MLOD of all vehicle and soldier models released!

[suma 8]

Quote[/b] ]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?

When you are placing a proxy, you are not redistributing that content at all (only a link to the file is present), therefore you are not restricted by the license for that content.

In other situations when you want to use some small model, but you do not like the license, the easiest way is not use that small model at all and to make your own.

The spirit of the license is: if you want to get our complete work open and derive from it, you "pay us" for it by providing your work open as well, and letting others derive from it.

I repeat: you do not have do it this way. You can create your models from the scratch or from previous sample pack and distribute them as the corresponding less restrictive licenses (for the first samples and for the tools) allow.

In case there are some corner cases, like you needed to redistribute another work you have not created, but licensed, instead, and the license of that stuff prevents you to distribute it with our license, as hinted by Kegetys, you are likely to be able to negotiate a less restrictive license from us, however we are unlikely to accept license proposals which have the only purpose of protecting your own work and at the same time want to use our work.

Note: We are often is a similar situation when considering what libraries we can use. Some programming libraries are licensed under GNU, which means they are not suitable for us, as we do not want to open source our game.

[Messiah 2]

Thanks Suma - I'm happy about the terms of the license and I find it to be a fair way of doing things. I just wanted to know the 'boundaries' of the license and what did and didn't apply.

I'd still like to know about things like textures that appear on the open source model. Those are still our IP and property, regardless of the model?

[Lester 0]

Thanks a lot BIS !

I believe that this method is the best way to gain ArmA a quantum jump in the right direction.

On this way no one need to reinvent the wheel once again and everyone can benefit from it.

[Panda-PL- 0]

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?

Hi. The usual open-source ideology says to take advantage of open-source licence you must release your work as open source.

You cannot release one addon with two separate licences.

So if you don't like the idea of someone modiffying your addon you have to negociate with BIS. However SUma just answered your question:

Quote[/b] ]we are unlikely to accept license proposals which have the only purpose of protecting your own work and at the same time want to use our work.

Read his post, it is 100% clear. You have to agree to share your work. All of it.

Open source licence DOES NOT mean you don't claim IP. The things you release are still your IP, they can only be used according to licence you provided (in this case open source). And yes, you have to agree to that to benefit from BIS developers' work.

[Messiah 2]

Panda - thanks for the description/explanation, just what I needed

[MehMan 0]

But does this mean that we'll have to release a binarized and a nonbinarized version of our modified models or just unbinarized? Or will we have to supply the unbinarized ones to those who ask for them?

[sickboy 13]

But does this mean that we'll have to release a binarized and a nonbinarized version of our modified models or just unbinarized? Or will we have to supply the unbinarized ones to those who ask for them?

I believe this was already answered, check the faq section of the first post.

[MehMan 0]

Yes, but binarized models cannot be opened, no?

[[aps]gnat 28]

Quote[/b] ]You just need to allow others to unpack and modify

I think thats clear.

An Author can't binarize the p3d. Thats not an "unpackable" model.

And the other resources, just a reminder that nothing has changed there as I understand it.

Ever since OFP, anyone can open a PBO and look at textures and scripts.

[Lor 0]

Thank you to everyone at BIS.

While I probably won't even be able to use these at my primitive addon-making level, I think this is absolutely a wonderful gesture from you to the community.

Again, thank you everyone at BIS. Here's the ArmA, and ArmA2 too! =)

[granQ 293]

sweet just sweet, it took some time but this is what makes ofp/arma the best.

guess soon there will be tons of m4 and strykers... but atleast some people do other stuff..

[miles teg 1]

Thank you a BILLION BIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!     BIS rocks.  I really was not expecting this and I must say that I am proud to support BIS and be a member of this community.  I 100% agree with them on the license as it will most definitely lead to a major boost in sharing of knowledge.

Rock on BIS!  Now lets see who is the first to add slat armor and updated armor values to the Strykers!    

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[4 IN 1 0]

THX VERY MUCH FOR THE RELEASE BIS

just one small question(sorry if it have been asked b4 but inorder to avoid any dishearting comments which ruin my day i skip read many of the post)

from the licences, if i read correctly, if i pack the modded models into one package, then using another to pack my sounds textures scripts etc, then i would still retain copyright for "my stuff" while the modded model are opened for other to use right?

[ardvarkdb 104]

Has anyone had any issues with these models showing up fine in O2 but when you load up Bulldozer they are all messed up, with parts being stretched all over the place or missing?

Otherwise, I'm very excited to start messing around with these models. I don't mind the licensing thing, I've often found I learn the most by just analyzing other people's work, and have no problem giving credit where credit is due.

[pauliesss 2]

Has anyone had any issues with these models showing up fine in O2 but when you load up Bulldozer they are all messed up, with parts being stretched all over the place or missing?

Otherwise, I'm very excited to start messing around with these models. I don't mind the licensing thing, I've often found I learn the most by just analyzing other people's work, and have no problem giving credit where credit is due.

"Actually nothing is missing, just select all (ctrl-a) and from menus select Unhide."

[ardvarkdb 104]

I had tried that and it didn't work (although thanks for the input). Sgt. Ace gave me a working answer "activate "Disable Model Config" in bulldozer start Options and the effect is not present."

So, if anyone else is having that issue, all you have to do is click on the little bulldozer icon and from the drop down select "disable model config" and everything should look normal again.

[Jackal326 1182]

Its possible BIS released a borked model.cfg? Try removing the model.cfg from the directory the unit models are in and seeing if that helps. Actually, try clicking the BULDOZER BUTTON in O2, and selecting 'DISABLE MODEL CONFIG' first. If they're still twsited and contorted then I have no idea why.

[Yossarian 0]

thanks BIS!! No complaints here.

Once again you have gone above and beyond to support the modding community. The EULA is perfect too, thanks.

[scars09 9]

THANK YOU BIS!

you still know how to surprise

[Red_153D 0]

Sorry for digging up this thread, but where are the MLOD models of AK-74 and AK-74GL?

[vilas 477]

1.14 MLODs would be usefull too

[wld427 1705]

1.14 MLODs would be usefull too

ditto

I can understand not releaseing the MLODs for QG.... thats not free content. So why not share the MLODs for 1.14...

[ricoadf 0]

4) If you create and distribute a work based on the ArmA Sample Models you must license the entire work, as a whole, under this License to anyone who will be using it. This License gives no permission to license the work in any other way, but it does not invalidate such permission if you have separately received it.

The irony is that under that rule, ANY arma addon based off bis models (so every soldier, most vehicles and aircraft etc) can be modified by any member of the community and re-released (with credits ofcourse) without needing to seek permission from the author first since under the terms of the licence you have to licence your work under the same licence as the BIS models are, thus allow them to be modified and redistributed.

Ofcourse claiming the work as your own would still be breaking the agreement and thus unacceptable.

I wonder how many people have read the agreement and realise that.

[.kju 3245]

Not many certainly.

To read the statements by Suma and Maruk give even a better picture.

That said, there is still the practice to ask first for the OK of the author.

Did the approach work well so far?

[ricoadf 0]

That said, there is still the practice to ask first for the OK of the author.

I agree its best to ask (atleast out of respect), and I always do myself, just pointing out a technicality :D

After all in the end we're all here to mod and have fun.

I wonder why BIS hasn't released the MLOD's for QG etc, after all with A2 out it would be nice :)

Edited October 25, 2009 by RicoADF