Spring RTS Engine

It annoys me a bit when people complain about people using TA content and then release their own stuff under a license that is just as restrictive and somehow feel it's worse for people to use their stuff than the TA stuff. Obviously you can use whatever license you want but not allowing any modifications at all (eg Gundam, EE) is far more restrictive than anything I've seen in a commercial game. Saying "Oh sure you can use my model, if you not only convert that but everything else in my mod" is completely stupid, especially as Tired never even explicitly said in the PMs TRO posted and the worst insult he used was "smelly".

Seriously, this community kind of depresses me sometimes.

although obviously i'm not saying that you don't have the right to do w/e with your own stuff

Why shouldn't we enforce it?

If I don't wish my content to be stolen, and there is no guarantee that it won't be, because there's an 'unspoken who cares rule', then why the hell should I keep making content for my mod? I'll go elsewhere.

I really don't want noobs ripping my stuff apart and putting up crappy balance mods, sticking x skin and y script that I've spent a lot of time and effort producing, without actually having to spend any effort to produce the unit, then gaining the recognition for something they have had no hand in producing.

If I want people to take my stuff, then I'll give them permission. If I don't, then they ought to respect my decision, and the community ought to respect my decision, and most definitely not judge me for it.

Noize, we can't really enforce the law (and it is the law) but there are ways that we can keep the infractions out of our space - by kicking Tired Annihilation off of FU, banning it from the lobby, etc.

And it is the law. What tired did was illegal. While that may be silly to care about, since all the TA mods are similarly illegal, it is somewhat different when the infraction was committed against someone that is within the same community, and not a big, faceless corporation.

Tired redistributed content that was not his to redistribute without the creator's permission. That's a violation of the creator's rights. We can either respect the creator by doing the things that mitigate the damage, or we can simply ignore the violation.

Since content creators are more useful to the community than content copyers, I choose to side with the former.

tombom wrote:It annoys me a bit when people complain about people using TA content and then release their own stuff under a license that is just as restrictive and somehow feel it's worse for people to use their stuff than the TA stuff.

its a mod FOR OTA.

Mr.Frumious wrote:big, faceless corporation.

That went out of business long ago.

Unless you mean Atari, which neither created nor uses the content.

NOiZE wrote:[That being said, i fully respect the work you ppl do, but you can't really protect your work. Its just impossible.

But not protecting it means that you don't care about it. Some people care.

Peet wrote:

tombom wrote:It annoys me a bit when people complain about people using TA content and then release their own stuff under a license that is just as restrictive and somehow feel it's worse for people to use their stuff than the TA stuff.

its a mod FOR OTA.

As I said in the lobby, this makes absolutely no difference. You're not allowed to distribute TA content.

Unless you mean Atari, which neither created nor uses the content.

But still owns the copyright, which is all that matters.

As I see it the divide between the "Everyone does it so it's okay" and the "Stop stealing!" oppinions runs right between those who make their own content and those who steal theirs.

Leaving aside the legality and morality, Tired has chosen to act like an ass and should be treated accordingly.

tombom wrote:It annoys me a bit when people complain about people using TA content and then release their own stuff under a license that is just as restrictive and somehow feel it's worse for people to use their stuff than the TA stuff. Obviously you can use whatever license you want but not allowing any modifications at all (eg Gundam, EE) is far more restrictive than anything I've seen in a commercial game.

so true

tombom wrote:As I said in the lobby, this makes absolutely no difference. You're not allowed to distribute TA content.

Let's look at it this way. Legally, no it's not allowed, but no one is going to care, and I would frankly call that a technicality, since you could make a dependent file or make an executable that merged in the relevant OTA data. Ethically, since it needs OTA to run, there is nothing wrong imo.

tombom wrote:It annoys me a bit when people complain about people using TA content and then release their own stuff under a license that is just as restrictive and somehow feel it's worse for people to use their stuff than the TA stuff. Obviously you can use whatever license you want but not allowing any modifications at all (eg Gundam, EE) is far more restrictive than anything I've seen in a commercial game.

What does the restrictiveness of a license have to do with how bad taking another's content is? I would think more important is whether the creator/maintainer is around, and both are far below the issue of permission.

tombom wrote:[Atari] still owns the copyright, which is all that matters.

Is that really all that matters to you? Is it the same to rip content from a company who couldn't care less and just bought the copyright, and to rip a unit made entirely by a fellow community member who specifically told you not to twice?

KDR_11k wrote:As I see it the divide between the "Everyone does it so it's okay" and the "Stop stealing!" oppinions runs right between those who make their own content and those who steal theirs.

Leaving aside the legality and morality, Tired has chosen to act like an ass and should be treated accordingly.

Even from a strictly pragmatic perspective, this shows that we should side with TRO. Simply put: guys like TRO are more useful than guys like Tired.

Tombom, jK, why are you annoyed by people who complain about others stealing TA content and then don't want their own content taken? Do you think someone complaining about others stealing is obliged to create an alternative for them to use? Or was that a typo and you meant people who don't care about stealing TA content?

lurker wrote:

tombom wrote:[atari] still owns the copyright, which is all that matters.

Is that really all that matters to you? Is it the same to rip content from a company who couldn't care less and just bought the copyright, and to rip a unit made entirely by a fellow community member who specifically told you not to twice?

Legally, they're both just as bad. From a normal perspective, I think the TRO was completely stupid not to allow Tired to use his model when he asked politely. Sure, it's his choice. In my opinion if you only care about stuff like this when it applies to "fellow community members" (note that TRO has done nothing at all for Spring) then you're a stupid hypocrite. I know that some people who are posting here download games/music illegally all the time. Same situation.

If you're seriously making a mod for Spring, then I think it's really bad form to not allow people to modify it, especially if you've included Lua widgets/rules which were written by other people. Spring is open source and made by a team and nobody would play it if the SYs had said at the start "Hey we're not making any profit at all from this, but we're not going to open source it!".

I also hate the way that people who are working as part of a team are saying "I would hate people to steal my stuff". If you're working as a team, you're using work made by other people. A lot of mod makers don't have the skills to do everything all by themselves and so have to use stuff by other people. It's hard to get people to make models for you and if you don't let them use stuff made by you - especially if you also practise some stupid elitism over TA content-, then you're making it harder for new people to start modding, which would kill of the community.

If Spring/TA started with a community of people who simply refused to share, then there simply wouldn't be a community anymore. Saying that Tired is somehow a "content copier" because he didn't make his own models is stupid because he's done a lot of work on his mod. Sure, it's not Gundam sized amount of work, but that's no reason to take a dump on it.

This post wandered. Sorry.

Tombom, jK, why are you annoyed by people who complain about others stealing TA content and then don't want their own content taken? Do you think someone complaining about others stealing is obliged to create an alternative for them to use? Or was that a typo and you meant people who don't care about stealing TA content?

I think that if you have stupid elitism over people using TA content, then you shouldn't complain when people want to use yours. (not directed at you specifically)

It boils down to respect, in my mind. Yes, asking can usually be just a formality, but if the artist says no, you respect the work they did in creating that content, and listen to them.

I know I'd be mighty peeved if somebody decided to rip all the scripting work I've done for S44 and publish it as their own. It's not that I'd call in the lawyers on them, but it's more the fact that they're more or less pissing on time I spent trying to create something cool, which is a pretty huge disincentive to just stop creating stuff.

If we support people disregarding artists' wishes regarding their work, we're going to start losing artists and content creators. Period.

tombom wrote:Legally, they're both just as bad.

I would agree had Atari sent a cease and desist letter, since Tired was very specifically denied in writing.

tombom wrote:In my opinion if you only care about stuff like this when it applies to "fellow community members" (note that TRO has done nothing at all for Spring) then you're a stupid hypocrite.

I don't feel that way. If Tired had taken it without asking, and TRO ignored him, I frankly wouldn't care very much.

tombom wrote:"fellow community members" (note that TRO has done nothing at all for Spring)

tombom wrote:If Spring/TA started with a community of people who simply refused to share, then there simply wouldn't be a community anymore.

tombom wrote: Obviously you can use whatever license you want but not allowing any modifications at all (eg Gundam, EE) is far more restrictive than anything I've seen in a commercial game.

Of course I am not allowing gundam modification, I am working on it! funny how kdr made a mutator and I didn't give a fuck though?

Or what about the fact tombom that everything but the fbis and models in gundam are fair game and I have said this countless times.

you guys are pathetic.

You restricted use to the Gundam fbi files...?

*tries to remember if he's used any of the gundam fbi files*

smoth wrote:

tombom wrote: Obviously you can use whatever license you want but not allowing any modifications at all (eg Gundam, EE) is far more restrictive than anything I've seen in a commercial game.

Of course I am not allowing gundam modification, I am working on it! funny how kdr made a mutator and I didn't give a fuck though?

Or what about the fact tombom that everything but the fbis and models in gundam are fair game and I have said this countless times.

you guys are pathetic.

Just out of curiosity, why the FBIs? To avoid any "Balanced Gundam" mods?

keen eye but it is also because I do a lot of fbi changes and it would be horrible for anyone if they made a mutator for gundam and then I make a new release. Until 2.0 I do not want to see people making modified versions as they would end up being quickly outdated.

Ah phew

(FYI: I only looked at a few fbis to see which tags were needed for certain types of behaviour and so on, like the tags for an amphibious unit or 'what tags are needed for aircraft?' etc)