Wrye paints with an overly large brush and I fail to see why this has been brought up. The community as a whole is very open to sharing its resources with others WHO ASK FIRST! It's very simple. If you see something you would like to use, ask the author. If you get a negative reply, either look for an alternative, or ask someone around here for it. It's when you take other's work wily-nilly that problems arise. The whole Cathedral"ism" vs Parlor"ism" "argument" is inconsequential because what one modder may keep as closed work, another may release something similar as open to all. Take a look at the very long list of modder resources available and come back and tell us that we need to open up more. Your post seems to be nothing more than an attempt to rile the community and create unneeded conflict.

"Mods and resources made using other tools (ie textures, 3d models, and 3rd party scripts) are not subject to the aforementioned EULAs. Ownership of such resources remains with the original author."

FYI: this is not Betheda's position.

Pete Hines stated to me in 2003 that Bethesda controls the rights to anything made for their games regardless what software is used to create it. This includes meshes made using Blender, textures made using Photoshop, scripts made using Notepad, etc. Pete confirmed this position to Ronin49 in 2004. GStaff confirmed it a third time in a thread about intellectual property rights and modding in 2006.

I most certainly have a 'cathedralistic' point of view when creating my weapons. However, one must appreciate what they have and not take it for granted.

If "recent events" is what I think it is then I'm surprised that its still being gossiped about. Reality check: our Cathedral is pretty freakin' awesome, pretty huge too. In fact, it's so awesome that it kinda overshadows this whole discussion. I mean, I'm willing to bet that 95% of all mods can be re-distributed with reasonable terms and crediting. And those that can't have similar alternatives that are accessible to the community. So I'd say that modders who want total control of their work aren't really in any danger of stagnating the community. The amount of common work that is shared between us all so out-weighs the more private content that it is barely noteworthy.

I think the gist of this whole thing is 1) Work together and interact if you have a common goal, don't be afraid to talk to people... 2) When you make a compilation, link to mods, don't re-upload things.

i disagree. there was a slight bit of a hotspot of discussion, recently, on the topic of including mods in a compendium and not even asking the authors of said mods, let alone attributing any credit to them. that seems reason enough to move to this related topic and have a nice and civil discussion about a topic that has significance. while opinions may differ, the law speaks rather clearly. tempers my flare somewhat, but ultimately even befits those that do, they get exposed to the opposing viewpoint.

too often in discussion, especially on the internet, people personify opinion. opinion becomes a "friend", and if you dont like this friend of mine, then you dont like me, darn it! i suggest we take the more reasonable path and accept that not everyone will think the way that each of us personally may think. no insult or injury is caused by holding differing opinions. we are perfectly capable of being friends even if we dont agree on key topics. or at the very least we can be civil.

after all, there are always fresh faces in the modding community, myself for example, who have never had the chance to weigh their opinions on this well discussed matter before now. discussing this with old hands allows us to learn a bit, and a bit of learning can go a long way.

Well, this definitely shot me on the head. There are any public statement from bethesda explaining this concept?

^ Actually, that surprises me too. I always thought it was just stuff that was made using their tools.

Nope, I distinclty remember that as well. I think the forum posts went the way of the Dodo some time ago, but "you make it, we own" is pretty much their position.

Or a legal definition of why maybe?

Not that I am bothered, but I can see how you would be.

how does that work out, when you get permission to use copyrighted material in you mod?

Sounds like a standard legal position in the case of someone trying to make money out of the game, or doing something they don't like.

I can see how this might apply to some things that are turned into proprietary formats only used in Bethesda games, or things made that are clearly based on Bethesda original work; however, I don't see how they can lay claim to other base meshes created in Blender - weapons and such - or textures made in Photoshop - that could be be used in any number of different games. If someone makes a sword mesh and sells it, and the buyer then imports it into Morrowind, Bethesda wouldn't own the original mesh, but would have rights over it's use in their products. Mind you, I'm not a lawyer, just stating a common sense opinion.

The above quote is open to a certain amount of interpretation. In any case, asserting a right to something is not the same as having that right.

However, I don't see an issue. No-one here is trying to make money and in practice we're going to comply with anything Bethesda asks of us.

Yes. It sounds all horrible when you break my words into tiny pieces. You get incorrect meaning when you do things like that. Perhaps if I had written two or three pages on it, and you broke it into paragraphs, you'd be fine, but when you break it down to strings of words, you are getting led astray.

I haven't said anything like that. I stated my position on the matter, but I am not trying to force anyone to see the world the way I do. I posted this because I want to see others opinions on the matter.

I have spoken for no one else, merely for myself.

I never claimed my words were being spun around. I said you were assuming that taking credit for reassembly is the same thing as copying and taking credit for creation. If I were to reassemble the Periodic Table of Elements in a manner that was 50% more effective for Chemists, do I suddenly get credit for creating the entire thing? It would be written in the history books that I took Mendeleev's work, and reorganized it. Nothing more.

Perhaps because I want to see opinions on how it relates?

It could be the way I am reading it, but your words seem pretty hostile towards me. It may not be a personal attack, but we certainly are not having a mere discussion.

As will I.

I have enjoyed every post in this thread. If you haven't posted yet, please do! I am enjoying all of the opinions.

Perhaps, one could look at this in a way that protects the work submitted. Other gaming companies are always looking for meshes and design for their own sales. That which is made for gamesas stays with gamesas because no one knows when someone will extract another's work and use it for profit. If plagiarism is found out, gamesas would have the opportunity to call the hounds. Since freely submitted material is free, the content does not accrue a profit for the individual(s), but gamesas may be able to sue the offending company.

Mere speculation on my part, I do not know if this is a fact.

A little more speculation: Bethesda owns the game, the CS, *AND* the .esm, .esp, and .bsa file formats. They own all original textures, meshes, dialogs, scripts, plots, voiceovers, original music, etc, etc.

Bethesda cannot and does not own anything created by anyone who is not under contract to them and that is not covered by a EULA. However, if you use one of their proprietary file formats . . . the story changes. You can sell your original mesh or your texture if it is not in violation of the CS EULA, but you cannot sell *any* file in one of the proprietary file formats.

Now, For the community - versus - for one's own benefit. Wrye, bless his heart, was always a bit of a philosopher, so I'm sure he'll appreciate the following:

Is it better to do good things and claim the credit, in which case the fame of your "altruism" will spread far and wide and encourage others to do as you?
Or is it better to do good things anonymously so as not to dilute the true meaning with such fame?

This is a question from my Ethics 101 class 20 years ago. I have my own opinions of "altruism" which is why the word is in quotes; but that is for another thread/forum and should not become a distraction. I stand on my earlier statement: I may choose to share my talents and my property for the good of all, but that gives no one the right to steal or vandalize them. However, if I willingly give (or sell) my skills and talents and the end result is fully intended to belong to someone else, then if I come back in ten years and everything I created has been twisted beyond my vision by the rightful owner, I may be hurt and/or offended, I may vow never to do anything for that person or persons again, but I have no more recourse than to retract my friendship and never offer my services to that person or group again.

That doesn't work, and from the impression I've gotten, is similar to the "no content from other games" rule (a gross simplification of a very complex rule). Content from other games is allowed if, and only if, the company that created the content allows it (if I remember correctly, some content from one STALKER game was given permission to be ported to other games). That rule being oversimplified has been confirmed, and the goal was to a: prevent all the arguments as to details of what was allowed and not and b: prevent all of our heads from simply exploding due to the legal twists and tangles.

As you can see from reading the EULA, the terms only apply to things made in the CS. Quite simply, there is no possible stretch of the law that could so simply consume everything. In light of the recent debacle, I spoke to two folks involved in law, one a practicing IP lawyer. They both confirmed that the EULA applies only to CS-created content and modders keep all rights to other content, as original works of art, etc.

Bethesda certainly has some rights, and they are clearly laid out in the EULA. The general impression given, however, is not entirely accurate, but is meant to simplify things.



Quite so. What modder would turn down a request from Bethesda to use or include their content or concepts in a new game? In my view, that would pretty much be as good as things can get for us, if they felt any community work was good enough to be in their games.

The real place where modder's rights need to be clarified and enforced is against non-Bethesda parties. You may notice that the EULA specifically gives rights to Bethesda, but doesn't take rights from us or give any to anyone else. In that area, traditional copyright law applies, although we can't sell mods.



This is part of the unwritten agreement between the community and gamesas, and I doubt anyone here wants to test how far our rights would extend against Bethesda or theirs against us. That would be akin to infighting, and might be the one thing that could kill the community in short order. It is in all our best interest that both our rights and Bethesda's be upheld, and cooperating with them only helps with that.

I would also like to remind people that during the recent problems, Bethesda and the community staff helped us out beyond belief. The solidarity shown was quite amazing. From stepping up moderation to keep flamers under control to removing a tweet from the Bethesda feed, they went well beyond any obligation they may have had. I considered sending a cake, but I don't think there's a way to make sure all the mods get a slice, and it would have to be a mighty large cake. Either way, they all deserve a round on us and I hope there's some chance to repair some of the damage done in the past, as far as developer/community relations go. :foodndrink:

The discussion at hand is whether a cathedral model or parlor is most beneficial for the community, and IMO, it has been rather clearly established that an organized cathedral is the only possible way to go.

Well I'm not sure that is a black or white question - when I play Oblivion I am reminded of many things that were first modded in Morrowind - though admittedly some of those things such as the living cities concepts were also in other games. What if someoneame up with a story line or particularly good quest line in a mod and that was used in a new game? I'm not sure they would be content to let it get included without having any credit or recognition.

However the legal right Bethesda asserts prevents them from being sued for plagarism if they were to do so since all content related to the TES world belongs to them.

Though like others I doubt that would apply to other copyrighted material used in the game or tools like the 4gb fixer which is used across many programs apart from Morrowind. They also would have difficulty with some texture replacers where the textures used may have come from scans or other ways where permission of the original source was not asked for.

In any case i believe they operate in a hands off manner because as soon as you assert a right over something you also need to accept responsibility - something which will be the undoing of anyone who tries to put together a compilation that goes beyond just texture packs, which leads me to this next point you made.



Okey dokey - again on the basis that modders are welcome to do what they like within the realms of limits Bethesda have stated. I fthey want to pick their marbles up and go home - well lets give them a cheer for playing in the first place - I would not have got into modding unless someone had done that as it forced me to then go make the things i wanted for my game.

So I in fact doubt that cathedral moding has been clearly established - I suspect many modders start out on their own rather than in communities and thus may not want to share their work for many reasons, quality perhaps being one, lack of trust in teh community as another. The Morrowind community is fairly mature and doesn't have the hot blood of say the New Vegas community or the coming Skyrim one where we will go through all the pain of people not respecting others all over again and importing work from other games against the wishes of the orginal owners

Now some would say that is Cathedralism - taking something and improving it - I call it violation - however you have a caveat where you say organized Cathedral - well who is doing the organizing? Who takes responsibility that the vulnerable are protected and the anarchists are removed?

I don't like either terms - modding is to do with creativity and spontanity, many spontaneous creators work really well with the right hand side of their brains but the left hand side which handles order they struggle with - i notice this in how the datafile structures are set up for some really creative modders - they are a mess but their work is brilliant. Creative people sometimes will have ego issues and be what seems to others overly protective of their work - can't we just appreciate their position and that their work sometimes means more than some digital asset it is a piece of their emotion, an investment of their personality, a gift to others and when it gets stomped on or poorly critiqued they get hurt far more than someone who just wants to see an evolution of the game.

As for compilations

In the future i will be adding a comment to my readme's that state my desire for my work not to be used in a compilation without my express permission, however seeing as I cannot enforce this if my work is used in any such compilation i will take no responsibility for offering any support or advice on how to use the mod.

If someone wants to compile mods whether by gaining permission or not, then they should become responsible for maintaining and supporting that compilation not the original modders.

The only way any one can say they are in the Cathedral Model is if they dont EVER include a "usage section" in their readmes which says that they reqwuire permission, need to be notified etc....

anyone that has this sort of jargon in any readme is not a cathedral person. So those of you who have said you are/agree with the Cathedral model your just a big turd. simply put if you ahve that section in your readme then your seeking some sort of recgonition for your work which is not a "free for all". If you seek glory then you are Parlor.

I have been following this thread with some interest because of the respect I have for other people's opinion and would be guided by the views of many of the members of our community. However I have been uncertain whether I should reply. This discussion has fractured into a discussion of several themes 'Cathedralism versus Parlorism', copyright issues and the unmentioned 'recent event'. I think these are all (somewhat) related or this thread would not drift between them. I suppose I write now, not to attempt to unite these themes, but our community. It is alright that we disagree on issues, but those issues should not divide us.

I do not believe Lunatic Wolf was intending to incite the community with his post. Even if Wyre's article does not directly relate to 'recent events', what happened in our community gave us pause for reflection. Where our mind leads us under those circumstances might be any theme that affects our community. For Lunatic Wolf it settled on how modders manage 'their' work and its relationship with that of other modders - so we might as well discuss that.

The meaning of 'Cathedral' and 'Parlor' in the context of modding is imprecise and will remain so - they are anologies to help each of us form our own ideas about the relationship between modders and our community. We discuss it to help understand each other interpretation of Wyre's thesis. Some declare that labels limit the discussion, but that is true only if we try to be overly precise in the meaning of those labels. Label are not evil, they are generalizations. Generalizations are invaluable in helping us process vast amounts of information so we can being to utilize it in a productive way. It is true that some people throw labels at others like they would a rock, but it is easy to recognize (and dismiss) when that is going on.

The states of 'Cathedral' and 'Parlor' are extremes of a continuum. As a number of posters have offered there are times when either behavior is appropriate depending on the circumstances, so perhaps we should move away from the idea that only one must exist in our community - we know that will never be the case. If we allow for the absolute of one or the other only, the answer is clear. It requires the entire community to agree to build a cathedral; it requires only on member to reduce it into a parlor.

Some have reasonably argued that we have a cathedral and I agree, but it does not contain the work of everyone who has ever modded. However that does not mean that those who have limited the circulation of their mods have not contributed to the cathedral. As recently mentioned, if permission to use another modder's resource is denied, we work around it or recreate it in another form. That is why an open source community endures (if not prevails). If someone is unwilling to participate, his or her work may become irrelevant and overshadowed by the cathedral that is erected around it.

However there is another aspect to this that has been touched upon very slightly here: we are not erecting a single cathedral that within all of us will worship. Not all mods are 'improved' by subsequent modders in an empirical sense. Sometimes there are fundamental differences as to how an issue should be handled. How many different mods are there that delay Tribunal's Dark Brotherhood ambushes? Each modder has his or her own idea as to when the attack is justified, i.e. when the player's actions would excite such a response. That is a strength of our community - that players have choices regarding the world they will enter. So the view of the 'Cathedral' that mods must exist harmoniously with each other is false, but that does not mean the anology is not fair to describe much of what we are trying to achieve. In fact, Bethesda built the cathedral. We are just adding to it and remodeling it.

Wrye offers by way of clarification of his frustration of the 'Parlor' view: that when are mods are created to accommodate each other and an element of the 'Cathedral' is removed it is injurious to the structure. However, rather than bemoan that event let us draw from those of us that remain to replace the missing element in some form or other. Wyre may not have understood those who did not embrace his vision for the community. It established an uncertain world for him to create and that frustration may be the reason he is no longer active. I respect him and his choice for himself, but that does not mean I do not miss having him around.

Turning our attention to a parallel theme, I doubt Wrye would advocate uploading a 'Parlor' modder's work that had been withdrawn for the modder's own reason - he would still respect the modder's rights - nay, not rights since as modders we don't really have any to speak of - but respect all the same.

Respect is not what someone else deserves, but what an individual owes to another. The former requires that we judge each other; the latter requires that we hold our standards up to ourselves - and then do what is right.

Illy pointed out what is necessary for a community to thrive: trust. However trust does not flourish where there is no respect. In our world the currency is respect and appreciation. There are many reasons that we mod. Probably most of us began to satisfy a creative impulse. Although it may have been inspired by a feature missing from our game, but we mod for the pure joy of it. The reasons multiply from there. I joined the LGNPC project because I felt I had been selfish in enjoying the fruits of the community without giving something back, and I have heard other modders echo a similar debt of gratitude. Much has been supposed about the modders being seduced by the promise of 'fame' garnered from creating a popular mod. I doubt there are many modders that create what they do for the accolades - most are genuinely committed to the project. An employee for Bethesda is paid for his or her work and relinquishes all control over it to the corporation. 'Fame' is just one form of payment that modders might receive since there can be no tangible compensation for their time and talent. However some of us do not want 'fame'. That is to be paid off too cheaply for our work. Most modders welcome appreciation for their effort and respect for the product. That respect includes not using our mods in a way that we did not intend. In that way even after we have surrendered the rights to our work to the community we have the comfort and satisfaction of knowing that our trust will not betrayed. That is what we want - I do not think that is too much to ask.


Please, out of respect and appreciation of each other let us be careful about how we express ourselves here. We are a community - a family. While we will disagree at times, in the end we depend upon each other and love each other. Particularly at times like these when our community is being assailed from the outside we need to be understanding, or at least compassionate, of each other.


@Illy: You were writing while I was writing. I smiled as you wrote that Bethesda appears to have been influenced by mods created for Morrowind (although perhaps not enough ). I think that is a fair consequence of their 'ownership' of our mods. Personally I am comforted that Bethesda has ownership of my work. They had deeper pockets to defend the intellectual property rights or 'our' work. However I understand your (and other artists') concerns about this statement since you might wish to use your images for applications apart from Morrowind. I agree with Peachy's interpretation of mod components creates with other programs. Moreover it would be very unseemly for a large corporation to make issue over such an interpretation of the EULA. Stomping on one of their fans in such a way would do their reputation (and bottom line) considerable harm. Bethesda would not prevent you from using your work as you wish.

As for your concerns over 'Cathedralism' I hope what I wrote will offer some comfort to you. I know you feel this very strongly right now as do many modders. It appears that our efforts are not respected. But if that is true, it is only by a few individuals that do not know what is due to others. Personally I am trying not to let such people poison the relationship I have with the rest of the community, but it can a struggle. You have to do what lets you live in peace. If you feel uncomfortable releasing some of your work in the future we respect that. As much as we value your creations, you are the one we love. :hugs:


Edit: *sigh* It appears I posted a minute too late.

Would that still count if we're talking about pluginless texture/mesh/sound replacers made completely from scratch? Other than that they happen to be in the right format and with the right filename to be directly used as a replacer for Morrowind, there wouldn't be a direct link between the files and Bethesda/Morrowind that would give Bethesda those rights. I think.

:toughninja:

:P

no you never

Although I probably missed a few words here and there, I think cyran0 pretty well stated what I think. Having a pure cathedral is difficult usually and may be impossible in our circumstances, but we need some aspects of it. While Bethesda has some rights, we retain many and there's a level of cooperation that benefits us all, in the end.

As with most situations, any extreme will only harm everyone, and a moderate point of view is the best solution.

Well, this is old, old news and I am rather surprised at how many folk maintain an interest in flogging this herd of dead horses.
(So now I will contribute too ...).

First, Pseron Wryd at Post #52 is dead right. Pete Hines did confirm exactly that legal position to me in writing.

Secondly, much of the verbiage about 'copyright' and 'ownership' is ill-informed at best. And frankly, largely irrelevant to recreational pursuits.

Thirdly:
@ Mandamus - so very fine to see you here. Happy New Year old friend, mod tightass that you are. ;o)
@ Yacoby, Illuminiel and cyran0 - Thank you for your, as always, reasoned and reasonable posts.

Finally:
We have been over this stuff so many times and worked out a general approach, I thought, of 'live and let live', respecting differences of opinion and practice. Bethesda hold trumps, folks. They do not push it. So I and many others do not push it, although any reasonable interpretation of their position would hold that as a fellow beneficiary under the EULA, I can do pretty much whatever I want with any released Morrowind mod.

Why do I not 'push it'? Simple really and already covered; it is about trust, respect and courtesy and plain self-interest. Take a specific example, Mandamus makes great stuff from which I and the remainder of the community benefits. He and I have somewhat different interpretations about his proprietary interest in his creations. But I tend to rather scrupulously respect his views when it comes to doing something (rather than just talking about it). Why? Simple; if I do not his stuff will no longer be publicly available, not for long anyway.

Add to this that, generally speaking, except for a few umhh ... never mind ... most modders are very generous with permissions of all sorts and it just ain't a problem if you show them the simple courtesy of asking.

That's why. So could we put this divisive discussion aside and go back to 'live and let live'?

Nothing happening here, folks. Move along.


N.B. And a heartfelt Happy New Year to you all. 2011 is going to be just great, already is! :thumbsup:


Edit: ... what peachy said! :thumbsup:

One has to be cathedral while establishing parlor principals. It is the balance that makes the effort worthwhile for both the community and the individual modder. If one cannot see that, one should look a bit deeper. A modder looks for appreciation while the community establishes a guideline of sorts to maintain a qualitative value. Steel sharpens steel, lest we forget.

ah but the op is still adiment that its one or the other. He also hasnt given any opinion on those that dont fit into the model. See my model and my picture for a greater insight into the sub factions

That's some powerful imagery, man. very moving.
Where the hell have you been, btw?!?