FO3 mods compatable w/ FONV?

[Povuholo]

I think what we're discussing here is more about modding etiquette and ethics, not so much the technical legal stuff.

[Kendo 2]

I think what we're discussing here is more about modding etiquette and ethics, not so much the technical legal stuff.

 

FO3 assets are in the NV GECK, but the needed files to support that content isn't provided in the BSAs. To fully use FO3 content in NV the files would have to be extracted and added to the NV file structure. This is fine for your own game, IMO but uploading them is a very bad idea.

 

Example: Say the FO3 vanilla assult rifle is present in the NV GECK but the needed files to place it in-game aren't present. I have FO3 so I extract the needed content and add it. After a lot of GECK work and time spent pathing files I have it working and add it to NV in an esp. I play it and it works and that is as far as I can go without asking for trouble.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

He is right, it is only a subset of FO3 assets that are included in the NV bsas.

Personally I think there is no legitimate beef with having it require the vanilla fo3 bsas, but the powers that be here may differ (probably do :)).

[LHammonds]

I think what we're discussing here is more about modding etiquette and ethics, not so much the technical legal stuff.

No, Kendo 2 might be "trying" to talk about modding etiquette but he isn't. I am replying about the term he used "open source"

 

If a mod author uploads his mod and says that it is a modders resource / open source, that means anyone can use it at any point. You cannot revoke permission once it is given. I already went through a LENGTHY case where a modder gave permission and later tried to take it back for petty reasons and used terms such as "stolen" and "thief"...end the end, I found out that he gave permission. The author was able to continue their work and release it as planned.

 

Just as mentioned earlier, once the "code" is out there, anyone can take the "code", create their own works based off it and continue to release it as "open source" if they so choose. You don't have the right to determine other people's licensing model if you decide to pack up your toys and leave.

 

It is not an ethics or modding etiquette issue if one author does not "ask permission" to use the other authors resource if it was stated that they could use it without first asking permission. It all depends on how the original resource was stated. That author has absolute control over his/her content and what is said about licensing of it...however, once permission is given, you cannot go "more restrictive" after-the-fact. You can make the resource unavailable or make upgrades and modify how the new version can be re-used from that point on.

 

Interesting - you mean like what Kendo 2 just did with all of his resources because of me?

 

http://www.thenexusforums.com/index.php?/user/282595-kendo-2/

 

Kendo 2 As of this moment, my Fallout 3 content is no longer open source. This supercedes my previous open source policy. Any mods currently in progress containing my content may be completed, with the proviso that my contribution(s) not be made open source. This must be specified in the mod's ReadMe and on the Upload Page.

 

Would this apply to the 3-4 assets that are presumably under "open source rules" that were present in the file he had me (mods) take down because he doesn't like me? His excuse was that he hadn't "given me permission", but if it's open source, and his policy was thus beforehand...

I would have to see the original permissions listed and review it on a case-by-case scenario...but I think that case was already covered by others...right? The blurb on his profile about what was once "open source" and is now not "open source" sounds ridiculous to me.

 

The key word I am talking about in this phrase, is "open source" which may or may not apply to how he phrased it in his original permissions but I have not reviewed them so I do not know the specifics...but just from that one statement, it sounds ridiculous.

 

LHammonds

[Kendo 2]

So I'm ridiculous. I'll wear your Scarlet Letter with pride. And my FO3 content is NOT available for New Vegas. Assets from one game cannot be uploaded and used in another. That point has already been hammered to death in other threads and Dark0ne has made his ruling. It was never true for any other game and it isn't true for NV.

[ginnyfizz]

Umm...errrr....but I thought Dark0ne said THIS;-

 

I would like to remind all users that you cannot convert and reupload mods that you did not create yourself from Fallout 3 for New Vegas without permission from the original author of the Fallout 3 modification. This is in line with our rules on using other people's work without permission.

 

Most authors provide information on how they would like their files to be used and distributed in their ReadMe's or file descriptions. If the author has not provided this information then you must request permission from them. No information does not mean no permission needed, it means the reverse.

 

If you convert a file and upload it without permission or even crediting the original author of the work you are very likely to be banned from the network without warning.

 

That seems to be conclusive to me, Mr Hammonds.

 

With the greatest respect, LHammonds, Kendo has made it pretty crystal clear that he didn't want any of his FO3 stuff using for New Vegas and amended his readmes accordingly as soon as NV hove into view. SO certain people went all underhand, ported it anyway and caused more trouble. Dark0ne is trying to keep the modders onside, but the NV eager beavers who just cannot be patient are doing their best to alienate them.

 

(Oh and in case you ask, Madae, I am a lawyer as it happens...)

[LHammonds]

"without permission" is the key point here. I am talking about "open source"

 

We have tightened the rules specifically for FO3 to NV because of all the porting WITHOUT permission. Several cases have been where the original author was porting their own mods over but are getting beat by others. FO3 to NV is getting special attention in this regard. This is not a site-wide policy where if no readme was given in an Oblivion mod that it would be impossible to ever use that mod in another Oblivion mod because it was never clear on re-use. We still have general rules-of-thumb in terms of modding etiquette and that has not changed.

 

Don't try to drag what I am talking about into any other conversation or specifics. I am replying to Kendo 2's incorrect generalization about what can be done with "open source" content. Whether his uploads were actually "open source" or just incorrectly summarized, I don't know and I don't care.

 

We go to great lengths to protect authors and their work here and YOU KNOW THAT.

[Fraktyl]

Umm...errrr....but I thought Dark0ne said THIS;-

 

I would like to remind all users that you cannot convert and reupload mods that you did not create yourself from Fallout 3 for New Vegas without permission from the original author of the Fallout 3 modification. This is in line with our rules on using other people's work without permission.

 

Most authors provide information on how they would like their files to be used and distributed in their ReadMe's or file descriptions. If the author has not provided this information then you must request permission from them. No information does not mean no permission needed, it means the reverse.

If you convert a file and upload it without permission or even crediting the original author of the work you are very likely to be banned from the network without warning.

 

That seems to be conclusive to me, Mr Hammonds.

 

With the greatest respect, LHammonds, Kendo has made it pretty crystal clear that he didn't want any of his FO3 stuff using for New Vegas and amended his readmes accordingly as soon as NV hove into view. SO certain people went all underhand, ported it anyway and caused more trouble. Dark0ne is trying to keep the modders onside, but the NV eager beavers who just cannot be patient are doing their best to alienate them.

 

(Oh and in case you ask, Madae, I am a lawyer as it happens...)

 

I bolded the important part. The issue at hand (for this particular issue) is not that people aren't asking. It was the fact that it was released Open Source. There are specific rules that govern open source. If something is released open source that version stays open source. You can't put the genie back in the bottle. And without knowing how Kendo released his original work, this is all a moot point. I don't know, and I'm not arguing that he's wrong, or anyone is right for that matter.

 

That said, I think people that are releasing others work without asking, or giving credit are worse than scum. I've had work stolen from me both in an online sense, and privately at work. It's like a gut punch. I can understand Kendo's point, and I agree with him. It's the language that's being used that is making this a big issue.

 

It's not helping the community when the developers are fighting to keep their work instead of doing the things they enjoy. And for those who think that releasing others work (no matter how it was originally licensed) without asking is earning you any points. It's not.

[Madae]

 

I would have to see the original permissions listed and review it on a case-by-case scenario...but I think that case was already covered by others...right? The blurb on his profile about what was once "open source" and is now not "open source" sounds ridiculous to me.

 

The key word I am talking about in this phrase, is "open source" which may or may not apply to how he phrased it in his original permissions but I have not reviewed them so I do not know the specifics...but just from that one statement, it sounds ridiculous.

 

LHammonds

 

The file in question was converted and uploaded by TKone, under these assumed "open source" rules Kendo 2 has said he is no longer allowing. There was no mention of this in the file I converted, the "Mysterious Stranger outfit", but there was this section giving thanks to others;

 

:: CREDITS TO ::

 

Exnem for his original bikini mesh

Deacon for the Wasteland Scout Outfit, the Refugee Outfit and the camo textures from his trooper outfits.

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=5580

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=6103

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=5208

The Outlander for inspiring Deacon

Kendo 2, XunAmarox, Dimon99, Bronson & Petrovich for the Dress

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=5633

Kendo 2 again for the ground mesh and the choker

Selene310187 and ShokkiiMonkii for the Oblivion Dante Outfit

Falridorian for the Fallout 3 conversion of the Dante outfit

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=4876

NPR for the original Amy Armor in Oblivion

RAIAR for the HGEC Eye Candy Body in Oblivion

Bronson for the Dark Temptress outfit and the Amy Armor conversion

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=6633

http://www.fallout3nexus.com/downloads/file.php?id=5566

 

When Kendo 2 said I "didn't have his permission to use his assets", he pointed out that the bolded file was his. Upon inspection of this file on the Fallout 3 Nexus, I found this included with the readme;

 

Open Source 3D Human Model License

Open3DProject - OPEN SOURCE 3D CONTENT LICENSE (last edit June 2005)

 

The following text refers to the intellectual property contributed by various contributors for 3D content available by the Open3DProject. The design of this license is to give the licensee as much freedom as possible to modify and distribute derivatives for Open Source 3D Content without infringing upon the intellectual rights, trade marking, and product identity of contributors of the Open3DProject. This license is not limited specifically to models, UV maps, and 3D content for Open3DProject Models. In addition, the wording and conditions of this license are Copyrighted 2005 by e-Frontier (www.e-frontier.com), Zygote Media Group (www.zygote.com), Sixus 1 Media (www.sixus1.com) and other contributors. All Rights Reserved.

 

You should read all of the conditions of this license before you install for personal use or edit the Open Source 3D Content in any way.

 

1. Definitions:

 

(a) "Contributors" means the copyright, intellectual property and/or trademark owners who have contributed open source 3D content, including original content as well as Derivative Material;

 

(b) "Open Source 3D Content" means the mechanics of the figure, prop, clothing or other 3D content and includes the methods, procedures, processes and routines to the extent such content is an enhancement over the prior art and any additional content clearly identified as Open Source 3D Content by the Contributor, and means any work covered by this License, including translations and derivative works under copyright law;

 

© "Trademark" means the logos, slogans, tag-lines, names, mark, sign, motto, designs that are used by a Contributor to identify itself or its products or the associated products contributed to the Open Source 3D Content License by the Contributor.

 

(d) "Distribute" means to reproduce, lease, sell, license, rent, publicly display, transmit, broadcast or otherwise distribute;

 

(e) "Derivative Material" means any copyrighted material including derivative works and translations (including into other 3D model formats), modification, correction, addition, upgrade, improvement, extension, compilation, abridgment or other form in which an existing work may be transformed, adapted or recast;

 

(f) "Use", "Used" or "Using" means to use, Distribute, copy, edit, morph, render, animate, format, modify, translate and otherwise create Derivative Material of Open Source 3D Content.

 

(g) "Your" or "You" means the licensee in terms of this agreement whether an individual or a company.

 

2. Offer and Acceptance: By Using the Open Source 3D Content You indicate Your unconditional acceptance of the terms of this License.

 

3. The License: This License applies to any Open Source 3D Content that contains a notice indicating that the Open Source 3D Content may only be Used under and in terms of this License. You must affix such a notice to any Open Source 3D Content that you Use. No terms may be added to or subtracted from this License or applied to any Open Source 3D Content distributed using this License except as described by the License itself.

 

4. License Grant and Consideration: In consideration for agreeing to use this License, the Contributors grant You a non-exclusive, perpetual, royalty-free, worldwide, license with the exact terms of this License to Use, the Open Source 3D Content.

 

5. Notice of License Copyright: You must update the COPYRIGHT NOTICE portion of this License to include the exact text of the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any Open Source 3D Content You are copying, modifying or distributing, and You must add the title, the copyright date, and the copyright holder's name to the COPYRIGHT NOTICE of any original Open Source 3D Content you Distribute.

 

6. Representation of Authority to Contribute: If You are contributing original material as Open Source 3D Content, You represent that Your Contributions are Your original creation and/or You have sufficient rights to grant the rights conveyed by this License.

 

7. Identification: If you distribute Open Source 3D Content You must clearly indicate which portions of the work that you are distributing are Open Source 3D Content.

 

8. Updating the License: Open3DProject or its designated Agents may publish updated versions of this License. You may use any authorized version of this License to copy, modify and distribute any Open Source 3D Content originally distributed under any version of this License.

 

9. Copy of this License: You MUST include a copy of this License with every copy of the Open Source 3D Content You Distribute.

 

10. Use of Contributor Credits: You may not market or advertise the Open Source 3D Content using the name of any Contributor unless You have express written permission from the Contributor to do so.

 

11. Inability to Comply: If it is impossible for You to comply with any of the terms of this License with respect to some or all of the Open Source 3D Content due to statute, judicial order, or governmental regulation then You may not Use any Open Source Material so affected.

 

12. Termination: This License will terminate automatically if You fail to comply with all terms herein and fail to cure such breach within 30 days of becoming aware of the breach. All sublicenses shall survive the termination of this License.

 

13. Reformation: If any provision of this License is held to be unenforceable, such provision shall be reformed only to the extent necessary to make it enforceable.

 

14. Source Files Download: The original source files and documentation for the Open3DProject can be found at Open3DProject.org

 

15. The Open Source 3D Content cannot be used in the explicit depiction or exhibition of sexual activity that is intended to stimulate erotic, rather than aesthetic or emotional feelings.

 

And also this addendum in the readme itself;

 

Reuse is free as long as credit is given (including current credits). This is an open project, as such you are welcome to add to or modify this mod as you see fit as long as you comply with the Open3DProject license contained in this mod (see Open3DProject.doc). Please make sure you read this document and understand the conditions you are agreeing to!

 

It is true, when I converted the Mysterious Stranger file that TKone had originally put together and uploaded, I did not ask Kendo 2 for permission to use his assets, but, I did give credit to those who were involved by posting the above "credits" snip from the Mysterious Outfit readme. TKone commented on the file himself and thanked me for my work.

 

So in combination with his "previous open source policy" that was apparently in place long before this file was ever uploaded (June 2009 is when the Mysterious Stranger Outfit was uploaded, April 2009 for the Exotic dress, and 2005 for the wordy open source license), how does this change the issue for me, if anything at all?

 

I'd also like to point out that if anyone calls me a thief about what I did, you are slandering me in the most inappropriate fashion. I posted the credits in the description of my conversion and the FIRST and LAST thing I said in the description was that I did not create it, I just converted it. I also put TKOne's name in the author box. The ONLY thing I am guilty of is not reading the rules, which I will admit to.

[BEArbiter]

This is funny, but in the wrong way...

I will make It clear and simple.

What does mean Released under a certain Licence.

It's mean that there is a Legal Contract between the users and the developers, that mean that both the Developers and the Users have to respect the terms of the licence. It's a Legal contract that is, in some countries, automaticaly accepted by the user when he decided to use the "piece of Software,Data,...".

 

How do we now under which licence is the "Data,Software,..." we use?

The Licence have to be explicitly shown to the user, If no Licence are shown, there isn't any licence and the "software,data,..." is of public domain.

The Licence can be already made (like Gnu Gpl),modified, or completly new.

 

Can we Change the Licence, or some term to it.

Unless Explicitly said in the licence's term, no.

 

Am I Forced to follow It?

Well, it's complicated, it depend in fact of the law of your country.In some countries, There are rules for the creation of a legal contract, and just buying the "software" can be not sufficient.

 

 

Exept if There is some sort of Licence(even simple) in the Readme/description, All mods are released for public domain(can be not legal in some countries), that mean that everybody can use it, modify it, Licence it (and so Making money from your work),...

 

This text is Provided As is, without any warranty (Because laws are specific of the country).