

I'm not entirely sure if having an addon require (as in "build upon without modifying") another authors addon counts as altering content. I dont think so but i would still ask for permission.

Edited December 12, 2014 by Fennek

[Taklit 0]

Obviously you who created it.

[Alex150201 894]

On 18/7/2017 at 9:37 PM, Taklit said:

Obviously you who created it.

Responding to long dead threads is against the rules.

 

Since you are new here please read the rules: 

 

[alijoseph 0]

Very informative thread.