[Feedback requested] MSO fork for A3

[zorrobyte 30]

Feedback

Thank you for the feedback, this thread can now be closed.

Edited December 9, 2014 by zorrobyte

[friznit2 350]

In short, I think you'd get far better value for your time by building a third party module that could be plugged into the existing ALiVE framework. It's designed to be modular and has so much more powerful and flexible than MSO will ever be, however much time you spend trying to rehash it. The ALiVE module framework is available on the DH wiki for reference. By all means take the concept from an old MSO module you especially liked, build it to fit in the ALiVE framework and we'll happily work with you.

In a bit more detail: I've not look in detail at any of your work on re-releases and script updates so far but despite the somewhat bizarre need to reopen old wounds yet again, in all honesty I don't see the point of a fork given that we've taken all the lessons from MSO (both good and bad) and built them into ALiVE. Personally I think it'd be a massive waste of your effort to spend any time trying to rehash MSO for ArmA3. Incidentally, if you really want to get into legalities, the terms of the license do indeed make it legally permissible to modify MSO scripts (they're free, non-commercial third party scripts for a computer game after all), but 90% of those scripts were attributable to third party modders and so in the spirit of ArmA modding it would be the decent thing to ask every author for permission to modify them, as we did when we used them in MSO. Anyway, there's absolutely nothing stopping you using MSO 'as is' to create missions, since that is after all it's purpose, but I really don't see the point.

[tupolov 520]

As we (the original MSO dev team) have clearly stated before. Regardless of the license, the authors of MSO request that you do not port this to A3.

It is widely accepted within the community, that if an author(s) requests that their work not be ported, then community members should respect that wish.

The license was placed there to allow people to customize the code for their own missions for Arma 2 and contribute back. If you feel that gives you the right to ignore our request, then I guess that says something about you.

We hope that the community respects our request in this regard and supports our efforts with ALiVE.

Zorro, I personally hope you see the "light" :) and find the motivation to either start your own mod/scripts or contribute to another mod effort, rather than porting other authors work.

[zorrobyte 30]

In short, I think you'd get far better value for your time by building a third party module that could be plugged into the existing ALiVE framework. It's designed to be modular and has so much more powerful and flexible than MSO will ever be, however much time you spend trying to rehash it. The ALiVE module framework is available on the DH wiki for reference. By all means take the concept from an old MSO module you especially liked, build it to fit in the ALiVE framework and we'll happily work with you.

That sounds optimal and I would love to work with the team again in some capacity if possible however I previously thought such was not allowed:

Can I create my own pbo that changes the way ALiVE works, such as replacing functions or features to work with my own addons?

No, users and the community do not have permission to edit, change, replace ALiVE content through the use of new addons. Clearly any changes required with ALiVE should be submitted to the dev team for inclusion in the official ALiVE build for all to enjoy.

- http://alivemod.com/

Possibly I am misreading this or do not understand. When you say 3rd party module, is it allowed to hook into the existing ALiVE functions? Is it that core ALiVE functionality cannot be modified but as additive to is allowed? Is such 3rd party modules allowed to be released under a different license than ALiVE if they hook into existing functions or does it need to be standalone? Is such a module allowed to be compiled as a addon PBO or must it remain mission script only? How is attribution handled if such 3rd party module is integrated into ALiVE?

In a bit more detail: I've not look in detail at any of your work on re-releases and script updates so far but despite the somewhat bizarre need to reopen old wounds yet again, in all honesty I don't see the point of a fork given that we've taken all the lessons from MSO (both good and bad) and built them into ALiVE. Personally I think it'd be a massive waste of your effort to spend any time trying to rehash MSO for ArmA3. Incidentally, if you really want to get into legalities, the terms of the license do indeed make it legally permissible to modify MSO scripts (they're free, non-commercial third party scripts for a computer game after all), but 90% of those scripts were attributable to third party modders and so in the spirit of ArmA modding it would be the decent thing to ask every author for permission to modify them, as we did when we used them in MSO. Anyway, there's absolutely nothing stopping you using MSO 'as is' to create missions, since that is after all it's purpose, but I really don't see the point.

When put into that perspective it makes sense. I'm new to the whole morality of software dev and previously I've managed to piss some people off. Maybe it was due to lack of communication or just my inexperience but it isn't something that I wish to continue doing. To be fair, I have yet to download/use ALiVE once so ever and maybe it's time to check it out.

As we (the original MSO dev team) have clearly stated before. Regardless of the license, the authors of MSO request that you do not port this to A3.

It is widely accepted within the community, that if an author(s) requests that their work not be ported, then community members should respect that wish.

The license was placed there to allow people to customize the code for their own missions for Arma 2 and contribute back. If you feel that gives you the right to ignore our request, then I guess that says something about you.

We hope that the community respects our request in this regard and supports our efforts with ALiVE.

Zorro, I personally hope you see the "light" and find the motivation to either start your own mod/scripts or contribute to another mod effort, rather than porting other authors work.

I do not wish to strip any effort or community involvement of ALiVE, while MSO's licence isn't perfect as to account for all eventualities - there are growing pains associated with every project. This is the very reason why I posted first to gain feedback and alignment before continuing and to also help gain closure of previous events. If I could go back, I'd ask for more direct communication and feedback regarding DWS as it seems if feelings stewed. Maybe my own fault for not knowing the social norms of the community and it was assumed I should know better. Regardless, it's been over for some time and I need to get over it.

Off to make my own CooP mission framework, thank you for the motivation and while it's your project - I'm rather sad to see ALiVE being closed source.

Edited December 8, 2014 by zorrobyte

[friznit2 350]

You really should try ALiVE if you've not done so already. It's a massive step change from anything MSO could ever hope to achieve.

As far as third party contribs go, I wrote some Terms of Reference to clarify for people who were interested in getting involved: http://dev.withsix.com/projects/alive/wiki/Terms_of_Reference. The reason we "license" the code is only to maintain governance and a modicum of control. It's a big enough beast as it is for a volunteer coding team and trying to support multiple forks is a nightmare for which we simply don't have the time or resources to commit. That said, we're absolutely open to fresh ideas and have built the system from the ground up to be modular so you don't need to (and shouldn't need to) modify existing code libs in order to create new modules.

[zorrobyte 30]

You really should try ALiVE if you've not done so already. It's a massive step change from anything MSO could ever hope to achieve.

As far as third party contribs go, I wrote some Terms of Reference to clarify for people who were interested in getting involved: http://dev.withsix.com/projects/alive/wiki/Terms_of_Reference. The reason we "license" the code is only to maintain governance and a modicum of control. It's a big enough beast as it is for a volunteer coding team and trying to support multiple forks is a nightmare for which we simply don't have the time or resources to commit. That said, we're absolutely open to fresh ideas and have built the system from the ground up to be modular so you don't need to (and shouldn't need to) modify existing code libs in order to create new modules.

Would you guys be willing to eventually release ALiVE's internal function library at some point? I've heard of a mystical function library file somewhere that documents all ALiVE functions and such would be grand for 3rd party module dev.

As for the OPCOM module, highhead shared early dev work some time ago of a derivative of HETMAN artifical leader (SYS_HAC). Has work to further development of Rydygier's work been shared back with him for improvement of the source work? I can understand wanting to maintain project governance but fear of a black hole that work may be sucked into with improvements not being able to be used by original author - how does that work with ALiVE? As HETMAN is APL-SA, are there any plans to release the derivative work or has exclusive permission been given?

Edited December 8, 2014 by zorrobyte

[tupolov 520]

Zorro,

We dropped working with HETMAN sometime ago. We did ask Ryd if he was interested in contributing but although he was very interested, he wanted to work on some of his own projects.

OPCOM is built from the ground up and integrated heavily with our new map/clusters analysis modules as well as the profile system.

Cheers

Tup

[zorrobyte 30]

Thanks Tup. As HETMAN is APL-SA would the team be willing to pull the module to share the source under the original license up to the point development ceased of the module for community consumption? I'd be interested in backporting improvements back to HETMAN with Rydygier's permission. I still have the archive from highhead from long ago if you don't want to spend the time.

[tupolov 520]

HETMAN is not related to ALiVE at all. As I stated we stopped working with HETMAN some time ago and SYS_HAC is not part of ALiVE. If you are talking about an old MSO build, do what you wish.

[zorrobyte 30]

I was speaking about this and I doubt you mean ALiVE back when it was under APACHE until the license was changed Nov 2013 (right before/after MANW).

Edited December 8, 2014 by zorrobyte

[arjay 7]

It seems like you are trying to dig something up here.. The guys have stated numerous times they are not comfortable with you porting MSO to A3, you can refer to licences and legalities all you want, but you know what the MSO team feels about it as this has been discussed privately in detail. If you are trying to drum up support for the community to make yourself feel better about going against the wishes of the devs, thats your own decision.

ALiVE has a function library that is used internally, and we are planning to document this prior to ALiVE 1.0 being released, it mainly deals with working with ALiVE modules, and is not possible to be released individually.

[tupolov 520]

Zorrobyte,

Not sure how SYS_HAC is related to porting MSO? The answer is still no :)

With regards to SYS_HAC, it was something that was under consideration with Ryd, we dropped it sometime ago and has never been released as part of ALiVE. We offered to work with Ryd around any improvements, but seeing as SYS_HAC never made it to the public domain it remained a private affair. If you want to use/backport/copy/rip/bastardize/open source any part of SYS_HAC I would take that up with the author. I suspect he will say no though.

We released ALiVE under its current license (and never under APACHE) because of our experience with people like you. We don't appreciate people bastardizing our work. It was not related to MANW, in fact no one had any knowledge of MANW at the time. We didn't even enter into MANW until September 2014 lol.

As I stated previously you are not welcome to port MSO to A3. Good luck with your own COOP mission framework!

[kklownboy 43]

make your own, looter.

[hazey 9]

The Arma community in a whole is very 'tight' I would honestly suggest just starting something from scratch. Come up with something original. As someone who has also contributed some to MSO, I personally wish for my work to sleep silently in Arma 2. I have learned a lot since than, new game; new start.

Just my two cents, good luck with what ever you choose to do.

[zorrobyte 30]

We released ALiVE under its current license (and never under APACHE) because of our experience with people like you. We don't appreciate people bastardizing our work. It was not related to MANW, in fact no one had any knowledge of MANW at the time. We didn't even enter into MANW until September 2014 lol.

https://i.imgur.com/kaBIgYk.png (303 kB)

lol.

I'm happy you guys got your stuff sorted out to prevent "people like me" using the work as allowed under the project's license.

We don't appreciate people bastardizing our work.

Then be absolutely clear from the get go instead of being hurt that some "noob's mission" enjoyed mild popularity at one time.

make your own, looter.

And comments such as this is why I'm starting to not care about the Arma community.

[Kerc Kasha 102]

The attitude in this thread is absolutely toxic

[arjay 7]

https://i.imgur.com/kaBIgYk.png (303 kB)

lol.

I'm happy you guys got your stuff sorted out to prevent "people like me" using the work as allowed under the project's license.

https://i.imgur.com/EuACQ2d.png

Then be absolutely clear from the get go instead of being hurt that some "noob's mission" enjoyed mild popularity at one time.

And comments such as this is why I'm starting to not care about the Arma community.

Your image there shows our change in licence - PRIOR TO RELEASE - ALiVE was officially released at the start of the ALiVE release thread, which is December 1 2013.

We switched licences at that time because you had already asked at that point about forking ALiVE, when it wasn't even released yet...

Honestly I don't know what point you are trying to make, we didn't switch licences for the MANW competition, as Tup said we switched licenses to protect ourselves.

This whole thread is clear bait towards the MSO devs, you want to release MSO for ARMA 3, and you know that the devs are not happy with that. You have asked to do this multiple times and now framing the issue as some sort of fight of the common man of open source software versus evil money hungry competition inspired modders is a low attempt to absolve yourself of the MSO dev teams wishes.

Edited December 9, 2014 by ARJay

[zorrobyte 30]

We switched licences at that time because you had already asked at that point about forking ALiVE, when it wasn't even released yet...

Can't say that I had any wishes or desire to "fork" ALiVE, I knew nothing about the project. I do remember asking if I could join the dev team or be a closed tester before SHTF.

This whole thread is clear bait towards the MSO devs, you want to release MSO for ARMA 3, and you know that the devs are not happy with that. You have asked to do this multiple times and now framing the issue as some sort of fight of the common man of open source software versus evil money hungry competition inspired modders is a low attempt to absolve yourself of the MSO dev teams wishes.

I don't need to absolve myself of anything and it isn't about needing permission from a legal standpoint.

ALiVE is closed software - I would never touch or ask permission to do anything with it so rest assured.

The point was to gauge just how much tension would be generated and that much is clear, from a social/community aspect a fork of MSO would be more detrimental than provide benefit. Thank you for the feedback.

[cifordayzserver 119]

The Arma Community isn't populated by lawyers, copyright authors, license experts... historically, that wasn't a problem. It made for a very nice environment where very few reasonable requests that were communicated clearly were denied. Often times, when they were denied, it was for legitimate internal reasons of one team member or another; OR because the request was an obvious attempt at doing as little original work as possible.

The beauty of Arma is, people can say no, and you can STILL make something near identical, or even superior, just from having seen their mod in action. The problem here seems to be, you don't want to actually do that work.

No addon author should ever be exploited, or have their wishes trampled on, due solely to a legal loophole that you PERCEIVE to be there.

The truth is, a good lawyer would rip you apart in court on one ground or another... they are the copyright holders PERIOD... if they object to your work they can pursue you legally regardless of their license.

The fact that you would even want to push a fellow community author to that point is pretty low and obnoxious.

I think you'll find that YOUR desire to participate in the Arma community is of VERY little concern to the actual community if you have an attitude like this. So you might want to take a step back from the keyboard, take a nice walk, and re-evaluate how you treat people in a community you want to be a part of.

[zorrobyte 30]

The Arma Community isn't populated by lawyers, copyright authors, license experts... historically, that wasn't a problem. It made for a very nice environment where very few reasonable requests that were communicated clearly were denied. Often times, when they were denied, it was for legitimate internal reasons of one team member or another; OR because the request was an obvious attempt at doing as little original work as possible.

The beauty of Arma is, people can say no, and you can STILL make something near identical, or even superior, just from having seen their mod in action. The problem here seems to be, you don't want to actually do that work.

No addon author should ever be exploited, or have their wishes trampled on, due solely to a legal loophole that you PERCEIVE to be there.

The truth is, a good lawyer would rip you apart in court on one ground or another... they are the copyright holders PERIOD... if they object to your work they can pursue you legally regardless of their license.

The fact that you would even want to push a fellow community author to that point is pretty low and obnoxious.

I think you'll find that YOUR desire to participate in the Arma community is of VERY little concern to the actual community if you have an attitude like this. So you might want to take a step back from the keyboard, take a nice walk, and re-evaluate how you treat people in a community you want to be a part of.

Fair enough, you make good points. This thread was to gain introspection with help from the community and learn how to set my moral compass to exist peacefully within. I have no problem doing my own work and honestly it would be much easier to start from scratch for my project goals. MSO was my "little kid superhero" to me when I first got started with Arma, it captivated me and kept me motivated to learn about scripting. It was absolutely crushing to be ousted from the MSO team and threatened, some of that anger came out this evening and I left Arma for about a year due to it. It's time to move on and if a glimmer of dignity remains, it's that I asked before I leaped.

Edited December 9, 2014 by zorrobyte

[R0adki11 3949]

Fair enough, you make good points. This thread was to gain introspection with help from the community and learn how to set my moral compass to exist peacefully within. I have no problem doing my own work and honestly it would be much easier to start from scratch for my project goals. MSO was my "little kid superhero" to me when I first got started with Arma, it captivated me and kept me motivated to learn about scripting. It was absolutely crushing to be ousted from the MSO team and threatened, some of that anger came out this evening and I left Arma for about a year due to it. It's time to move on and if a glimmer of dignity remains, it's that I asked before I leaped.

Closing - you now have your answer. For future reference you may want to check this forum rule:

§19) Posting addon/mod other content without permission

For many years this community has been known as the premium addon/mod creating community, people work tirelessly and in great detail to create fantastic addons/mods/missions/campaigns to release for free so that everyone benefits, including Bohemia Interactive. There are a few simple rules in place to provide the respect to these creative people/groups that they deserve:

The first and most fundamental rule is that you must seek permission to alter someone's work, to mirror it or use it in any way other than for personal use. No permission, no editing, no mirroring, no adding to your mod pack, no editing and sharing around your private squad, none of that is acceptable.

Obviously we cannot unfortunately control what people do outside of these forums, however on these forums you must follow this rule, if a person/team post a thread to share an addon/mod using content from someone else without permission and we receive a complaint then the mod thread will be closed until the issue is resolved and the forum member(s) risks being permanently banned from these forums for taking someone's work without permission.

This isn't just limited to re-using content in addons/mods/missions however, it's not acceptable to edit someone's work without permission and then to post screenshots of it on the forums (even if the edited addon/mod is purely for personal use), it's also not acceptable to edit someone's work, or use someone's work in any way that you don't have permission for and then to create videos which you post on these forums, doing any of the above without the permission of the original creators risks a permanent ban, for individuals, for whole mod teams or squads.