mod licenses

[Ttech]

We were having a discusssion on IRC About what license mods default to and what the developers are entitled to. Feel free to chime in.


We were thinking along of the Creative commons (non comerical).

George what are your thoughts on this?

[ThePrivateer]

Mods need to have a general liscense something like this:

• 1) The mod is freeware - you should have paid no money for it
  
  2) The mod can be re-distributed or edited, provided you have requested permission from the original author and/or make clear that your work was based of off the prior author
  If the author does not respond to any form of Private Message or Email within a month, you may use the mod as you see fit
  
  3) The mod cannot be re-distributed for monetary purposes.
  
  4) Mods hold some form of intellectual copyright -- deliberately making a mod that is similar or exact to another Author's work is prohibited
  Unless you have received permission as in section 2
  
  
  5) Mods must be distributed only on Xelerus, to keep a central place for the community.
  Exception in cases of large mods, which should be hosted on the author's website
  
  6) All rights of sounds, graphics, coding and storyline belong to George Moromisato, Transcendence. Any additional sounds, graphics, coding or storylines provided within mods belong to their respective author/s.

How do you guys like that?

[Song]

Discussion on IRC after the previous two posts found that the BY-NC-SA license by Creative Commons does a lot of what we were looking for. But there's still plenty of discussion to be done....the license doesn't quite cover EVERYTHING, but does provide a benchmark from which we can work.

The basics of that license are HERE Yes. It's the New Zealand version. No, it doesn't matter, that's one of their really common ones.

[Arisaya]

@ ThePrivateer; I provide hosting space for large mods (which would ordinarily cause a time-out error on xelerus). They do not have to be hosted on their on space, as not everyone is going to have their own site.

Also, if I do not respond to requests about using my content aside from absolute verbatim redistribution, it is STILL not up for grabs.

@Shrike: IRC established BY-NC-ND, IIRC >.>, or at least from what sponge was saying. I like BY-NC-ND much better.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/

Edit; just thought it should be clarified - that is for I.P., like original factions & characters, graphics, items and the like that are not directly derived from transcendence/frontier.

Code (the actual T-lisp scripts) are CC, attribution-only required, and I'm likely to put them up/point to them as code samples anyways on how to do stuff (ie, adaptive shields)... so yeah.

Edit2; Actually, I think as a general rule, probably CC:BY-NC-SA for T-lisp & the xml itself (excluding the any I.P. in them), and CC:BY-NC-ND for everything else (including the I.P. in the xml's, ie, ship/faction/character/item names & desc & etc.)

Edit3; Oh, and a very specific waiver for the ND portion on wyvera & TSB mods, is that they may be built upon in the form of separately released mod-mods* that are soley for use with the parent mod (ie, not able to be used sepparatly), and are of QUALITY (unless otherwise exempted with permission from me). So no, you may NOT make the Ansabi Command Ship an uber-starting playership (unless of course, it was for a TSB-based adv. extension where you started out in said ship and ventured out into the universe... but even that would be likely overpowered >.>) god-mod-mod.
*also with the corollary that the liscence of the mod-mod DOES NOT affect the liscence status of any content originally developed for TSB/wyvera/any of my other mods (Excluding the Osaka mod)

The entirety of the Osaka mod is released under whatever george released the original stuff as. Basically it inherits the license.

Edit4; Oh, and lastly, do not invoke my wraith by making me invoke my "Moral Rights" clause (as in, using my stuff (I.P. & graphics & stuff like that) (unless I give you specific permission to do so on an individual basis) in a mod (not a mod-mod*) I would deem to be of low quality - see the above example). It is a direct affront to all the hard work I put into those graphics and backstories. Because I will treat such a mod as being 'stolen', and if on a repeated offense (2nd time or greater, not that there would be anything beyond a 2nd time unless I failed to catch it), I WILL seek out the harshest possible punishment as per already established community rules. IIRC, that was a perma-bannable offense (update: checked it, turns out there was no specific punishment listed. But guess what? For my content, it now is, by my own decree, effective immediatly. Any modder who wishes to do the same may simply announce that they wish for said policy to be put in effect for their own content as well, and I will respect that and carry it through. NOTE: it is ONLY for REPEAT offenders.). First time offense will earn you a stern warning and a weegee stare. And "your" (stolen) content being forcibly excised from wherever it is hosted.

(*making a low-quality mod-mod, as defined in Edit3, will likely either invoke a "please remove this", or a "here, let me help you make this better")

[So in short, the graphics & original stuff I've put hours into I am still very very very very reluctant to let go of; some more than others (primarily the ones that also occur in other works I have made) - They are SERIOUS BUSINESS. And nobody is going to tell me otherwise].

[SpongeJr]

Gooood, good... this is the ball I'd hoped to get rolling and the can of worms I'd hoped to open.

Seriously... I thought it best that this kind of thing come out sooner rather than later... I am of the belief that credit should be given when due, and this is the sort of discussion we need.

The Creative Commons licenses are starting to really stand the test of time as THE alternative to giving away all your rights or else keeping them. Other great examples exist, for example, the GPL, but these are for very specific things. CC just plain works for every type of work that would be covered under existing copyright laws... music, graphics, artwork, code, "written" word.

I encourage the community to embrace CC licenses for their mods and similar works. It is my suggestion that Xelerus be used as a repository for these works, and that you select a license for your mod when you upload it... the most restrictive (CC-BY-NC-ND as was mentioned) being the default, with the option to "open up" your individual mod by allowing additional rights. I'd like to point out a place where this system works, Sutros [www.sutros.com] for musicians.

George has already used the CC license on some of his works, and this lends even more to the argument of us licensing our original material that way. I think it's important, however, to point out that at this point in time (as of unofficial 1.04 release) George doesn't use the CC license EXPLICITLY for Transcendence as far as I can tell (from the readme and credits/splash screen). The readme file however DOES explicitly give guidelines as to what George expects for the distribution, etc. of Transcendence. It boils down to a license SIMILAR to what CC and other licenses permit, but it should not be assumed that the rights to Transcendence itself (right to copy, modify, distribute, profit from, make derivative works, etc.) are anything but what George explicitly states and we should always respect that.

FOR THE tl;dr crowd, here's a summary:
===========================
1. We should be clear about the rights to our mods. I suggest we embrace Creative Commons licenses. If you're not familiar with this, check out http://creativecommons.org/licenses/ to find out more. Creative Commons has now stood the test of time and is used all over the place. No court can deny it as a plausible way to license works as "Some Rights Reserved".

2. I think Xelerus should only allow new uploads that are licensed under CC, using BY-NC-ND as the default license since it is the most restrictive, and allowing the author to change to a less restrictive license if they wish. This works great for a number of repositories of works. The website http://sutros.com for musicians is an example I give to show how it can work.

Anyone with specific questions on Intellectual Property law can go ahead and ask in this thread, I may be able to shed some light on some confusing and/or grey areas as I've studied it a lot. I should say though, I am not a lawyer and I do not dispense real actual legal advice.

[Song]

@Shrike: IRC established BY-NC-ND, IIRC >.>, or at least from what sponge was saying. I like BY-NC-ND much better.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/

We moved away from that, as "No derivative work" effectively bans anyone from using code out of one mod as an example to work on another.....which hamstrings modding (especially beginning modders) extremely effectively.

[Arisaya]

@Shrike: IRC established BY-NC-ND, IIRC >.>, or at least from what sponge was saying. I like BY-NC-ND much better.
http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/3.0/us/

We moved away from that, as "No derivative work" effectively bans anyone from using code out of one mod as an example to work on another.....which hamstrings modding (especially beginning modders) extremely effectively.

That is ONLY a problem for the actual XML structures and T-lisp (also why I explicitly put t-lisp & xml of my mods as CC-BY-SA for my stuff (minus any I.P. that may be contained as otherwise arbitrary data values, or interpolations there of)); everything beyond that would be CC-BY-NC-ND. Beginner modders DO NOT need my graphics resources or factions & their backstories to learn how to mod. (I suppose I should have done what Sponge did and left a tl;dr message on my post,a s this was mentioned in there >.>)

[SpongeJr]

There's one important question remaining, and it can only be answered by one man...

How does George Moromisato look at the modding community's works? Does he consider all mods to his game as "derivitave works" in the legal sense? Or do they stand on their own as completely original works? Or does it depend upon the mod?

I submit as an example... graphics and sound packs... with no code... if entirely original, these would best be considered original works themselves. If they are based upon George's graphics and sounds, they should probably be derivative works... and what about the .xml files? They are works by themselves... however, re-using any part of the Transcendence "t-script" .xmls should make them derivitave works.

I don't do this to stir things up, but rather to try and set the record straight for the future. This game isn't going away. There are more and more players every day and more and more modders every month, and George's plans for the future anticipate a game that will stand the test of time. Great concept, great gameplay, a healthy modding community with excellent support from its developer, limitless possibilities... George has started something huge here. 30 years ago the computer game Rogue was invented, which lead directly to Hack and NetHack and so on, and here we are today. George stands on the shoulders of giants with Transcendence, and he raises the bar at the same time. This game isn't going away.

(hey, that's a good PR statement... feel free to use that)

[ThePrivateer]

Wow, OK guys, I've just sorta skim read most of this, so I'm just going to reply to SpongeJr's last comment over how George views mods.

In theory, because all the mods submitted can only work with Transcendence, regardless of whether they themselves are original works, all mods in theory are derivative of Transcendence.

For example, say you completely overwrite the space station files to make look utterly different than before.
That individual graphic file is an original work, yes. However it can only work with Transcendence.exe. It is utterly worthless and useless besides, unless you are submitting it to the entire internet to be used for any purpose whatsoever (but the mod has been submitted to Xelerus.de, the home of Transcendence mods).

XML files are all based off of the way George has designed the engine to 'read in' those files. As any programmer will tell you, XML files cannot do anything unless instructed too by a more powerful external source. XML files are original works, but like the above graphic example, they can only work with Transcenence.exe.

No mod submitted to Xelerus can work without Transcendence.exe. Thus, all those mods are derivative works because they derive their functionality from Transcendence.

Well, that's just my view. I'll be interested to hear what George has to say on the matter.

[Arisaya]

Well, an individual graphics file is not useless. It can be put to work in many different situations. IE, I could introduce all my TSB ship graphics into an EV Nova mod, for example. Or leave them as they are now, as merely uploaded files that everyone can look at.
Considering that it's not even going to be uploaded to xelerus (too big), and they have separate licensing from the xml...

[Prophet]

Ideally, we would have a selection box when submitting mods where we can set the license type of out mods when we upload them.

I usually do proof of concepts which are completely open and intended to be copied, modified and shared but as you mentioned, unique resources or large projects should be protected, thus, requiring a different license.

[Ttech]

Here's my additional two and a half cents. Mods default to CC:BY-NC-SA and old mpds will get this treatment as well.. No author may change for their mods, and nobody wahts so ever is allowed to do anything fancy like try to make a Transcendence Mod Pack for $35.

[Arisaya]

I think it should be totally ok though (it is within NC anyways, being without profit) to charge shipping and cost of media (totalling about ~.50c) if you were offering to send out CD's with a pack of transcendence mods (ie, probably only in the event of something like someone who is bandwidth-limited getting large volumes of mods or something)

[alterecco]

Here's my additional two and a half cents. Mods default to CC:BY-NC-SA and old mpds will get this treatment as well.. No author may change for their mods, and nobody wahts so ever is allowed to do anything fancy like try to make a Transcendence Mod Pack for $35.

Enforcing ANY license on previously unlicensed uploads to xelerus is absolutely NOT OK. Any unlicensed mods will reside under the umbrella "all rights reserved", and I am sure SpongeJr can expand on that.

I suggest the following:

1) From a set date (determined by bimbel and the implementation on xelerus) mods uploaded to xelerus default to the relatively liberal CC-by-sa-nc license (that is, attribution, share alike, noncommercial).

Any harsher license will effectively strangle the modding community (you have to consider that many modders will not be concerned with licensing, so they will just use the default one)

2) A dropdown be implemented on xelerus providing a couple of sensible and tested licenses, including several of the CC licenses, public domain and all rights reserved (possibly?). There should be an 'other' option as well, meaning that the modders has provided an explicit license in his mod, in the header of his files or in an accompanying LICENSE file.

3) all mods without a license uploaded prior to set date will have the author retain all rights, apart from the mods tagged "Script Examples" (there might be other categories it makes sense to create special rules about)

4) all of this should ofc be discussed and agreed upon by Bimbel and George.

5) There should probably be something here...


In general, in my opinion, it is the unconcerned modder that we should "protect". The people who mod and care about licensing are most likely able to take care of things themselves. Having a framework for this set up on xelerus would greatly encourage this.

[george moromisato]

My view of mods is as follows:

1. Unless otherwise specified, mod authors own the copyright to their own mods.
2. A mod may use copyrighted elements from Transcendence itself (such as images, code, etc.) but those elements remain under my copyright. [The license for using those copyrighted elements is what you would expect: you have non-exclusive rights to use those elements for non-commercial purposes, and you have to maintain my copyright and trademark rights.]
3. I claim no rights to incorporate any mod or any portion of a mod into Transcendence itself without permission from the author. [Note, however, that ideas cannot be copyrighted. An idea itself, no matter how complicated, is fair game and can be used by anyone including me for any purpose without permission.]

Note that the above is not a formal license, nor is it legal advice.

At some point I will include a more formal license spelling this out in the game itself.