Cephel

Do I really need to repeat myself? It's not your right, you can ask evro to remove it ( and he did ), so be grateful that he did, he didn't have to. If you keep up this in your face attitude of pretending you can control what users do with their mods, which is exactly what this boils down to, then someone might reintroduce the changes evro made just to piss you off, and I'd completely understand that.

a) BIS is making the license(s) in question and can freely modify them to suit their needs, this is something that mod makers cannot do b) DayZ the mod and DayZ the standalone game are two completely different things. The license you're talking about governs the standalone game ( the one about disallowing the use of content from that game in arma 3 )

That is not true, even if they literally said that their mod shall not be used together in Arma 3 with Evros modification, they have no basis to make such a rule. Nothing they can put in a license governs either a) what individual users do with them, ie. if the license said "you shall not use this mod in arma 3, because we don't like arma 3", and a user downloads it, he is fully allowed to use it in arma 3. Or b) what other mod makers do with their mod as a dependency as long as they don't violate conditions based on distribution and giving credit. If the license said "you shall not make a patch pbo that uses this mod as a dependency" you can go straight ahead, and do just that, because their license does not govern pbo's or addons other than the one they made. You can remove your work from the hosting website(s), that is true, but that is also where your involvement ends. I've talked to Dwarden, and Dwarden talked to BIS lawyers about this. Alot. You are wrong, you are not entitled to prevent patch pbo's. You simply aren't, this is the official stance and a necessity because otherwise every single CBA dependend mod would have to be licensed as GPLv2. This is a fact, you can not prevent patch pbo's, period. Your choices are: - Remove the mod from all hosting services and announce it as "over". You effectively end the mod, that is your right. - Intentionally modify the mod to include malware to prevent people from hooking their patch routines onto it. That is your right, but that should also mean that nobody should EVER download a mod like this that is willing to fuck over its users just to spite someone who wants to help make your mod better. And I highly encourage everyone from instantly dropping support of any mod that sinks to such a level. Besides, finding out how you made it inaccessible and modifying the patch pbo is easier than modifying the original mod to make it inaccessible in the first place. So you'll accomplish nothing in the long run. And to explicibly reply to "it's their work" comment: The patch pbo is NOT their work, so you have no say in what happens in it, period. We have won against the last guy who argued that they can decide what the user ends up running or what patch pbo's gets made, and I will win again, because I know under which conditions BIS allows you to make mods, and you don't. So please, just stop posting.

Read my post, I outlined what the official consensus is, the CWR team has no legal or otherwise means to force you to remove your fixes, as long as they are contained in your pbo. I've talked to Dwarden extensively about this matter and he even got their lawyers on the line for it. The gist of it was this: CBA is licensed under GPLv2, which explicibly states that any derivative work must also be licensed under GPLv2, you could ( and we did ) make the argument that any mod that uses CBA ( which is like every mod ever ) also counts as derivative work, would also fall under GPLv2 and thus is both open source and can freely be modified and redistributed. The official BIS standpoint on this matter is that mods made with a dependency of a different mod are in fact not a derivative work, as they don't directly communicate with each other, instead the Arma engine acts as an interloper for calling both sets of codes. This effectively means that any mod that uses a different mod as a dependency is not counted as a derivative work, and thus doesn't fall under the license of the dependency mod. Instead BIS grants you, the mod maker, the right to impose your own license on your own mod. The direct consequence of this is that no license can ever govern your own pbo(s) or addon(s), as long as you strictly refrain from directly using their work in yours. So if you extern your config fixes into your own pbo, there is nothing they can do about it, as their license has no application here. The decision of wether or not to respect their wishes lies with you, they can not force you, period. It is very important to remember this.

I feel my angle on this matter is relevant, as we ( our group ) recently won a case over a similar situation, where we made and provided fixes to a mod that is very popular ( that I'm not gonna name here ), the original mod creator took issue with our approach because we repacked our changes into the original pbo and distributed it as a simple package to overwrite the mod with. To cut a long drama ridden story short, after personal intervention from Dwarden, who for those of you that don't know is an official Community Manager form Bohemia Interactive, we arrived at a solution that we provided the fixes in our own patch-pbo that contained no code from the original mod author and just works ontop of it. We also didn't distribute the original mod with our fixes anymore and instead linked to the original release thread. The important thing to note here is that we discussed this for hours and explicibly arrived at an official solution regarding the boundaries of copy right when it comes to arma mods. The end of it is this: An external config fix that patches a different pbo, but is otherwise all your code, even if it is referencing class names, etc. is your work and your copyright, not the copyright of the original author. The reason I'm chiming in on this debate is that I'm absolutely disgusted by the amount of egoistical poison and utter ridiculous insanity some mod authors in this community produce, when other people want to help improve their work. Stopping an attempt at genuine improvement of your product should NEVER EVER be able to be stopped, because only a complete egocentrical lunatic would do so, and I will continue to fight for the right of the community to improve and fix the work of others, if they themselves show or have no interest in doing so themselves. The mod we had our case on wasn't updated in more than a year and was full of issues, bugs and missing features, that the mod author either didn't have the time, or the will to fix in a timely manner. When we approached him on several occasions about expression our wish to help fix some of these issues, he lashed out against out in a manner that can only be described as a child kicking and screaming for not wanting their toy taken away or some other insane reason that doesn't even apply, since we never intentend to do so, just help him make it a better mod. A mod creator is NOT entitled to prevent other people from continuing the legacy of their work, should they be unable or unwilling to do so themselves. This was directly confirmed by Dwarden who I've talked to for hours regarding the matter, as well as actual BIS lawyers to find the exact border at which copyright claims end for mods. The gist of it is this: Your copyright ends at the pbo's you have written. If someone else writes a pbo to modify your work, it is NOT governed by your copyright, as long as you a) Don't distribute the original mod, b) Don't edit the original mod ( instead, you can use a patch pbo, which is ok ) and c) Give proper credit for the original mod, if requested. It is absolutely disgusting what some mod makers think they can get away with, and will fight tooth and nail to stop this. As for this case in particular, since the author of the config fix has agreed to remove his fixes already, I guess the case is over, but I want to let you know personally, that this better be YOUR decision, because THEY have no say in this. Or to put it differently, you should be fully aware that the reason you're removing the fixes is out of gratitude, not because it is their right to ask you to.

I guess YOU don't understand how wikipedia works, everyone can just walk up there and edit it, citing sources doesn't increase the credibility of your article at all. You can literally make shit up and write it in. Give me an actual scientific paper and I'll read it, the cited sources are all complete horse shit btw, I've read them, contrary to you. Some people do, and they were here first. You can simply not play those games if you don't like them. Nobody forces you to look at them or play them It will for some people, not me, again, you can simply not play them if you don't like them It will, because it moves the focus from making good games, to making politically correct games Some people can, some people can't, good thing you have a choice. Can you not enjoy a game if the female characters are sex objects? And this is already implying that such games even exist in large quantities You honestly remind me of this at this comic at this point. Pointless bickering about a non issue and doesn't even know what he's talking about. There is a SHITTON of perfectly finely represented women in video games, you are completely wrong about this My point exactly, there is no problem here. But if you feel that every game should have strong female characters or something similar, then you are the problem, not the solution. The word you're looking for is "parenting". If you let your kids play violent, degrading or otherwise video games that are unsuited for kids, then it's your fault, not the fault of the people who made them. You as a parent have a responsibility to raise your kids, not let video games do that part. What kind of fucked up argument is this? Would you let your kids play with armed and loaded guns too? No you fucking would lock those away, and you certainly wouldn't complain to gun manufacturers that "they're drilling bullets into children's fertile heads". Again, this is your responsibility, not video games. But it isn't, go play an online game and wait for someone to speak with an accent, they will INSTANTLY realize you're from a foreign country and use that to trashtalk you if they're mad at you. Same exact shit. Women aren't special. Such a naive response

Opinion instantly discarded. That whole article shouldn't even exist and I flagged it as such, as it is neither scientific, nor written to promote factual work, it's a bunch of mindless feminist rambling attempting to sound credible, let's see what happens. And on video games: Women are "guests" in this industry, don't expect this industry to change to cater to the new guy, it shouldn't. Women can simply adapt to the industry, not the other way around. And as for stigmas, if you ever played an online game in the last 5 years, the current biggest stigma aren't women, it's being from certain countries. Brazilians, Russians, French, etc. all have a MUCH bigger stigma in video games than women, simply because there's more of them in games and you encounter them more often. But, and this is the surprise, nobody is asking for more french or brazilian or russian protagonists, nobody is saying there's a problem here, because there is none. I really hate to repeat myself, but people on the internet are dicks, 99.99% are. You can NOT change this, ever. It was like since gaming as a hobby existed, in fact it existed before that, in the form of nitpicking on players shortcomings that have nothing to do with a game, as in, an actual physical game. People use the most easy way to insult someone, be it heritage, race, skin color, or sex. This is how things work on this planet. It didn't suddenly become a problem when the first woman decided to try out video games and it isn't a problem now. You learn to live with it, you learn to not listen to them and you learn to use the ignore and mute buttons. Deal with it

Opinion you don't like and can't refute is now trolling, k.

You are completely mising the point. Entirely. People are dicks online, learn to live with it. People are dick to women and attack them beacuse they are women because it's the most easy way to get them riled up. Do an experiment and pretend you are jewish, from a third world country, gay, or whatever. People online will use these things to attack you. This is how the internet works, and you will NEVER change this, as long as the internet is a free institution with no regulation. Unless you turn the internet into an orweillian nightmare, this will NEVER EVER change. Again, people attack women, not because they somehow hate women, but because attacking their womanhood is the most easy way to piss them off, that's how it works. Everyone, me included, gets crap online on a daily basis. To claim this is a woman only thing is being INCREDIBLY naive to online culture and simply how things work. You learn to live with the crap and ignore it, not ask to include more female characters which will solve nothing, except ruin good games in the process ( already happened on several occasions ). It's the fucking internet, you have the choice to simply not look at when people give you crap. Like, physically look away from the monitor. Use ignore and mute functions that nowadays exist in pretty much every online game. Video games are largely a boys things as you call it because men simply make up the overwhelming majority of gamers world wide. All those statistic that claim that females are roughly 50% of gamers are including facebook games, flash games and other non-core games in their statistic, in an attempt to boost female numbers. Look up statistics of women in specific video games, you'll see that they make up less than 10% of pretty much every core-game ever. Again, there is nothing wrong with the current situation, and including more female characters, will solve absolutely nothing. It's risky because those games simply don't sell. If you want to make money in an industry, you research your target audience. And for video games that's males. The last game that was highly praised by online feminists for being "progressive", "Remember Me" sold like absolute DOGSHIT. Female gamers make up an incredibly small part of the gaming culture. On or offline. Why should the industry change to suit a small minority? The minority should just adapt to the norm instead, like it is with everything else ever.

So i take that remark about the "colonies" that you're from the UK then. Fine. I'm gonna quote article 10 of the human rights act from 1998 of the united kingdom, paragraph 1: This includes the right to communicate and to express oneself in any medium, including through words, pictures, images and actions (including through public protest and demonstrations). The type of expression protected includes: - political expression (including comment on matters of general public interest); - artistic expression; and - commercial expression, particularly when it also raises matters of legitimate public debate and concern. I can guarantee you that every civilized country has one of those, as it is a basic human right.

The constitution of pretty much every first world country currently existing: Freedom of speech.

Last I checked, people didn't ask for more females in books, this is my entire gripe. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the current situation and people try to shoehorn their world views into games. That's the gist of it. Keep this crap out of my video games. Weird, because you just had a post on the page prior that says otherwise Video games are NOT a political medium where every subgroup of people needs to be represented. Do you want females in Tetris too? Honest question. If you start to alter artistic works to add political correctness in the form of more women, more people of whatever, hell even if it's the prime example of female representation and there's literally no male characters, adding male characters would still be a bad thing. Forcing artists to change their piece of art so it fits political correctness or some agenda ( ie. "representation of women in video games" ) is an extremely dangerous thing to ask for. The last people who tried to change art to fit their world views and ban art that didn't fit it happen to be responsible for the Holocaust too. In art EVERYTHING goes, freedom of speech largely means the freedom to speak and create things that YOU don't like, this is what it means to live in a free country. In art, everything must be doable, otherwise it stops being art. If I want to make a game that literally lets you rape and torture women, then you might find it disgusting, but it is my god damn right to do so as an artist, and not you, nor anyone else will take that right from me. Let artist do whatever they want and don't force them to change their work to appeal to the masses. Art MUST be able to provoke, to disgust and to be hated

No it's not, they CLAIM it's about gender representation to make anyone speaking against it look like a misogynistic person. The truth is, gender representation in video games doesn't exist in the first place. They're not human. They're digital models that APPEAR human. You are not represented by video game characters, female or male. Stop claiming this is about representation, because it is simply not Video games do not exist to fulfil some political quota to include this many % of women in them. Video games are pieces of art. Are you seriously also protesting in front of well known museums for not including more paintings with women? Even worse, you demand that games be modified away from what the designer intended. So are you genuinely saying that you want to replace half the men in "The last supper" with women to be more political correct? Don't be ridiculous. What you and people like you isn't an accurate representation of video game characters. You want people to shoehorn your world view and agenda into an art form, that people that you dislike tend to play. For no other reason than to FORCE them to experience said world views and beliefs. It's exactly the same thing creationists are trying in america by trying to get it recognized as an actual science ( it's not btw ), they don't do it to enrichen the scientific process, they do it to destroy science itself, because it conflicts with their world views. So I say again, yes, it is precisely THAT unrealistic to have female combat deployed soldiers in the game. Yes, if you are unable to enjoy the game with the characters you have right now, then you're playing it for the wrong reason. Yes, this recent equalization trend is the worst thing that happened to video games since Jack Thompson. Yes, you are idiotic if you think that representation has ANY place in a video game. And yes, the next dragon age is gonna be complete shit because of those aforementioned reasons, and yet you will still buy it because it's "progressive". Be my guest ( ignoring the fact that Jazz Shaw just reposted it, and is not the actual person in question ). The actual soldier in question was genuinely a deployed female soldier of the IDF and I'd love to see you "rebut" any of her arguments. Go ahead

Active duty yes, as a support. As in, not actually deployed to combat. As in, never see frontline grunt work. That's the cold hard fact. Have a good read here from a female veteran on the exact reasons why women will NEVER be deployed to combat in the same way men will: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/01/27/some-advice-on-women-in-combat-from-a-female-veteran/ This recent trend of claiming you're unable to enjoy a video game if there isn't a female ( or gay, or trans, or whatever the hell ) character for you to play as seriously needs to stop. It's called being able to immerse yourself in a game. Start playing games because they're fun, not because you can be a girl in it. If arma isn't fun to you with only male characters to play as, then try different games, because it won't be fun with female characters either As for actually having said models. It's unrealistic, it's a massive increase in workload ( new voices, new models, new animations, all with different variations ) for what is essentially no gain whatsoever. Keep this crap out of my arma.

I wonder that too, considering that this is a blatant lie