[Luis Dias]

I *am* discussing things Mixael. It is completely different, from my POV, to automatically attribute a licence to every work "published" in HLP (the idea Karajorma was playing with) or to standartize etiquette behavior regarding unlicenced published work.

This difference is independent from the issue of incentivizing everyone to get a licence for their work, which I think it's a goal worth having.

[karajorma]

To be honest, I'd rather hear from the people this actually affects.

[niffiwan]

If we look at a slightly different situation, namely copyright on other published works, you'll find that there is an automatic default "license".  i.e. the authors works are copyright, even if they don't apply for the copyright.

Is this not the situation in which HLP currently finds itself?  The default is the author/creator owns the copyright and that prohibits sharing of assets.  HLP would like to encourage authors to release under more permissive licenses, however I don't believe (as others have said) that we have any way of broadly enforcing a different default license.  If we try to do that, the HLP policy would be trumped by copyright law if anyone took it to court? (and copyright in some form seems to be fairly worldwide... unless we want to host HLP in North Korea?)  A hosted project would be different because the agreement could be "hosting in exchange for a more permissive license on assets", and the author/creator would be specifically waiving their copyright entitlement by "signing" the hosting agreement.

NOTE: IANAL!!!  So I could be applying copyright to something which it doesn't apply to - there seems to be a mention of "physical" works, which a model or other electronic creation *may* not be covered by.  And of course I'm ignoring the question of whether copyright itself is just/fair in its current incarnations...

[karajorma]

Let me put things another way.

The problem as I see it is that any mod without a clear licence could be being misused. Without a clear licence we have no idea in what capacity the original creator of the asset wanted it used. People have pointed out that there are a large number of issues with assigning any kind of default licence for mods on HLP and for the most part I tend to agree with them. Assigning any kind of default licence ignores the wishes of the content creator and we're doing it all the time!

1) First, let's not get too comfortable on our high horses here. We're all on a website whose existence is based on a very loose reading of licensing and copyright laws. Have we got a licence which allows for the modification of stuff from FS1 or FS2? Or anything from the B5 or BSG universes? No we haven't. Maybe a few bits and pieces here and there, but the entire website would be dead if we had waited for everything we've modified. I once read a quite thought provoking book on media franchising which contained an interesting section on mods based on TV shows.

Despite both mods rejecting corporate proprietary control of cultural resources, they paradoxically insisted upon maintaining ownership and creative monopoly over their own production resources. Thus, a de facto system of authorship, ownership, and licensing emerged to limit open collaboration in the produsage networks of [Redacted name of a TV show] games, where single owners could govern the use of discrete 3D models, textures, and music.

So yes, pretty much every single piece of content on this forum (with the exception of things like Wings of Dawn) is entirely based on completely ignoring licensing. It's quite interesting that people would be livid if someone alters a forum members high-poly Sathanas without permission or credit but no one gives a stuff about altering the original Volition one.
But okay, lets pretend that licensing doesn't apply to big name corporations cause, you know, **** those guys.

2) We're pretty much doing the same thing within the community too. Very little has been released with any kind of proper licence. A hell of a lot of stuff comes from posts where all the creator said was "here's a link to the stuff I made" with no actual instructions on whether it could be modified or used. If we're lucky we get a "Use it however you want." but fairly often even that is missing. We still use that stuff though.
I'm sure at least a few high poly models and alterations of existing models also fall under this category - they were made to improve the quality of a mod in an existing campaign but I doubt we can say that the original creator of the asset was asked in every single case. I suspect fairly often if the original creator doesn't respond to emails, etc, people have just gone ahead and made the alterations and simply credited the original creator. Which basically is the same as assigning the asset a licence which allows modification.
Similarly we have situations where people use assets from big mods like Blue Planet, etc without checking back down the chain to see what licence Blue Planet got them under. The assumption is that "If they can use it, I can."
 
3) Why is this important? Well I can be fairly confident in saying I know the licence for at least 99% of the released or in development content of Diaspora. Even so there's still the chance I've missed something. I'm sure quite a few other hosted mods can't even say that. Which makes it much harder for them to come up for a licence for their releases without basically doing the same kind of relicensing that people have complained about. In fact I do have to wonder how many mods which have released under a "Use anything you want from our mod, but just give credit" have already done that.

4) I find the vehement opposition to formalising the current status quo quite amusing. Especially given the attitudes when it came to Droid's hypothetical situation. While most people were against screwing over someone who is an active member on HLP (quite rightly), I suspect the numbers would have been completely different had Droid been talking about an asset created by someone who has been gone for years. To be honest, I suspect if I hadn't posted this thread and simply updated the TOS very little would have changed. The people who ask about every single mod they use would still continue to do so regardless of any default position. The people who don't bother to check would continue to do so and have it all blow up in their face later on. And despite any licence, social pressure would be what decided the matter in the end.



Anyway, I'm not really arguing in favour of a default licence in this post, I just wanted to put a different spin on things. 

[FUBAR-BDHR]

That is kind of the point I was making.  Quite a bit of the stuff is already under some kind of license from someone. 

Also one thing I have never understood about license is what good are they if they can be changed after the fact.  What is to prevent someone from posting material under a license then deciding that they want the licensing changed.  I'm going to release this developer under license x today but reserve the right to change these terms.   2 months later after several mods are using it I get pissed at the world and change the license terms to explicit use only by written permission.   I only give permission to 1 mod.  Now what?  Software companies pull this kind of thing all the time even going as far as revoking ownership of products through licensing.    There is a you don't own this I'm only giving you permission for you to use it for the reasons listed here and if I decide to change these reasons or revoke the permission I reserve the right to do so clause in just about every license agreement these days.   

[karajorma]

Well when IP Andrews tried that one, we told him to take a hike. I suspect that would be the attitude of most people on here.

[pecenipicek]

Karajorma, the things you wrote just now above pretty much sum up my decision to not release TAP's converted assets. If someone cares to violate Relic's/whoevers copyright at this point, they can do so on their own. I will not be doing so.

[karajorma]

I fully understand why TAP wasn't able to release everything it has. What's important here is to stop this kind of thing happening quite so often.

[pecenipicek]

Hey, i released what i knew i could and what MatthTheGeek reminded me i had an could release

[karajorma]

Seriously? I post something people can't argue with and the thread goes dead?

[niffiwan]

What would you like as a reply?  All hail Karajorma!!  Master of Licensing!!   

If I may summarise the steps we may take from here:

1) encourage authors/creators to specifically license all future releases
2) the community gently requests licenses for releases that don't have one
3) encourage existing releases/hosted projects to re-release (or update) with a specific license
4) update the HLP hosting agreement (already done?)
5) publish a list of recommended licenses on HLP
6) have an argument about what the default license should be 

(apologies if I've missed anything)

On point 6, I see what you're saying about our current loose adherence to copyright law, but I'm not sure that formally saying that we're flipping licensing/copyright the finger is going to work.  Could we instead just rely on points 1-5 (especially point 2) to get the result that we desire, i.e. that the majority of assets (etc) released have a clear license on them?  And resign ourselves to the fact that 100% "license coverage" is probably an unrealistic goal in the informal community that HLP is?

(of course, this probably isn't going to affect me personally all that much, since I doubt that I'll be releasing any assets, only code, and that (as far as I'm concerned) is released under the same license the rest of the code base is released under, i.e. the Volition non-commercial license - which is another whole can of worms considering that I (or I'll bet that any other coder) didn't agree to anything regarding what licenses their code contributions would fall under when I/they joined the SCP)

[Spoon]

I pick "whatever benefits the community the most."

[mjn.mixael]

I don't really care what happens either way, honestly. But in the interest of more license/asset clarity as far as hosted mods go... I suspect the easiest thing to do would be for you admins to pop into the internal hosted boards and insist it at least be discussed among the teams.

[Mobius]

Fury is 100% correct. No one here in HLP nor the site itself has any glitch of an authority to enforce any kind of licence on any work that isn't their own. OTOH, if the practice is sufficiently shared, informed and ... ahh... practiced, then you will begin to see lots of people doing it on their own. I also think that is the behavior that people on the 21st century must begin to take, in every single authorial work they do.

I partially agree with this claim. Though I think we don't have the right to tell independent modders what to do with their stuff as it's only them who can decide, there's something the Admins can do when it comes to Hosted Projects and their teams.

I believe it is important to have well defined hierarchies within each team. The Admins should know who does what and who has the right to make important decisions, such as claiming that the project is dead or releasing all assets should the other members disappear. That said, I believe it's also necessary to keep track of activity: every two or three months, for example, project leaders may have to report to the Admins the current status of activity of each team member and of the project as a whole. The Admins themselves may do that by browsing private boards and determine whether or not a project is at risk. Projects just don't die in a day or two: the death of a project is a slow process which may require months, if not years.

When/if the Admins find out that a project is *probably* dying, they may ask the team (or what's left of it) what to do with the unreleased assets, thus preventing unjustified claims of project deaths and unauthorized releases.

A similar policy may be applied in case of problems of a disrupting nature. Project leaders may ask for clarification should heated discussions, threats of withdrawing et similia occur and report it to the Admins to solve the issue.

[Phantom Hoover]

sigh

Is nobody actually reading the proposal? At no point is anyone going to be forced to use any licence on their works whatsoever. The idea is that, if you forgot or couldn't be bothered to specify a licence, rather than defaulting to restrictive copyright that doesn't allow reuse, you default to something more permissive. I don't think CC BY-NC is the right choice (that noncommercial restriction is just asking for trouble), and I think it would be more sound to implement the policy on a hosting site rather than a forum, but the core idea is a good one.

[The E]

You misunderstand CC-BY-NC. Recommending it is a risk-free move, as is using it. In the theoretical case that someone wants to use an asset released here in a commercial venue, then all that person has to do is to contact the creator of that content and negotiate about the terms. It's not like the content creator is bound to that license for eternity.

Also, CC-BY-NC is the only choice here if someone wants to reserve the option to negotiate. CC-BY alone would expose the content creator to the risk of that content being used in a commercial context without permission, and without anything in terms of reward except for a mention in some credits sequence somewhere. I don't know about you, but if I were in such a situation, I would be royally pissed.

[karajorma]

Okay, here's and edited version of the agreement I get people to consent to on joining the Diaspora team. I'm most definitely not saying everyone should use it. What I'm saying by posting this is that I'm going to start badgering the hosted projects to make sure they have something in place which covers at least the problems mentioned here. I've added comments in red over potential sticky points.

Mod X Assets Agreement

Permission for assets to be used in the game
The creation of an asset by members of the Mod X team for use in the game immediately and irrevocably grants a licence to Mod X for the use of that asset in any and all future releases. Mod X however does not own the asset and the creator retains control over its use in any other projects.

Any assets licensed to Mod X in this way can be edited (even if the original creator leaves the team) for any purpose related to Mod X. Upon its release as part of the game, it may also be edited by 3rd parties for the purposes of modding Mod X.

The licence to Mod X does not allow Mod X to give the asset to 3rd parties for any other purpose without the permission of the creator.

Furthermore, any work appearing in a Mod X release must be credited.

Upon release, work will released with a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported licence. As the owner of the work, the option to grant a waiver remains with you and not with Diaspora.

The reason for this clause was somewhat inspired by the BtRL breakup. For this reason we didn't want "All your mods are belong to us" style control over the assets. This might not be a consideration for other mods. The inability to give assets to other people in particular is something you may or may not wish to remove.

Collaborative Work
In the case of collaborative work the artist retains rights over any part of an asset they created on their own (texture, model, voice sample, etc). They may release anything they created on their own to any 3rd party they wish to. They may not release anything they did not create without the permission of the other artist(s). 

This clause was meant to strongly define who owns what. i.e. you can't just say "I did most of the work, therefore it's mine" You only own what you did yourself. If you made a model and someone else textured it, the model is still yours but you have no control over the textures.

Code
All code is subject to any licences and agreements of the Source Code Project as soon as it has been committed. Until then it remains the property of the individual coder. As with any other asset, Mod X is granted permission to use or modify it as needed for the game. This includes commiting the code to SVN should the owner not have done so.
 The coder may use code written by them for Mod X in any other project regardless of whether this is based on FS2_Open/SCP code.

Just in case Diaspora wanted to have a coder work on PCS, etc.

Artwork and art assets using original concept designs
Any artist wishing to release an asset which was created using a concept design created for Mod X must gain the permission of the person who provided that material before it may be used anywhere other than in Mod X.

Storyline & Mission Ideas
Any storyline or mission idea created for Mod X is granted an exclusive licence from the time it becomes part of a release plan until the release actually occurs. The story or mission idea may not be used by any other party other than Mod X without the agreement of the team. Before and after this happens Mod X is granted a non-exclusive licence as detailed above.

Definitely one to lock down. You don't want a disgruntled member releasing the entire plot.


Special Circumstances

Disputes resulting in large team changes
Any dispute resulting in the exit of more than 4 active team members or 1/3 of the active team whichever is larger shall constitute a fork if the ex-team members go on to make their own FS2_Open based team. In the case of a fork the larger team retains the automatic licence but the smaller team automatically gains one to anything that is a derivative work of their assets (excluding storyline). Licence for any concept art which has not begun serious modelling will remain with the team the artist remained on. The larger team retains the game's identity (name and logo).
 In the case of a fork both teams have a licence to use all published material unaltered (apart from minor patches)  but may only make large changes to their own work. Previously published material may be made available by either team but only if the download links to both teams.

In the case of a fork where the smaller team is only a couple of people smaller than the larger one the above does not apply and both teams retain the automatic licence to everything.

Again another addition cause of the BtRL break up. But it is a good idea to make sure you've nailed down who actually controls the mod.

Appendix A

How do you determine who is an active member if there is a fork?

Any team member who has made a significant contribution to the game within the last three months, or any member who has taken an explicitly defined leave of absence and who made a significant contribution to the in the three months prior to that can be defined as active. A couple of forum posts don't really count as activity but a large number of posts discussing the project would.

What rights do I have over my stuff if I get kicked off the team?

Same as if you'd quit.

So what happens when the team don't want to work on the mod any more?

If the team decide they no longer wish to work on the mod they should release any unfinished and/or unreleased material to the community and declare that development halted at the last public release. Development can then continue via 3rd party mods of the main core (a situation similar to mods to FS2).

I know it's hard to plan for failure right from the start of the mod, but this one is crucial.

So what if a mod of Mod X becomes popular once development of Mod X is halted and want to take over development?

If there are more users of the mod and it has become the default way of playing the game they may take over. They may also petition the original team to take over at any time. In which case any past members of the team may vote on whether they can take over or whether they should remain a mod.

Zathras was the main inspiration for this one.

[headdie]

Its a lot text heavier than I was perhaps expecting but in general terms I see no problem for this to become the "suggested" licence from HLP for mods