Nexus permissions rules (Compilation Patch)

[Earthbound_X]

I think it is sick that you guys have no respect for modder's rights. Why would anyone make a bug fix if soomeone can just come along and steal it for their own mod?

 

Who was suggesting that? From what I understood we all just thought it was weird that if Zenball said he made all the fixes himself, there would have been no issue with it, no one was suggesting he should have done that, least of what I saw.

[DERPshi]

I think it is sick that you guys have no respect for modder's rights. Why would anyone make a bug fix if soomeone can just come along and steal it for their own mod?

 

Who was suggesting that? From what I understood we all just thought it was weird that if Zenball said he made all the fixes himself, there would have been no issue with it, no one was suggesting he should have done that, least of what I saw.

 

If I make a bug fix then that is MY bug fix. someone just can't come along and do the same thing without giving me credit for my hard working, finding out what is causing the bug and how to fix it.

[Earthbound_X]

I think it is sick that you guys have no respect for modder's rights. Why would anyone make a bug fix if soomeone can just come along and steal it for their own mod?

 

Who was suggesting that? From what I understood we all just thought it was weird that if Zenball said he made all the fixes himself, there would have been no issue with it, no one was suggesting he should have done that, least of what I saw.

 

If I make a bug fix then that is MY bug fix. someone just can't come along and do the same thing without giving me credit for my hard working, finding out what is causing the bug and how to fix it.

 

So if Obsidian fixed the bug, after you fixed it, it means they stole it from you? You do realize, it's possible to fix bugs, without ever going to The Nexus right? So if I went into Geck, and fixed a bug, just for myself, that you somehow also fixed, separately from me, I stole it from you? And btw, Zenball did give credit to each and every person, and had their permission. He was still gonna carry on with the mod too, before people started all this crap.

 

I don't really mean any disrespect, I just really liked this patch mod, it was very helpful. Guess we'll have to either wait for a new one, or for Obsidian to fix things, which will take longer.

[Dark0ne]

I think you're getting trolled...that sarcasm is so witty.

 

I didn't reply today as I was massively hung over and spent most of the day in bed. I'm travelling over the weekend but I might be able to chime in. Your posts have been read and I'm not ignoring you per-se, just busy busy busy (as usual).

[documn]

Sorry about the giant quote, but I thought it would be appropriate since the original is a long ways back.

1. A new category, fixes, which would automatically set permissions to the loosest possible enabling people to use the resource without seeking permission. This category could autosuggest if the user includes the words 'fix', 'bug' or 'bugfix' in their filename, with a pop up explaining that the fix category allows re-use without permission. This is the quickest and dirtiest fix.

 

2. For more general purposes and streamlined permissions: if an uploader integrates any other mod with their mod, they should have to enter the url/file ID of the mod into the permissions section. This will send an automated alert to the author of said mod, asking them if it is ok if the mod in question is used. Each user can choose to either manually give permission for that mod to be used, or set permissions to be automatically given. Automated return permissions could send back a form detailing the limits of how the mod may be used.

 

3. Endorsement integration. If a mod is included in another mod, that mod should receive some kind of recognition, perhaps a separate rating (community points?), displayed next to endorsements. This could be received incidentally as a ratio of endorsements received indirectly through other mods (in other words mod A makes a resource, mod B integrates it, mod B receives an endorsement, mod A automatically receives a community point, or perhaps to make them rarer, 1 point for every mod that integrates them). A new tab in the mod information could show a list of other mods which integrate it and which other mods it integrates. This would also help prevent users of the mod from having unnecessary esp files in their load order and therefore reduce the risk of mod conflict.

 

1. This idea sounds fine for fixes for the vanilla games. Did you want this category to include fixes for other people's mods too? Cause I don't see how you can get around the fact that you'd still need permission from the author to post the fix on the nexus.

 

2. I don't think this is feasible as written. A person may have lost the URL or file id of the integrated mod, the mod may have been removed or hidden, etc. Plus, it seems odd to ask for permission when you're about to post the mod.

 

3. This sounds fair, though it sounds like it can only work as intended if everybody strictly adheres to your #2: that is to say, if everybody posts their mods on the nexus, and their resources are posted on the nexus, and they get their permissions through the nexus's permissions system. Personally I wouldn't really care if any fixes I posted got community points, but I suppose there is value in giving credit where credit is due (even if the original author doesn't care).

 

--------

Regarding the other stuff on this thread: I think it would be good to make an exception to the "no compilations" rule for a compilation of fixes, assuming all the mod authors gave permission. If the compilation ever became more than just fixes, then I would report the file, and leave it to the nexus staff to judge whether or not the file should be removed.

[Earthbound_X]

I thought it was possible that DERPshi wasn't being completely serious. Either way, I think I'm done here, the mod is gone, and it's not coming back.

[Arthmoor]

Well, obviously as one who has just such a "compilation of fixes" available, I think I have a pretty huge stake in the outcome of what happens here.

 

First: I think it's insane that a mod that is a gathering of individual bug fixes for the original game would be rejected under the new policy simply because a whole bunch of individuals each created one fix a piece and released them. Many many things can only be fixed one single way. So as someone else has said several times, you can't run a proper investigation. This isn't like gathering up several large distinct mods and making a compilation pack out of those. This is bug fixes, to the original game, where the vast majority will be of the type where "2" becomes "3" or "bench on street" becomes "bench on CORRECT street".

 

The precedent set here seems to create a rather large risk for the Unofficial FO3 Patch as well as the Unofficial Oblivion Patch, along with the UOP Supplemental. Quarn and Kivan may have done large amounts of that work themselves, but at the same time those mods contain other smaller individual fixes that were offered up and aren't documented in any way. What's to prevent some yahoo from showing up next week, making a claim that the UOP ripped them off for fixing an NPCs AI pack, and pushing to get the whole thing taken down? Or some other yahoo that comes along and claims that the 4 rocks moved outside a fort were from his fix and nobody asked him ahead of time if it could be included?

 

This isn't really the same as someone coming along and posting an ESP full of fixes for one of my village mods, or for one of the major overhauls, or from several house mods, and not seeking permission to do that. This new policy seems to be going way too far in a dangerous direction.

 

I don't really see how inventing a new "patches" category is going to help either. The same people who complained about a lack of permission can still complain and still get patch mods taken down the way things are now. This never used to be the case, and I've been around long enough to know that the community has always been very lenient about these sorts of things - with a few VERY high profile people who are the exceptions to this. Nexus is giving people like that far too much power and it's not good for the community's long term health.

 

From a legal standpoint, it's hard to say if micro-fixes would contain enough independent work to qualify for copyright protection. They certainly can't be patented or trademarked. Copyright protection doesn't even extend to code for algorithms if the algorithm can only be expressed in a certain way using the programming language it's in. Attempting to extend copyright beyond what the law allows for is opening a can of worms.

 

As a private entity, Nexus is allowed to set whatever policy they feel is appropriate, as long as it compiles with the law. The danger becomes whether or not the policy is detrimental to the community it's trying to protect. So far, it's not looking very helpful.

[Zenball]

Nice to see you here Arthmoor.

 

The idea behind the patches category would be that any mod which included the word 'patch', 'fix' or other similar word would autosuggest being placed under it, which would automatically set permissions to be the loosest possible, ie for reuse without permission or credit. This would not have to be followed by the uploader, but it would 'nudge' them in the right direction, which would be beneficial to the community and allow for unofficial patches to be easily created and maintained.

 

I don't think there's any danger of your unofficial patch being put under review, don't worry :)

[OddballE8]

I agree with the OP in that this is going too far.

 

If you CREATE something in a mod, then sure its all yours when it comes to IP.

 

If, on the other hand, you only correct something (be it a small thing like changing a number somewhere, or a huge thing like reworking an entire mission structure) then its not really your CREATION. Its merely something you did that others could just as easily have done since it most often is the only way to "fix" the problem (if a mission refers to a wrong item ID for example, theres not many ways to fix that).

Just because you did it first, doesnt give you exclusive rights on it.

 

Theres a huge difference between mods and fixes, and modders and fixers... this needs to be recognised in the Nexus.

Sure, keep the rules for mods, but you have to have seperate rules for fixes.

(oh and fixes to mods, fall under the category of mods since they are infact reliant on that mod)

 

Anyway, im gonna go out and say that any mod ive ever made on any of the Nexus sites is up for grabs... anyone can use them and abuse them any way they want without asking for my permission. It is hereby universaly granted.

[xporc]

I think this is the crux of the matter. It's a corner case, but a significant one. Absent of some bug fix uber-modder like Quarn (who we were very, very lucky to have), it makes sense that the resources of the community can be easily pooled with regards to an unofficial patch, and also unofficial patch patches, such as with the the once-existing FWE Unofficial Patch Patch and with FOOK. FOOK for NV has actually merged many of the fixes from the Compilation Patch into the latest version - lucky for them I got most of the permissions - xporc mentioned to me he intended to do this so there's no problem there as far as I'm concerned. The current policy is directly in the way of such patches being easily produced, maybe because we have been spoilt by Quarn's patches and therefore have never had to have a tailored policy regarding this before.

 

Woooooh, discovering this topic waaay too late, but what is described here is simply not true.

 

FOOK for NV, until now, has been having almost 99% of its esp content made by the FOOK team. That I and JustinOther personnaly made. Some people here may remember the Day 1 release with a handful of typos fixed, that later led to much, much more fixes, that I wrote down while discovering them in-game and fixing them of my own. What happened is that Zenball's patch merged those fixes without asking the FOOK team if it's okay, and only asked for the rights of it at a later point. Thankfully, the FOOK team is very open about sharing its work, and permission was given, with two points though :

* the mention that the FOOK team would fix with their own work some fixes already happening in the community patch.

* that FOOK will keep being updated by the FOOK team and that we couldnt afford to waste time, wait or help in any big way Zenball with his work. Working on FOOK is already tons of work as it is!

 

Hope that cleared the situation. Sorry if it's kind of off-topic. And FOOK didnt really merged anything for its next version ...

 

EDIT : Hey, why not answering something of my own about the topic now that I've posted it here anyway?

 

The way I see it, the Nexus policies are a bit too harsh. The fact that Zenball's project could be shot down by a handful of jackasses when he was used by thousand of people (and tens of people accepted to be part of his project!) is just sad. To me, crediting is very important, but unless someone write on his mod description "please dont ADD any of this content to another mod", it's there to be actually used and improved by other people. It's not like money is involved ... And modding should be link utopia-communism. Everyone sharing for the greater good and stuff ... It's not like people doing compilation like FOOK or Zenball's are not working a LOT of hours to make it work together. All of this so people can freely enjoy their game without paying anything.

 

Smurffs here, anyone? C'm'on ? :(

 

EDIT2 : I'm not a native English speaker, sorry if anything I say sounds weird