New advanced search filter to sort by usable assets

[Offkorn]

95 of how many thousands have permissions set, People need to check their permissions as it looks real restricted otherwise.

 

only 61 of 177 in models section have them set

 

One of the many reasons those options should default to 'unset' rather then 'restricted'.

 

This is basically a redux of when Tags were implemented, except in this case only the author can set permissions. Which is a huge problem for abandoned Mods (of which thee are quite a few).

[Dark0ne]

How is 'unset' any different to 'restricted'?

[myrmaad]

In my view, it isn't -- much.

 

If it's restricted, it means you have to obtain permission from the author, so you will have to read the readme and if they gave permissions in the readme, you've obtained the permission. But I see what you're saying, you will not be able to get the instant gratification that comes along with a search that shows the permission was in the readme, but unset by the author.

 

It's new, the system will get better over time.

[Nadimos]

Thanks. Good move.

[Offkorn]

How is 'unset' any different to 'restricted'?

 

"Restricted" means the author actively does not want their resources re-distributed.

 

"Unset" means the author has either abandoned their Mod or does not care whether or not the resources are re-distributed.

Edited November 23, 2010 by Offkorn

[airtonix]

"Search by usable Assets"

 

This is more commonly referred to as "License Type".

 

I'm wondering why you didn't just use the Creative Commons API ?

>>> wiki.creativecommons.org/Main_Page

>>> api.creativecommons.org/docs/

>>> wiki.creativecommons.org/Creative_Commons_Web_Services

 

 

They're a solid legal framework that helps protect authors.

Edited November 23, 2010 by airtonix

[ladydesire]

@Offkorn: Nice try, but the terms of service here disagree with you. "Unset" means "restricted", unless there is some indication of free usage given in the mod's description or readme.

[Zumbs]

In this early phase it could be useful to have the functionality to filter out the mods that has the "No X" options set. This would allow users to inspect the readme for the authors opinion.

[Vbgraphix]

airtonix,

 

I would really really like to be able to use Creative Commons licenses, so that is a good idea.

 

Though, I believe Bethesda allows derivatives of some of the game content, so you might not be able to relicense under those terms.

 

I'm sure you could if the content was completely your own.

 

Dunno how the license rights work for, say, retextures of Bethesda armor. I guess you just own the "improvements," so to speak.

 

It would be a bit misleading to people if we labelled the whole thing as Creative Commons, since Bethesda doesn't seem likely to relicense it as CC.

 

Speaking of which it would be cool if they could do that one day. They already give out Arena and Daggerfall for free. They should just relicense them as GPL, like id Tech did with Quake and Enemy Territory. Then do the same for Morrowind in the near future. hehe

[Thandal]

airtonix,

 

I would really really like to be able to use Creative Commons licenses, so that is a good idea.

 

Though, I believe Bethesda allows derivatives of some of the game content, so you might not be able to relicense under those terms.

 

I'm sure you could if the content was completely your own.

 

Dunno how the license rights work for, say, retextures of Bethesda armor. I guess you just own the "improvements," so to speak.

 

It would be a bit misleading to people if we labelled the whole thing as Creative Commons, since Bethesda doesn't seem likely to relicense it as CC.

 

Speaking of which it would be cool if they could do that one day. They already give out Arena and Daggerfall for free. They should just relicense them as GPL, like id Tech did with Quake and Enemy Territory. Then do the same for Morrowind in the near future. hehe

I'm puzzled by posts such as this. If I'm reading it correctly, the author wishes to use the CCL (or GPL, or GNU, or whatever particular reference framework the poster prefers.) As far as I know, there's nothing stopping an author from doing so. One can publish one's own work using any such licensing, or none, as one choses.

 

So is the real point that the poster wishes OTHERS to release their works under the poster's preferred terms? And in some of the similar posts I've read, would REQUIRE them to be released under those terms if they wished them published somewhere like, oh say, Nexus?

 

I ask because it seems to me in the middle of saying the fomer; "I like/prefer this-or-that public licence framework.", the discussion often implies the latter; "Others should/must use this one." And in the extreme cases it even reaches the stage of; "If the author hasn't explicity declared otherwise, one may presume the work is freely available for any use at all."

 

Since I haven't ever developed code for anyone other than myself or my employer, I may be missing some of the nuances of this type of activity.