Why are restrictive mod permissions popular?

[falafails]

Always been wondering this, but why aren't open source/free software licenses more popular for mods? The large majority seem to have some bespoke combination of restrictive permissions, and some don't even have anything specified. Things like the Cathedral Project are awesome, but definitely the exception rather than the norm.

 

I feel like this is bad for the community, especially those building the open source modding tools that we all rely on. Things like Nexus Collections and Wabbajack could just be sending somebody an archive if mods were openly licensed, rather than huge development projects.

 

Anyways, curious to know the reasons or if anybody has ideas on how to improve things. Would be cool to see Nexus using their influence to shift the community in this direction, but I get that it'd be detrimental to the business model.

 

My hunch is the largest reason to not openly license a mod nowadays is monetization, which is understandable. Guessing things like the Creation Kit restrictions also make it bit trickier, too.

 

Apologies if this isn't the right section, couldn't really find anything else that fit better than feedback/questions.

[AbsynthMinded]

Depends on the person/group making the Mods. Some of them have a very specific profit motive and therefore bare rights to their 'art'. Otherwise any Mod Maker that gives permission to openly use their stuff expect nothing more than appreciation. The language used to make the mods is technically open source, anyone can start learning to use it without much investment beyond time. The question then is if Developers will support Mods on their game.

[ScytheBearer]

Closed permissions are more than just profit motivated. Closed permissions are meant to restrict the use of a mod for purposes other than that the author intended and to protect the authors work from misuse.

 

My permissions (save one) all say "This mod is intended for game play only. Any other use is expressly forbidden". I do not want my mod used for any purpose but the reason it was created. I don't want some yahoo taking it and pissing it up. I don't want it stripped for parts and spread across several different mods. I don't want my mod used as a source for work which I do not approve.

Th exception is a mod authors resource which was made expressly to be used by other mod authors in the creation of their mods. But even it's permissions are restrictive, in that the mod cannot be parsed up, or embedded in another mod. It must be used as I distributed it and used as a Master when referenced.

 

So take the "profit motive" with a grain of salt. It is now, has always been and will always be about protecting the sanctity of our work.

[falafails]

Makes sense, guess it could just be chalked up to a difference in philosophies.

 

I've only dabbled in modding, but I do write a lot of software. I've benefited a ton from the open source ecosystem others have created, so I try to give my users those same freedoms:

• The freedom to run the program as you wish, for any purpose (freedom 0).
• The freedom to study how the program works, and change it so it does your computing as you wish (freedom 1). Access to the source code is a precondition for this.
• The freedom to redistribute copies so you can help others (freedom 2).
• The freedom to distribute copies of your modified versions to others (freedom 3). By doing this you can give the whole community a chance to benefit from your changes. Access to the source code is a precondition for this.

So for me, I guess making my creations open is how I can give back to the community that enabled me in the first place. If people use them to learn from or make something greater, that's pretty awesome. If people don't even care they're open and just use them as normal, that's awesome too. Only exception I have is for things I make money off of, that making open would hurt. ;)

 

Maybe the main difference is that mods are more art than software typically is? There's less room for somebody to take my work and butcher the vision of it, at least.

[acidzebra]

 

My hunch is the largest reason to not openly license a mod nowadays is monetization, which is understandable. Guessing things like the Creation Kit restrictions also make it bit trickier, too.

 

 

This situation existed well before DP and patreons etc, so while that may be a contributing driver, it's not the original driver. I also think that for the vast majority of mod authors the number of hours they put in vs. the payouts in form of DP/other sources are well below any kind of living wage levels, so I don't even think the profit motive is all that strong of a driver tbh.

 

My anecdotal observation is that modding is where very distinct kinds of people meet by virtue of wanting to create and share stuff. Imagine a spectrum, label one end "engineer" and the other end "artist" (these are convenience labels, nothing more):

 

Engineer types

- generally have a technical background

- are used to open source projects and similar frameworks and value the ability to share and remix stuff as they see fit

- may take a "do whatever" stance when it comes to permissions on their works, which tend to be open

- mods may tend to demonstrate higher technical complexity (game engine hacks, patcher frameworks, etc)

- ownership/credit may be viewed as less important

 

Artist types:

- generally have an artistic background

- may want strong controls over their work, permissions tend to be restrictive

- may have strong feelings on how their work is experienced (which should be according to their intentions)

- mods may tend to demonstrate higher artistic complexity (textures, models, music, etc)

- ownership/credit may be viewed as more important

 

Game modding brings these types together as it straddles both the artistic and the technical (in varying degrees depending on the game). As I said, I imagine this as a spectrum with people trending more towards one end or the other. I think this is intrinsic to people; it's just how they're wired. As an engineer-trending type, I definitely have my own bias so it's hard for me to be objective about it. I do wish people would be more open with permissions (and think it's a bit futile to try to rigidly control stuff you put on the public internet for all to download which is the furthest opposite of a controlled environment) but it is what it is. Neither view is right or wrong imo, they're just different, and people on opposite ends of the spectrum probably find it hard to understand or fully grasp the other viewpoint.

 

Ultimately the mod scene thrives thanks to contributions from people on both ends of that spectrum (and everyone in between). Whoever made the mod, it's their stuff, their creation. They can do with it as they wish. Even if understanding is hard, a little acceptance goes a long way.

 

Afterthought: this spectrum model works to explain why mod scenes for different games can be vastly different; Minecraft has a high technical ceiling (extensive modding capability) but a limited artistic ceiling (not to disparage all the excellent texture packs but it's a pretty blocky world), so I would expect more engineer-trending types to be drawn to it, hence more open permissions. TES games have both a high technical ceiling (extensive modding tools) and a high artistic ceiling, so would draw a mix of both. Other games without modding tools but with limited options to swap out textures/meshes would thus draw more of the artistic-trending type, ending up with more closed permissions.

 

I also think that once a "default" baseline for permissions is established for a particular game modding scene you will see a certain inertia; a lot of people will mostly go along with the default no matter where they fall on the spectrum. Perhaps here Nexus could encourage more openness by defaulting to open/permissive licenses rather than closed ones, because I suspect there might also be a large group of people who don't care all that much, they just want to share some cool stuff they made (and they would click through whatever defaults are set, imo the current permissions screen you get when uploading a mod is an intimidating mess).

[ScytheBearer]

AcidZebra, I will confess that I am one of those in the middle. 45 years as a software engineer with IBM. Half a dozen copyright protected software projects. I am a techie, to say the least. But I still have the restrictive permissions of an artist. Again, the sanctity of the work and the copyright of the work is important.

Falafails, on the issue of "giving back to the community", I gave back by sharing my work. T'were otherwise, I would keep my work hidden in my own file structure and give nothing to the community.

And just because I say that a mod is "for game play only" does not mean I am going to look into your computer to see what you do in your private domain. Open it, read its entrails, figure out how it works, tweek it if you must. I won't know unless you publish the results, violate my copyright and demonstrate to the world that you are a theif.

[M48A5]

Would someone please explain to me how a "profit motive" works for mods that are available for free.

 

I would really like to know how that works.

[falafails]

...

My anecdotal observation is that modding is where very distinct kinds of people meet by virtue of wanting to create and share stuff. Imagine a spectrum, label one end "engineer" and the other end "artist" (these are convenience labels, nothing more):

 

...

 

Game modding brings these types together as it straddles both the artistic and the technical (in varying degrees depending on the game). As I said, I imagine this as a spectrum with people trending more towards one end or the other. I think this is intrinsic to people; it's just how they're wired. As an engineer-trending type, I definitely have my own bias so it's hard for me to be objective about it. I do wish people would be more open with permissions (and think it's a bit futile to try to rigidly control stuff you put on the public internet for all to download which is the furthest opposite of a controlled environment) but it is what it is. Neither view is right or wrong imo, they're just different, and people on opposite ends of the spectrum probably find it hard to understand or fully grasp the other viewpoint.

 

Ultimately the mod scene thrives thanks to contributions from people on both ends of that spectrum (and everyone in between). Whoever made the mod, it's their stuff, their creation. They can do with it as they wish. Even if understanding is hard, a little acceptance goes a long way.

 

Afterthought: this spectrum model works to explain why mod scenes for different games can be vastly different; Minecraft has a high technical ceiling (extensive modding capability) but a limited artistic ceiling (not to disparage all the excellent texture packs but it's a pretty blocky world), so I would expect more engineer-trending types to be drawn to it, hence more open permissions. TES games have both a high technical ceiling (extensive modding tools) and a high artistic ceiling, so would draw a mix of both. Other games without modding tools but with limited options to swap out textures/meshes would thus draw more of the artistic-trending type, ending up with more closed permissions.

 

I also think that once a "default" baseline for permissions is established for a particular game modding scene you will see a certain inertia; a lot of people will mostly go along with the default no matter where they fall on the spectrum. Perhaps here Nexus could encourage more openness by defaulting to open/permissive licenses rather than closed ones, because I suspect there might also be a large group of people who don't care all that much, they just want to share some cool stuff they made (and they would click through whatever defaults are set, imo the current permissions screen you get when uploading a mod is an intimidating mess).

 

Yeah, this makes a lot of sense. Making the permissions screen here not intimidating and defaulting to more open would definitely be neat to see.

 

 

...

 

Falafails, on the issue of "giving back to the community", I gave back by sharing my work. T'were otherwise, I would keep my work hidden in my own file structure and give nothing to the community.

 

And just because I say that a mod is "for game play only" does not mean I am going to look into your computer to see what you do in your private domain. Open it, read its entrails, figure out how it works, tweek it if you must. I won't know unless you publish the results, violate my copyright and demonstrate to the world that you are a theif.

 

Right, but I feel that's more giving back to the gaming community rather than the modding community. And I don't really like the idea of violating a license as written, even if nobody finds out.

 

Would someone please explain to me how a "profit motive" works for mods that are available for free.

 

I would really like to know how that works.

 

I'd say the Nexus donation point system gives a small financial motive, along with things like Patreon being more popular. There's probably also being concerned about somebody else profiting off of your mod in some way, even (especially?) if you aren't.

[Ethreon]

Modifying a mod on your computer any way you like is breaking no license and nobody can dictate what you do with their mod on your pc.

[showler]

A lot of the restrictive licenses come from people having been burned in the past.