Hey guys and gals, I'm new to the modding scene, and just wanted to find out if there is a preferrable license to use when writing mod code which you want to be as open as possible for other people to alter and extend, or even for Uber to use if they like anything. Is licensing even necessary at all? I'd be inclined to use this license if it were necessary: http://www.wtfpl.net/about/ If we were to license some code, is there any problem with including slightly altered Uber code in these mod packages? Does Uber have a specific license for their code? Cheers,
I like having attributation. If I put a bucketload of work into some code, I'm happy for people to use it in their own stuff with changes and ammendments to it, but I really do want people to know what my contribution was. There's every chance that I'd use my code as portfolio to get a nice game-dev job somewhere someday. If my code happens to make it into the next Counter-Strike, or the next DOTA, then I will certainly want portfolio to reflect that. I think the BSD and MIT licences require attribution, but are otherwise pretty open-season. They might be better alternatives.
That's a good point, it's probably more sensible to use the MIT or BSD license to protect yourself. I can see that it would be possible for someone to out-right claim your code as their own with the license I mentioned. Or that it would be more difficult to prove if the mod code had your name taken off of it. However this wouldn't stop me from rightfully claiming I written the code and showing it in a portfolio. Anyway, after reading this page: http://www.codinghorror.com/blog/2007/04/pick-a-license-any-license.html. I'm thinking the MIT License would be a saner choice..
Hey, I agree with the MIT license, it's short, solid, and easy to use. I'm not sure it would be necessary though, I don't recall any "major incident" with supcom's mods, and unless you really (really) want ownership over your code, a beerware license (or none at all) should be enough !
Most of the incidents we had dealt more with art assets than code really. I had several instances of my art being redistributed without my permission. Mike
/* * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- * "THE BEER-WARE LICENSE" (Revision 42): * <phk@FreeBSD.ORG> wrote this file. As long as you retain this notice you * can do whatever you want with this stuff. If we meet some day, and you think * this stuff is worth it, you can buy me a beer in return Poul-Henning Kamp * ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- */ Requires attribution AND there's the possibility of free beer! I think we have a winner! But the main reason I want the license is not so much for myself, but for you guys too. No License = you cannot use without my permission. I still have the question about Uber's code though. For instance in my key mapper mod I have 2 modified Uber files. I can't give them away because they're not mine to give. Maybe on the top of those files I need to say something like "This file is owned by Uber Entertainment"? Or maybe I'm just being to paranoid about this whole thing and should just get to writing code!
I've given a tiny amount of thought to licencing, but currently, I decided that my mod isn't well developed enough to warrant any real form of legal protection. I'm not trying to use it as some sort of portfolio fodder, and I accept that there's nothing I could realistically do to stop people copying it and distributing it without my permission. The only reason it took me any reasonable time to do it was because I have no web-development experience. I'm pretty sure that a competent web-developer could turn out the same (or better) stuff in less than an hour. However, if only as a matter of manners, it would be nice if someone let me know if they were going to use the stuff I've done. I'd probably be happy to help them in most circumstances. I recognise that some communities of other games (*cough* minecraft *cough*) have generated a lot of internet drama over the application of "modder's rights" (whatever they may be). I'd personally only consider an actual licence for anything I've written if it developed to the point where I felt it was significant or original piece of work. As for distributing Uber's code, I really didn't think about things, although in retrospect, I probably should have. My mod alters three of uber's files, along with adding one of my own. In distribution terms, I distribute the entirety of those files, so I guess it could constitute a breach of copyright. I don't know where the point a work becomes derivative or is considered a work by-and-of-itself is. If I alter only a few lines in a HTML document, does that class the entire document as something new? Or is it jut a part of the document? The root div? The line? The word? The byte? I genuinely don't know the full legalities on this what, but I do know there is a big difference between what is considered polite, what is considered legal on paper, what is considered legal in practice, and what is enforced. I didn't really think it would be that big a deal as the only people interested in those files would be people who already have access to them. So far, I have acted entirety in good faith. Uber has generally been supportive to the modding community, and I would be a little surprised at this point if they came down on anyone for anything less than a substantial redistribution of Uber's original work. At this point, if I am asked to do so, I will take down any work I have done, small though it may be. I'm also perfectly capable of writing a quick script to replace and insert my code in the relevant files, so distribution will still be possible in the future, with distributing the entirety of the file.
AFAIK, it's really art assets that are the contentious issue. We never had anyone trying to protect their code.
Don't use WTFPL, it's looks cool but it's Public Domain. In many countries there is no legal base for Public Domain and lot of issues about it. Also github run nice site about licenses: http://choosealicense.com/ I think MIT and Apache is good choice for mods source code. You can also use Creative Commons for assets made from scratch: http://creativecommons.org/choose/
Copyright is a monopoly right so it is a exclusive to the right holder and is automatically given from the works creation. The default stance is nobody can do anything without the rights holder's permission. Though in the case of Uber work maybe but it's not explicit because you really don't know what we can do. Can we use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, etc. Just don't know. Well that what we can do is implicit but puts us in an uncomfortable position as modders. The same issue applies to the community. What can we do without permission nothing. Licensing is the solution and we would do this to give permission to our fellow modders and players. for the same reasons above we need to pick a licenses for use by the community and compatible with any of the terms of Uber license. So my recommendations are Expat License (MIT License as it's referred to on the open-source initiative website) or BSD 2-Clause license. (MIT license refers to a family of licenses so does BSD style. Which is why I'm being specific.) Both of these licenses are roughly the same. Now for art assets I would recommend Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY 4.0) or Creative Commons Attribution-Sharealike 4.0. Community documentation should be either licensed under a Creative Commons License. For anybody that's wishing to put they work into the public domain. You could use CC0 specifically because it has a clause in it just in case the jurisdiction doesn't have a public domain it waves all rights and abandons any claim from the copyright holder. These licenses would allow for use, copy, modify, merge, publish, distribute, sublicense which anybody would be able to use the works licensed under a for any reason as long as they follow the conditions of the licenses otherwise it would be revoked. the way to be compliant is to give attribution to all these licenses and in the case of CC BY-SA 4.0 use the same license. But the licenses have to be compatible with Uber Entertainment license agreement. Permissive licenses would work with it. So the best way to do this would be for everybody to license there works under the same license. It just becomes easier to manage and we should have in every mod directory notice and license files. As a community we should sit down and discuss with Uber what would we like to see to in a mod license agreement. Also mod marketplace agreement should be discussed if Uber decides to go through with it. Some of the things that are important these include: All content creators must remain copyright holders for the content that they created. (Uber and mod creators) All mods must remain modifiable. So other people can modification, if no longer maintained by anyone can start to, etc. (think open-source or free software without the commercial aspect.) A mod can be sold without the express agreement of Uber and Mod creators. (Requirements set out by Uber. Some discussion here, here and it starts here. None of this is official.) Mods can only be used with planetary annihilation and game key. No malware, spyware, adware, etc is allowed. If permanent ban and loses game key or worse. Uber can implement any mod idea into the game or set up a deal with mod creators Further Reading and References: VG Modding specific: Who owns the mods? Yong Ming Kow and Bonnie Nardi, First Monday Fooling the user? Modding in the video game industry Merlin Münch, Internet Policy Review FCJ-025 Precarious Playbour: Modders and the Digital Games Industry Julian Kücklich, The Fibreculture Journal Modder arrest a reminder that most console hacks are illegal Ben Kuchera, Arstechnica Managing Copyright, Licenses and Other: http://producingoss.com/en/index.html http://oreilly.com/openbook/osfreesoft/book/ http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2012/ManagingCopyrightInformation.html http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2007/gpl-non-gpl-collaboration.html http://www.softwarefreedom.org/resources/2008/foss-primer.html http://wiki.creativecommons.org/FAQ http://creativecommons.org/about/cc0 http://www.linfo.org/bsdlicense.html http://www.linfo.org/mitlicense.html http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/MIT-License-X11-license-or-MIT-X-license https://fedoraproject.org/wiki/Licensing:MIT?rd=Licensing/MIT - MIT variants Thank You for Reading. Thoughts. tl;dr - refer to top^ Disclaimer: I am not a lawyer and anything I say does not constitute legal advice. Contact a lawyer for legal advice.
Depends. Really up to court and the details of all. All you can do is act in good faith. We don't have to worry with Uber. Really don't think that would do anything in less like you say it's major. That's the good way to handle it.
