Arma 3 game files and licenses

[Freghar 73]

Hello,

a simple question - are we allowed to re-use scripts from the official content (ie. Arma 3 campaigns) in our missions/mods, without having to ask Bohemia Interactive for an explicit licensing permission? If so, under what conditions?

 

Based on my findings, this is not possible - BI does provide APL(-ish) licensed sample packages, but the official content still seems to fall under EULA, which quite clearly covers modification/reuse/distribution in section 3.

The Licenses page says that

The licenses cover the publicly available game data of the Arma series and Take On Helicopters and their use by the community for their own works, as it is our best interest to allow the community to build upon our data.

however it doesn't further clarify what "publicly available" exactly means or under what license(s) the official game data are distributed.

Can you please point me to some official sources?

Thank you.

[NeoArmageddon 958]

You can use everything already in A3 for stuff in A3.

The licensed data packages are especially for content from older games allowing us to port them to newer games (see CUP for example).

 

Here is the modding license: https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_3_Modding_License

[Freghar 73]

You can use everything already in A3 for stuff in A3.

Do you please have any source to back it up? .. Because this would allow me to ie. re-release the official campaign (or anything that comes with Apex) for free under APL, which doesn't seem like something that should be possible.

[NeoArmageddon 958]

Do you please have any source to back it up? .. Because this would allow me to ie. re-release the official campaign (or anything that comes with Apex) for free under APL, which doesn't seem like something that should be possible.

 

Why not? We do stuff like that since more than 15 years. And an modified campaign file is not a modification if the original program as per EULA. You are mixing the terms "modding" and "derivative works" here.

You obviously are not allowed to modify the campaign, pack it together with the game and distribute it as "ArmA3 better campaign edition". THAT would be a modification of the program.

 

Even if modification of game content that is not released in the sample package wouldn't be allowed by BI, it would be a stupid move from them to take actions against it. That would kill of the whole modding community and make their "sandbox platform" useless ;)

 

Source: 15 years of modding this game.

[Jackal326 1182]

Do you please have any source to back it up? .. Because this would allow me to ie. re-release the official campaign (or anything that comes with Apex) for free under APL, which doesn't seem like something that should be possible.

They'll most likely be packed in EBO (encrypted PBOs) so I doubt you'll manage that, however I get where you're coming from.

If we weren't allowed to re-use code from ArmA3's main files 90% of addons wouldn't exist due to many of them using code/source material copied directly from the main game's files and then edited to fit the new purpose.

As long as you're not reverse engineering p3d files or some crazy shit like that I think you're ok.

[Freghar 73]

Why not? We do stuff like that since more than 15 years. And an modified campaign file is not a modification if the original program as per EULA. You are mixing the terms "modding" and "derivative works" here.

You obviously are not allowed to modify the campaign, pack it together with the game and distribute it as "ArmA3 better campaign edition". THAT would be a modification of the program.

Sure, but where to draw the line? A jury would draw one for sure, but it would be useful to know roughly where it is before a legal action is taken.

For example - can I re-use the Zeus (MP) Training mission scripts for my own training mission, which would be essentially a copy of the old one with changed location and some extra scripts on top? Why? How is this different from adding a few "hints" to the campaign and releasing it as a "better campaign edition"?

The copyright around the world generally doesn't allow modification/re-distribution unless the license allows it, even as far as derivative works go ("fair use" is a US-only thing and even that covers very little of derivation).

[NeoArmageddon 958]

For example - can I re-use the Zeus (MP) Training mission scripts for my own training mission, which would be essentially a copy of the old one with changed location and some extra scripts on top? Why? How is this different from adding a few "hints" to the campaign and releasing it as a "better campaign edition"?

 

Both possible without problems. There is no difference. You are just not allowed to redistributed a modified game (maybe my example was not clear enough).

The game engine allows reuse of implemented assets by design. It is a modding sandbox.

 

 

The copyright around the world generally doesn't allow modification/re-distribution unless the license allows it, even as far as derivative works go ("fair use" is a US-only thing and even that covers very little of derivation).

 

 

You are mixing modding and redistribution again. Sure, BI has the copyright on all the stuff, but modding is considered part of the usage of the game for what you have been given a license thorugh the EULA.

Unless you don't reverse engineer something or distribute it on another platform than it was originally in (ArmA3) are are perfectly fine and neither BI nor any lawyer would try to deny it.

 

BI even gave price money to people reusing their assets (see Bornholm terrain and the ManW-contest missions for example). Even if it was against EULA/license, at this point you could consider it common law.

[Freghar 73]

Both possible without problems. There is no difference. You are just not allowed to redistributed a modified game (maybe my example was not clear enough).

The game engine allows reuse of implemented assets by design. It is a modding sandbox.

However this doesn't grant you any legal power to modify the game, in fact the EULA seems to outright forbid it,

 

Any use, reproduction or redistribution of the Program not in accordance with the terms of the License is expressly prohibited.

...

As a Subject to the Grant of License herein above, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, duplicate, reproduce, translate, reverse-engineer, modify, disassemble, decompile, derive source code, create derivative works based on the Program, remove any proprietary notices or labels from the Program or otherwise modify the Program without the prior written consent of the Licensor.

The fact that BI chooses not to exercise its rights doesn't make the action itself legal. Not matter how many decades it's being going on.

 

You are mixing modding and redistribution again.

What is the difference again? Where does modding end and redistribution begin? The EULA doesn't allow either and as far as I know (hence this topic), the files were not released under APL or any other license.

 

Sure, BI has the copyright on all the stuff, but modding is considered part of the usage of the game for what you have been given a license thorugh the EULA.

I guess I just don't see it in the EULA. It says "You are entitled to use the Program for your own use", but again - would modding be considered "use"? I guess it could be, but it's a gray area at best (especially considering taking scripts from the campaign, "copying parts of the Program").

 

Unless you don't reverse engineer something or distribute it on another platform than it was originally in (ArmA3) are are perfectly fine and neither BI nor any lawyer would try to deny it.

BI even gave price money to people reusing their assets (see Bornholm terrain and the ManW-contest missions for example). Even if it was against EULA/license, at this point you could consider it common law.

While this could aid clarification of the "use" clause, it still remains too vague. Actions of the company don't substitute the license in the legal sense.

So I guess it's "just do whatever seems reasonable and hope BI won't use it against you"? (As far as I know, that's how game modding works in general.)

[NeoArmageddon 958]

Okay, so your conclusion would be: The whole community breaks the law since 15 years. No addon should has been released every (as there is nearly no addon that is not in some way tied to original, non sample engine content).

 

If you don't feel okay to mod this game, just don't. For most of us: We well modding RV engine is part of the "use"-right.

In perspective from the modding scene (in general, not only A3) your arguments and concerns are greatly exaggerated.

 

P.S. Maybe I get someone official here to clarify this for you.

[Freghar 73]

Okay, so your conclusion would be: The whole community breaks the law since 15 years. No addon should has been released every (as there is nearly no addon that is not in some way tied to original, non sample engine content).

 

If you don't feel okay to mod this game, just don't. For most of us: We well modding RV engine is part of the "use"-right.

In perspective from the modding scene (in general, not only A3) your arguments and concerns are greatly exaggerated.

 

P.S. Maybe I get someone official here to clarify this for you.

Sorry, I didn't mean to exaggerate, I've also been playing this game since initial OPFL launch and I know the general mod-friendly nature of the community, but the entire point of this topic was to see if there's any actual legal protection for modders / mission makers besides the "promise".

I never stated or wanted to state that "no addon should have been released", again - the point here was not to get "practical" answers, but legally correct answers.

From the perspective of game modding scene, it may come across as a bit harsh, but in the software development scene (and specially OSS), these things matter quite a lot and I simply wanted to know what's the case regarding Arma 3.