This is my first non-polite post in many years that I frequent the community and yours is the most offensive one I read.
Also as to your original post, nowhere does it say you are taking submissions for new maps in either the openxcom.mod.io page or the forum entry. So, trying to guilt us because we couldn't read your mind and figure out your intentions isn't fair at all.
guilt us because we couldn't read your mind and figure out your intentions isn't fair at all.
Precisely. I never took donations, and to me it's that a question related to my own personal values. And I posted my considerations to confirm how they are similar or different from the community. I apologize if you felt I was trying to guilt you, but I spoke what I feel at this point, and tried to use it to make people reflect a bit about all of this.Do you allow do letsplays of your mods? The will have lot more donation than any modder that use your mods. And they contribute nothing back.
And after some serious reflection, I've decided to change the permissions of my work in the Terrain Pack, Area 51 and Tech-Comm, from now onwards as this:
I do not allow anymore for any of my original files to be used and published in mods made by other authors for OpenXCom.
As such, I'll remove all non-original content from my mods that I don't have specific permission to use by their authors as quickly as possible. I expect all other modders to do the same.
And I will check future releases in the mod portal for compliance with my rights as an author. And if they are disrespected, I'll report the situation to the administrators and ask them to remove those mods.
I will continue to make the Terrain Pack available for players to use, and as such modders can request that players download and install the Terrain Pack separately, if they consider it required for their mods.
This way I feel my rights are respected, and other modders can ask for donations as much as they want, because they're not doing it anymore while using my original files in their work.
Do you allow do letsplays of your mods? The will have lot more donation than any modder that use your mods. And they contribute nothing back.
Another thing, for what donations are for? Mod? No I can grab it for free. More the work they did and will do. You could be right if any thing they did was simply "assert flip" but they mods are many times bigger and have lot of unique content. Then what if after they remove your work they still get same amount of donations? Would it mean that your point was incorrect? Funny would be if they would get more now than previously. Only in case when they will stop getting any thing your concern could be valid.
Overall similar situation is with Red Hat, they "sell" linux operating systems, this mean every one who contributed to linux is "used" by them.
But in FOSS this is not problem or even it is very good thing, because you can use all Red Hat work without paying them (Centos).
I think same model could be used in OXC mod community.
Well i agree, it´s your creations, and you want to claim it, moving on. Can i buy the rights to use some part´s? Shortcut´s me some work that i will end up doing anyway.. and by wasting time i will just pay for something already done. Win win for both
I don't accept donations either. And I guess I'm "on your side": I'm not enthusiastic about monetization***.
I like when things are clear: commercial or non-commercial. OpenXCom is afaik non-commercial, so everything that spawns from it should stay the same, without misunderstandings.
There is also the legal issue. I'm clueless about this stuff, but we're "using" a trademark (or more than one) owned by someone else, so it might be risky: I don't want the community to be bombarded by Cease&Desist notices because the situation got out of hand.
But, as Yankes said, people monetize from youtube Let's Plays and you can do nothing about it, while modders do contribute something to the community. So I don't know if a stance like yours really makes sense all things considered (I mean no offense by saying this, just an honest thought).
I'm currently letting people use my assets (ofc strictly only for OXC modding) with the simple request that they're tweaked enough to show that the modder put in some the effort, and not simply copy-pasted them in his mod. I myself won't turn a blind eye to blatant exploitation (even though I can't really do much about it other than calling people out).
All that said, I respect your decision. I don't think I'm using anything from your mods (used a mapScript at some point but now not anymore). Please warn me if you notice something, I'll remove it as quickly as I can.
***Poor wording from me here as "donations" and "monetization" can be very different things. The sentence should be interpreted as "I don't agree with the idea of taking donations for a mod."
I'm not interested in discussing whether donations are commercial. That leads nowhere because I have my own opinion (they are), and that's the only one that matters when I'm deciding my rights as an author.I only ask to reconsider this. Everyone here is grown adult and respect your decision, all your offenders are now in processes of deleting your work from theirs mods.
If you don't respect it, then stop using my work. End of discussion.But this is other way around, I not mod author and I dont use your mods, but you use OXC or OXCE and in both are parts I write and I'm author of them.
But IMHO this will be harmful in long run for whole community.
But IMHO this will be harmful in long run for whole community.
But this is other way around, I not mod author and I dont use your mods, but you use OXC or OXCE and in both are parts I write and I'm author of them.
I could theoretically ask you to do same. And what will result? SupSuper will ask me to stop using his work in OXCE, and then Warboy ask SupSuper to remove his work from OXC.
Overall result will be that only solution is delete whole OXC/OXCE and disband this community.
Good thing is that I fully committed to GNU General Public License, anyone can use my work without any permission as long he follow GPL.
Hobbes, from the comments I read till now, you are standing at the edge of the tipping point. It is sad to see the weight of guilt being pushed on you and anymore isn’t going to be easier. If the community is more sympathetic, the outcome may have been different. Still, it will be sorry to see you leave.
No, I am saying the community should be more sympathetic to your situation.
Oh, man... And all this shit around as always grows from human greed and envy.
AFAIK Terrain Pack isn't compatible with FMP but FMP has a modified version of it in it that is compatible. So will you release a version of your mod compatible with other mods/megamods ?
Just a random thought. Maybe mods should have specific licenses?
To avoid similar situations in future.
For example, i guess for Terrain Pack, most appropriate would be CC NC SA:
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/
(I'm not saying Hobbes should license his mods under this license, i'm just giving example)
That's not how it works.
Hobbes cannot release a version compatible with other mods.
Other modders would need to release their mods compatible with terrain pack. But that's practically impossible (both by openxcom engine limitations and by practicality of the mod implementation and installation). Terrain pack is effectively a standalone mod incompatible with every other mod from now on.
I've been working a lot in .json rulesets for another game and one of the things it allows is to perform merges across mods.
With .yaml is it possible to load the Terrain Pack first, and then modders perform whatever changes they want on it on their mods through rulesets?
Also, one of the things I'm thinking going to add to the .rul file are yaml anchors, so that other mods only need to specify the TP anchor (maps, mapDataSets) if they want to use those resources in derivative terrains.
3) This person thinks he owns somebody's else's work just because he changed it.
No, the player would have to specify the correct load order of mods manually.
Also, with 2 dependent mods there is (fortunately?) always a solution... but as soon as you consider 3 mods or more, the solution might not even exist.
Also, openxcom does not support any kind of ruleset attribute merging (with very few exceptions not relevant to the general discussion), only full attribute replacement is supported.
If a modder wants to do any change to your ruleset (e.g. list of terrains for a deployment or texture), they have no other choice than to copy it and modify it.
Not supported at all.
For example, you don't own anything derived from TFTD (or UFO for that matter).
Just because you changed it, doesn't mean it's yours.
Or if any of the other contributor decides to hold back what they made?
And anyone says that these terrains are derived from somebody else's work, that person is gonna have a hell of a time to prove it.I´m pretty sure its the other way around. As you´d be the accuser ("you derived your stuff from mine"), you´d have to prove your claim.
This is all derivative from the originals (a.k.a. mods). But the alterations done were all made for me.Not even sure how to comment on that.
...
Create your own material instead of simply copying and modifying other authors
Yes. This is exactly the main goal.
Do you think this person lived in a vacuum and didn't know about any kind of donations? Of course not! At least the topics about it here on the forum have been sticked since a very-very long time. It's a known fact.
"Don't use my mod. Don't mod my mod. Create original content instead." Yet this is all about a mod, created by you.
Prime example why copyright and mods don't really mix.
Everything that is staying to the Terrain Pack, that's derived work or other author's work, and properly identified and credited. This includes all the Geoscape terrains I created out of the UFO/TFTD originals, the Island/Port/Ship terror sites and UFO2000 terrains, and the modified Geoscape I edited for everything to work (that's derivative work). It also includes all the rulesets and additional assets required for the new Geoscape to work, which I mostly coded or created myself, with the individual contributions also already properly identified.
This is all derivative from the originals (a.k.a. mods). But the alterations done were all made for me. And I do not allow the modified files I made to be used in other mods anymore. Either use the Terrain Pack, or spend hundreds of hours modifying the original files as I did.
Everything that is staying in Area 51, that's original work. With the individual contributions made by other authors also properly identified and checked. Terrains like Area 51 or Complex are also derivative from the originals, and several still use the original MCD files. But I created all the other files required (MCDs, PCKs, MAP, RMP), which are about 1000 or more files. Plus I designed the layout of all those maps, and I designed all the route files used by the AI, and I designed several dozen unique tilesets for them, plus all of the rulesets to make it work.
So I consider those terrains as originals of mine, with the proper collaborations identified and credited (tileset images). And I do not allow anymore for any derivative works to be made and used of them. Either install the mod, or create your own.
And anyone says that these terrains are derived from somebody else's work, that person is gonna have a hell of a time to prove it.
And if people are pissed that all the work they put into those derivative works can't be used anymore:
a) Respect the author's wishes
b) Create your own material instead of simply copying and modifying other authors
Copyright and authorship are two different things.Authorship is meaningless. Except that the author holds copyright, unless a contract (or TOS) exists that transfers it to someone else (e.g. commissioned work or employment etc)
You do not own the work and the original content of Microprose, just because you changed it.
Format conversion in any form or shape does not produce original content.
Cosmetic changes also do not produce original content.
Authorship is meaningless. Except that the author holds copyright, unless a contract (or TOS) exists that transfers it to someone else (e.g. commissioned work or employment etc)
Authors’ rights have two distinct components: the economic rights in the work and the moral rights of the author.Economic rights are ownership (copyright).
If authorship wasn't recognized, do you honestly think that creators would bother creating and sharing stuff?Yes i think that. Many people just like creating for creations sake, and for having other people enjoy it.
When I mean original content, I mean this:I thought you created your own stuff.(https://image.mod.io/mods/58a2/192/3e1o5ck.png)All my original creations.
(https://image.mod.io/mods/58a2/192/2s9cmyd.png)
(https://image.mod.io/mods/58a2/192/d1ktkkq.png)
(https://image.mod.io/mods/58a2/192/fcgczfo.png)
I know I can keep using OXCE but if you so desire, I'll stop using it immediately and revert Area 51 back to OXC. And if OXC wants me to leave, I'll leave as well. So I don't understand the theoretical point that you're trying to make here. Do you want me to leave?Do you read my conclusion? IF I did that I would f*** up whole community, that is my point, and I do not want do something stupid like this.
100% original content here... robinFor the record I use a bunch (like 4-5) of sound effects taken from other mods (Piratez iirc).
I spoilered the images up to take up less spaceI thought you created your own stuff.I´ve researched that topic for hours, if those screenshots would fall under microprose, OXCE or hobbes rights.
Here is a reply to the first image.(https://imgur.com/VucPsca.png)
This is the first image, what I remembered to be from elsewhere, I circled. I circled it the same color in the place where it is from.
(https://imgur.com/PoMXkZm.png)
This is TFTD, unmodded, Port attack
(https://imgur.com/cmV4ebM.png)
The same port attack, different location
(https://imgur.com/4bn9gOW.png)
UFO Defence, forest
I will not say there is no new content. That would be untrue.
But there is also TFTD and UD content, sometimes recolored or flipped.
I ask you: Do you claim authorship of that as well?
I´ve researched that topic for hours,
...
Any case, this does **** up a lot of things that were a lot better before.
And for what?
@TheCurseI think the best way to go ahead would be everyone using someones stuff to ask for explicit permission once&forever, unless you trust them enough they don't pull this shit...
Complicated it is indeed, if only because the lines between original content and derivatives are blurred at best.
And yes this episode does bring shockwaves across the community at the moment, but i have the uttermost confidence we will eventually come out stronger.
For the most part we are a mature bunch of people that will find a way to deal with those issues. As is demonstrated by your efforts to research into the topic and the confidence to write down this is a problem you cannot give a definite answer to.
P.s. I wouldn't worry to much about screenshots. As you already said they are under fair use rights. An impression of what to expect, not a major component of your mod.
--- edit---
@efrenespartano
The openxcom code (and executables?) are released under GPL. This does not mean however that assets (mod files) are released under the same license. It does not mean that the GPL license applies to mods as well. Hence the conclusion of TheCurse that it "changes nothing for the mods".
should Hobbes want to pursue any legal action based on it, he may find himself lacking arguments there.No license means "can't use". Highly doubt he´d spend money on legal stuff though.
I ask you: Do you claim authorship of that as well?
This is the same as saying that the authors of OXC are claiming authorship over the original game, because they call themselves authors of OXC.Nah, OXC is an engine. It does not include anything from the original game by default. Except in some parts it may behave very similar.
This is the same as saying that the authors of OXC are claiming authorship over the original game, because they call themselves authors of OXC.What does it matter? OXC is open-source.
Who's the author of OXC then? The players? The modders? No one?
"No. If the modification/improvement outweights original work to the point it is no longer the same thing, I won't remove them. I will honor your request only to the reasonable extent."This is what you were angry about. But aren't you also guilty of it?
You are the author of the Terrain Pack. You have the right to prevent it's use, though using it retroactively is poor form. But the result of exercising this right could have been disasterous. Luckily it seems it won't be.
I think they keypoint here is, that you retroactively decided what unauthorized purpose is.
If that was clear from the start ("By including this in your mod you agree not to take any donations"), that´d have been different.
And not a single soul would argue about any of that.
Retroactively deciding what is allowed and what not, after no clear terms were given (again, excluding giving credits) and usage was tolerated over a long time,
is considered poor form.
Whether it is taking donations, or wearing green socks (how could you?! I never wore green socks or would condone it!), how could anyone have known.
Doing this retroactively, after your content was included in other mods and requires major work to replace, would put you into position to demand anything, just because you feel like it now. Thats why its often considered bad manners.
Are you saying that I don't have the right to revoke permissions whenever I want, and for whatever reasons I chose to?Nope, you can. Doing it for whatever reason you choose... well, green socks.
Are you saying that anyone has the right to do whatever they want with my work because I haven't specified its uses?If you let them use it without clarifying on what terms, yes.
Poor form is deciding to add donations on the middle of your projectWhy? Its quite common...
and the need to renew authorizations, because of the issues regarding donations.If no restrictions in that direction are known (or stated by you in that case), why would anyone consider it?
Why didn't the person who adapted it took every precaution to prevent this sort of issue from happening?There seems to be no precedence case here, so probably didn't regard it as needed. Pretty sure that will change.
b) Why did he chose instead to keep donations ('I receive less than zero from this') instead of keeping my work?I have no information about this. But I´d have decided the same. You retroactively coming up with demands after usage was granted is akin to blackmail.
If you let them use it without clarifying on what terms, yes.
Why? Its quite common...If no restrictions in that direction are known (or stated by you in that case), why would anyone consider it?
Unless you state that you care about that, why would anyone consider it might piss you off or they need to renew their authorization regarding using your stuff?
There seems to be no precedence case here, so probably didn't regard it as needed. Pretty sure that will change.
I have no information about this. But I´d have decided the same.
You retroactively coming up with demands after usage was granted is akin to blackmail.
Also taking donations is not selling.
"Poor form is deciding to add donations on the middle of your project, without fully considering all of its effects and the need to renew authorizations, because of the issues regarding donations. "Again, why would anyone know that donations are an issue for you, if you never mentioned it before?
This is a basic principle behind all contracts: if you change the terms of an agreement, the other party has the right not to continue with the agreement.Were were the terms stated? There was no mention of any of those issues in any states terms. (Stated terms were giving credit and possibly submit assets)
if you start using it for something else than initially agreed onWhat was agreed on initially?
If he decided to turn the mod into an 'adult only content' or using it to recruit members for a religious sect, I'd be in every right to demand my work stopped being used on it.Where do you make that distinction of what he can do and what not without rearrangement with you? Or do you interpret that agreement as blank cheque for anything that theoretically would come to mind? Wearing green socks? (This time not as abstract example, but literally)
I don't work for you or that mod or anyone involved on it. I was never a part of that team. I didn't made those assets specifically for that mod as well. I don't owe anything to you, them, or anyone else involved with that mod.Agreed.
But they own me, if they wanted to keep using my work.Yes, but only to a certain extent. "Wanna keep using my mod? Do not use any green tiles in your mod. And all letters only caps. Or stop using it." (might come the next day again and demand no caps letters at all now)
And just because I didn't specifically state my rights or preferences, that doesn't mean that they can be ignored by the other party.That is my key point. "I did not state any preferences, but I want you to keep to them". Well most people can't read minds, and thoughts are volatile anyway... But the stance "You ignored things I didn't tell you" is anthing but fair. Or reasonable. Or common sense.
Your opinion. My opinion about donations is different. I am the author. When I decide upon usage of my work, my opinion is more important than yours.Usually facts beat opinions. Are there some about that...?
"I will also personally no longer consider you a honorable member of the modding scene."
Are you saying that anyone has the right to do whatever they want with my work because I haven't specified its uses?
This is a basic principle behind all contracts:
...modders realize their rights and also start demanding that they are respected, then I can assure you, from the private messages I've been receiving through this whole affair from other modders, that you're going to see a lot more 'Cease and desist' notices happening.
If the donations are so harmless, why they didn't remove them instead? I gave the option and he refused.
- A primary the source of this problem is a combination of poor communication and rudeness, most of which can be safely blamed on one specific user of Hobbes's work. But not all of it, unfortunately. Hobbes's reaction was and continues to be over the top and in poor form. And I don't really see anything changing if, hypothetically, the modder was polite, argued for donations being harmless or perhaps proposing to share them, etc.
AFAICT Hobbes would still have gone into 'I'll take my toys and go home' mode.
Given that he's a long-standing member of the community, a moderator and someone who occasionally tries to set standards, that's not a good precedent. SupSuper recently threatened to ban some users for relatively minor squabbling (aka the 'don't be a jerk' rule). What's going on here is full-blown drama initiated by a moderator.
- to change the behaviour of others (this has, obviously, failed or at least backfired to a significant degree),
- to influence others' opinion of oneself (that's a net loss, if this thread is any indication),
- to make yourself feel good about your work and its usage (TP is being stripped down and getting less used in the future, so ...).
What is the problem with donations, exactly? I'm also generally ill-disposed towards modders making money from their work, but for a completely practical reason: it encourages 'copyrighting' mods, hoarding and not sharing your work, cliques, drama and squabbling, all of which significantly damage any modding scene. Witness e.g. Bethesda's 'paid Skyrim mods' debacle. What was Hobbes's solution to donations? Diving head-first into the same kind of behaviour.
The only truly positive effect of such 'enforcement' is preventing people from claiming someone else's work as their own. That was never the issue here.
- A primary the source of this problem is a combination of poor communication and rudeness, most of which can be safely blamed on one specific user of Hobbes's work. But not all of it, unfortunately. Hobbes's reaction was and continues to be over the top and in poor form. And I don't really see anything changing if, hypothetically, the modder was polite, argued for donations being harmless or perhaps proposing to share them, etc. AFAICT Hobbes would still have gone into 'I'll take my toys and go home' mode. Given that he's a long-standing member of the community, a moderator and someone who occasionally tries to set standards, that's not a good precedent. SupSuper recently threatened to ban some users for relatively minor squabbling (aka the 'don't be a jerk' rule). What's going on here is full-blown drama initiated by a moderator. This is not good for the community as a whole.