If a author can not be reached, you can not release a fixed : IV - Oblivion

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 8:54 am

But you can't really be right with an assumption. It's a guess at best, and the only real "safe" solution is to assume author meant no usage. It's still an assumption though. It's like putting words into peoples' mouths when they never said it.

OK, since you continue to insist on being obtuse about this:

The moral thing to do is to assume the modder reserves all rights to which he is entitled. The immoral thing to do is to assume, without any express permission, that you can ignore that modder's rights for any reason whatsoever.

Not going to rehash everything that's been said for definition of "against." You can re-read the previous posts for it.

Which posts where? I honestly do not know what you're talking about here.

*And just for clarification in reference to some of the new posters above. I do not support taking rights away from modders. I do however think there should be an acceptance to being able to use abandoned mods so long as due credit (and diligence) is made to the original author, and only if there is no explicit instruction stating otherwise, and if the new modder is willing to take down the new update/mod if said original author asks for it to be taken down.

This is self-contradictory.

This:

I do however think there should be an acceptance to being able to use abandoned mods so long as due credit (and diligence) is made to the original author, and only if there is no explicit instruction stating otherwise, and if the new modder is willing to take down the new update/mod if said original author asks for it to be taken down.

is mutually exclusive with this:

I do not support taking rights away from modders.

Modders have a right for the former to not happen. Any scheme whereby that can happen without express permission inherently removes that right.

Thus, if you stand by the second statement, you do support taking rights away from modders. A position I will never condone, and is unlikely to find much traction in this community.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 5:35 am

I'm going to be a semantic jerk and "fix" this:

The ~~moral~~ ethical thing to do is to assume the modder reserves all rights to which he is entitled. The ~~immoral~~ unethical thing to do is to assume, without any express permission, that you can ignore that modder's rights for any reason whatsoever.

:teehee:

Feel free to dispute this, I'm just going by a kind of instinctual feeling there. I'm sure Oblivion's squad of philosophy majors can come and describe the exact difference between morality and ethics.

In the mean time, GO SEMANTICS!

EDIT: Based on the first Google result for "difference between morality and ethics" which says, "Morals define personal character, while ethics stress a social system in which those morals are applied. In other words, ethics point to standards or codes of behavior expected by the group to which the individual belongs" I'm going to stand firm on my obnoxious edit of your comment that doesn't really make any difference. I DARE YOU TO CHALLENGE ME!!!!

I'm really contributing to this discussion now.

:teehee:

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:49 pm

Fair enough; ethical then. Point is, it's a word that lonewolf_kai can no longer misconstrue into an alternate meaning as he keeps doing with the word "right".

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 6:26 am

Actually, when I mentioned that nuance is my favorite abstract concept (which is admittedly a silly thing to say), it's pretty much because of the words "right" and "wrong." There's no easier way to motivate intense and possibly unnecessary debate than suggesting something's right or wrong, because of course then we're motivated to prove ourselves right or at least not wrong. Oh this constant dichotomy is killing me inside!!!!

Now I need to stop killing this thread with meta. loooool

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 11:09 am

Fair enough; ethical then. Point is, it's a word that lonewolf_kai can no longer misconstrue into an alternate meaning as he keeps doing with the word "right".

I keep doing it because it's simply wrong to assume anything at all. :biggrin:

There's nothing wrong in my book to claim something unethical though. :whistling:

This is self-contradictory

Thus, if you stand by the second statement, you do support taking rights away from modders. A position I will never condone, and is unlikely to find much traction in this community.

Not really. I view those as two different things. Perhaps, yes in a way it is taking some rights away, but what I said doesn't take total rights away. Proper due credit has to be given there and has to be utterly said in the readme/descriptions. Otherwise you are just flat out taking credit for total work of all content. I absolutely do not stand for someone simply taking out anyone's work and claiming it for their own.

» Sun Dec 11, 2011 11:00 pm

I keep doing it because it's simply wrong to assume anything at all. :biggrin:

There's nothing wrong in my book to claim something unethical though. :whistling:

Not really. I view those as two different things. ~~Perhaps~~, yes in a way it is taking some rights away, but what I said doesn't take total rights away. Proper due credit has to be given there and has to be utterly said in the readme/descriptions. Otherwise you are just flat out taking credit for total work of all content. I absolutely do not stand for someone simply taking out anyone's work and claiming it for their own.

There is no "perhaps". You are taking a modders rights away. Whether or not said modder said you can.

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 2:14 am

I keep doing it because it's simply wrong to assume anything at all. :biggrin:

There's nothing wrong in my book to claim something unethical though. :whistling:

Not really. I view those as two different things. Perhaps, yes in a way it is taking some rights away, but what I said doesn't take total rights away. Proper due credit has to be given there and has to be utterly said in the readme/descriptions. Otherwise you are just flat out taking credit for total work of all content. I absolutely do not stand for someone simply taking out anyone's work and claiming it for their own.

I think the point is nothing gives you the right to take away even a few of someone else's rights. Which also leads onto "How many is a few/how far can I push this??".

» Mon Dec 12, 2011 12:16 am

Close enough to post limit for me to close, also given the the OP's got permission. I see no reason to leave this open, it has devolved into a bit o' grandstanding and some rather niggling, circular arguing.