What licenses should be used for our work?[url

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

I'm posting this in Mission Editing and Scripting even though it's not a technical issue per se. However, it is a subject primarily of interest only to modders.

I'm just getting into some basic mission editing after a long hiatus. I did some scripting for OpFlash the first year or so after it came out. I've done a little scripting for system admin work since then, but haven't published anything for general consumption in a very long time.

Since my time with OpFlash, my role at work has forced me to become much more cognizant of what licenses software packages run under. I've become far, FAR more careful about using software only in the way that the creator intended. That includes everything from game licenses, to Microsoft's onerous End User License Agreement (EULA), to freeware, to shareware, to open source software, to you name it. I sometimes think I've seen every variation in licenses ever done. Even so, I don't claim I read and understand every clause in every license. At least I try.

Anyhow, it's become pretty clear to me that much if not virtually all of the user created work that's floating around out there for games has no clear license for use. That's a shame, really. It makes it tough for me to use that material from an ethical standpoint.

This issue shows up here relatively often. As I search the forums here and elsewhere, I keep running into posts from people talking about needing to get permission to run certain scripts, or people who are complaining that they found a model with the attributions removed, etc. I've also found it difficult to impossible to find a published license for any user created material. This means that unless you explicitly ask the creator, you are using their work illegally. As I implied in the paragraph above and far more important in my mind, you are using their work unethically as well.

Why is this true? Throughout much of the world, the people who wrote the scripts are the ones who are legally considered to own the copyrights to their work. This is true even if they never register their work. From an ethical point of view, a creator has every right to expect others to use their creation only in the way that it was intended. Otherwise, what's the point in sharing their work?

So, that's the dilemma. Modders want to create stuff that people can use and enjoy. Users just want to use that material in ways that may or may not be what the modders intended. How do modders explicitly state how they want to see their material used? The good news is that modders for games are not the first to run into this particular issue. The rest of the software world has been dealing with this for a long time and has come up with some pretty good solutions.

The first site that I want to recommend that people check out is the Open Source Initiative. They act as a clearinghouse for licenses that meet what they call the Open Source Definition. They also maintain a list of licenses that meet their criteria. They are extremely well regarded by software professionals. Much of the software that is used by businesses, goverments, and non-profit organizations was created by people who chose one of the licenses that the OSI has validated as truly Open Source.

They still list a lot of licenses. Many of them are very close in nature. How would a developer new to open source software pick one? Personally, based upon my experience and from my observations of the comments that have been made by mission creators, I think that one of three licenses would best serve the needs of script writers; the General Public License (GPL), the Lesser General Public License (LGPL), or the new BSD license.

Even better, there are several sites out there that are dedicated to providing a wide variety of services for people who publish open source software. The largest by far is Sourceforge. The site boasts over 140,000 projects and more than 1.5 million user accounts. They provide file hosting, bug tracking services, version control services for files, and much more. The best part is; it's all free if the license that you choose for your project is one of the ones on the OSI's list. Sound too good to be true? Well, the catch is that you have to agree to abide by the license that you choose. Think you can handle that?

What about models? And what about missions and campaigns that might include intros, outros, cutscenes and other material in addition to scripts? Those licenses don't necessarily translate that well for items that are not scripts. Again, this is a question that has been resolved to some extent by others. I think the best solution would be to browse the Creative Commons. Among other things, their site includes a page that will allow you to generate a license that explicitly states your conditions for allowing other people to use your work. (You'll note that there are links to explanations of the GPL and LGPL on that page, btw)

Sadly, I don't know anything about hosting services for CC licensed works similar to that provided by Sourceforge. A quick Google search did turn up a couple of million leads, though.

I urge everyone who is creating material that they want to share to visit these sites and pick the license(s) that best fit how they want gamers and server admins to use their material. Post those licenses on your websites. Include it in your zipfiles and/or installation packages.

[celery 8]

From my point of view scripts are free to use by everyone as it's only code that enables a certain function. Of course it would be proper to credit the creator of a more complicated script in the briefing notes or leaving comments in the script itself. You should always ask permission of a maker of models, textures and the like before using them or if they're unavailable or the work is unfinished, it's enough to give them credit.

That's my moral point of view, so don't lynch me.

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

As far as I'm concerned, my stuff is simple public domain.

I deal with EULAs too much in my profession.

I prefer if a person credits my stuff, but I'm not a part of this community for the money, women, and fame.

So what if someone makes a derivitive of my stuff, releases it and doesn't credit me? I may bitch and moan a little to my inner circle of friends (MAYBE), but frankly, lifes too short.

[crashdome 3]

IMO, and this may be very snobbish or self-centered from a scripters point of view, but the only people causing ruckus in this community have been the low-level add-on people.

Scripts are like documents. They are owned and published as-is by the individuals. If you post them or distribute them, it is not unlike a distributed written document without copyright. Its mostly fair game. Most people who are bright enough will supply non-comm disclaimers if they dont WANT to see it used commercially. Most people don't care because the scripts are usually small enough. Also, if scripts were to carry EULAs we'd be in far more chaos. Best leave them alone. We've gone 5 years without much problem.

Addons are different. They usually involve more than just typing words and because of that, the owners are like pack rats. IMO, if more people would loosen up and give stuff away (models) without crying foul at every person who tweaks it, we'd be better off. If you are that protective about your model, then do as the big mods do... include a license and release a FINISHED product for pete's sake.

If it's a third-party tool, I believe then that it's open game on what you want. Since it's compiled, it is more than beneficial to have some EULA simply for the fact it can go beyond the scope of ArmA/OFP.

For the most part, every script I have ever made has been free for ANY use and I have even been requested to have my stuff used by commercial entities. I have not had a problem with that. As I said, most scripts are nothing in the grand-scheme of things unless it is part of a bigger script package. It's not like people will pay you for scripts.... they will just recode using the same concept. You just simply missed an opportunity to be credited by another.

Forcing EULAs down everyones throat (especially that strict GPL/GNU) is IMO a waste of time and effort for most OFP/ArmA related content. It's not even enforcible in most cases.

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

HERE HERE Crash!!

[walker 0]

Hi all

The problems arise when people create stuff for the community but some person from a large multi-national company decide to charge a countries armed forces hundreds of thousands of dollars for other peoples work.

It is unethical and probably fraud against that countries armed forces and so a crime. In the UK it is also called passing off another criminal offence.

Think oh well their problem not yours, well not quite the case when you get subpoenaed as a witness or they try to shift the blame for it not working to you as there are also questions of liability and being sued for a piece of work you wrote but was not intended to be used to train people in a life or death situation.

At that point one immediately slaps an EULA on everything that says ask before using it for any purpose other than entertainment.

Even Sony do it! And with reason their controllers started turning up in US army battle tanks to control MGs Sony did not sell them as such but they are sold as a robust and effective standard controller and guess what they are cheaper and tougher than the expensive ones the US army buys but Sony are not insured for one going off accidentally.

Sony's lawyers crapped them selves.

And this is before we get into copyright and theft of Intellectual Property. The one I suspect most people think this is really about.

Except ArmA and OFP are so good.

Some people on the forum were wanting to improve the Stinger simulation that would be a very very very bad idea ditto good simulation of TOW etc. shinRaiden posted about it in the thread. If he had not, I would have.

I suggest anyone who wants to get into realism with guided missiles in ArmA needs to read up on ITAR / Wassenaar compliance.

Simulation of MANPADS is very heavily controlled.

Trust me when I say you do not want the people who enforce those laws knocking on your door at 4 in the morning.

Kind Regards walker

[baddo 0]

Well I think it would be good if more people would state in their readme's if their work is public domain or not. Usually that info is missing. Readmes in general are very badly written, unfortunately. It doesn't need an EULA of many pages, just a short sentence stating the license so that we know the author's opinion on the subject.

It's true that you will be granted copyrights automatically for a work which can be considered "original", it doesn't need to be mentioned anywhere. That's how it is here where I live at least, I see no sane reason why it wouldn't be so in other countries too.

[NeZz_DK 1]

If you are granted copyright then you would also be responsible for the use of the stuff and if anything happens because someone uses it wrongly then you could be held legally responsible. so you have to state that you, dont take responsibility from any harm that the stuff you created could cause.

is that how we should understand this?

[crashdome 3]

No, what Walker fails to mention is that they have to prove it first.

Secondly, he forgets the BIS EULA which would have to be adhered to in order to use any content.

Most of what he has stated is extreme and although possible, this applies for any game/sim and is extremely rare and I personally have yet to hear about any non-developer get dragged into court. In one case, (multi-natl company uses unauthorized work) it was partially because of the content license of addons to begin with. Although, that has been addressed and because of this, all ownership has been transferred back to the addon creator.

I still say that unless you have a fully defined product in which your goal is to provide commercial support, there really is not much of a need for strict EULAs - a readme is absolutely sufficient.

but.. I am not a lawyer I suppose. If you are really REALLY concerned, hire one.

[walker 0]

Hi all

The problem with liability is the costs of defending yourself. You may be able to prove that it is not your fault your addons design caused a numpte to target the wrong tank but the cost of doing it may bankrupt you. It is why Sony's lawyer crapped them selves and instituted a revised EULA to protect themselves with regard to the US army using their game controllers.

Quote[/b] ]

...This is troubling to Sony executives because there is wide speculation that the PlayStation controllers were tested in a military exercise in Southern Iraq where 72 Iraqi soldiers and 300 civilians were killed. Fifteen US soldiers were killed from friendly fire.

“While it’s nice that they’d [uS Army] use our controllers to help fight the war on terror,†says Sony spokesman Yoshikazu Ochiai, “We’re a little concerned about our products being used to harm people.â€

Lawyers for Sony also say the US military may be violating international law for not letting the company know its products are being used for military purposes.

During the Vietnam War, Mattel successfully sued the US Air Force for airdropping “Vietcong†Ken Dolls over North Vietnam in hopes of taunting the communists.

“The soldiers today are so used to handling the Playstation controller,†says one former military official, “it makes perfect sense that they’d use it to control army tanks and shoot missiles.â€...

http://www.liquidgeneration.com/rumormill/playstation_army.html

Follow the link for the full story

The major thing with any liability is that you need liability insurance. If you are going down that line it makes sense to also get Intellectual Property Insurance as it only a few dollars more to cover both.

If you have not got this best thing is a good EULA. Including it in the installer is best and a Registration web page can help.

Perhaps what people need is a company to protect their rights. It can then take say a 10% cut off profit on sales 90% going to the creator(s) of the work. It can negotiate deals with BIS and BIA and to parties such as governments and use the money to run itself. By placing all the rights to your IP with the company it will be able to use the 10% to pay for legal insurance and work out good EULAs that protect the IP creators' rights.

It would be a little like a publishing company.

Kind Regards walker

[lwlooz 0]

I on my part hope that most of the script community who doesn't do scripting for business stays out of this license-BS for practical reasons.

It is highly mind-boggling to think that every mission,script or whatever would come with an EULA or something.

I for one take the risk of being sued for other people stealing my work, claiming it as theirs and causing damage with it and in the end putting the blame on me

What a fun justice system, at least you can giggle while your life is ruined then.

[nuxil 2]

GPL

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

The major thing with any liability is that you need liability insurance. If you are going down that line it makes sense to also get Intellectual Property Insurance as it only a few dollars more to cover both.

If you have not got this best thing is a good EULA.

As a professional independent developer, I have to strongly disagree here.

If you're counting on the EULA to protect you from being liable, it doesn't mean shit without liability insurance.

To put it simply, an EULA doesn't protect you from being sued really. It does protect you from being sucessfully sued, if you have the funds to afford a lawyer and such though (assuming it's good). This is one place where your insurance comes in.

The only thing a EULA without any liability insurance is good for is sueing someone else.

[fasad 1]

I have no legal knowledge about it's enforceability, but the Creative Commons Licences seem to be a very easy way to specify what you want people to be able to do with your work.

Personally I believe licences for computer game community content should be release with a "free to modify, no commercial use" licence. What could you gain from taking legal action against another end user releasing a free, modified version of your work anyway? Lost income, lost potential fame? We can/should only protect our work from being used commercially.

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

IMO, and this may be very snobbish or self-centered from a scripters point of view, but the only people causing ruckus in this community have been the low-level add-on people.

But does that justify taking their work and using it in ways that they don't intend?

Scripts are like documents. They are owned and published as-is by the individuals. If you post them or distribute them, it is not unlike a distributed written document without copyright.

Except that's not true. Every single country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention is required to have a law on the books that states that copyright is immediately granted to the creator by the mere act of recording their vision. The U.S. was the last major signatory to do this back in 1976.

Its mostly fair game.

No, it's not. The law throughout Europe, the North American continent, most of Asia (with the major exception of China), and elsewhere says otherwise.

Most people who are bright enough will supply non-comm disclaimers if they dont WANT to see it used commercially. Most people don't care because the scripts are usually small enough. Also, if scripts were to carry EULAs we'd be in far more chaos. Best leave them alone. We've gone 5 years without much problem.

First, don't confuse EULAs created to limit rights with licenses that are designed to grant people additional rights beyond what they have under copyright law in most countries (as I am urging developers to do). Second, if creators do not explicitly state that their works are public domain, you have no right to assume that they are. Therefore, you have no right to use their code without asking their explicit permission.

Addons are different. They usually involve more than just typing words and because of that, the owners are like pack rats. IMO, if more people would loosen up and give stuff away (models) without crying foul at every person who tweaks it, we'd be better off. If you are that protective about your model, then do as the big mods do... include a license and release a FINISHED product for pete's sake.

Or instead of crying foul, why not provide a means by which people can find a way of donating back suggested changes to your creation? Or choose a license that explicitly allows them to fork your product if you happen to be going in a direction that doesn't quite meet their needs? It's been proven over and over again that we get far more in the way of great material that way.

If it's a third-party tool, I believe then that it's open game on what you want. Since it's compiled, it is more than beneficial to have some EULA simply for the fact it can go beyond the scope of ArmA/OFP.

For the most part, every script I have ever made has been free for ANY use and I have even been requested to have my stuff used by commercial entities. I have not had a problem with that. As I said, most scripts are nothing in the grand-scheme of things unless it is part of a bigger script package. It's not like people will pay you for scripts.... they will just recode using the same concept. You just simply missed an opportunity to be credited by another.

Forcing EULAs down everyones throat (especially that strict GPL/GNU) is IMO a waste of time and effort for most OFP/ArmA related content. It's not even enforcible in most cases.

(Shakes head in wonder) Crash, you are wrong on every single count with this last bit. First, it's not "open game" on anyone's material unless they explicitly declare it to be. You have no right to assume otherwise. The law virtually everywhere says otherwise.

Second, you prove my point by indcating that some commercial entities knew enough that they had to contact you before taking your stuff. Did it occur to you that maybe they did so for some other reason than the goodness of their hearts?

Third, anyone who publishes something on the Web for others to use has every right that we will respect their wishes on how it is to be used. I just want them to state what their wishes are up front.

Fourth, I personally hate the EULAs that are forced down our throats by many vendors. However, before you call the GPL "strict" and confuse it with a standard EULA, I strongly suggest that you read the links that I provided to Microsoft's EULA and the GPL. The GPL is deliberately designed to give the end user rights that s/he doesn't otherwise have under copyright law in most countries. Microsoft's EULA is in many ways a typical EULA in that it is designed to take away things that standard copyright law gives the end user. After doing an honest comparison between the two, can you honestly call the GPL strict?

Finally, I suggest that you check out this case in Germany before blithely assuming that the GPL (or any other license for that matter) is unenforceable. While you're at it, it might be worth your while to check out some of the other links on that site. I think you'll find them to be a bit of an eye opener.

[crashdome 3]

You've mis-quoted me atleast three times.

Quote[/b] ]Quote (CrashDome @ Mar. 19 2007,22:03)

Scripts are like documents. They are owned and published as-is by the individuals. If you post them or distribute them, it is not unlike a distributed written document without copyright.

Except that's not true.  Every single country that is a signatory of the Berne Convention is required to have a law on the books that states that copyright is immediately granted to the creator by the mere act of recording their vision.  The U.S. was the last major signatory to do this back in 1976.

Thats what I said. It is the same as any non-copyright document... what's not true about that?

Quote[/b] ]Quote (CrashDome @ Mar. 19 2007,22:03)

Its mostly fair game.  

No, it's not.  The law throughout Europe, the North American continent, most of Asia (with the major exception of China), and elsewhere says otherwise.  

You have too much faith in many laws. By 'fair game' I imply that it if it is not explicitly characterized by a published copyright or patent (and yes I am ignoring EULAs) it can be argued in certain circumstances as public domain. Especially if it is publicly distributed. Its a case you have to argue, you won't have full umbrella support by these 'laws' you specify. So by 'fair' I mean as in both sides have equal chance of winning. A good example is MS's OEM System-Builder license. There have been successful cases won on both sides in regards to selling OEM copies without hardware. It's a 50-50 toss up.

Quote[/b] ](Shakes head in wonder)  Crash, you are wrong on every single count with this last bit.  First, it's not "open game" on anyone's material unless they explicitly declare it to be.  You have no right to assume otherwise.  The law virtually everywhere says otherwise.

By 'open game' I mean as in which license you wish to choose... in otherwords the author can use commercial OR non-comm licenses without restriction of BIS' license or anyone elses license.

You read to much into what I said the wrong way.

Quote[/b] ]Fourth, I personally hate the EULAs that are forced down our throats by many vendors.  However, before you call the GPL "strict" and confuse it with a standard EULA, I strongly suggest that you read the links that I provided to Microsoft's EULA and the GPL.  The GPL is deliberately designed to give the end user rights that s/he doesn't otherwise have under copyright law in most countries.  Microsoft's EULA is in many ways a typical EULA in that it is designed to take away things that standard copyright law gives the end user.  After doing an honest comparison between the two, can you honestly call the GPL strict?

Yes, even OSS considers GPLv2 excessively strict which is one thing they tried to appropriately change with v3.

Secondly, GPL only protects Open Source. Which means if you attempt a commercial conversion you are legally binding yourself to GPL. It is VERY strict.

The MS license you downplay is actually less strict than GPL in the sense that it covers beyond the scope of just being "freeware". In fact, I use and create alot of products which are covered by that license and I am very happy with it. I have done comparisons of these long ago. GPL/GNU is only really useful for OSS. I feel that binding myself and everyone in the future of any project to a single license as being more "strict' than not. Alternatively, what you consider being strict, I consider good sense. What you consider "taken away" is the ability for those that come after to strip me of my ownership... if I am the author - nothing is "taken away".

Finally, by saying "unenforcable" I am arguing about the capabilities of most people here of building any sort of case against another. Seriously, if Person X came along and took your work and my work and someone elses work and released it under their own name (not commercially) that you would honestly pay to build a legal action against them?? Rather I would use the power of this community to weed out such characters. I'd be more successful. What would I win from such a case in court? I am not speaking legally... I am speaking realistically. First, you must find them (in their country) - then you must internationally build a case against them... very long and drawn out process.

I dont advocate stealing, but I also don't advocate having every Tom, Dick, and Harry signing their crappy M4 and arty script under GPL. There is more grounds to get sued for using a GPL addon or script in a mission (which isn't licensed also as GPL) than using one where the author simply states - "hey, use this however you want, just ask or credit me".

I can't speak for everyone, but when I see GPL on basic stuff, I usually think twice and sometimes run like hell away from it.

Quote[/b] ]But does that justify taking their work and using it in ways that they don't intend?

If you release an addon to the community and state it is non-comm.... what other intention is there? Are you protecting your work from being modified? Are you hording your textures or something? ... and if you are speaking of commercially you must remember that for commercial use, they are bound by BIS' license which IMO holds alot of clout and should be considered.

and Walker, I am confused a little. The case you argue is the <s>software</s> hardware creator actually suing the Military not vice-versa...

In regards to a publisher... I think it would be a good idea to some degree. Something like a non-profit publisher or a very open publisher. Even then, there would be creative differences I am sure. Perhaps all we truly need is a method of signing/encryption and distribution? Sure, it doesn't cover legal issues but it could provide advice.

And in order for that to happen you have to convince this community of actually paying for stuff. You don't have to demonstrate for me what that would be like

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

What could you gain from taking legal action against another end user releasing a free, modified version of your work anyway? Lost income, lost potential fame? We can/should only protect our work from being used commercially.

I do agree with this pretty strongly. Frankly, if someone can improve any addon (wether if be a script, mod, mission, or whatever) by producing thier own derivitive work I'm all for it in any case. The releasing of a derivitive is likely to benefit the community as a whole.

In fact, I've felt for a long time now that if there where more of an atmosphere of collaboration and or cooperation around here that we would be far better off. I've seen a few instances of what I like to call the it's mine grab in the past. I'm sure there where many more that happened in private or in other boards too. And yes, I have viewed each and every incident with a bit of disdain.

FFUR in the OFP days is a perfect example of this very concept. They released what was basically a pack of addons created by other people with some rebalancing changes and called it gold. And you know what? It was gold according to a large portion of the community.

Anyways, as I said, it doesn't matter. In the case of liability, a eula is useless without either insurance or enough money in pocket to contest any lawsuit in court. Not to mention the fact that most people (even lawyers) would view suing a non-commercial entity who distributed a freeware product, written for a game someone else made in their free time, online a complete waste of time. I think (maybe hope is the more proper word) the only people that stupid is the RIAA caliber of lawyer.

In the case of attempting to sue a noncommercial entity, you're most likely wasting your time.

In the case of attempting to sue a commercial entity, you better have a lot of cash on hand becase that's dang expensive. They tend to have lawyers and funds to pay a lawyer for longer than you can.

OK, yes, I admit that the concept of a EULA is theoretically a good idea. Real life sets in though, and in real life, you have to have the funds to back it up.

There is also another practicle problem too. I don't think anybody, myself included, will want to be legally obliged to read 50 some odd eulas to play a friggin mission.

And in order for that to happen you have to convince this community of actually paying for stuff. You don't have to demonstrate for me what that would be like

Ugg, I know from firsthand experience what it's like trying to convert a free use member base to a paid use member base. The people responsible are inevitably villified by the old user base and the company will only stay afloat if it has a very small user base or is very lucky.

[walker 0]

Hi all

As I said what we need is either an umbrella organisation which people can join or a MOD based company. You assign IP to it and it takes say 10% of any profits to pay for Liability and Intelectual Property Insurance, a good standard EULA and running the company.

Kind Regards walker

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

So, you're saying our options are either:

A: Get a bunch of lawyers and white collar adminstrator types to setup and run a completely free organisation to help modders.

B: Get a bunch of lawyers and white collar adminstrator types to setup and run a profit percentage based organisation to help modders.

C: Tack on a meaningless EULA that can't possibly be enforced on your own.

D: Do nothing.

I have to say that I don't see A happening anytime soon.

I don't really see B happening either. 10% of $0 is still $0.

Option C is kinda dump and annoying.

And BTW, signing your intelectual property rights over to another organisation is counter productive to what we're discussing, don't you think? Sure in the perfect world, great. But shit like that always ends up abused.

[baddo 0]

I think this conversation got sidetracked into some odd direction.

I think the original point was that authors should declare their work to be under some sort of license, instead of the usual case of not declaring any kind of license and thus implicitly prohibiting any kind of redistribution or redistribution of modified works unless an explicit permission from the author is received. So basically, as I see it, every mission, every addon out there which do not give permission for redistribution in their documentation are not allowed to be redistributed without asking and receiving permission to do so from the author (which in most cases is not what the authors want I am sure of that).

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

I think this conversation got sidetracked into some odd direction.

I think the original point was that authors should declare their work to be under some sort of license, instead of the usual case of not declaring any kind of license and thus implicitly prohibiting any kind of redistribution or redistribution of modified works unless an explicit permission from the author is received.

You could be right.

I'm hardset against including a boilderplate, or even completely custom EULA, in any unofficial addons.

But I am all for the author specifying intended use in the release.

I feel strongly that all we need it a line or two that says something along the lines of:

- "Do not modify without permission"

- "If you modify this file, give credit"

- "Use it any way you see fit"

- "Use it any way you see fit so long as it's not commercial use"

These in my book are completely acceptable clearly worded usage clauses.

Even if from a purely practical point of view, the usage is pretty unenforceable. It can still be good from an ethical point of view.

[crashdome 3]

I wouldn't downplay the idea of a publishing entity. Considering most small organizations are deeply rooted in helping their fellow creators, its not a bad idea. It's not like we are asking Ubisoft to step in or something  

and Baddo... our point is that licensing is only going to complicate things for most people. Even the supposed "easy to use" open source licenses.

If you are in that situation where you want a license, walker has pointed out that perhaps a solid and knowledgable source (such as a mini-publisher) would be better than going on your own.

Quote[/b] ]I think the original point was that authors should declare their work to be under some sort of license, instead of the usual case of not declaring any kind of license and thus implicitly prohibiting any kind of redistribution or redistribution of modified works unless an explicit permission from the author is received. So basically, as I see it, every mission, every addon out there which do not give permission for redistribution in their documentation are not allowed to be redistributed without asking and receiving permission to do so from the author (which in most cases is not what the authors want I am sure of that).

Do you license your homework when you hand it to a teacher? Do you add disclaimers when you talk to your friends on the phone? Do you sign GPL to your underwear everyday?

I think the point is that licenses only help when something is misused. Even the "laws" that the Sgt. has mentioned do the minimalist of protection and require YOU to go out and SUE the other person. I think most people here do not care that much. Atleast most scripters I know do not care if their script idea is used by another. In fact, it is often ecouraged. Addons are different, I will agree. I will say that if you are concerned your model remain free... go ahead and tack on GPL. If you dont want your model used at all, then tack on a non-reverse engineering disclaimer or something or get yourself a lawyer because its going to be a long day the day you find out someone opened up your model and retextured it.

[weegee_101 0]

One thought. Many gaming developers and most courts consider that modifications developed for games fall under the license agreement for the game. I can't check right now, but I believe that ArmA has its own modification's clause in its EULA which pertains to modifications... keeping us from selling them and basically saying your work can't be licensed. This is standard for almost all publishers within the gaming industry. The biggest thing you can do is say in your readme file that you don't want people dePBO'ing your work... because you don't own the copyright on the program itself, you don't have legal rights to your work. This is how the U.S. Courts work... I did a lot of research when I was working on a Half-Life mod years and years ago. It may be different for other nation's courts, but if you're in the U.S. you can bet that what you do for ArmA you don't have rights to defend.

EDIT: A quick addition on the subject of liability. In the U.S. Courts the developer is liable for the mod content of mod developers! Thats how the whole GTA thing happened last year, and that court case set the stone for at LEAST 10 years. So, in summary; no, you don't have liability for your own mod work, and no, you don't have rights to it either... I can pull out another couple examples (perhaps even some court case documents) if people need some.

[walker 0]

Hi All

First off I advise anyone on this forum to be aware that some people who contribute on these forums work for companies that have had a history of taking others IP and neither paying them, for said use or even acknowledging it.

Such people may want to encourage people not to put EULA's on their work and may wish to persuade people who's IP has been stolen that they cannot sue those who stole it. This is not the case you can.

An EULA is enforceable by law no if buts or maybes it is.

If you or a member of your MOD team is a child they have additional rights and your government has a duty to uphold them.

In fact even if you have not paid for Liability and IP insurance you will find there are lawyers who will happily take on an open and shut case with an EULA clearly on the down load that lets them milk a big fat multinational on a Conditional Fee Agreement(CFA) commonly known as a "no win, no fee" basis.

Of course in this case you do not pay 10% it is more likely to be 50% or greater. I would still recommend Liability and IP insurance though.

I would suggest Temple Legal Protection to do this in the UK

http://www.temple-legal.co.uk/

but there are many others just Google "conditional fee agreement" or "no win no fee" and "Intellectual Property"

If you have a company already it is a simple matter to add IP insurance to your existing company liability insurance if it is not there already and usually costs less. Get a quote from your insurer.

Some of us have already formed companies for this very purpose. You could seek to join one or get a group of like minded people together to do the same. With the cost spread across several people it is not too expensive.

Several professional computing contractor organisations offer liability and IP insurance as part of membership. If you are a member of such check your membership details.

Where criminal fraud and piracy has taken place you also can contact FAST and let them deal with it. In the US you can also use the anti commercial spying laws. The advantage of these is: you just have to point out to the FBI or police a crime has taken place. Of course the problem is you do not get compensated. That said warning people about said laws in the EULA tends to make the compliance section of a company crap them selves. So it acts as a great prophylactic and prevention is always better than cure.

So do not get persuaded by the naysayers to drop your rights or that you cannot enforce them, your IP is your IP and it is protected by International Treaty and Law and that is a fact.

Protect your rights, defend your self and your IP include an EULA and band together for protection.

Kind Regards walker

[Messiah 2]

It's worrying that in a community such as ourselves we feel the need to start talking law and EULA. I've always believed in a community that respects the authors rights, and the work they put into the model/textures/scripts

I've also always believed that opening up an addon to learn is perfectly acceptable, otherwise I wouldn't have gotten where I have today, neither would 90% of the better know scripters/coders/addon makers here. You're not modifying anything after all. If you use scripts from that addon, then obviously we start heading towards my third point which is:

That in a community such as this we only excel by sharing and learning from one another. And we have to accept that many of us don't want to put the time into creating a new model just for the sake of not having to use someone elses work... this is partly what led us to the 1000 M4 addons back in OFP. The OFP veterans among us were hit a little hard by the DARWARS incident and how badly (or at least in my opinion) we were let down and also raped of the hard work we put into addons (this obviously affected a select few of us more, such as agsmith, combat etc) and I can understand people wanting to protect their work - it is also the god awful and selfish attitude of those who say 'stuff them I'll use it anyway' that have led to this situation.

All of my work was unbinarized, and all it took was a simple PM or email to ask me permission. A simple gentlemens agreement, a gesture to signify that they understood that you had put alot of hard work into your addon and that they would like to use your good work to their benefit. Also for the sake of avoiding unecessary duplication. When I made our Diemaco's I saw little point of modeling something that was a M4 at the end of the day, so I asked Jackal326 for permission to use and modify his work for our Diemacos. I like to think he agreed because I asked nicely and didnt go off and do it anyway, and he's a nice chap. This system works fine with me, and I can't see why it can't continue.

obviously we need to protect ourselves from systems such as DARWARS that seem happy to rape us of our hard work, and continue to do so today without any noticable response to prevent it. A non commercial agreement should suffice, but it obviously doesn't. Crashdome makes a very good point on all cases, specifically that enforcing your free content eula is going to be a hard battle if you choose to seek it. All game mod communitys have had this problem of models being stolen/reused/permission - It's hardly unique to BIS games.

My concern comes of those in the community who just pillage everyones work without a care in the world. Or those who had no intention of asking permission, but did it as an afterthought for the sake of not being lynched. Those are the guys who I say no to, out of stubborn principle I guess.

Reading back over what I've said, I've realised I've mumbled on a while, and I can almost gaurantee that another more educated member of the forum will sumise what I was trying to dictate in one sentence. Oh well, It allowed me to empty my mind. This is of course only my opinion, so it's probably as good as flawed anyway