What licenses should be used for our work?[url

[DecimusAquila 0]

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  

Well said Messaih.

I am in the software business, a web designer by profession and 3Dmax user to an extent. A lot of hard work is being put into what ever you do no matter what it is, be it modding, scripting, designing - it could be anything.

I have done work for free once to many depending on the load the work is, designed many co-orporative sites and clan sites too and some of my work have been used by other to improve for free.

This type of business is experience gained round the clock. You not only learn your proffession from books but you learn from others who are willingly ready to share with you.

You can loose and get angry ofcourse if someone misuses your work but I take it always in mind that each day that passes and yet to come is not always christmas.

You will just have to try to know whom you give your work too and for what.

I am always happy when my work is appreciated , sometimes that is enough for me than me asking for money for it.

One day such issues can come back to you in a different manner you never expected esspecially if it concerned those you who ask for your help once.

Maybe my pooint are not in order and makes no sense to the main topic here. But the ways you gain your experience can make you become who you are; either protective or open.- if you understand what I mean.

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

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.

[sarcasm]Yeah, that's right crash and I are working for BIS and it's part of a big conspiracy to resell your work.[/sarcasm] Talk about paranoia.

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

[cropped for berevity]

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.

[cropped for berevity]

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

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

I think I see part of the problem here. See, you're UK, and myself and crash (I think so in his case anyways) are US.

Despite all the "land of the free" propaganda you see this is simply not factual for us.

In my country, "An EULA is enforceable by law" if you can cover the court costs. Plain and simple.

And no, in my country (at least in my area, and remember that your country can fit into mine several times over so it complicates things sometimes), the concept of a "Conditional Fee Agreement" is almost non-existant. Despite what you see on TV dramatizations. There are a few lawyer groups that do this, but they're pretty exclusivly geared towards what we call class action suits here. A class action is where a BUNCH of people sue a big corp in essence. An individual suing a company for damages for distributing unlicensed content isn't profitable enough for these big fish.

A fine example of a classaction suit is this: a couple years ago now, there was a class action against HP for not including software disks with their computers, and charging the end user when they asked for a replacement disk. The end result was a substantial judgement against them. The lawyers got 1/2. Everyone that bought an HP computer without the software included from a legitimate vendor got 20 bucks.

See, this is profitible.

Things may be just rosy there in the UK, but here in the US it's all about the bottom dollar.

And you want to know something? If you're UK, and supposing you sue any individual you choose in the US, good luck collecting. Ever. Just burning money.

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

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

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...

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.

These lines perfectly sum up my point of view on this. "A simple gentlemens agreement" (beutiful way to word that) is all that we really need. We only gain strength as a community by shareing openly with one another.

[crashdome 2]

I think Col Sanders and Messiah summed up alot of my intentions very well and therefore I feel I need not say anymore than:

If you formed your own company to protect your IP, great. It is your perrogative AND your money AND your content in which you'll probably request payment for (I would gladly pay for many mods here and support it if you are that serious).

If you do not care about a few things... for example, you might suggest a method for helicoptor formation, a bomb dispersal script, or a model of a garbage can... do you really need to protect it? You cannot stop piracy or bad people with words and sometimes with harsh action (especially not with alot of legal action). Let them take it and move on. Take it as a compliment if it makes you feel better or go outside and pop a few rounds into an old computer case. There is more to life than M4 models and smoke grenade scripts.

The original intent of this thread was to suggest a community-wide license lockdown because it was [sarcasm]so surprising to find no one has EULAs or licenses on their work[/sarcasm]. My goal is only to show the difficulty in protecting work period. If its worth something to you, by all means, form a company, hire a lawyer, and do it right. If it isn't, don't feel like you NEED to protect it because Johnny Applethumb might decide to use it to kill babies or Kevin Bacon uses it in his next movie. If something small worries you that much, you might want to consider ever releasing anything.

over and out

[edit] And Col Sanders is right.. I am US and I would have to cover ALL costs to go after anyone. Only defendants get free representation.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ColonelSandersLite

BIS are open about who they employ it is on their website and they have and to my personal knowledge warned third parties not to use community material without permission.

I made it clear I was talking about third parties. Messiah also mentioned the same and noted certain projects.

It is the right of everyone to protect their IP and copyright law is international. You can sue someone in any country because it is international. The insurance you pay protects you in whatever jurisdiction the law applies. You merely use the insurance to employ lawyers in that country or have your lawyers in your home country direct lawyers in another.

The first thing you need to do is put an effective EULA on your IP.

You can always join an organisation or company that will protect your IP later. Register it at many differrent locations and mirrors to make clear it yours and be able to prove the same.

Ask your self what does it cost you?

Then ask yourself why would someone want to persuade you not to protect your IP, or fight any case that does protect it?

Also ask your self who benefits from preventing the subject being talked about or from preventing the community from banding together to form or join an organisation or company that protects their IP?

Kind Regards walker

[baddo 0]

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.

Well I will just quote myself so you will see that I agree with you:

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.

By "license" I mean any kind of license, not just the commonly used in open-source scene. One can make a new license just by writing a short sentence, no need to take GPL and the friends into it.

...and I agree with you, the open-source licenses are not ideal in many situations, I for example would probably never use GPL for any of my own work. Or BSD, it's even worse just look at how the OpenBSD project cried some time ago for lack of donations... pathetic... they are giving code away and it is free! For all! I am a Linux user so I take advantage of GPL'd products

Of course, if someone sees the need to use a more complicated license for their work then Just Do Itâ„¢ it is not a problem for me. Be sure to check that the agreements you have made with BIS are not broken by your own license though.

I am more concerned of the fact that in most cases there are no statements at all about the license in documentations. If your work is in public domain please tell it and don't assume we can guess it is. That's my main point here, I am not that interested in introducing long legal texts or similar like standards, I have read such texts enough in education and work that I'd rather not have to bother in a hobby.

Also I must add about the legal side: an "international" law is only effective if the local legislators have made it to be in effect as a local law. If it is not, then we do not need to care about such law as no one can enforce it on us in our own country. And about agreements: in my country an agreement which does not follow our legislation has no value, a contract has to follow the legislation or otherwise it is an invalid agreement. Just some points which can have effect when you try to force "agreements" or "international laws" on people.

[CarlGustaffa 4]

Hi

Just my two cents on the issue. I think the game's eula should state something in the lines of "no commercial addons other than our own are allowed to be sold to be used with this product".

That should possibly take care of most of these issues and concerns. I used to be very heavily into the flightsimming community, but now when commercialism has "taken over" much of the addon making, I was scared away. People started accusing eachother over what I sensed as extremely minor, and the general feel of the community went sour.

As a pretty extreme example, one guy posted a screenshot of good quality not even claiming it as his own. Immediately the forums selfacclaimed "copyright police" went after him and really treated him as a dirtbag.

And I second that of using a Creative Commons (free to modify, not for commercial use) licence. And how about a simple "based on the works of various other people in the community -- thank you -- you know who you are" statement? I never keep track of what snippets I use and who made them. I usually make stuff that I need for myself, and if I like it I'll share.

"Copyright" has really made the world a worse place.

How is it in these games (OFP/Arma)? Are there any commercialism yet, or is it even coming?

That's my "two" cents...

[baddo 0]

"Copyright" has really made the world a worse place.

...so if you write a book of 1000 pages, you do not need to be credited as the author of that book? You do not need to be in control how the book you wrote is distributed? You are very generous!

Seriously, think about it

[walker 0]

Hi all

EDIT I was going to post about the last copyright statment but Baddo did it far more succinctly than I could. Thanks END EDIT

NB you need BIS's permission to sell stuff using their IP it is in their EULA. If you are approached by a third party you need to email BIS!

As I keep reminding everyone your Intellectual Property belongs to you.

If a third party uses your material to make money off your hard work, they need your permission. That is the law.

If they are going to be making money it is only reasonable and fare for you to demand a portion in payment in return for licensing your work to them.

Open source without commerial and training use prevention does not protect you.

An EULA that includes those makes that clear so no one can claim they thought your work was open source. Read that as they want to add a texture or a line of code to your work that is thousands of polygons and hundreds of textures or thousands of lines of innovative code then claim it as theirs and charge their their own countries defense organisation 100s of thousand of dollars for "their" work. That they are passing off and may be committing fraud needs to be considered.

If it is your IP protect it. Add an effective EULA.

Kind Regards walker

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

In reply to ColonelSandersLite

BIS are open about who they employ it is on their website and they have and to my personal knowledge warned third parties not to use community material without permission.

I made it clear I was talking about third parties.

I want to hear this. Really. Just what use do you think an ofp addon/script/whatever is worth to a third party that adhears to the BIS terms of use?

Under what unlikely conditions do you think said third party is going to give a damn about you're terms of use, assuming don't adhere to BIS's?

I mean it, I want to hear this.

Also, before you go pointing fingers, all but accusing other people of bieng "enemy agents", maybe you should do your frikkin homework. I have personally released no less than 12 (I've actually lost count! scripts/script packages free for the community to use for both ofp and arma. 2 very substantial ones just in the past few days.

Crash RUNS Sinews Of War for god sakes.

Frankly, you should use the search feature before pointing out the enemy, people like me and crash aren't it....

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ColonelSandersLite

The price of someones work is for the market to decide. You put it out there; at a price and if people want it they buy it. If people approach you to buy it or use it, you negotiate a price and conditions of use. If you see a contract that interests you bid for it; you say what you will do, you show people what you or your group have done in the past, you tell them how long it will take and what it will cost.

If a third party do not adhere to BIS's terms of use I am certain BIS are capable of pursuing the matter themselves.

I am well aware of Crash and his credentials.

I must admit to not knowing yours.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Be aware I will not be dissuaded from continuing to say that:

If it is your IP protect it. Add an effective EULA.

Kind Regards walker

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

If a third party do not adhere to BIS's terms of use I am certain BIS are capable of pursuing the matter themselves.

This is exactly my point. If a 3rd party swipes your stuff for ARMA and uses it illicitly, they are violating BIS's intellectual property. Therefore, it's pretty safe to say that they simply won't care about any EULA you care to attach to it. The only people you will effect by attaching a EULA further than the game's EULA to your stuff is this community. This is very simple logic. Nice way do dodge the question completely though.

I am well aware of Crash and his credentials.

I must admit to not knowing yours.

Perhaps you can enlighten me.

Fine, if you're too lazy to use the dang search function to search for my member name, I'll do it for you. Here's some links in order from newest post to oldest.

ARMA FIRST:

1:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....erslite

2:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....erslite

3&4:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....erslite

5:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....erslite

6:

http://www.flashpoint1985.com/cgi-bin....erslite

Some things I posted on ofpec exclusivly, but the forum got rolled back and I haven't gotten around to readding them. To prove it, here's my BIKI list of them. Be sure and note the last edit date by me while looking at it since I'm under such scrutiny.

http://community.bistudio.com/wiki/User:ColonelSandersLite

CSL_RemoveGroupWhenDeadSimple.sqf removes the group when it's empty (since in arma, a created group remains, even though after it's empty).

"Colonel Sanders Lite's Original Recipe Bucket of Scripts" is a package of all the scripts I publicly released for ofp res. It contains about 25 scripts, some of which are pretty heavy duty. If you want further proof, I'll e-mail the pack to you. Several of them are posted in the old mission editing and scripting section in individual format so you can also scrounge around there. Some of the stuff in the pack wasn't previously posted however.

As an aside, I'm planning on readding them all to ofpec in the next couple of days. Obviously I have a lot to readd here and I have other things to do, so this task is a little daunting.

This is 30 (roughly) *PUBLICLY RELEASED* scripts that I consider to be free use, non-comercial stuff. Yes walker, even you can modify them, make derivitive works and rerelease them. There are a few other things I did for individuals which are not publicly available for one reason or another.

I can't even begin to catelog the BIKI contributions and times I've just helped people around here. Must be well over a hundred. If you care to catelog them though, go ahead.

Now, my money is where my mouth is. In just 1 year since I've become a part of this community, I have done all that. Since arma alone, I have publicly released 7 scripts. These are hardly the actions of someone who is attempting to subvert the OFP/ARMA community in some way.

For the record, what I actually do is independent software development (contract work) for small clients. Usually businesses, but sometimes individuals. Some small database work, repair, specialty applications, web sites, stuff like that. So I work my butt off doing computer stuff the all day and, when I have time, I come here in my off hours to basically do for free stuff the kind of thing I get paid to do (more computer stuff, instead of simply gaming) simply out of the goodness of my heart.

Now, since you where "aware of crash's credentials", and I was pretty much the only really vocal naysayer up to when you posted it, I assume this is directed at me:

Quote[/b] ]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.

If I may make a suggestion here, I would reccomend you take off your AFDB and relax a little. I'm not going to delve any further into your little world of paranoia however.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to ColonelSandersLite

I see little point in a hypothetical case of BIS not protecting its IP because I know for a fact that BIS can and does protect its IP.

For the record as soon as I posted I started checking up your posts with a search.

I see and saw you have done a lot of good work.

For the record I am not being paranoid there are cases of unauthorized IP use and they have have been resolved by out of court settlements. It may be that where there was not an effective EULA people have not been able to reach an amicable agreement.

Having a suitable EULA makes it so much easier to settle such matters.

You may wish to ask Crash about myself then make for your self a revised judgment of whether what I am saying is really paranoid.

Crash may also be able to point you to names of people who work for companies that exploit ArmA and VBS and OFP. He may even know people from this forum who work for such companies.

Allow me to take this opportunity to remind people

If it is your IP protect it. Add an effective EULA.

With kind regards walker

[crashdome 2]

Quote[/b] ]You may wish to ask Crash about myself then make for your self a revised judgment of whether what I am saying is really paranoid.

I understood this as you were thinking there are other businesses who troll the forums looking for free material. I don't doubt that. It's pretty obvious since most compaines have people working for them that are gaming geeks like the rest of us. Between you and Col. Sanders I think you are both good people. Excuse me if I find some humor in all this. I am twisted that way.

Quote[/b] ]Crash may also be able to point you to names of people who work for companies that exploit ArmA and VBS and OFP. He may even know people from this forum who work for such companies.

I do? Can I put something to rest? Three years ago (approx.) I was approached via email by the same BBN Technologies in which there was a huge debacle. They were courteous to me at the time and yes , I did have a basic one sentance EULA on the material they wished to use. Most people are familiar with it (SOW Dynamic Dialog) I said "take it" and many questioned whether I should have held out for $$$. I noted to those people that

A) they are probably a service - like consultation. They get paid for that and not the scripts individually. If they use it during a demo, they'd have to ask, yes.. but since I never said it couldn't be used commercially they could simply point a finger to my download link and let their customers grab it. (Edit: I also felt I'd rather see my material used simply for the reason I might see "CrashDome" printed on something somewhere, sometime)

B) If I decline, they will make their own anyway using same concept but not my code. It is a small piece of code that used a regular programming pattern slightly modified for OFP syntax. nothing special... atleast in my eyes.

Almost 1 year later... yes, 1 whole year... someone noticed they were using community material. Whether they downloaded it, sold it, and marketed it is only known by few (and certainly not me). Since BIS's original EULA stated that BIS owned all addons made with Oxygen at the time, then all EULAs for addons were IMO worthless because BIS legally owned them. Which is the ONLY reason I can think they chose to contact a few scripters and NOT addon makers (scripts cannot be owned by BIS). Also since then, BIS has changed their policy and settled with BBN who continue to use some material I assume legally. What BBN did was in fact dirty - possibly they found a loophole or just brutally violated content rights. Was it illegal at the time? Was it because of lack of EULAs? or IP rights? I am going to bet it wasn't because of BIS' license to begin with. Something I personally thought was crap from early on. We haven't heard the settlement.. atleast I haven't...

Since 3 years ago, I have received a total of ONE... yes ONE email in all from this company. And that was 3 years ago... one year before the problems started.

I defended them at the time (a little) because I thought the blame lied in BIS' strict license agreement about Oxygen. If they hadn't used that license, we would have had a class action suit AND/OR been able to sell our material commercially to them. <-- my preference

Because that is all over.... and YES, it is ALL OVER. Has the EULA really proven to have helped anyone who made addons?

IMO the greed of BIS to own all rights to any content (not produced by them but rather by community members) is to blame for that. Since things have changed, a good sentence or two in a readme MIGHT just stop this from happening again. It seems it certainly did when I used it... and I didn't need a lawyer.

EDIT: I also noted that sometime later, this picture by BIS surfaced regarding Game 2

http://community.bistudio.com/wikidata/images/5/58/Game2_talksyst.jpg

Wow, that looks amazingly very similar to my SOW Dynamic Dialog scripts....hmm... are you saying I should go after BIS now? Maybe BIS is the real thief around here? I know I had nothing to do with whats in that picture, but it looks AWFULLY CLOSE to what I did.

Note: I am being sarcastic again.

ah damn.. I said I was done arguing didn't I  

EDIT#2: I'd also like to point the fact that there are people in this forum who are under contract by BIS for VBS material. This may be something that walker was also trying to point out... not sure. I personally do not have anything to do with VBS but I find it very crappy on BIS' part to withold VBS material from ArmA simply because it could allow others to use ArmA in place of VBS (for example any external saving). I find this VBS/ArmA license/disclaimer nonsense even more disturbing.

[ColonelSandersLite 0]

I've said this a few times, but I'll say it again. I'm not here for the money, women, or fame. I'm just a guy that genuinly wants to help make ofp/ARMA better than it is on release. I feel that this is for the benefit of everyone here. If your average joe can include some of these nifty elements we're making into a mission with a minimum of fuss, I see it improving the quality of the ARMA experience.

If someone can modify an addon (no matter what flavor addon it is) to improve it, I don't see that this actually hurts the communtiy as a whole. Sure, ethically, I would think the dude was kind of an ass if he didn't credit the original author(s), but it's not the end of the world.

I know that I will never see a dime for any of that work, and frankly that isn't the reason I made it. If I had wanted to do any such thing for cash, I would have negotiated a contract in the first place.

On the subject of the second sentance there, I'm kind of ashamed of the last post I made just above. I only made it because walker ticked me off (sorry walker, it's the truth). If I hadn't been hot under the collar, I think I would have seen it the same way I see it now. Philosophically speaking, I'm against saying, "Look at how great I am." I don't force this point of view on others, but it's just something I find distastefull if I do it.

I would like to remove it but, philiosophically speaking, I *did* say those things. I typed it, clicked the preview post button, proofread it a little, then clicked add reply.

I also consider it to be just short of an open flame (the original was a full flame IMO, but I cut a few lines there immediatly after posting). I guess the mods don't, or don't care. Perhaps a mod saw it and decided to be lenient of the tone because I'm a regular contributer?

I will remove the bulk of it if the other people here agree that it should be. If you feel such, just reply here or PM me (neater).

---------------------------------

Also, I'm starting to see the light I think. Perhaps I shall attach the following EULA to anything and everything I release.

EULA

The act of downloading this package constitutes agreement to the terms below.

Under no circumstances, with or without written permission or exemption, may the user use any of the content of this package for any purpose.

The user has full authority to redistribute this package, as long as it is whole and unopened, at will on any medium so long as the user is not charging for the service. Especially if the user is not giving me (hereafter called the developer) a fair cut of the money.

The user has full authority to put this package on display so other people (hereafter called 3rd parties) can oooh and aaah at the awesomeness of this package, so long as the user does not use any of the contents in any form of game or tech demo.

This agreement is subject to change with the developer's significant other's (hereafter called the developer's girlfriend) menstrual cycle (hereafter called period) and without notice.

Violation of any of the terms above entitles the developer to take any electronic and or monetary devices (hereafter called gadgets and cash) from your household, business, friend's household, friend's business, car, bar, and cat.

By Violating this agreement, the user also forfeits any legal and moral rights the developer can think of, this includes but is not limited to US Constitutional Amendments 1-10 or their equivalent in your country.

The user and any counsel forfeits the right to use the terms (and any synonyms thereof): user, developer, 3rd parties, rights, developer's girlfriend, of, and, or, period, gadgets and cash. (good luck taking me to court after that last line)

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

I apologize for not contributing to the discussion sooner. My stepdaughter ruptured her spleen snowboarding a couple of days ago. Naturally, my wife and I have been a tad distracted by RL from other things.

Anyhow, let me summarize what I think are some of the more important arguments that are being presented by quoting some posts. Baddo said:

Quote[/b] ]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).

Yes! Exactly right.

Crashdome said:

Quote[/b] ]The original intent of this thread was to suggest a community-wide license lockdown because it was [sarcasm]so surprising to find no one has EULAs or licenses on their work[/sarcasm]. My goal is only to show the difficulty in protecting work period. If its worth something to you, by all means, form a company, hire a lawyer, and do it right. If it isn't, don't feel like you NEED to protect it because Johnny Applethumb might decide to use it to kill babies or Kevin Bacon uses it in his next movie. If something small worries you that much, you might want to consider ever releasing anything.

Sigh. Crash, you couldn't be further from my intent. My position is that every creator deserves that we respect his or her rights from a legal and ethical standpoint, and right now, that's tougher than it has to be.

If a creator wants to release his or her work as public domain, I say, "Great!"

If a creator wants to release his or her work only for non-commercial redistribution, again I say, "Great!"

If a creator wants to release his or her work but wants to insist that the source code be available to whoever gets a binary copy, again I say, "Great!"

If a creator wants to release his or her work for non-commercial redistribution except for specific licenses that s/he might negotiate with vendors (and as long as whatever BI Studio license terms, if any, that apply are also followed), again I say, "Great!"

If a creator wants to release his or her work for only commercial redistribution but doesn't mind people downloading his work for their own non-commercial use, and again as long as whatever BI Studio license terms, if any, that apply are also followed, again I say, "Great!"

The trouble is, things get kind of cumbersome if no explicit license is posted. How are we supposed to know what a creator's intent is if s/he doesn't post it? Every single group interested in creating a whole campaign or framework (like the guys who put together the FFUR mod) have to contact every creator (script author, mission creator, and modeler) individually to ask if they can include their work in their compilation. Wouldn't it be a lot easier for everyone if the creators posted a license (and/or included it in the download) so their wishes were easy for interested parties to find?

Crashdome also said:

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

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.

Crash, you mentioned in this thread that you are a resident of the U.S., so let me quote from the Federal Copyright Office's FAQ:

Quote[/b] ]When is my work protected?

Your work is under copyright protection the moment it is created and fixed in a tangible form that it is perceptible either directly or with the aid of a machine or device.

Do I have to register with your office to be protected?

No. In general, registration is voluntary. Copyright exists from the moment the work is created. You will have to register, however, if you wish to bring a lawsuit for infringement of a U.S. work. See Circular 1, Copyright Basics, section “Copyright Registration.â€

So, what is copyrightable? According to the page on copyright basics:

Quote[/b] ]What Works Are Protected?

Copyright protects “original works of authorship†that are fixed in a tangible form of expression. The fixation need not be directly perceptible so long as it may be communicated with the aid of a machine or device. Copyrightable works include the following categories:

1. literary works;

2. musical works, including any accompanying words

3. dramatic works, including any accompanying music

4. pantomimes and choreographic works

5. pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works

6. motion pictures and other audiovisual works

7. sound recordings

8. architectural works

These categories should be viewed broadly. For example, computer programs and most “compilations†may be registered as “literary worksâ€; maps and architectural plans may be registered as “pictorial, graphic, and sculptural works.†(emphasis in this paragraph added)

The upshot of this is that the works that script authors have published deserve the same protection under U.S. law that a modeler's work does. I just want them to tell us what those terms are.

Walker raised a concern about liability. The liability risk really isn't all that great. What risk is there exists regardless of whether a work is commercial or non-commercial, though. The proper language in a license helps eliminate this risk. If you go back to the links that I provided in my original post, you'll note that every single license that I listed has statements that explicitly disavow any liability for the use of the software released under it. That's true for Microsoft's EULA, the BSD license, and both flavors of the GPL. The language is strong enough that none of the software released under any of those licenses has ever faced a successful liability issue.

How about a concrete example of the kind of thing that I would like to see? Let's take a look at ColonelSandersLite has said. If I understand ClSL's comments in this thread, I think s/he would be best served by the BSD for his scripts and the by attribute Creative Commons license for any models s/he might make. Is asking creators to just pick a license and publicize their choice really such a burden?

(BTW: boy, I hate that awkward construct when I'm not sure of somebody's sex. I'm either getting <shudder> politically correct or <shudder again> way too polite in my old age.

[walker 0]

Hi all

In reply to =JpS=SgtRock

First of all let me give my best wishes and hopes for quick recovery of your daughter.

I think you hit the nail on the head when you say "Creators Intent"

From my personal knowledge I know there are organisations and businesses who use community materials under the false flag of "Well it was released to the community so its open source is it not?"

The only thing that prevents them from using this defense is an EULA.

And no they don't acknowledge their use of others work or include the readmes. In some cases they claim it as their own work and make money off it. Piracy and fraud of the worst order.

They cannot claim they did not know if there is an EULA.

The EULA is what establishes the creators intent.

Also as =JpS=SgtRock at the very least add some boiler plate to protect your liability.

It is is your liability. It is up to you to protect your self. It is your IP so protect it. Add an effective EULA. Make sure people know your intent!

Kind Regards walker

PS edit On the matter of gender use the plural and write "their" instead of "his" or "her" when talking about groups of people it is of course more correct. In many cases if the language is formal you are talking about a plurality any way and should make more use of "their" or "them" or "they" also "that... (eg. person)". Also since the pronoun refers to a previous noun you can better use "a ..." or "the ..." I have found that in every case I can use a plural or better an "a..." and "the..." rather than be gender specific noun and it looks and reads better. For more formal language it also removes ambiguity of the; "Which her or him?", variety.

[Rhodite 3]

Moving to general area.

Happy posting.

[Guest]

Ive deleted 3 potential posts written up for this thread, each of which because I felt I was merely contributing to my own desire to 'join' in this debate, thats really not my desire - heres what I think

Coming from someone who modded GR for 3 years, a community which worked very hard at addon/script making as peices for use by mission makers, primarily because there were very few tools released by the creators, some of those people put huge time into new units/vehicles/utility scripts - and there was an amount of this Eula thing going on, probably because of the few people that made stuff did it thru their own skills and tools completely - unfortunately it also made it difficult to put stuff in a mission, having to run around and ask for consent, then the guy would say what is it gonna be used for, blah blah - for myself it kind of wrecked the experience of having a selection of addons/script to impliment into my mission, unlike here, where in Ofp ive enjoyed being able to just browse the litterely hundreds of scripts/addons, and pick what id like to use, heck, before I switched to Arma, I had a Misc addon folder that had like 30 addons/scripts stored away just for possible implimentation later because I felt there were of very good quality, and, no strings attached, no concern about reading a ton of demands in Eulas, no having to give reason for implimenting - only thing that I think everyone knows, is that you give credit towards any work that is not your own in a mission (not talking about a few code lines used from someone elses mission)

So, my personal feeling, in fact, what I really think is the truth, if much of the modding community switched to this, my God, there would certainly be a decrease in productivity from this, and it would probably induce alot of flaming wars "I explicitly said u can use my police car, but ONLY IN A POLICE STYLE MISSION!!", and which would lead to less and less people being willing to mess with someone elses addon because this as well.

Every mission ive ever downloaded that used addons and other poeples scripts have given credit to those people, Imho, that is normally the only Eula that should be in every readme for addons/scripts.

Lastly, Ive been working on a large scale mission for almost a year now (on and off), I dont care WHAT people do with this mission, make a new version, rip some scripts, whatever, as long as I get full credit for what work I did, I could care less - and thats how I think it should be always. People are not getting paid for this, its a modding community working hard for the sake of fun in the end, why would we want to turn into some giant legal thing, where people have to be forced to ask consent for every peice of work used form someone elses work? What next, should we track down every mod and mission in here that uses a bloomin song from a popular band where the creator didnt get permission (and 'infringed' on copyrights)??

This is the only post im making on this topic, and, I really think it should just go away, because the longer this stays up, the more some people might actually think about creating this Eula in thier current project, which is imho taking away the fun,free, and respectfull atmosphere that is here on these forums for modders and mission makers. Sue me, but this just disgusts me.

[crashdome 2]

Quote[/b] ]The upshot of this is that the works that script authors have published deserve the same protection under U.S. law that a modeler's work does.

This has been what I am saying all along? Why do you *sigh* when I haven't said anything different than you have?

Quote[/b] ] I just want them to tell us what those terms are.

Yes, this has been the basis for ALL of my arguments.

This is what I read:

Quote[/b] ]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.

..... blah blah Open Source blah Creative Commons blah blah..

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.

You "urged" everyone towards open source licenses of which I don't agree are the best licenses nor that many material needs flat out licenses to begin with. So far we've established:

A) No one has said having a EULA/License is bad

B) Walker points out that everyone should protect with a EULA or License for IP purposes (theiving commercial entities maybe?)

C) I think that most material would be more restricted by certain EULAs and Licenses - especially Open Source. Col Sanders and I argue that the crux of a EULA is for protection of valued material. We argue that not everyone thinks all their scripts/models/etc may even BE valuable. I gave many examples in my post. So my argument is why is it necessary under certain circumstances to provide two pages of EULA or license agreements for a five line script when it is protected by default?  If you have a website where you distribute from or a template from which to copy, GREAT!!! None of us have argued that not having licenses is the way to go.

I believe the majority of material you find without any note of some kind of "Terms of Use" or otherwise is because it is a given public domain. In the rare instances there are some people who may have done so accidentally, the current solution is of course "ask when in doubt just to be sure" because of the very items you have quoted from the US Federal Copyright Office.

I guess that I took - IMO - your entire first post as being written because you want the lot of "un-licensed" work dropped into the Open Source community.

As far as my other arguments, they are just supporting arguments which state the complexity and cloudiness of trying to protect everything one does. IMO, thats alot to bear on someone who writes:

<table border="0" align="center" width="95%" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0"><tr><td>Code Sample </td></tr><tr><td id="CODE">hint "Hello World!"

or makes a box for his/her first model.

Walker has mentioned a publishing entity... of which I don't have much concrete thoughts about yet. Part of me likes it and part dislikes it.

That is where I am at. If I have given indication otherwise, I apologize.

[EDIT] Thank you, Special Ed... for your well thought input. I too agree that it is one of the best communities to work with thus far because of the openness. I'll admit, I'd like to see some good mod groups be able to consolidate their talent and make a good add-on which is sold via retail - only because I think they deserve it. I certainly wouldn't want to see every Joe selling their half-baked mods like in the Flight Sim community as pointed out earlier.

[fardwark 0]

You guys are really complicating an issue that should be, at heart, a very simple one.

Disregarding those trivial technicalities, we can postulate that any content anyone creates all on their own is protected by intellectual property rights, and those rights belong solely to the person who created said content. Content is of course anything from a texture to a radio message (the soundfile that is) to a script. If multiple people cooperate in creating the content, they share the rights.

The author(s) behind the content decide how it can be used. Anything put into the public domain is free-for-all, but the public domain thing is hard to do with ArmA addons and missions. I mean, you can read anything inside a PBO, does that mean the contents of the PBO are in the public domain? No, so let's say that public domain doesn't exist for our purposes.

Then we are left with two options, no license and licensed. In the case of no license, nobody else has any rights whatsoever to the content created by the author(s), they may not re-use or alter it at all. This is the default unless the content is explicitly licensed.

In the case of licensed work, the author(s) select a license they think works for their purposes and applies it to the content. Now the use, alteration and re-distribution of the content is dictated by the terms of the license.

Since this thread is basically promoting sharing, that is open source, we don't have to bother about closed source licenses (having no license is the same as having a closed source license, nobody can do anything to your stuff). So then we've narrowed the question down even further, since there are basically only two open source licenses:

1) GPL, or GPL-like.

2) BSD, or BSD-like.

GPL-like licenses are designed to be very restrictive. They carefully regulate how you may and may not use the content, to ensure that the work and any derived work are kept free and open to anyone. For example, if I want to use a GPL-protected script or function in my mission, I have to license my mission under the GPL (or a GPL-like) license, otherwise I am breaking the terms of the GPL-license for the script.

BSD-like licenses are designed to be very unrestrictive. The only restrictions put into them generally concerns attribution (credit where credit is due) and advertising (don't use the original works'/authors' name to promote your derived work). For example, if I wanted to use a BSD-protected script or function in my mission, I could just copy it to my mission folder, write a quick "thank you" in the readme, and off I go.

Which one you choose depends on what you premier as an author. Are you more concerned about preventing the mis-use of your content, or are you more concerned about sharing your content? If you don't want people mis-using it, choose a GPL-like license. If you don't care that much, choose a BSD-like license.

If you wish to use a license, you need to include (or link to) the license text somewhere in your work, and explicitly state that it is licensed under whatever license you choose.

For my part, all my ArmA work will be released under the Free Beer License (a BSD-like license, although a fringe one).

[=jps=sgtrock 4]

You guys are really complicating an issue that should be, at heart, a very simple one.

Disregarding those trivial technicalities, we can postulate that any content anyone creates all on their own is protected by intellectual property rights, and those rights belong solely to the person who created said content. Content is of course anything from a texture to a radio message (the soundfile that is) to a script. If multiple people cooperate in creating the content, they share the rights.

The author(s) behind the content decide how it can be used. Anything put into the public domain is free-for-all, but the public domain thing is hard to do with ArmA addons and missions. I mean, you can read anything inside a PBO, does that mean the contents of the PBO are in the public domain? No, so let's say that public domain doesn't exist for our purposes.

Then we are left with two options, no license and licensed. In the case of no license, nobody else has any rights whatsoever to the content created by the author(s), they may not re-use or alter it at all. This is the default unless the content is explicitly licensed.

In the case of licensed work, the author(s) select a license they think works for their purposes and applies it to the content. Now the use, alteration and re-distribution of the content is dictated by the terms of the license.

YES!!! This is EXACTLY what I've been urging.

Crash, I don't have any interest in seeing a big proliferation of lots of licenses with all kinds of slightly varying terms, either. The trouble is, as fardwark so eloquently points out, we have no right to redistribute anyone else's work without their permission. A posted license solves that particular problem.

Now, why am I encouraging people to read through the open source and Creative Commons licenses and choose the ones that meet their criteria instead of inventing their own? For several reasons:

1) Most importantly, I think that open source and Creative Commons license terms are exactly what most modders want. About the only ones who don't are the ones who want to control all redistribution because they want to arrange that for commercial use. Either that, or they simply want to put their code in the public domain. That's easily accomplished by simply creating a one line "license.txt" that says, "This creation of mine by Joe Developer is public domain."

2) Limits license proliferation.

3) As I noted earlier, these licenses have very clear language that eliminates any worry about liability completely. That seems to be a concern for walker and a couple of others.

4) Open source and Creative Commons licenses have all been through very thorough legal reviews by people who know far more about the law in many countries than you and I could ever hope to absorb.

5) Open source and at least a couple of Creative Commons licenses have also been tested in court. So, you don't just have to take my word that their terms are sound.

[crashdome 2]

...glitch post...

[crashdome 2]

Quote[/b] ]YES!!!  This is EXACTLY what I've been urging.

Crash, I don't have any interest in seeing a big proliferation of lots of licenses with all kinds of slightly varying terms, either.  The trouble is, as fardwark so eloquently points out, we have no right to redistribute anyone else's work without their permission.  A posted license solves that particular problem.

... and so does one or two sentences well written in a readme.

Why is it either posted license or no license with you? Take a quick 256x256 TGA texture posted as an image on the forum....Does not a two sentence "terms of use" posted along with it satisfy your condition of ethical use when it is something so simple? Why does the author need to link to a posted license somewhere?

[fardwark 0]

Does not a two sentence "terms of use" posted along with it satisfy your condition of ethical use when it is something so simple? Why does the author need to link to a posted license somewhere?

"terms of use" constitutes a license, it doesn't have to be a big, catch-all "real" license for it to count.

When people speak of licenses (more specifically, open source or creative commons licenses), they are really talking about terms of use.

For the simple "I don't care"-type terms of use you can just say that: "Do whatever you want with this".

If you have more demands however (such as you want to restrict who can use your license, maybe it's only free for non-commercial or non-military entities, or you want to make sure people keep sharing it), it's probably wiser to select an "established" license that matches your requirements, because as SgtRock points out they are more likely to hold up should you wish to take legal action over someone breaking the terms of your license.