Recent development...

[KTottE 0]

So you are saying that the GPL is flawed because it prevents people from closing an open product

The GPL (and other open source/free software licenses) allows anyone to freely use the product. If it's a computer application they can use that (such as an IRC-client, forum software, Operative System, mediaplayer) just as they want.

It also allows anyone to freely modify the product, making improvements or changes that they deem necessary, and then releasing this update/modification to the general public, as long as they provide the source material for the product.

If the GPL allowed people to take the contents from open/free products and include them in closed products, it would serve no purpose.

The GPL was created specifically for allowing and promoting the use of free and open products. It's entire reason for existing is to ensure that a product released under it will remain free for everyone to use.

[walker 0]

Hi all

Thought I would wade in here.

If we at the CoC build stuff we make the content available to all. We also spend time writing manuals and docs to help others understand.

We make some requirements on that though.

Use our stuff we want credit for our work.

Sell our stuff and we want a cut. (We negotiate)

Ask our permission first. We generaly give it and will even help you add it to your system and will work with you on projects that help the community ask Angus Heath.

We follow the same rules with work by others that we use. And we credit them when they inspire us too.

They are common sense rules.

For those of you who mistakenly believe pbo's encryted and binarized can not read you are wrong.

We are in favour opening all aspects of OFP programing up to the community and continue to pursue that policy because in our work we have found it to be the most productive policy.

Kind Regards Walker

[vektorboson 8]

But my point was, if they DID use your work, then your GPL license would be forcing them to leave the addon open-source, and thus would be removing their "rights" to lock the addon.

If they use my work, they agreed to my license, therefore they have to provide their work in editable format and their work is freely to use, modify and rework.

Once again: They have the right to lock their contents, but not if they use my work because they have agreed to my license.

Quote[/b] ]By removing the "right" to lock the contents, removes the right to freely use the content.

No, it doesn't, it's the opposite: You can use the content freely if you agree to my license or a GPL-like or similar license.

You are restricted in usage of the content, if the content is locked.

What my license does, is protecting my work and derivative work from being locked; I give everyone the right to freely use my work and i expect everyone who takes advantage in this right, to give everyone else the same rights.

If you lock the addon, you clearly show, that you don't want the user to open it, change it and release it. All you do, is allow him to install it and play with it in the mission editor or in missions. This is called restrictive and therefore those addons are not freely to use.

It's my right to say, that I want to see my work and derivative work free (as in freedom) and open source.

[toadlife 3]

You know, if you don't like GPL, or LGPL, you can allways use the BSD license model with an advertising clause - or you can just make up your own license.

Quote[/b] ]The Berkeley Systems Device License (BSD)

The BSD license was written by the BSD team in the Berkeley Laboratory, University of California. The various BSD operating systems are released under variations of it, as are many other programs. It comes in two versions; one deemed not to be Free by the FSF because of an advertising clause, and one deemed free due to its removal. It allows users the same rights as the GPL (use, modification and redistribution), and states that all redistributions must contain the license notice. But the crucial difference between the BSD license and the GPL is that the BSD license doesn't require programmers to release derivative works under the BSD license. So if I make a program that borrows code under the BSD license, I am free to release my program under any terms I wish. Again, this is controversial, as some claim this gives users more freedom with is a good thing, whilst others maintain that it allows people to abuse the ethic of the Free Software community by not contributing back. So for example, company X might take the source code from a word processor, work on improvements for a year, then sell that new word processor, outcompeting the open sourced original and perhaps damaging it. Whether you agree with the BSD license basically comes down to this point about the freedom of use of the code versus the good of the community. Finally, the original version has this clause in it that states that all derivative works must contain an advertisement saying that the work contains code originally written by the BSD people, which the FSF deem to be a restriction of users' freedom.

[KTottE 0]

Yes, there are a lot of different software licenses.

GPL Compatible Licenses and GPL Incompatible Licences

Note that just because the licences are incompatible with GPL does not mean that they aren't free software liences. The BSD licence is an example of one that is not compatible.

[Nagual 0]

Often addon makers have thier own updates, reskins, new versions planned to add to models. If they allow them to be edited at will, they would be screwing thier own updates up.

For example, what would BAS do is they'd released all thier addons open source and allowed editing? They wouldnt be able to release an updated pack later on would they?

This is often the main reason IMO.

That's a very good point Pathy, often way overlooked...

Ya know a funny thing about the "tonal object case", and prolly a little know fact, is that once upon a time when "the lost isle" was small and based on BIS objects only, we asked the nomad mod if their building objects could be used.

I didn't ask directly, someone in BAS who knew CAT asked, the first response was positive but in the end there was no definitive answer. So in the end Tonal objects were developed, making way more stuff than we ever expected. Developing new content for the game was a much better option than holding any bitterness over objects or whining on forums.

So did the lack of co-operation between two teams in this case stifle development? or was it counter-productive? Hehe, nup. In the end it was good for the End Users, something new. Just something to keep in mind in this discussion, that totally open source isn't always productive.

just my 2 cents.

[Guest]

I think some of the accusations, or at least slander against BAS here is unfortunate and, well, wrong. They co-operate more behind the scenes then anyone probably knows and I think it is unfair to go giving them Sh!t for a perceived public image. This from someone who doesn't mind a good arguem....I mean discussion with the BAS boys

@Nagual....there's probably a good explanation for the lack of cooperation. CAT is in college and has been awol for a long time. Plus there actually has only been one MLOD copy of his objects survive....on you-know-whose hard drive

[ebud 18]

I think some of the accusations, or at least slander against BAS here is unfortunate and, well, wrong. They co-operate more behind the scenes then anyone probably knows and I think it is unfair to go giving them Sh!t for a perceived public image. This from someone who doesn't mind a good arguem....I mean discussion with the BAS boys

@Nagual....there's probably a good explanation for the lack of cooperation. CAT is in college and has been awol for a long time. Plus there actually has only been one MLOD copy of his objects survive....on you-know-whose hard drive  

As a testment to that, a few nights ago I uploaded around 200 megs worth of Tonal p3ds and layered photoshop files for some people to begin to work on for their "mod". It was discussed ages and ages ago about when and to whom the files would go, eventually they will be available through these folks for everyone as far as I understand.

And it is correct that a lot of ideas and work get passed around outside the forum by lots of people. You just don't hear about it.

[KTottE 0]

I just think it's sad that a thread dedicated to the discussion of a serious matter (a more and more closed mentality among addon makers) turns into a slander-fest between people and mod-teams.

And, reading this thread, it's not always the peoples fault that the discussion turns from the original topic to be focused on one or more mod-teams in particular.

[shinRaiden 0]

My understanding was that another reason that BAS asked folks to hold off on Tonal was that there were possibilities (and later realities) of patches, and that folks would be doing more harm than good in propagating hordes of incompatible versions, requiring usage of every version of the tonal pbo's, and getting the whole community po'd.

I at least want to say thank you to BIS, for not putting putting such an overbearingly restrictive dev license that this discussion actually has some meaning.

[Nagual 0]

@Nagual....there's probably a good explanation for the lack of cooperation. CAT is in college and has been awol for a long time. Plus there actually has only been one MLOD copy of his objects survive....on you-know-whose hard drive  

Yeah, im sure there was, though it really doesn't matter. It wasn't a big deal then and isn't a big deal now, i was simply using that as an example to illustrate a point, nothing more.

And shinraiden, you are correct, there was/is plans to finish the tonal island/pack. I read this thread while taking a break from working on the buildings.

But over time what was once a rich source of creative inspiration has become something cheap, so it will never be finished to the level of the original vision me thinks.

[Guest]

As a testment to that, a few nights ago I uploaded around 200 megs worth of Tonal p3ds and layered photoshop files for some people to begin to work on for their "mod". It was discussed ages and ages ago about when and to whom the files would go, eventually they will be available through these folks for everyone as far as I understand.

And it is correct that a lot of ideas and work get passed around outside the forum by lots of people. You just don't hear about it.

Well yes I know. That's why I said what I said. It should all work out great I think.

[ebud 18]

As a testment to that, a few nights ago I uploaded around 200 megs worth of Tonal p3ds and layered photoshop files for some people to begin to work on for their "mod". It was discussed ages and ages ago about when and to whom the files would go, eventually they will be available through these folks for everyone as far as I understand.

And it is correct that a lot of ideas and work get passed around outside the forum by lots of people. You just don't hear about it.

Well yes I know. That's why I said what I said. It should all work out great I think.  

haha, I'm the master of the obvious

[dm 9]

It's my right to say, that I want to see my work and derivative work free (as in freedom) and open source.

My point is, why should YOU have rights, and the "end user" not?

I'm all for open source - hell I'm the guy that distributes most of the BAS open source stuff.

But, what I'm trying to say is, how can YOU expect to enforce your "rights" whilst these "rights" remove the "rights" of anyone who wishes to use your work?

As an example Mr.X wants to make a helicopter addon, he makes the models, the textures and the config, but he cant script to save his life. So he goes somewhere else to look for a good suite of helicopter-based scripts. If his ONLY option is to use your "open source enforced" scripts, and he doesnt want to leave his entirely new model and textures open to "butchery" by the millions, then he's either not going to release it, or just go w/o scripts.

This, whilst attempting to IMPROVE the quality and quantity of addons available, has just done the completly opposite thing, and prevented an addon maker from releaseing, or from releaseing a product with good quality scripting.

Something to think about, eh? Since as far as I see it, this while GPL open-source enforcing idea is to IMPROVE the overall quality of addons, I can forsee mixed consequences with some success and some failure.

[KTottE 0]

Are you listening to yourself DM?

[vektorboson 8]

My point is, why should YOU have rights, and the "end user" not?

Why should you have rights to your addons/work, and the end user not?

[dm 9]

My point is, why should YOU have rights, and the "end user" not?

Why should you have rights to your addons/work, and the end user not?

Err... because its mine, I made it, and the person who wants to use it has not spent the time or effort in developing it?

Your statement goes to show how futile the human "rights" system is.

But, I will point out that; why should someone who has not had ANY input to an addon, be it scripting, modeling, texturing automatically have "rights" bestowed on them to use it? Its not a selfish view point, but a realistic one. In the real world people aren't just given designs of a new product that has been developed, they arent given caret balnce to modify a design to their liking and then pass it off as their own.

What I'm saying, is why should person x benifit from person y's research, hard work and time?

Also, in the case of BAS, the end user DOES have rights.

The pbo's arent locked, and if they want to use models all they have to do is send an email and ask

[vektorboson 8]

Err... because its mine, I made it, and the person who wants to use it has not spent the time or effort in developing it?

Aha, and for my work it's not the case?

Quote[/b] ]

Your statement goes to show how futile the human "rights" system is.

I don't know, why your are referring steadily to the human rights. I don't see any conjunction between "rights" and "licenses".

Quote[/b] ]

But, I will point out that; why should someone who has not had ANY input to an addon, be it scripting, modeling, texturing automatically have "rights" bestowed on them to use it?

So we can agree, that any user has no rights to an addon unless stated otherwise?

Well, that's very opposite to my license, in which I grant everyone every right to use, modify and release my work and derivative work, with the condition, the derivative work being in an editable format. The peeps have many more rights, than in your case.

Quote[/b] ]

What I'm saying, is why should person x benifit from person y's research, hard work and time?

You're completely right! Why should people benefit from my research, my hard work and my time? Better I keep everything for myself!

Hell, why did all those scientists in the history share the knowlegde with anybody? Why didn't they keep it for themselves? It'd have been better they kept everything for themselves. We should all live in caves and hunt bears, why don't we just live in the trees again?

Quote[/b] ]Also, in the case of BAS, the end user DOES have rights.

They got less rights to BAS work, than to my work under my license.

Quote[/b] ]

The pbo's arent locked, and if they want to use models all they have to do is send an email and ask

Ok, I want to have the BAS Blackhawk Model. I'm gonna move a vertex and release the Blackhawk open source, is this OK?

You're saying, I have to binarize the model? But I don't want to, you're taking away my right to not binarize an addon.

You removed my right to not binarize and to not protect an addon. This is the same argument you used against my license.

If you want to prove me wrong, then give me the Blackhawk model and I'm gonna release it immediately as MLOD to the public.

Otherwise, don't tell me again that my license is removing someone's right.

I have provided my knowledge to the community, as soon as possible, I have invested time, work and motivation in my work. And you want to tell me, that it's OK to release my work free to use without any obligations to the user, but it's wrong if I expect the user to give the users the same rights to the derivative work that I gave to him?

And at the same time, there are uncountable addon makers who restrict users' rights and this is OK, because it's common?

This is making me sick.

[Guest]

So we can agree, that any user has no rights to an addon unless stated otherwise?

Well, that's very opposite to my license, in which I grant everyone every right to use, modify and release my work and derivative work, with the condition, the derivative work being in an editable format. The peeps have many more rights, than in your case.

That's precisely it Vek...you've answered your own question here. The phrase is "unless otherwise stated". Which, quite clearly in your next sentence you state otherwise.

How about this for an idea? You make your licenses how you want them, BAS make their's how they want them, I make mine how I want them and we all just continue on our way

[m21man 0]

Well, WrpTool's new ODOL -> MLOD converter ought to stir up some more debate here. Go to their site, there are some pics of certain MLOD models.

[Baphomet 0]

Well... depends on what you mean by "quality".

If by quality you mean the appearance and features. That's one thing.

For someone like me who likes to have the freedom to customize something, that's totally irrelevant.

In my opinion quality would directly imply something I consider a worthwhile download. Whether or not someone wishes to use decent scripts with their addon which are explicitly designed for public use and therefore cannot be used with protected work? That's a choice.

I like the idea of forcing people to keep addons that use public domain elements in the public domain. If they don't want to play ball. They can have a shittier addon. A lack of cooperation begets a lack of cooperation. That way the end users like me don't get shafted. I would rather have no addon than one I couldn't change into something that reflects my own personal preferences.

These are all opinions either for or against. None is more or less right than the other. I just hate to see people being so fussy about how others use their creations. Seems like someone with a fragile ego would do something like that.

[Pathy 0]

Vek i cant help feeling you have some sort of issue in this area  Someone not letting you edit their model? Get used to it, thats the way life is....

...god i hate idealism.....realism all the way, baby!

Oh m21man, afaik its not a converter, its ODOL explorer, just lets you VIEW ODOLs, not edit them

[dm 9]

This was my whole point right from the start...

Vek.. You wont be able to change a thing, people are too set in their ways to initiate such "sweeping" changes, so late in the day.

You want your addons to be handled one way, someone else (e.g. me) wants my addons handled in another.

Much like your license forces people to leave their addons open source, our "license" forces people to binarise the models etc. Its not because we dont want to share them, its because we dont want people doing what you've suggested, and releasing them all as open source. We want to keep some semblance of "control" over who gets what parts of our work.

Regards the "why scientists share their knowledge" argument, that is a totally seperate point, and has nothing to do with games development. Also, this may sadden or sicken you even more, but 90% of discoveries and technologies ARE kept secret. Thats just life.

Like I siad waaay back in my first post:

Quote[/b] ]If you can change the world vektor, then you are the bigger man, but I can't see that happening, and like all the other threads themed like this, it will simply be forgotten after a few weeks. Sorry, but thats just life.

You're not going to be able to change the world, so if this community saddens/sickens you that much, I'll pass on the suggestions from other threads similar to this one:

Quote[/b] ]Leave...

[Romolus 0]

I have provided my knowledge to the community, as soon as possible, I have invested time, work and motivation in my work. And you want to tell me, that it's OK to release my work free to use without any obligations to the user, but it's wrong if I expect the user to give the users the same rights to the derivative work that I gave to him?

And at the same time, there are uncountable addon makers who restrict users' rights and this is OK, because it's common?

Well first there is no user right that states what you are claiming here. Prove me wrong.

Second, that's exactly what I'm saying. You are free to choose how you want your work treated but on the other hand you don't want to grant this freedom to everyone else. You grant it as long as they act like you want?

So by choosing the GPL or similar licenses for your addon you do the same thing that you are protesting against here: You are trying to force someone to do like you wish.

Please take a note here that I don't say you aren't free to choos whatever way you want how your work should be treatened but the intention of the GLP and similar licenses is to force other people do what you want. Simple as that. That's the thing I'm criticising here and I guess that's also what DM meant.

I don't know, why your are referring steadily to the human rights. I don't see any conjunction between "rights" and "licenses".

Well you can read that in pretty much every copyright law of any decent country, so I don't know how YOU come to the conclusion that there is no conjunction.

You're completely right! Why should people benefit from my research, my hard work and my time? Better I keep everything for myself!

Hell, why did all those scientists in the history share the knowlegde with anybody? Why didn't they keep it for themselves? It'd have been better they kept everything for themselves. We should all live in caves and hunt bears, why don't we just live in the trees again?

Well every single one of them had the free choice if they wanted to share their knowledge or not. All I'm asking from you is to leave me the same free choice without getting called names when I decide one or another thing.

Ok, I want to have the BAS Blackhawk Model. I'm gonna move a vertex and release the Blackhawk open source, is this OK?

You're saying, I have to binarize the model? But I don't want to, you're taking away my right to not binarize an addon.

You removed my right to not binarize and to not protect an addon. This is the same argument you used against my license.

If you want to prove me wrong, then give me the Blackhawk model and I'm gonna release it immediately as MLOD to the public.

Otherwise, don't tell me again that my license is removing someone's right.

Well that's some kind of catch 66 here, and you were the one who demanded to take away someone rights in the first place by making it possible to take someones work without asking or forcing someone with a GPL like license.

And you are free to ask SelectThis for the Blackhawk model to do so, wich would be the most honest way. Or you could just take it because you can with some sort of tool and don't care what he wants.

As paradox as it might sound, but the most honorable way to behave in this issue would be to make your work freely available and don't care about what other people do with their work.

If someone doesn't release his work as free as you do, he might not act as honorable as you do, but at the verry moment you are criticising him for it you are guilty for the same charge, wich makes your case pointles.

[dm 9]

So by choosing the GPL or similar licenses for your addon you do the same thing that you are protesting against here: You are trying to force someone to do like you wish...

...As paradox as it might sound, but the most honorable way to behave in this issue would be to make your work freely available and don't care about what other people do with their work.

If someone doesn't release his work as free as you do, he might not act as honorable as you do, but at the verry moment you are criticising him for it you are guilty for the same charge, wich makes your case pointles.

Exactly the words I was looking for.

What I have been trying to point out all along is that you are being a hypocrite by trying to enforce your wishes onto someone else.

You even said so yourself in your last post.

Like Leone has suggested, you release your work open source, and let us release our work binarised, and we'll all be happy.