, so it's explicitly excluded in the GPL...IANAL, but I tend to agree with el capitano about one mod being one single work (as used in the GPL).
STOP THE MODER INFIGHTING NOW!
Moderator: Moderators
Fang: You don't understand - which is not a bad thing, rather a sign of purity 
When I GPL something that has been put into public domain, it DOESN'T mean that the original piece is suddenly GPL! Only the thing that I release is, even if it's bit-for-bit equal. You still can take that PD'd stuff and do whatever you want with it - including applying your own license. In such cases, place from which you get the stuff matters. Also, when there's no license (a phrase like "this stuff is in public domain" is a license, for our purposes), you CANNOT use the stuff - it's copyrighted by default.
That's why the GPL exists: so people won't take stuff that's been in the public domain and release it as their "hard work." That doesn't mean you're one of them - I'm talking about something like Bad Company takes EE and sells it for $$$, without even mentioning your name, let alone sharing profits. Some people don't like being treated like that.
Also, you cannot be 'too caught up' with licenses. That's something you have to respect, or potentially face consequences. Not knowing about or not understanding the license *is not* an excuse to not adhering to it. If you create content, *especially* free content, you absolutely have to know something about copyright, the more, the better. It's a big hassle, but it'll pay off.
When I GPL something that has been put into public domain, it DOESN'T mean that the original piece is suddenly GPL! Only the thing that I release is, even if it's bit-for-bit equal. You still can take that PD'd stuff and do whatever you want with it - including applying your own license. In such cases, place from which you get the stuff matters. Also, when there's no license (a phrase like "this stuff is in public domain" is a license, for our purposes), you CANNOT use the stuff - it's copyrighted by default.
That's why the GPL exists: so people won't take stuff that's been in the public domain and release it as their "hard work." That doesn't mean you're one of them - I'm talking about something like Bad Company takes EE and sells it for $$$, without even mentioning your name, let alone sharing profits. Some people don't like being treated like that.
Also, you cannot be 'too caught up' with licenses. That's something you have to respect, or potentially face consequences. Not knowing about or not understanding the license *is not* an excuse to not adhering to it. If you create content, *especially* free content, you absolutely have to know something about copyright, the more, the better. It's a big hassle, but it'll pay off.
You have to understand copyright law. By default, anything you make yourself is yours, and no-one else's. If you give it to someone else (say, put it online) they have the right to do anything they want with it _except_ give it (or any derivative works) to anyone else.
Now, that's pretty restrictive, and that's the license that stuff you buy off the shelf gives you. You can't redistribute, even if you change things.
Now, the point is that sometimes, we want to give people more options for what we can do with our code stuff. So we have two sets of licenses (one for code, one for content).
So take note: Opensource/open content licenses give you extra powers. This isn't like shrink-wrap. They let you do things with the content that you're not normally allowed to do. Normally, anything you see on the internet is read-only. Touch and it's a violation of the author's copyright. These licenses are meant to expand that.
In the code licenses, we have the dominant approach - the somewhat restrictive GPL, which essentially is enforcing pay-it-forward content. In short, the GPL says "the code you are using is a gift. Make your own code a gift too". It just says you have to post the code online and apply the same license to it.
The LGPL says "only the parts of the code that are DIRECTLY related to the original thing you used need to be publicly released.
Now, the breadth of this "infection" as it is often called, is ambiguous. In general, it's believed that it is "replaceable-package-level" - that is, if your object can be replaced without any recompilation, but individual parts cannot, then your package is probably the level where the whole thing is GPLd. It would not be unreasonable to believe that any single mod that uses GPLd code is entirely required to opened under the GPL.
Next, we have the BSD/MIT licenses, which essentially mean "do whatever you like with it, I don't care - just don't call me if it blows up your computer". These are considered the most friendly. Originally they included an attribution clause, but that was removed because it was a headache for bookkeeping. Many projects operate under various licenses that could be described as "BSD with attribution".
Then we have the content licenses, as exemplified by the nice, easy to understand set provided by the Creative Commons. The CC licenses are much simpler because there's no "package/infection" ambiguity.
So remember: if a person has not provided a license, you can't legally use it for anything but personal use. Without a GPL/CC/BSD/whatever license, the code is still 100% copywritten by the owner. He may not ever enforce it, but legally he has your balls in a vice.
So in short: license your code, and read other peoples' licenses. I have never seen an OSS license that didn't at least include a friendly, plain-English preamble.
Personally, I recommend the GPL and the CC-attribution/share-alike license, but that's just me. I'd prefer a GPL+attribution license, but because many projects are pure-GPL they don't want to have to relicense as GPL+attribution to include my code, so I stick to plain GPL where my code is more useful.[/b]
Remember that code and content are 100% separate. There are many projects with opened code and closed content - even retail videogames. The open code allows them to use GPL code within their project, but the closed content means that their project can't effectively be redistributed without a metric assload of work.
Again, this is all afaik, ianal, iddqd, etc.
Now, that's pretty restrictive, and that's the license that stuff you buy off the shelf gives you. You can't redistribute, even if you change things.
Now, the point is that sometimes, we want to give people more options for what we can do with our code stuff. So we have two sets of licenses (one for code, one for content).
So take note: Opensource/open content licenses give you extra powers. This isn't like shrink-wrap. They let you do things with the content that you're not normally allowed to do. Normally, anything you see on the internet is read-only. Touch and it's a violation of the author's copyright. These licenses are meant to expand that.
In the code licenses, we have the dominant approach - the somewhat restrictive GPL, which essentially is enforcing pay-it-forward content. In short, the GPL says "the code you are using is a gift. Make your own code a gift too". It just says you have to post the code online and apply the same license to it.
The LGPL says "only the parts of the code that are DIRECTLY related to the original thing you used need to be publicly released.
Now, the breadth of this "infection" as it is often called, is ambiguous. In general, it's believed that it is "replaceable-package-level" - that is, if your object can be replaced without any recompilation, but individual parts cannot, then your package is probably the level where the whole thing is GPLd. It would not be unreasonable to believe that any single mod that uses GPLd code is entirely required to opened under the GPL.
Next, we have the BSD/MIT licenses, which essentially mean "do whatever you like with it, I don't care - just don't call me if it blows up your computer". These are considered the most friendly. Originally they included an attribution clause, but that was removed because it was a headache for bookkeeping. Many projects operate under various licenses that could be described as "BSD with attribution".
Then we have the content licenses, as exemplified by the nice, easy to understand set provided by the Creative Commons. The CC licenses are much simpler because there's no "package/infection" ambiguity.
So remember: if a person has not provided a license, you can't legally use it for anything but personal use. Without a GPL/CC/BSD/whatever license, the code is still 100% copywritten by the owner. He may not ever enforce it, but legally he has your balls in a vice.
So in short: license your code, and read other peoples' licenses. I have never seen an OSS license that didn't at least include a friendly, plain-English preamble.
Personally, I recommend the GPL and the CC-attribution/share-alike license, but that's just me. I'd prefer a GPL+attribution license, but because many projects are pure-GPL they don't want to have to relicense as GPL+attribution to include my code, so I stick to plain GPL where my code is more useful.[/b]
Remember that code and content are 100% separate. There are many projects with opened code and closed content - even retail videogames. The open code allows them to use GPL code within their project, but the closed content means that their project can't effectively be redistributed without a metric assload of work.
Again, this is all afaik, ianal, iddqd, etc.
Disclaimer: I know there are some exaggerations on Points, be ashured that i not want to hurt anybodys Feelings. Additional this is just my personal Opinion and it is wrong for shure in some Points. So feel free to correct it calm! Thx.
Well, i think the legal stuff is just another Symptom of the Mods EE, NB & Gundam not getting the Attention they deserve. Peoplz wouldn`t make it a Drama if they had the serious, big Fanbase they put months of hight-Quality Work in for. But at least they have not the Problems you ha(d/ve) with your "fast"(Speedy) followers Cadyr
The Problem is the invisible Rift between the SpeedMetallCommunity (mainly Casual-Gamers- playing a completely diffrent Game) and the SpringCommunity (mainly Hardcore RTS-Players).
To say it first, Casualgamers are not stupid, know very well what Fun is and they are normal Peoplz. They just don`t want a Game were they can be defeated (and frustrated) - which made AA-Balancing to there wishes so impossible. They just play Football with Krogs.
Every Mod that features easy to built Overpowered Defenses, could have taken over the Casual Community.
Just imagine us sitting here, ranting about EE or Gundam, because 2/3 of the Servers alway belong to those ... filled with Noobs... - well they just never bowed there Balance that way.
Hardcore and Casual just don`t get along with each other. Best would be if the great three Made together a small Mod, that would Conquer some Casual-Territory for them and could fish them some of the SpeedGonzos who want to "Level-Up"
It must be hard to sit as hardworking Balancer in front of a Lobby filled with Players - and they all want to play something that could be made in 2D-Java. The Casuals are like a filled Bottle of Water in the Desert you just can`t open. They are doing it wrong... and they are not the Audience.
"Spring is a project to create the best RTS ever."
Is a Game developed to be the best RTS ever, nessecary Hardcore?
Or would it nessecary include a sort of Gamerz Ladder, so that Casual develop (slowly) up to the Pro-Gamers (who are what the others 3 Aim at)?
I should stop drinking, but Speedrnetall has 510 Dls... sorry if this dies in Flamez... i want Mods played with WaterBalance...
Well, i think the legal stuff is just another Symptom of the Mods EE, NB & Gundam not getting the Attention they deserve. Peoplz wouldn`t make it a Drama if they had the serious, big Fanbase they put months of hight-Quality Work in for. But at least they have not the Problems you ha(d/ve) with your "fast"(Speedy) followers Cadyr
The Problem is the invisible Rift between the SpeedMetallCommunity (mainly Casual-Gamers- playing a completely diffrent Game) and the SpringCommunity (mainly Hardcore RTS-Players).
To say it first, Casualgamers are not stupid, know very well what Fun is and they are normal Peoplz. They just don`t want a Game were they can be defeated (and frustrated) - which made AA-Balancing to there wishes so impossible. They just play Football with Krogs.
Every Mod that features easy to built Overpowered Defenses, could have taken over the Casual Community.
Just imagine us sitting here, ranting about EE or Gundam, because 2/3 of the Servers alway belong to those ... filled with Noobs... - well they just never bowed there Balance that way.
Hardcore and Casual just don`t get along with each other. Best would be if the great three Made together a small Mod, that would Conquer some Casual-Territory for them and could fish them some of the SpeedGonzos who want to "Level-Up"
It must be hard to sit as hardworking Balancer in front of a Lobby filled with Players - and they all want to play something that could be made in 2D-Java. The Casuals are like a filled Bottle of Water in the Desert you just can`t open. They are doing it wrong... and they are not the Audience.
"Spring is a project to create the best RTS ever."
Is a Game developed to be the best RTS ever, nessecary Hardcore?
Or would it nessecary include a sort of Gamerz Ladder, so that Casual develop (slowly) up to the Pro-Gamers (who are what the others 3 Aim at)?
I should stop drinking, but Speedrnetall has 510 Dls... sorry if this dies in Flamez... i want Mods played with WaterBalance...
TBH, i am sick and tired of ppl bringing up the whole "breaking commercial licenses". Its not worth worrying about. Why? because most Game Developers/ Publishers understand that modders like to create mods based on popular games/franchises. As a result most don't really care or simply choose to ignore us. With the exception of a very small number of mods, most mods of this type do not risk being shut down or otherwise sued. Its a non issue. Yes, there have been some that have been sued or otherwise received a "Cease and Desist" but often times, the company that does such a thing does so at the risk of alienating its fanbase or otherwise hurting its Public image, and most companies would rather have a few mods running around based on their IP rather than have the rep of being "an evil" company. TA based mods run no risk of getting this community shut down. The idea that such could happen is simply ridiculous. So the way i see it is.Caydr wrote:About as much as every other TA mod... what's your point?AA's been breaking commercial licenses for years
Chill out.
Have Fun.
Play some games!
-
SpikedHelmet
- MC: Legacy & Spring 1944 Developer
- Posts: 1948
- Joined: 21 Sep 2004, 08:25
Yes, this is Atari we are talking about, and they are a special case. They are so clueless about the IP that they have, the could care less about what we do with it.Caydr wrote:Haha, remember, this is Atari we're talking about! I'm not sure there's anything else they could possibly do to give themselves a worse reputation.does so at the risk of alienating its fanbase or otherwise hurting its Public image
In all fairness to the "TA" mods like AA, XTA, BA etc, they are likely not even on the atari radar. However, I do believe that spring SHOULD NOT include all the OTA stuff. In Gundam, Nanoblobs and EE we have all seperated ourselves from OTA. However, AA, XTA, etc can never really be sepperate from OTA IP because of their very concept.
I know there is some resentment among moders who make all of their content but I am going to just put it out there that I don't give a flip that AA uses OTA content. I just wish spring wouldn't include it.
I know there is some resentment among moders who make all of their content but I am going to just put it out there that I don't give a flip that AA uses OTA content. I just wish spring wouldn't include it.
