Gruffydd

If you're playing on the PC, you could use my mod to get new stuff to cover the blank walls... Gruffydd's Signs and Posters - Cities, Towns & Settlements - AFK Mods

I'm confused about this comment: 1 - I'm a Premium. I don't see annoying banners and ads. 2 - What in the world does uBlock, or the whole comment you made, have to to with the topic? I suspect if you actually saw the ad, it might make more sense, but, don't know for sure, I don't see ads either. :D I assumed it was is response to the bit about the contest (post a mod maybe win loot). Which would be weird since it would be a local ad. But I don't see ads either, so that's just a guess.

This has nothing to do with the topic of cathedrals and whether or not they really exist.

Cathedral is a silly term for it anyway, I think. No cathedral was ever built by one person building something, then someone else coming over and building on that, and so on. A cathedral is a singular architectural vision. If anything what this builds is the Winchester house.

I think part of the problem is there are a lot of people who would like to use assets cathedral-style and not very many who make new assets and are willing to give away that work to the public domain. If more cathedral modders contributed resources there might actually be a vibrant cathedral community, enough so that reluctant authors might even see the results and change their minds. But as it is, I really don't see all that much created by the cathedral community. At least, not in Bethesda mods on Nexus, which is what I'm most familiar with. Am I just missing some vast library of cathedral works somewhere?

I'm not even sure if group/team projects really count as cathedral. Isn't the cathedral thing supposedly that people can take what others have already made and use it as building blocks to make their own stuff, which in turn can be built on by others? Actual team projects from what I have seen rarely fall into that. Instead, it's a group working on a communal project for which they have no intention of releasing to the public domain on completion. The closest I've seen to actual cathedral modding is mods that use a modders resource. I certainly haven't seen anything in the public domain that built upon mods that built upon mods and so on that were all released to the public domain. It kinda feels like cathedral as a concept is rarely used as anything other than a reason to take assets another author created without that author's permission. "It should have been public domain/free/open source all along rah cathedral boo parlor therefore I should have the right to take it."

If I want to release such a project I have a reason for that and I will do. Some "half baked products" got only finished because of releasing and with the help of the comunity. So don't request to stay away with that.... I'm pretty sure they were asking NexusMods to make sure the new functionality was as good as possible, rather than something half-baked. I don't think it was directed toward authors at all...

You can put any kind of release of rights you want on your mod, up to and including fully releasing it into the public domain. Less restrictive is always permitted, when it's your own work.

The whole parlor/cathedral thing wouldn't really be an issue if it weren't for some very vocal people trying to force everyone to be cathedral. You like controlling your own work? Great! The law says you own it and the copyright on it. You want your work to be added to other modders work to make a glorious new vision? Great! Release your mod to public domain or under a cc or similar license. It's mostly as far as I can tell people wanting to exploit a "parlor" modder's work without permission who are the most vocal. They need to get over it. If they want something like parlor modder's Mod X (whatever it may be) to be in the public domain so much they should make their own version (from scratch, not just swiping the assets and slapping their name on it) and release it to the public domain.

Okay that makes sense, especially if they don't have an automated function for it. Weird that they don't send a confirmation when the deletion is completed though.

Hi. I wrote to DarthDoodar about this, and got no response, so I'm hoping someone here can answer. I submitted an official request for file deletion a bit over a week ago, and the mods in question had their titles changed to include the word "DELETED" in them. I then got a series of notifications, one for each file in the mods, saying something like this: "A moderator (DarthDoodar) archived GruffyddSandP4.02 version 4.02 in Gruffydd's Signs and Posters - DELETED" Screenshot: I'm just wondering why all of the files are listed in the notifications as being archived instead of being deleted. Are my files actually archived now somewhere on NexusMods, or were they really deleted as promised? And if they were deleted, why was I notified that they were all archived? Thanks in advance for any response.

Absent any automated system to identify things, shouldn't it be the collection curator's responsibility to determine what their collection is or is not compatible with, and notify users accordingly?

At this point I have to agree, especially having read the last couple of pages. Although "Bunny's twaddle" I think is more appropriate as a description, because it's just rehashing the same old invalid arguments against modders owning their work (and now against copyright as a concept!) that have been argued and debunked over and over and over again elsewhere, using the most insanely illogical straw-grasping and distortion. You can't help the willfully ignorant. But you can ignore them, and that's what I shall do from now on.

That's like saying the Tolkien estate doesn't own The Lord of the Rings because Terry Brooks wrote a blatant ripoff of it. As long as you do it yourself, you can cover all the same concepts without issue. If that includes setting changes you can make the same ones. If it involves writing code, you'd need to do it yourself from scratch, or using code that's been released for reuse. As you said (and as US copyright law also says) you can't copyright a concept. But mod ownership isn't about owning the concept (a few authors have tried to make it so, but it's not true), it's about owning the work. If someone else wants to put in the work to make a mod that does what someone else's mod already does, that's their choice, and there's nothing wrong with it. But if they take even one of the original mod's assets to do it, they're in violation. As an example, my mod adds signs and posters to the Fallout 4 settlement menus. It uses modified or custom meshes, and public domain, licensed, or custom art. Another mod can also add signs or posters (and a number do - great, more variety!). They can even use the same public domain or licensed art (minus any modifications I've made). But they can't swipe my meshes or custom art, they need to make their own.

Nothing at all wrong with a list of mods verified to work together, provided in the order in which you should install them, and indicating any special instructions. We've had those here for years. I loved when my mods were included on them. One button to install them all, never have to visit a mod page modpacks? Yeah, from an author point of view there are issues. Some authors don't mind those issues. Others are very concerned by them.