Nexus permissions rules (Compilation Patch)

[evilneko]

IMO, mods should be GPL.

[Thandal]

IMO, mods should be GPL.

Sooooo, if I make a mod but am not willing to release it to others under the terms of the GPL (wonder which specific version you mean) I shouldn't, or shouldn't be allowed to, release it at all?

 

You would like to see Nexus adopt a policy of: "Anything uploaded to this site by an author is thereby published under the terms of the (cite the particular) General Public License."

 

Caveat Auctor, indeed!

[RustyBlade]

IMO, mods should be GPL.

Sooooo, if I make a mod but am not willing to release it to others under the terms of the GPL (wonder which specific version you mean) I shouldn't, or shouldn't be allowed to, release it at all?

 

You would like to see Nexus adopt a policy of: "Anything uploaded to this site by an author is thereby published under the terms of the (cite the particular) General Public License."

 

Caveat Auctor, indeed!

 

Ahh... the benefits of a classical education :yes:

 

Some of my stuff with permission, some of it no [expletive] way. I put too much time, energy and pain in to just give it away with a mere acknowledgment - ask me, I may give it, or I may require more (I probably will give it though but you must at least do me the courtesy of asking); more would constitute at the very least a direct link to my mod or a partnership.

 

GNU is great for what it is but too many people abuse it.

[XTR3M368]

I am glad these mods are not GPL. We, my partner and I, are very generous with the individual permissions we have already given out. It is like real life for me, if you ask me to borrow something, I will probably say yes....if you just take it, I will be angry and take steps to get it back. It is common courtesy really. Now if I make something that is "free to use", that is like giving someone a key to your "shed" where you keep the things you share so that they (they being members of the Nexus) can come and go as they please and take what they want. "free to use with credit given" would be like the last example but asking them to give you a courtesy call or leave a thank you note on that "metaphorical" shed.

 

I am curious how many of the people who think the Nexus files should all be "GPL" have actually made and posted any mods. :rolleyes: What I would say to a "GPL" mentality if you are a modder is....

"Go for it if that is what you want with your mod, but don't require me to do the same with mine" :thumbsup:

[Vagrant0]

IMO, mods should be GPL.

You would like to see Nexus adopt a policy of: "Anything uploaded to this site by an author is thereby published under the terms of the (cite the particular) General Public License."

Except that this is what is present in some modding communities, in particular the bioware social site. As a matter of fact, when DA modding started out the Nexus was the target of some hostility because we were allowing authors to specify permissions for their work instead of some sort of blanket contract. So, while the idea of protecting an authors wishes is generally a good thing, it can also be seen as bad and limiting in terms of what sort of mods can be made.

 

Given the current state of things, a large overhaul/patch mod for NV can't really be made at this point unless either someone spends a very large amount of time haggling with users for permissions, or simply stepping over the contributions of that user by making their mods obsolete. Although doing something similar to someone else's mod, even intentionally, is allowable provided you have permission or do the work from scratch, there is often some conflict involved. If a person refuses to give permission, or is MIA and can't give it, how is it more right to allow someone to just recreate that work and give no credit, than it is to use that work giving credit?

 

For resources like meshes and textures, work is far easier to protect and far harder to reproduce, so it is a rare issue... But what about scripts, minor fixes, and other things which can only take one form and only have one solution? Clearly we want to protect the rights and wishes of the original author, but to what extent? Obviously we can't go around removing mods which do something similar to some other mod just because that person didn't think of the idea first. Obviously if we even tried to research and track down intellectual property, both staff and most users would never get anything else done. Obviously, when you have one author becoming hostile and threatening to pull all his mods because someone made a mod similar to theirs from scratch, there are no easy ways of explaining that it is allowable. Then there are those countless cases of people posting content they have not gotten permission for, but have given credit and who had no other option simply because the author is MIA and nobody has stopped to ask questions for years... Until one day when it is found out, the mod is removed, and countless members in the community become upset.

 

What solution would you offer that would allow for practical release of mods, while still protecting the rights and wishes of authors? Technically speaking, all .esp mods are owned by Bethsoft, so the content of .esp mods (not resources) are not something which can be claimed as owned by the author who creates them (Bioware has a similar contract with their module format)... And yet we at this site choose to extend the authors wishes and rights to include those files for the sake of the community. But, as the community has grown so have the complications involved, meanwhile the number of persons honoring the spirit of that stance has decreased, creating the occasional problem.

 

The only difference here is that instead of some conflict existing between two modders behind closed doors, one facet of the issue, a user uploading content with credit, but without permission (despite no complaints from the holding authors) has taken center stage. It's easy for someone to claim one side of this particular issue because that is all they see, this one particular issue; but the heart of the matter really extends to a much larger problem.

 

And, as it stands, trying to explain to modders that they have no rights to restrict usage of their .esp related content, or something similar would be a very bad thing.

Edited November 12, 2010 by Vagrant0

[Earthbound_X]

So that's it? This super helpful mod/patch is gone forever? Sigh...

[Irx]

Do all the fixes yourself, from scratch, and release it as your own work

Get permission from all the people who have made "small" fixes and include them in one downloadable archive

You do realize that the majority of fixes we are talking about just change a couple of numbers or logical instructions in scripts, and you are basically advocating for the removal of credit to original authors altogether?

 

Just create a file page that contains a text document or description with individual file links to all the pertanant fixes currently available where no permissions are necessary as you're linking to their work rather than using their work

You are kidding. You must be. You say that every single player must manually download dozens if not hundreds of fixes, merge them, check for conflicts... :wallbash: Do enough work to just create your own damn patch from scratch. And for the sake of what, some lame bureaucratics?

 

All of these make sense.

None of it, actually. I'm just glad that nexus didn't exist in the times of BG, Fallouts, Morrowind and many other good games which we can all play with great community fixes compilations - without anyone ever complaining.

[ginnyfizz]

"Technically speaking, all .esp mods are owned by Bethsoft, so the content of .esp mods (not resources) are not something which can be claimed as owned by the author who creates them "

 

The way I read the EULA, and I do have a legal qualification, by downloading the GECK or the CS you acknowledge that the GECK itself or the CS remains the property of Bethesda. In regard to what you make with it, such as plugins, etc, by using the GECK/CS to make them, you grant Bethesda an irrevocable licence to use what you produce;-

 

"The Editor and any other software that is available for download from this Site is and shall remain the copyrighted property of Bethesda Softworks and/or its designee(s) "

 

and

 

"if You distribute or otherwise make available New Materials, You automatically grant to Bethesda Softworks the irrevocable, perpetual, royalty free, sublicensable right and license under all applicable copyrights and intellectual property rights laws to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, perform, display, distribute and otherwise exploit and/or dispose of the New Materials (or any part of the New Materials) in any way Bethesda Softworks, or its respective designee(s), sees fit. You also waive and agree never to assert against Bethesda Softworks or its affiliates, distributors or licensors any moral rights or similar rights, however designated, that You may have in or to any of the New Materials. If You commit any breach of this Agreement, Your right to use the Editor under this Agreement shall automatically terminate, without notice."

 

So NO, Beth does not OWN what you make with the GECK/CS, title does not pass.

 

I'm dismayed that we seem to be back once more to people getting all impatient and wanting to ride roughshod over modders who have created stuff and shared it for free, and then suddenly they are cast as villains for not wanting their work used.

[durklives]

So that's it? This super helpful mod/patch is gone forever? Sigh...

 

Seems that way. It's terrible, I know.

 

But you see Earthbound, when someone fixes a bug in a dialogue script or something they, now and forever, own that bug fix, apparently.

[durklives]

I'm dismayed that we seem to be back once more to people getting all impatient and wanting to ride roughshod over modders who have created stuff and shared it for free, and then suddenly they are cast as villains for not wanting their work used.

 

Hey maybe you missed the part where many of these fixes can only happen one way and leave virtually no room for the author to insert their own personal touch on the fix.

 

For example of the NCR Patrol Armor fix, how in the world is it that the person who uploaded that get exclusive right to that fix? All the esp does is remove a "Has Backpack" flag from the NCR Patrol Armor. So if I wanted to include that in the Community Compilation how would anyone know whether or not I merely "stole" that fix or did it myself?