MLOD of all vehicle and soldier models released!

[max power 21]

The way I see it, if you take any topology from the BIS models, bits or all of their textures, their configs, or anything like that, and you release it as your own work, it must be put under this license. So, if you have a bunch of vehicles based on the BIS vehicles, but other parts of your mod is original, release the vehicle part separately and you should be okay.

[dob 0]

very nice BIS, big thank!

[ArmaVidz 0]

Outstanding. Thank you for this support BIS.

[R0adki11 3949]

Thanks for the support once again BIS team

[Pillage 0]

So could a modeling guru enlighten me as to whether or not it's possible to get the wolf and rabbit working?

[PhilippRauch 0]

How should we release our models based on those mlod version then? .pbo and a (packed) folder with the whole source stuff? Or just offer it on request? Or does it just mean its allowed for others to unpack the released .pbo and modify?

[HDlaeppli 0]

Thank you, BIS.

[max power 21]

So could a modeling guru enlighten me as to whether or not it's possible to get the wolf and rabbit working?

Not without the animation and support for it in the game. It's not really a modelling task. The modelling is done. We'd need to know if there is animation for it, and then what the selections are called, etc. So if it's fully implemented and documented, then we can get wildlife in the game. If not, then no.

[Jahve 0]

So could a modeling guru enlighten me as to whether or not it's possible to get the wolf and rabbit working?

Not without the animation and support for it in the game. It's not really a modelling task. The modelling is done. We'd need to know if there is animation for it, and then what the selections are called, etc. So if it's fully implemented and documented, then we can get wildlife in the game. If not, then no.

Capture one, put it in a mocap studio

[suma 8]

How should we release our models based on those mlod version then? .pbo and a (packed) folder with the whole source stuff? Or just offer it on request? Or does it just mean its allowed for others to unpack the released .pbo and modify?

I have already answered this. You do not have to provide your sources. You just need to allow others to unpack and modify, under the same license as you received it.

[MAA 127]

I'm not sure if I understand it correctly...

If I use any part of BIS model (head and hands [or in extreme situation one point/face from BIS model]) on my model then I need to allow others to unpack and modify my models too?

[Placebo 29]

If I use any part of BIS model (head and hands [or in extreme situation one point/face from BIS model]) on my model then I need to allow others to unpack and modify my models too?

Yes.

[MehMan 0]

What is defined as a package, the PBO itself, the whole rar archive in which the mod is packaged?

[mcpxxl 2]

This is a verry good solution !

Lester @mapfact discussed that whole the day, everytime rumors came up about some people that seems to have more tools or something else before the others. (As sample BAS at OFP time).

We will see some fine things commin

"In love"

MCPXXL

[maruk 80]

Yes, this is written in a spirit similar to GNU license. If you want to start your work by modifying our sample models, you "pay" us for this by allowing others to start their work by modifying your models.

(Note the license is not that strong as GNU is, in that it is not forcing you to release your "source" MLOD models.)

You do not have to accept this license, in which case you are limited to the first small bunch of sample models, which are released under a license not having this requirement, or you can start your work from the scratch.

I can only reiterate what Suma said before. It can't be described better.

If you don't like the license, best is simply not to copy that single point or face you mentioned from BIS models and make it from the scratch or stick with any other original model (including BI Sample models released in August 2007) you are allowed to freely modify without such obligation. You may also try to get permission to use such model without this obligation simply by getting approval from us.

Please note that we were aware of some the reactions but we carefully decided to put the license this way.

I also can understand there could be some border cases that may not be very clear and where we may need to think carefully about the terms or provide some more explanation.

Anyway, if you follow the whole MLOD story, you may see many interesting and educational aspects in it related to the ownership of intellectual property, licenses etc.

[maruk 80]

(Such sounds would then need to be placed in another "package", and users instructed to install both packages separately which seems like a useless hassle as the end result is the same as if they would have been in the same "package" in the first place)

This certainly would be useless hassle. We may be open to grant a bit different license terms in some cases where we see good basis for it. In this example, I wouldn't have any issue if the licensed sounds are simply exempt of the open source style license.

On the other hand, our motivation is plain simple: by releasing our content in semi-open source manner we also want to encourage this collaborative behavior in the community overall. But really, nobody is forced to use BI content as basis anyway and there's also good selection of sample content available without such clause present.

Also, we want the community to give more considerations to copyright in general.

[sickboy 13]

Trying to keep track of the questions asked and answers given.

Tracking them in the first post, under "Faq".

[Commando84 0]

Sweet news Bi! keep 'em addons coming people!

[[aps]gnat 28]

Trying to keep track of the questions asked and answers given.

Tracking them in the first post, under "Faq".

Nice 1 sick

And thanks BIS, great community support.

Interesting method too ... hehehe ..... you have sort of turned the tables on the whiners

"You can use, but they remain open"

[MEDICUS 0]

Please note that we were aware of some the reactions but we carefully decided to put the license this way.

Much appreciate!

Hopefully this will lead the com to a more cooperating state.

[Guest]

"more cooperating state" +1

"And thanks BIS, great community support" +1

[klavan 0]

Although I'm not actually into ArmA I really enjoyed the open-source-like spirit of this initiative.

Very well done BIS.

Klavan

[Pathy 0]

If I use any part of BIS model (head and hands [or in extreme situation one point/face from BIS model]) on my model then I need to allow others to unpack and modify my models too?

Yes.

Not if you use the one from the previously released example models, which isn't covered under this license.

Can we get full clarification on the definition of "package" - Is it a PBO?

[andersson 285]

Much appreciated! Good solution too.

[Messiah 2]

some questions:

1. Whilst I can understand the model situation, and quite enjoy the idea of an more open way of doing things, I assume retain our IP rights on things like textures.

I.e. whilst if I alter your model to my uses, but retexture it. The terms of the EULA says anyone can use my altered model, not a problem, but I assume our textures remain completely off limits without the usual permissions, even if its mapped to your model?

2. If I wanted to use certain models to 'clutter' a vehicle (say to strap AT4's to the bonnet) but want to avoid the entire vehicle pack being open sourced because I used the AT4 that came with the recent mlod releases, would placing the AT4 as a proxy on the vehicle remove the possibility of my vehicle pack becoming open source? Seeing as I'm creating a proxy from something already exisiting in the game, and wasn't dependent on this mlod releases (except for the fact that now I can see the proxy in buldozer now)