For any Mod Authors who have not been on Nexus forum for a while and not seen it :

There is a discussion taking place on Nexus forums, in the private Mod Authors topics

It started as a question from one author but has developed into what may become a set of new permissions options for your mods.

If you have anything as an author to contribute the topic is here ..

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/1907489-question-about-the-term-regarding-modify-my-file/page-11

( That links to page 11 where the topic has started making propositions for changes to the current setup, and obviously you need to be logged in as an author for this area )

Note : Content of that topic is probably best not duplicated here.

One last blatant bump for visibility of more authors, and that will be it I think.

The topic has degraded somewhat since page 11 but hopefully something good will come of it.

Actually page 16 is probably the best place to start now ..

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/1907489-question-about-the-term-regarding-modify-my-file/page-16

Zaldiir just updated the proposed ideas post on that page to include a few more idea which have come out of the conversation so far.

I don't appear to have permission to view that. Do you know why?

It's in the restricted Mod Authors section of the site. You need published mods with a sufficient number of downloads before you can see it. Don't worry, you're not really missing much except what appears to be a never-ending debate that would have gotten its participants banned for their incivility if it were out in the normal parts of the site.

Oh. My mods don't have enough endorsemants. I see. Thank you.

Thanks for making me aware of this I only managed to get half way through it and my head hurts now, but I'm glad I had a read.

Sounds like this root of that whole discussion has to do with long abandoned mods that people wish to continue.

You got that right .. Hung, drawn and quartered I would say

However it has developed a good outline of the new options that looks like it is actually going to get somewhere.

There have been such debates before, but they have not managed to do anything constructive besides argue.

Have a look at the latest proposal for change to the options which will be available to mod authors

http://forums.nexusmods.com/index.php?/topic/1907489-question-about-the-term-regarding-modify-my-file/page-36#entry17413824

As staff who knows the site from both admin side, and as a mod author, Zaldiir is doing a good job of collating it all into a logical set of choices periodically without it growing into a confusing and overbearing mess. It is preserving the old choices in among the new. And anything not selected will mean 'No users cannot do this' for that option

Robin has popped in hoping for a finalised proposal that he can hand to the site devs to implement ( not in the immediate future, but the intention is there )

No its more about clearing up some grey areas with the existing set of permissions, by offering better choices less susceptible to misinterpretation. For authors who are not legal beagles, and would like a good set of generic options to choose from.

And also to add a few choices that have never been covered, such as the Snuff Clause - Author thinks, worse case scenario I get hit by a bus, is the mod, and its ideas and / or assets, forever locked in these restrictions - How about we have an option which if chosen, will after a certain amount of time of inactivity, actually say to other users it becomes free to use by anyone for further development, or belongs to specified user hereafter.

That last point since Morrowind communities ( to my knowledge, probably before ) has always been accepted by the community as unless you can contact the author, his last wishes should be honoured forever more. Now there will not be any locked forever files unless the author actually chooses it to be that way with these options.

Of course there is the anarchical elements of the community attempting to reform everyones ideas so that anyone can grab anything from anytime in the past to do with as they will, but thats not on the agenda.

This is the biggest cause of people getting their feathers ruffled, but the proposal does keep moving forward which is promising and unusual.

I've chosen to stay out that there because nothing I say has any weight on the matter. Oblivion has a TON of "locked forever" mods and that's partially because all those authors are no longer around and some did not carry over to the Nexus when TESSource was shut down.

This is what I'm hoping to see implemented. It would be nice if I could choose an option to ensure that the community continues to have access to my contributions if I suddenly drop dead or go completely around the twist (assuming that doesn't happen before I release my first published mod :^)

If you're wondering why I'm not commenting over on that thread, it's because I'm excluded from the thread. So, I'll make a couple of suggestions here:

1. I'd like to see the option to also upload material which is not to be released until the author either clears the latest version for release or his/her executor, attorney or tribunal-appointed administrator inform Nexus of the author's death or permanent disability. The latter case would be to release the mod for completion by anyone who thinks finishing it would be worthwhile. Given the extra storage load, this could be used as an additional incentive for Premium Membership.
2. Also, it would be nice if, in the event that I do not understand an option, that looking up the first definition of the option's words, as per their respective parts of speech, in the dictionary (i.e. primary or core diction as per Oxford English Dictionary Foreword) would actually clarify matters. Then it is just a matter of pointing people to the language standard by which your terms are defined instead of having to write up an entire glossary which still does not solve the original problem and only further confuses things by introducing more opportunities for lexical error (usually by colloquialism).

The reason I suggest the Oxford English Dictionary is because the language we communicate in is documented as "English" and not as "American Dialect" (for which the Webster's Dictionary applies) nor "Australian Dialect" for which the Macquarie Dictionary applies). The Oxford is also the only dictionary I've come across which mentions the concept of core diction. Core diction, moreover, is the most practical approach I know of that can fix or rigidify an applied communication standard to ensure that, over time, a text can retain its clarity, intended meaning, and function.

A few years back I heard of a project by the international community to standardize the English language under the name "International English" and, thereby, bring it up to the level of functionality possessed by some of the stricter language standards. The endeavour seemed suggestive of a W3C style of standard (which has been successful in eradicating similar problems of redundancy, ambiguity and resulting contextual loss of functionality from HTML and XML). If you hear of a project like that for English and it's nearing release, I think looking into it might be worth the effort.

It does get heated in there, however it is important that everyone has an opportunity to put forward their opinion on it, and out of the heated debates progress is made and middle ground is found. Rather then the pendulum swinging too far one way or the other.

@RealmEleven, I think your #1 point has some merit I know of one author on these forums who has lost a lot of work due to a HD failure and for my part I know the people around me wouldn't have a clue what / how to package a WIP mod for upload if I wasn't around. My only reservation would be if mod authors abused such a system like leaving it up on Nexus and just walking away from the project.

I read a lot of that thread and have no idea what they really mean by patch when they are allowing an author to specify how others use their mods. It mostly seems to be anything that uses another mod as a master must have that mod's permission but it was also talked about in terms of scripts detecting the presence of another mod or anything that impacts that mod's artistic vision. Finally its unclear how patchers like Bashed Patches or SkyProc mods would be effected. It was said that since they don't distribute the created file they must always be fine but at the same time anything that can be made in a static patch can be made in a dynamic patch and as soon as one is disliked by someone who has been saying patch is anything that affects artistic vision is a patch they will try to extend the meaning.

Personally I think the whole idea that a mod author can dictate how others modify their mods (so long as assets like the original esp, textures, or scripts aren't distributed) is absurd and very harmful to the community. Its the extreme of what Wrye was arguing against in his http://wryemusings.com/Cathedral%20vs.%20Parlor.html. That the largest mod site for skyrim is going full steam ahead with it and everyone opposed to it is accused of "S**ting all over others work" and being an enemy of the community is a sad state of affairs. I fully expect the Nexus to follow through with it since they already have a toxic hugbox of a community.

I'm not sure I'm following you there. Mod authors cannot know what people do with their mods once they have downloaded them so trying to rule that is useless. There is no harm in modifying a mod for one's personal usage, as long that they do not distribute the new version, as you said. I do that all the time.

This!

I'd really like to see a poll on the whole issue of 'open philosophie' vs 'strict philosophie'. In opposition to what I've been told on the Nexus, I can hardly believe there's less Modders wanting open philosophie then those wanting sctrict philosophie.

I'm not allowed to distribute someone's work without permission, or to claim it as my own work. I can't see any legal or ethical basis for anyone to claim rights beyond those. I would prefer to see works like mods released on a more permissive basis, it's true, but I have no problem with someone claiming their rights under law. I just have a problem when they try and extend those rights to limit what other people can do beyond that legal basis.

I'm particularly unsympathetic to demands to prohibit "anything that impacts that mod's artistic vision". Should we all have an automatic right to censor and suppress any mod that might conflict with our own in any way? How would you determine which mod conflicted with which? Maybe we'll see mods released under the condition that they be placed in a certain slot in the load order next.

That's not to say we shouldn't try and be polite and considerate, of course. But trying to enshrine rules around these things and having Nexus enforce them (with presumably the threat of being banned to back their authority)... that doesn't sound like anything that's going to either serve the community interests. It doesn't sound like anything that will end well, either for Nexus or for anyone else concerned.

No of course not. What was said about impacting a vision was twisted by some who love to do just that in order to create an issue about something that doesn't warrant it. It was referring to modders specifically altering someone elses mod through a patch specifically designed to alter the contents of the original mod or outright modification of the original file and re-uploading of the original file. Not about other peoples mods and conflicts.

All that is going on is people coming up with ideas about how we can answer the age old issue regarding specifically modifying other peoples mods through patches or modification of the original file, that comes up again and again with everyone being uncertain of what is and what isn't okay to do.

What the end result will be is that people will have a far clearer idea of which mods are abandoned and up for grabs and where they stand in regards to altering someone elses files. The whole idea is to eliminate the abundance of 'presumed' abandoned mods that are all over Nexus by providing a clearer way for authors to let others know what is to be done with their files.

This will save a lot of drama and confusion. It will stop authors silently leaving because of the misconceptions about what can and can't be done with their work and the disrespect resulting from that. It is a good thing that will create a more respectful community that encourages people to be a part of it, rather then one that sometimes abuses and drives people away. No one is trying to dictate, we are just trying to clarify.

I'd think you would be all over that topic(maybe it a few years too late though) since you were something of a target of mod theft and anyone that made homes for ORE.

Yes, that was no fun. Really I just love this community that I have been a part of for 9 years now and I want it to stay a community where we can all work together and have fun, and respecting others and their work is the way to do that. Who would stick around for abuse. So I do get vocal about that, especially when people outright say that people who contribute their hard work deserve no rights. Fastest way to create a toxic community.

My feelings on permissions are that everyone has a right to state their own and expect them to be followed. You want to upload just for others to download and use in their game, that is your perogative.

You want to make your files open source to everyone, that is your perogative. It really doesn't matter, what matters is that everyone is happy and not being judged by everyone else for their decisions.

Uh? Some people say that?

Yes, in that thread on Nexus it is outright stated a number of times by various people.

Nobody wants to strip your 'perogative' of doing with your work as you please. Stripped needs to be the thought, a Modder has the right to put copyright on something that technically isn't his/her property.

The files you create with the CK are not yours, not even when they are made from scratch, AND they're without any use whatsoever without the original Data.

And so, considering all those facts, the Modder has to make one evaluation. If he/she doesn't want people to mess with his/her files, why does he/she upload it for other people to download?

I assume people are NOT doing this for the drama, endorsemant, recognition and all the fine trace appearances that come with modding, right?

How many people make mods and never publish them? For obvious reasons, we'll never know. As for the rest, modders have rights on their stuff, even if they belong to Bethesda.

Actually, the tools belong to Bethesda, the creations made with these tools belong to the modders, even if for legal reasons it's not entirely true. Painters use tools made by others too, it doesn't make their paintings belong to the companies that made the canvas or the paint. The only difference between a modder and a painter is that the painter is allowed to sell his creation.

Uhmm, but the picture the painter made is art/creation that can stand on itself. The files modded for Skyrim can't? The tools the painter use, he paid for, like in paid for and is completely his/her possession. Copyright on software grants you a license for single usage, but technically it isn't yours, that's a huge difference. There's an immense difference between 'being allowed/accepted' to use/do something, and not being restricted by any ideological or legal boundaries. The brush is yours, nobody can force you to not make full use of your 'perogative' of using it in any way possible. That's not true for the CK and the resulting Mods, including those Mods not made with the CK.

I'm not saying Bethesda should enforce full Eula rights, that would be stupid and probably result in the total destruction of the modding community, or at least huge parts of it. I'm saiyng that Bethesda exemplifys us how they treat people using their own product, and as far as I can tell their arguments/philosophie are more then rational. And I can't say the same about some users speaking out against a complete open source idea on their Mods.