The Future... spin-off: modder licence categories

[Epistolary Richard]

Spun-off from this thread:
https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63126

One of the most agreed upon ideas coming out of that thread was the community would benefit if modders could specify the manner in which they would allow their downloadable work to be used - and the modders themselves would benefit from being made aware of the various options available.


greater guidance for modders as to the different licences that can be offered when a creation is made available for download, with boilerplate paragraphs that they can pick'n'mix as they wish to express their intentions properly at the start - perhaps with an easy symbol or colour guide which links into a fuller text.


As pointed out, some modders created their projects a while ago and have since moved onto to other things from RTW. This is frustrating because contacting these members is exceptionally difficult, if not impossible, unless they return to the community and give their explicit permission for their work to be used in other projects.


We need to have a better way of expressing how we want modders work used, and whether they would be willing for it to be used after they retire.


IP is a sensitive subject, and should remain flexible. The creator has the right to decide what the community can do with their efforts...it is only fair! In return, the author MUST make it clear what they consider to be fair use of their hard work. God forbid it ever happen...but nothing kills community spirit faster than somebody stealing another modders work, spending 5 minutes messing with the paintwork, and then calling it their own.

As a result - I have spun off this thread in order to focus more specifically on the mechanism by which this can be accomplished and the sort of categories that should be included.

One of my priorities would be to make this as easy to use and intuitive for modders to use as possible, while still giving the detail that some modders like to get into. And at the same time not overburdening a mod release post with legal boilerplate.

What I would suggest, therefore is a variety of 'off-the-peg' categories that can be mixed and matched so modders could them use as short hand if they so chose which would link through to pre-established definitions designed to cover most usual situations.

With an additional of a small graphical icon perhaps, at a glance other modders could tell how the creator wished their work to be used. But there would still be the detail linked through should any contentious cases emerege.

These would by no means be compulsory, modders if they so wished would be completely free to write their own licence. They'd only be there to save time and keep modders modding.

Some of ideas for categories would be:

Personal use only - the item could only be used private and not incorporated in any other public mod without the permission of the creator

Permission to incorporate - the item could be incorporated unchanged into a public mod (this might be appropriate for skins or models for example)

Permission to update to a new version - should a subsequent version of the game be released then the item could have such adjustments made it to make compatible with the new version

Permission to use freely - allowing others to alter and incorporate the work in other public mods as they wished.

All categories would require the crediting of the original creator.

Certain types of mods may need other categories:

Permission to adapt for intended use - the item could be adapted to be incorporated within a public mod (for example, a map mod will normally require changes to the descr_strat file to allow for new units and character names, so to allow what changes need to be made in order to use the item as intended).

Or for example a Total Conversion mod
Permission to make sub-mods - allowing others to use the item for a public mod freely, but with the requirement that the sub-mod would need the original mod to function (in much the same way as any mod needs RTW to function).


Ideas for other categories or refinements to these ones?

Also, any ideas for how best to display them? Small graphical icons? Colour-coding?

[Arbaces]

What's up ER? You make politics from RTW? Is that the new law of RTW Modding community? I'll never understand this topics you recently opened. While a Mod is not for sale as an expansion pack supported by Sega.. I don't understand what's with so many types of permissions and stuff like this.
I've always made my own rules and you know, but though, I like modding and agree with you in some way. But, if somebody takes my work and puts it within his mod silently (without credits) WHAT can I do. Call the cops? :P . That is vice-versa but I ussually ask everybody or at least I announce him that he'll get the honour to have his mod within mine and that I can offer everything he wants from my works in exchange. This is what community means: sharing resources, and this is mostly used and done, meaning that our community is working very well. However, nobody should ever include in his previews parts took from other mods making themselfes self-important to people who don't know the mod implemented.
I answered to what I understood of your topic.
I have been reading somewhere that Mundus Magnus couldn't be updated because of the premission issues of not being able to contact ngr... !... That's funny. My opinion is that as far as he hasn't said no as it's last answer the default answer should be yes as long as the modder gives credits, so, it's bad thing nobody modded MM2 to RTW 1.5 just because of this.

Farewell,
Arbaces.

[Lentonius]

I understand what you mean Arbaces, but i know by my own actions that this can still cause 'trouble', so i Think ER is right in bringing this topic to discussion. I beleive that by keeping it simple, either a modder states how the mod can be used, or if there is no licence 'statement' then the mod should be classed as freeware. This means if a modder wants certain things not used in certain ways, then he should make it clear, or face the consequences. Also, this means that things like Mundus Magnus cannot happen any more, as any wishes would be stated clearly, and if there are none, we use our initiative and use what has been given to us.

From what i have heard of The Mundus Magnus issue, people hesitated to edit MM in any way because the owner was not contactable. I think this, although good in any other situation in the real world, is not really nessecary here.

In short, i think people should either clearly state their wishes,or it becomes freeware for the community.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

The most simplistic, yet effective method to categorise the guidelines in which a modders' work is used by others is to use the 'tree approach'. Starting at the base of the tree, with as few choices as possible, you can then progress upwards and differentiate modding projects using specific branches. What this should do is to lay down a template that can be used efficiently by all modders in expressing their requests of mod usage and distribution.

Expanding upon this tree illustration, the first and single question (IE the base of the tree) would obviously be:

Can the authors' mod (or specific elements of the mod) be incorporated into another modding project?

Simplistic category answers are:

-Yes
-No

Now that a distinguishable guideline has been laid down, the differential options (IE branches) can be put forward, depending completely upon the answer to the first question, as mentioned:


Personal use only - the item could only be used private and not incorporated in any other public mod without the permission of the creator

Permission to incorporate - the item could be incorporated unchanged into a public mod (this might be appropriate for skins or models for example)

Permission to update to a new version - should a subsequent version of the game be released then the item could have such adjustments made it to make compatible with the new version

Permission to use freely - allowing others to alter and incorporate the work in other public mods as they wished.

...

Permission to adapt for intended use - the item could be adapted to be incorporated within a public mod (for example, a map mod will normally require changes to the descr_strat file to allow for new units and character names, so to allow what changes need to be made in order to use the item as intended).

Or for example a Total Conversion mod
Permission to make sub-mods - allowing others to use the item for a public mod freely, but with the requirement that the sub-mod would need the original mod to function (in much the same way as any mod needs RTW to function).
The differentials can be expanded and broken down even further if and when required, depending upon the depth of the specifications laid down by the mod author.

[Bwian]

Arbaces....what can you do if someone steals your work and passes it off as their own.... simple. NEVER release another mod for the community. Bad mouth the thieving scumbag in every forum everywhere, an generally make his life a spam infested hell....

Basically, a community of modders only works when people respect the intellectual property of the maker. What was discussed was how the wishes of the mod maker could best be respected, even when that person was not dirctly contactable.

There is a fine line between 'sharing' resources, and someone deciding that the units I made are theirs to 'share' wherever they like. However they like. In whatever messed up form they like.

Don;t you think the guys who put in all that hard work should havesome say in what happens to their work? Or do ou believe that 'community' is all about people taking the hard work of othes without even basic levels of respect?

We are trying to establish some framework whereby modders can make it clear what they want to happen to their work. If that can't be respected, why should any of us make anything for the community ... we could just keep it on our hard drives to enjoy purely because we don;t trust the community to respect our work.

There have been confusions in the past....conflicts...unpleasantness. This should mean it never happens again by accident...

[Epistolary Richard]

Is that the new law of RTW Modding community?
:inquisitive:

These would by no means be compulsory, modders if they so wished would be completely free to write their own licence. They'd only be there to save time and keep modders modding.


I don't understand what's with so many types of permissions and stuff like this.
Okay, have a read of the previous thread that it's spin-off from and see if that helps.


But, if somebody takes my work and puts it within his mod silently (without credits) WHAT can I do.
You contact the staff of the forum where the person has posted the link to their mod and let them know the situation as it says in the stickied Forge post here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=40050).


Using the works of other modders without their permission is not allowed for public modifications. Most of the modders spend many hours on models, graphics and such to give their mods a little extra flavour. At a certain time they will release a beta so that the public can give feedback with the intention to improve the mod. Using models from a beta in your own public mod is then very unhonourable as your leeching on the blood and tears of another community member.

As a result modification will be shut down if it is proven that is using work of others without permission. If you see your work in another mod and you have not given permission then feel free to contact the staff and appropiate actions will be taken.



I have been reading somewhere that Mundus Magnus couldn't be updated because of the premission issues of not being able to contact ngr... !... That's funny. My opinion is that as far as he hasn't said no as it's last answer the default answer should be yes as long as the modder gives credits, so, it's bad thing nobody modded MM2 to RTW 1.5 just because of this.

Well, that may be your opinion, but many people in the community and the basic concepts behind copyright disagree with you - if someone creates something copyrightable then they get to set the limits on how others can use it. If we were trying to tell everyone that all their work had to become public domain then I think they would rightfully have a problem with that.

Fortunately, in the case of MM, Dead Moroz did reappear to give his permission - but not every modder who retires will do so.


In short, i think people should either clearly state their wishes,or it becomes freeware for the community.
While I'm sure that would encourage people to state their wishes, it's not the case that in their absence they waive all rights. Without contrary instructions or implication, the assumption is that they retain all rights.

[Lentonius]

Hmm, i understand this... Maybe then, the simplest idea would be that which seasoned alcoholic propoesd- a simple tree style, easy to follow licence that could be easily placed in a readme format.

However, i still feel that if a modder does not express their views clearly, they can only expect confusion and accidental misuse, so it is partly on their blame.

When a modder leaves the community, i feel that although, ER, it is correct they retain rights, maybe you should send an urgent email on behalf of the community, and give them 30 days to reply. If they dont reply i feel that people should then be allowed to use what has been made, rather than letting good work go to waste.

Of course in this i presume modders woud use the material in an honourable and decent manner, and this would only be the case had there not been any clear licence in the readme...

[Bwian]

The 'only if no clear instructions were included in the readme' bit is the vital element here.

I spent more than 30 days out of the loop following my accident last November. I effectively lost the use of my 'dominant' hand for 6 weeks. If I had come back and found that my work had been considered 'community property' because I hadn't answered e-mails, I would have been FURIOUS. And trust me...when something like that happens, your first thought is not to check your e-mails.

The idea of this is to ensure that all modders are aware that their wishes with regard to their content are known and clearly stated. The more simple and straightforward that is, the better.

ALL releases should include a simple readme, stating:

1) The type of mod ( full conversion...stat change...map..whatever )
2) Installation instructions
3) Removal Instructions
4) Credits for contributors
5) Conditions of use.

Conditions of use can simply state whether the creators wish their content to be used in any other mod, can be modified in any way and under what conditions, and so on.

Ultimately, a 'standard' readme framework would be best. This was standard in the old Quake modding days. There was a standard readme framework, and you just put in the bits that related to your mod! All releases had it, and everyone knew about it. You can also paste this into your 'release' thread on the forum, for those who never read 'readme' files!

***************************
Mod Name:

This mod contains:
New Models
Mew Maps
New Textures
Stat Changes

Mod description:

Credits:

Install Instructions

Removal Instructions

Copyright Notice:
May not be used other than with the original mod
May not be used for other mods
May be used provided full credit given
May be used and modified provided credit given
Do what you want with it!

[Lentonius]

Yeah i now can see your point Bwain.

Unfortunately though, in some cases when modders genuinely leave the community for good, it may be hard to decide when people arent likely to return, as then you get people leaving mods dead for ages.

Its kinda an annoying situation, because you can either use the work and find out that a furious modder returns a week later, or leave the work in a grave for ages, and the modder never returns.

I think, people should include their wishes clearly in the readme though as of now, and somehow find a way of telling whether a modder is away, or offline for good.

[Epistolary Richard]

I think, people should include their wishes clearly in the readme though as of now, and somehow find a way of telling whether a modder is away, or offline for good.

I think in many cases the modder himself won't know - it's often the case that one doesn't set oneself a specific date when one won't involve themself anymore in the community - it's rather that interest wanes, visits become more infrequent and they gently drift away.

I appreciate your position - I myself would like to keep as much material circulating in the community as possible, but IMO this can't come at the expense of modders feeling their rights are being abused. We are lucky enough to have members of the community who's work equals or surpasses professional standards. If we are to attract and keep such people then we have to be prepared to respect their rights in a professional manner.


Ultimately, a 'standard' readme framework would be best. This was standard in the old Quake modding days. There was a standard readme framework, and you just put in the bits that related to your mod! All releases had it, and everyone knew about it. You can also paste this into your 'release' thread on the forum, for those who never read 'readme' files!

I think this is a good idea - a sample readme would be especially useful for guiding modders coming new to the scene and it could link to sample conditions for use paragraphs.

[Bwian]

This is something I would support wholeheartedly.

I think it can only help to safeguard the IP of modders, and also makes us look a lot more professional as a community.

If you want, I can draft something as a starting point. Ultimately, though, someone like ER should have the final say as a moderator and respected pillar of the community. He is bound to think of things I forget :dizzy2:

I got a few days away coming to me, with only a laptop and occasional dial up link to ply with, but I will try and keep in touch over the coming week to see how this progresses

[Lentonius]

I agree also, but What would happen of the hundreds of released mod materials with no clear wishes?

Surely in the community there can be a fair way of using these mods, without everybody scrambling for an old skin pack like a gang of wolves.

I dont want to give the impression i am For material like this to be freeware, but also i dont think it should be shoved away in a dark corner and never touched again. There has to be a happy medium.

Realistically, in the real world, when a person dies, leaving no will, their posessions become property of the government.
I think a solution to this problem of people leaving, is that we should give them a month,2, 3 months notification, whatever is better. After that I think moderators, or a senior member, should read whatever readme is found, and by doing this, judge to the best of their ability how this modder wanted their material used.

And if a fustrated modder returns? We simply ask them to re-write the readme of their material featuring any dos or donts the modder feels like.

[Seasoned Alcoholic]

Ultimately, a 'standard' readme framework would be best. This was standard in the old Quake modding days. There was a standard readme framework, and you just put in the bits that related to your mod! All releases had it, and everyone knew about it. You can also paste this into your 'release' thread on the forum, for those who never read 'readme' files!

It would be good if a template was in place before the release of M2TW. The main problem with the suggestions we've been raising is that the whole (or a significant majority) of the modding community needs to be made aware that such templates exist. More importantly, these ideas need to become 'the norm', ideally before the release of M2TW.

If a clear, simple, easy-to-use template system is set-up, even tested out if needs be, hopefully the idea should catch on. Areas such as this should ideally be pre-requisites before a mod (in whichever format) is released. The end-user will then know exactly what they are and what they are not allowed to actually do with the mod they've downloaded.

[Lusted]

I agree that there should be a standardised readme for all RTw mods, for my mod i have it laid out as:

Name
Overview
Features
Installation Instructions
Copyright notice

And i like ER's categories of permission, i feel it makes things much more clearer, i am going to include many of the ideas here intot he readme for the next version of my mod to make it much clearer.

[Epistolary Richard]

If you want, I can draft something as a starting point. Ultimately, though, someone like ER should have the final say as a moderator and respected pillar of the community.
I've always wanted to become part of the architecture. :laugh4:

I think what you and Lusted have already written is the type of thing we would want, no need to make things more complicated - smaller mods won't need more and larger ones can add categories as required:
Name
Version
Compatibility
Install instructions
Description/Credits
Conditions of Use

Rather than writing a sample for a 'fictional' mod - we can use a real one.

What we may ultimately be able to achieve - and I can check on the technicalities of this - is if we were to have a database of released mods then a new entry form can include the above as fields - with help links to describe what each field should be used for. If a modder was asked to consider all the above sections when he was posting the mod I would hope the provision of such info would be automatic.


It would be good if a template was in place before the release of M2TW. The main problem with the suggestions we've been raising is that the whole (or a significant majority) of the modding community needs to be made aware that such templates exist. More importantly, these ideas need to become 'the norm', ideally before the release of M2TW.
I wholeheartedly agree. The reason to have these kind of discussions now is to allow technical development and 'bedding down' of any ideas before MTW2 starts rolling. It gives us a chance to be proactive regarding MTW2 modding - rather than reactive.


I agree also, but What would happen of the hundreds of released mod materials with no clear wishes?
That's kind of a different question. Where it's not clear what a modder's wishes have been, it's not going to be a crisis if they remain obscure. Clearer instructions will still help us just going forward.

But there's an occasion coming up which may help. With a released mod database (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=62910) as modders came to relist their mods their could expand upon their wishes if it hadn't already been clear.

Additionally, whilst some venerable modders are no longer contactable - it's not the case for all of them. If one were writing to them to ask for permission to incorporate their work elsewere, one could ask them if they'd be willing to extend such a permission generally. If it's something they did a long time ago they may not care so much how it is used.

[Lusted]

I could post the readme for my mod once i've finished it for 4.0 as an example of what a readme should look like.

[Epistolary Richard]

An interesting post from someone thinking along similar lines (http://lists.ibiblio.org/pipermail/cc-licenses/2005-October/002685.html) for the Morrowind modding community. Also, here are the custom licences (http://home.earthlink.net/~wrye_modder/WML%201.0.html) that they came up with.

[Arbaces]

Got it. I've got a question: what happens if somebody logs in without answering my question of permission? He doesn't tell me that he won't allow me to use his work, which I find normal but he doesn't tell me that I'm free to use his work either. This is a problem I'm currently encountering with my mod and it's a bit strange thing not to answer: I thought when you don't want to allow him to use his work you reply with threats that you will post everywhere that he is a thief...etc, not by being silent anyway.
After all this topic is useful ;). Thanks for answer.

Farewell,
Arbaces.

PS: Will it be ok that in the future I make a statement of my policy on my forums, to avoid this kind of people at once? Is it generally ok ?

[alpaca]

I think mod teams should handle anything one of their affilitiates explicitly creates for their mod in his stead - via their readme - and that it should be subject to their respective license (which should be included in said readme).

Also, modders should be made aware then that by joining the mod team the rights to any work they do for the mod will go to the team and not stay with the person - unless the team (or a responsible representative) explicitly agrees to make an exception.

I think we should generally work on those license modes (maybe I'll write a few paragraphs when I'm up to using that kind of language ;)) and maybe we can even establish a few standards that can just be copied (Creative Commons like).
Maybe one of the more experienced modders should also create a tutorial on this to show newbies how we'd like it to be done :)

I'll also release the Chivalry readme as an example if you consider it as a good one (after I wrote it of course).

[Epistolary Richard]

I've got a question: what happens if somebody logs in without answering my question of permission? He doesn't tell me that he won't allow me to use his work, which I find normal but he doesn't tell me that I'm free to use his work either.
Unfortunately, you can't infer permission from silence. If someone hasn't said that other people can use his work, either in a readme or in a post or in a specific communication, then you can't assume that permission is granted just because he doesn't reply to your request. All you can do is send the request again or if he's part of a team then you can try contacting another member and seeing if they can help you get in contact.


PS: Will it be ok that in the future I make a statement of my policy on my forums, to avoid this kind of people at once? Is it generally ok ?
All forums operate under terms and conditions of use - if you control your own forums then you can vary those terms, either by rewriting your terms and conditions section or making an announcement that you're adding an addendum to them.

Any mod uploaded and posted, for example, we assume that the modder gives permission for private us (after all, if he didn't want other people to use it then why is he uploading and posting it?).

What you could say in addition, for example, is that if a modder uploaded his mod onto your site then he would be a) warranting that he was either the creator or authorised by the creator to do so, and b) automatically granting permission for others (or yourself or your team or whomever) to use that work in other public modifications (subject to the giving of credit or whatever or conditions).

The important thing to note is that you have to make everybody who might upload there aware of this term (i.e. members of your site) when it's first introduced and subsequently - so then they can make a fair choice.

It also doesn't apply retrospectively - so anything uploaded previously isn't covered - as when those modders uploaded their work they weren't aware of that term.


Also, modders should be made aware then that by joining the mod team the rights to any work they do for the mod will go to the team and not stay with the person - unless the team (or a responsible representative) explicitly agrees to make an exception.
Mod teams really should give some thought to this, so everyone is clear of the conditions when they join up - what I've heard of as a good compromise is that the individual modder retains the right to the work - but as part of the team they automatically grant the team the right to use the work in the mod and further adapt it as necessary. They also give the team the right to publish it first - once the mod's been released (and due credit has accrued to the team), then the individual modder can grant permissions to other people to use the work.

I also agree that it's a good idea to build in a 'living will' clause to a team agreement so if the modder isn't around any more a representative of the team can extend permissions to others outside the team to use it.


I'll also release the Chivalry readme as an example if you consider it as a good one (after I wrote it of course).
Yes, I think it would be good to have a look at a few readmes - as well as using them to determine a base we can use them to link to as examples.

I took the excuse of the release of a small mini-mod to write up a new readme of my own.

It's pretty much the same as the top forum thread I posted here (https://forums.totalwar.org/vb/showthread.php?t=63870).

[Epistolary Richard]

Finalising thoughts on useful shorthand 'off the peg' conditions of use people can use - just a few for now, if people want to be more specific then they can get into detail with customised conditions, or maybe suggest some more categories which maybe aren't covered here:

Free Use - You may alter and adapt this modification for other public modifications freely subject to the following conditions. It may not be used for any commercial purpose. The creator of the modification must be identified within the credits included in any release.

Incorporation - This material in this modification may be included in other public modifications in a complete and unaltered state. Adaptation may only be made to the extent necessary for the material to be used as intended by the creator. These conditions can be waived with the creator's express permission. It also may not be used for any commercial purpose. The creator of the modification must be identified within the credits included in any release.

Personal use only - The material in this modification cannot be used in any other public modification without the creator's express permission.
Optional additions
-- Permission for sub mods - The material in this modification can be used for public sub-modifications (derivative modifications which will not function without the original modification installed). The sub mod should not be bundled with the original modification in a single download without the express permission of the creator.
-- Permission to update version - If a new version or a patch of the game is released then the creator grants permission for the modification to be adapted only to the extent required to function with the new version and publicly released. You must attempt to notify the creator before beginning to adapt it. The updated modification must retain the original name (though with a different version number) and must identify the original creator with equal or greater prominence as the upgrader.

They're probably a bit wordy for a thread (though fine for the bottom of a readme) so I might do some little graphic buttons for them that link through to the text and some examples.

[Bwian]

I think that just about covers the essentials. Sure, we could have more categories to cover every detailed possibility, but that is not really necessary.

It would certainly give us a neat and simple framework that says what people can or can't do with the material. The 'cover all' is still there, which is simply the authors permission. The readme gives the 'assumption' which must be followed unless you contact and get permission from the author. Works for me!