Urrgh, we have been through all this on the Nexus thread. We get it! You don't think that modders have any rights to the work they make. You think that once posted modders have no rights to their original ideas, stories and files including original voice files, meshes, textures etc... We get that you think that anyone who does claim any kind of rights is causing drama, over reacting, is just modding for recognition etc..I quote you...

We completely disagree and all anologies you have brought up have not been able to persuade us to your way of thinking. Thankfully you are in the minority. We have also already been through the whole issue about how Bethesda gets paid and modders don't so that comparison is illogical. At this point I would suggest we agree to disagree, but even I know that would do no good.... you are hell bent on this idea that modders should be stripped of all rights. You are of course entitled to your opinion, in my opinion thankfully it is only that, an opinion.

I'm arguing that so long as you don't include the original files in your mod you should be able to make and distribute a modMod that changes it as you see fit. The Nexus does not. Its specifically talked about in that thread that having a mod as a master or using getFormFromFile() to check for that mod being installed needs permission to be distributed which is absurd.

What's wrong with making "a patch specifically designed to alter the contents of the original mod" if it doesn't meet the artists vision? I'm specifically referring to GateCrasher type things here. Not distributing any assets (textures, meshes, scripts, sounds, etc) and not including or altering the main esp but changing the in game content. Why should the original author have any say over that? You say their vision trumps the second modder's even though the modMod does not contain the original mod, but fortunately you are in the minority.

Second the linked thread specifically does say you need permission for resolving conflicts or fix bugs.

Not everyone agrees with you there.

I am not getting drawn into a discussion/argument here when it has already been well addressed in that thread on Nexus.

I suppose this goes for the mods you spend hours making too?

Clearly. But clearly not everyone agrees with you either. The Nexus is a private site and can do as it pleases with its rules, but it often stifles debate by banning those they disagree. I wouldn't say much of anything there is well addressed.

Of course! When I made a mod, or a modmod, or a modmodmod I am quite happy for others to go one step further. Their changes don't make my work any less worthwhile and potentially lets others enjoy their game more. If someone wanted to take one of my mods, say transmogrification, and make it play a fart sound (or more likely in my experience, a sixy sound) when an item is changed I wouldn't find it fitting with my 'artistic vision' but I would have no problem with them distributing it so long as they didn't distribute my mod.

Thinking back I've directly helped people get ASIS and other projects to work with mods that I really dislike. If they wanted to distribute the created esp (but not my assets needed for it to work) I would be fine with it even though the result would be against my vision of what Skyrim should be.

Further I release all the source for all my mods and am very happy for others to use them as they see fit. I've spent quite a bit of time helping quite a few people figure out how my mods and programs work so they can either modify them or make something using resources I made. It makes the whole modding community stronger and more vibrant, even though I sometimes roll my eyes at what has been made. If I thought their result reprehensible I wouldn't help them but if they got through it on their own I wouldn't stop them from using it. I might post about how awful it is but that's hardly the same thing.

That is great for you, but not everyone feels that way and they are entitled to feel how they do without being harassed about it, as is so often the case. Which is the whole point...allowing people to choose what permissions they want to use regarding their mods and respecting and adhering to that.

Nexus may be a lot of things, but they definitely do not 'stifle debate by banning those who disagree'. I know this for a fact, because if it was in any way the case I would have been banned a looong time ago. I have had outright disagreements and seen others have outright disagreements with the owner of that site many times, as well as many staff members and they have never once threatened to ban myself or any others who disagree with them or their policies. On the contrary they allow debate and disagreement far more then most if not all sites I have frequented. Obviously there is a line regarding abuse and rudeness as is the case with everywhere.

http://www.gamesas.com/user/776564-mindboggles/, Setting the the whole WIP upload as a privilege of Premium Membership might discourage abuse - assuming it's just individuals who swing through and move onto other things while forgetting to leave things as they found them.

Copyright kerfuffle:

It is a fact of life that the mod author cannot be prevented from including copyrighted material under what are loosely described as use rights (e.g. syndicated rights and/or first serial rights) granted by an author who is not necessarily a party to the EULA. Due to this fact, it seems unlikely that the EULA could hijack copyright to materials developed outside the Creation Kit but syndicated for use in the mod. I'm not even sure if the EULA could survive judicial scrutiny if it could be read as extending use rights granted to a mod author, beyond the agreement between the mod author and the the original copyright owner. I vaguely recall satisfying myself that Bethesda/Zenimax etc. have figured this stuff out so the rest is expressed as a warning to those on this thread who mistakenly believe they are entitled to put anything they like in a contract.

If you attempt to trample on the jurisdiction of the courts by including conditions beyond the authority of the contract, such as conditions which are exclusively subject to the ruling of a court (e.g. liability, warranty, and anything and everything else covered by statutory law), you can be fined or even jailed if your contract finds its way in front of a judge.

As to paint brushes. The software is separate from the software copyright just as the paintbrush is separate from the paintbrush patent. Just like software, you own the copy of the paintbrush you buy but not the patent. Likewise, with software you own the copy of the software but not the copyright. If restricting the use of the paintbrush by license seems strange, then likewise for the copy of the software you've bought. This is because it's your legislators and the courts that are supposed to make this call.

Just throwing this into the mix. Bethesda believe that modders have a sort of distribution right to their mod. This is evident in GStaff helping us take down mods that have been "stolen" from other modders.

The only thing we aren't able to do, basically, is ask for money in return for our mod.

.

I completely agree with this - it's about making the option available so people can choose how their material is managed. I think people have an inalienable right to make this choice for themselves and I certainly don't expect others to do the same with their modding contributions as I plan to do with mine - if I ever finish :^P.

On the first point, gamesas are correct, in my opinion. Even when you sell of "all rights" to a work, you still retain the right to be acknowledged as the author to that work.

On the second point, gamesas may have done us all a big favor. It would have been childishly simple for them to dump subsidiary development rights in our lap - even easier considering that we wouldn't ever have to redistribute material copyrighted to gamesas - because it's already on the destination computer anyway. However, there's a lot of people out there that are opposed to the likes of you or I having the freedom to express ourselves with the fullness that is allowed by modding - especially modding an open world RPG. With the level of difficulty which is attached to the tools, if we were charging money, the trolls would be turning the whole mod-bug situation into a merchantability witch-hunt which would reflect badly on the modding community and push a lot of people learning the tools out of the game. The way things are, on the other hand, there's no merchantability vulnerability which can be exploited and we get to muddle through and learn as we go. And, as for the trolls, the most they can do is wolf-whistle all the hot-button topics. Ah, well, maybe it's just that I have a personal preference to do this as a hobby these days.

I just had to open my big mouth.. -.-

That's the attitude, though I'm going a bit further in my philosophie saying they can do whatever they want with the files I've made. And if they feel it's necessary to upload my file with their package, well head on, I seriously give a crab about it. It's a experience of common sense that people uploading your files with their package do this because of at least three possibilities...1. cause they made a mod package/comp patch, 2. because they are new and didn't know they're not supposed to upload my file with their package, 3. because they've done in purpose to piss at someones gate.

The answer from me would be:

1. sure, if you want my files in a mod pack, do it, but know that I can't seriously respect you as 'competent' modder, if you're just packing others work in a single file/download. If you have work, and I'm sure you will have, bringing all those Mods in your package together bug-free, then I will evaluate your amount of work equal to the amount of time I've spend on making my Mods. (Because I'm aware of how comp patching can be a pain in the background)

2. Well, you didn't knew it better, that's why I'm telling you I don't care about you packing my files, but be aware there's people out there that will call the hounds of doom on you just for taking their work, repacking and reuploading it, without permission. I'd advice you to at least contact those people and let them know what you've done.

3. I have nothing to say, but this. Everything you've done will catch up with you in life, EVEN if you just mocked people by packing and reuploading thier work to get them all fuzzy. If you're a young person you probably don't care, and mocking people is part of your growth process, but if you're mature then you did this because your character is corrupted, so you've already been punished more, then I'm able to punish. Go, live your life in agony...

We completely disagree and all anologies you have brought up have not been able to persuade us to your way of thinking. Thankfully you are in the minority. We have also already been through the whole issue about how Bethesda gets paid and modders don't so that comparison is illogical. At this point I would suggest we agree to disagree, but even I know that would do no good.... you are hell bent on this idea that modders should be stripped of all rights. You are of course entitled to your opinion, in my opinion thankfully it is only that, an opinion.

So, you've been tearing out a portion of one of my posts to use it as counter argument and amplifier for your own argument, without considering why I made such an over-exaggearted statment in the first place? Why would I accept a 'radical' opinion on your side, if you don't grant me the same right? My sentence above was made to show the effect of people espressing their 'perogative' in emotional way. And I'd say the whole Nexus thread is one single emotion, even if most of the people try hard to let it look all technical and professional. What exactly would people do if they do not have the Drama going on over there? Maybe spend more time on modding and sharing their work with others?

I've yet to find a single person that quotes what exactly I'm asking for in a nutshell. Can we please treat other people as equal as Bethesda treats us, without enforcing anything at all? Open source is a advantage for anyone, but a disadvantage only for those gaining any form of recognition or wage. Which loops us back to the good old catch phrase of drama, star search and recognition in opposition to just fun, fun and fun...

Sure they do, because they want to preserve and protect what's good for us AND them. It's called a win/win situation. But the sole fact they COULD enforce things on us but they DON'T should make people think about what exactly they do when enforcing whatever to other people.

There was a lot more of what you said there that was at no time stated or even implied to be an over exaggeration. In fact you consistently reinforced what you had said in other posts. If you were actually simply over exaggerating then I apologize for coming to the conclusion that you were not. Though I suggest you let the folks on Nexus know too as they came to the same conclusion I did.

We have also already been over how Bethesda actually DOES protect their files from free distribution.

Yes, yes, we have already heard over at Nexus and here how you think everyone who has an opinion contrary to your own about this issue is emotional, full of drama, modding for star search etc.. You have made that very clear.

My real 'radical' opinion. I quote myself:

We can argue legalities until we are blue in the face, the fact remains that there will not be a community if we start telling people they have no rights at all when they look at sharing their work. Who would stay around for abuse. This community already works on what we have, like I said on Nexus...

However, I am not getting involved in discussing this again with you as we will just be having the same argument we had on Nexus. Reread my posts on that thread.

Like I said earlier this whole thing is just a clarification on what is already there in the permissions with the addition of a few necessities like the 'Snuff Clause', now known as the 'Absence Clause' that hopefully will stop the adding of mods to the plethora of abandoned mods already just sitting there, because no one knows what the author wants done with them.

Could you be good enough to give me the short, short version of what is planned for the "Snuff Clause"? Will it be retrospective?

Sure, it is very short and concise. As to retrospective, I couldn't be sure on that one. I 'think' that IF DarkOne approves and implements it then it will be, just that the default is that unless it is filled in the mod will never be considered abandoned. I don't feel at liberty to post the photo shopped example here so I will just write it out. The [ ] are tick or drop down boxes.

I've set up this thread:

http://www.gamesas.com/topic/1505817-open-philosophie-vs-strict-philosophie/

to discuss the whole issue of why or why not to use open or closed sorcery, etc. so we can focus this thread on the proposed options and on options we may wish to suggest...

Another option I'd like to see made available to mod authors uploading mods is a system whereby a proportion of endorsemants received for the mod can be redirected to mod-resource authors responsible for included assets packaged in the mod in question.

Well I think this topic served its purpose, so before it goes off on yet another grandstand open source everything rally / argument ..

Moderators can you please lock this.

Before they do, may I point out that we accept the OP's authority to close a thread. Doesn't that suggest something?

Well played ghastley.

So true...

OP requested thread close.