Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 65
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm sorry you feel this is ridiculous, but I'm sorry that I feel that this is necessary. This technique is fully customizable, and does not weaponize mods. It is the most logical and level headed solution to the problem that I've found which keeps authorship issues intact and isn't calling for a massive boycott or declaring a jihaad on Bethesda, and doesn't require you weaponize your mods. This is safe. No penguins were harmed in the making of this technique, nor do they need to be, but they can be if you program it that way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If mod theft is already this much of issue as it obviously is now, imagine how bad it will be if they put in paid modding onto beth.net, like so many people on this site want.

When money becomes involved, you'd be surprised how:

-Lawyer's attitudes change

-Companies support you because it's a piece of their pie too.

-and more.

 

When you're a third party offering free stuff, who cares? Why would a lawyer get involved in something where no money changed hands?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Well... This is as much about asserting and extending our own rights as authors as it is about asserting and abiding by the rules Zenimax would have us abide by. By not coming anywhere near any Zenimax products for the key generation and implementation (in fact, nothing which compiles or uploads your mod can be allowed access to both halves of the key, in order to keep this strictly, mathematically tight), we remove blame from them, and by posting their EULA right next to it with our signature, we're giving them their pint of blood. It makes everything in their EULA stick like glue, while still giving us all we really wanted in the first place: A place to share our mods with people who love them, in the manner we deem fit.

 

Upon further consideration. Don't put EULAs into this. Let them be implied, but understand that you will be held to task on anything you already agreed to, regardless. Note that you don't need to put any EULAs or anything, it's just nice because if you're reading that, in game, it means that you would already have had to agree to those, and write on that virtual dotted line. This just shows you understand that, and offer your own rebuttal.

 

And if you can figure out how to make a mod which in no way requires vanilla resources and wasn't compiled in the CK to begin with, like some heavilly scripted mods I've seen which don't even take the main game's ESM as a master, you might not even need to include the EULA at all, technically.

 

Because this mod is that mod. Technically speaking, just the PEX is necessary in the final file. You can make this module as a separate plugin from your main entry, and use only the PEX file in the main plugin. The user doesn't need to run it, they need to download it. Providing of the actual DRM object as something you can interact with in game can be an optional plugin to your mod, nobody needs to download it.

 

The licensing that I've made you all agree to by force of gawd states "don't be a douche", and that strongly implies being open about this. Hence the tags, hence I also recommend optional downloads for the actual in-game object associated with the vaporware. That way people know your intention is to sign this work in indelible ink with your name. Of course, signatures can be douchy, like John Hancock. So use your best judgement on that, whether it helps you or harms you to be that transparent. I advise it, but I can't force you to comply with that.

Edited by Jeoshua
Link to comment
Share on other sites

No slight taken. Good ideas never go away, and this is admittedly a compilation and refinement of ideas caused by reading posts all over that have given me much to think about.

 

This idea is still in flux, and I have updated it. Crucially, the addition of the signature and key pair make linking the EULA no longer necessary, as those can already be understood to have been a prerequisite of running the file anyways, and there is no possibility that alterations were made to the EULA, and it doesn't appear you're trying to claim the EULA as yours. So leave that part out, eh?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...