Hard Light Productions Forums
Site Management => Site Support / Feedback => Topic started by: karajorma on March 06, 2013, 09:39:17 pm
-
Since we seem to be having (several) discussions about HLP policy. I figured it was time we had one more. Over the years we've had quite a few issues arise over who owns which assets. Off the top of my head I can think of the issues with TBP, the break up of BtRL, the fact that TAP appears unable to release any of its assets, and a whole lot more.
I think it's reached the point where we need to have it as part of the terms and conditions to say who owns what formally and thereby end a lot of this nonsense. Due to some of the issues mentioned above, the Diaspora team have a gentleman's agreement covering pretty much every asset. The agreement states who owns what during development, after release and what should happen if we decide to end development.
I don't think every project needs to have the same policy as Diaspora, but I do think every project needs to have a policy. Furthermore I think we do need to come up with a policy for other releases that aren't parts of the hosted projects. If a modder just posts a new ship on a thread and then disappears, who can use it? Is it possible to edit the model in some way or can I only use it the way the modder released it? Can I make a higher poly version of the model?
It's much simpler to solve that problem if we've already stated that "Any asset posted on HLP from this date is under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 3.0 Unported licence (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/3.0/) unless explicitly stated otherwise."
So the question is, what should the statement be? For instance we should probably make exceptions for when someone posts a model, table or a mission on a thread because they want someone to help them fix it.
-
Wouldn't something like this kind of require a lawyer, do we have one floating around here some where by chance? Most of us don't speak legal ease.
-
Agreed, we should make this legally airtight if at all possible.
-
One of my good friends is coming to the end of his law degree - so he's not officially a lawyer yet, but he definitely knows his stuff. If people want, I can ask him to take a look at this thread and maybe offer some advice? He's not on HLP or into any of this stuff, but I'm sure he'd oblige if I asked him.
Of course, if we actually do have a lawyer on HLP somewhere, then ignore my post. :P
-
To be honest, I think making it legal might be overthinking it. It just needs to be enough that someone can point at a post and say "That's where you gave me permission to do it."
Remember that there are various licences already floating around the net so it's not like we need to come up with the licence itself, just a policy on how to use it.
Making it legal would probably cause more problems. Who actually reads EULAs?
-
I'm... I dunno, nervous about the idea of making any kind of blanket statement about everything posted on HLP ever, especially since HLP doesn't actually provide any hosting space or anything for non hosted projects. Would, for example, this apply to something someone uploads to Sectorgame, but post a release thread about on HLP? I guess the crux of the issue is "At what point does HLP have the right to dictate any kind of release terms to asset creators?" Because as benign and useful as this would probably turn out to be, it's still rules getting set by HLP to apply to content creators who might not be affiliated with HLP in any capacity beyond forum member.
Something like this could very easily be applied to hosted projects as a condition of hosting, because there's a degree of back and forth there. "You want our webspace? Fine, but anything you make with it has to be released under this license." That's a simple exchange, where both sides get something they want. But such an exchange doesn't apply to the vast majority of assets released via SG or FSMods or Mediafire that just happen to be posted about on HLP.
Licensing is something I've actually been thinking about a bit lately - most of my releases in the past have said essentially this "You can do what you want with it, just let me know beforehand. Not for permission, but just because I like to know when my stuff is used." But lately I've been thinking about that, and I've decided I need to tighten it up a little for various reasons on future releases. If you look at the Comet station me and mjn just put out, the usage rules are alread a little more complex than that.
Something like this might end up being what I go with, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being the kind of "default setting" if I forget to upload a readme somewhere along the line - I don't think there's anything that I'd be comfortable with in that regard. That said, I'm not entirely opposed either - I'll be watching with interest to see how this develops though.
-
Thing is that we could easily say that this only applies to the mods which get hosted on mediafire, etc and that mods hosted on another FS site have their rules apply to them.
Basically the issue is that right now the situation is a mess. And I'd like people to not leave a mess behind if they decide to post something and then disappear. Something as simple as getting everyone in the habit of asking what the usage rules are for the ships if the designer forgets to include it would also work.
I'm not particularly espousing any particular solution, just that we need a solution.
-
To be honest, I think making it legal might be overthinking it. It just needs to be enough that someone can point at a post and say "That's where you gave me permission to do it."
Remember that there are various licences already floating around the net so it's not like we need to come up with the licence itself, just a policy on how to use it.
The licenses themselves are undoubtedly fine, assuming they come from some reasonable source like Creative Commons. The concern is the (potentially large) grey area that forms when we allow for exceptions or otherwise define our own policy on where it applies.
Making it legal would probably cause more problems. Who actually reads EULAs?
"Legally airtight" doesn't necessarily mean long (attempting to infer your position from your question), just carefully worded to avoid ambiguity. We wouldn't want to end up with something that's full or holes or at worst unenforceable.
Just because many people don't read EULAs doesn't mean they're meaningless. But yes, we'd want something that people would reasonably be willing to read and could easily understand.
I'm... I dunno, nervous about the idea of making any kind of blanket statement about everything posted on HLP ever, especially since HLP doesn't actually provide any hosting space or anything for non hosted projects. Would, for example, this apply to something someone uploads to Sectorgame, but post a release thread about on HLP? I guess the crux of the issue is "At what point does HLP have the right to dictate any kind of release terms to asset creators?" Because as benign and useful as this would probably turn out to be, it's still rules getting set by HLP to apply to content creators who might not be affiliated with HLP in any capacity beyond forum member.
Something like this could very easily be applied to hosted projects as a condition of hosting, because there's a degree of back and forth there. "You want our webspace? Fine, but anything you make with it has to be released under this license." That's a simple exchange, where both sides get something they want. But such an exchange doesn't apply to the vast majority of assets released via SG or FSMods or Mediafire that just happen to be posted about on HLP.
Yeah, I'm not sure that HLP even has the authority to set a default license, except perhaps in cases of hosted projects, as BW suggests. A lawyer versed in IP law presumably would be able to say something definitive.
Something like this might end up being what I go with, but I'm not sure I'm comfortable with it being the kind of "default setting" if I forget to upload a readme somewhere along the line - I don't think there's anything that I'd be comfortable with in that regard. That said, I'm not entirely opposed either - I'll be watching with interest to see how this develops though.
At the very least, if this goes through, the licensing terms will need to be prominently displayed, so anyone considering releasing something will be aware of them (or at least not have an excuse to be unaware of them).
Thing is that we could easily say that this only applies to the mods which get hosted on mediafire, etc and that mods hosted on another FS site have their rules apply to them.
Makes me wonder, what if SG decided to also have a blanket default license for mods hosted on MediaFire etc., but chose a different license from whatever is chosen here? What license applies?
Basically the issue is that right now the situation is a mess. And I'd like people to not leave a mess behind if they decide to post something and then disappear. Something as simple as getting everyone in the habit of asking what the usage rules are for the ships if the designer forgets to include it would also work.
I'm not particularly espousing any particular solution, just that we need a solution.
Yes, we do need a solution, but I'm concerned that taking action without seeking competent legal advice could result in more problems than the ones we already have.
-
Thing is that we could easily say that this only applies to the mods which get hosted on mediafire, etc and that mods hosted on another FS site have their rules apply to them.
Basically the issue is that right now the situation is a mess. And I'd like people to not leave a mess behind if they decide to post something and then disappear. Something as simple as getting everyone in the habit of asking what the usage rules are for the ships if the designer forgets to include it would also work.
I'm not particularly espousing any particular solution, just that we need a solution.
Uh, no.
HLP does not and should not have any authority over what license if any, assets are released under. That is and should remain at discretion of developers. What HLP can do, is encourage use of a recommended license based on valid arguments. Post a topic in hosted support board which thoroughly explains what and why and leave it at that. You could even give more than one option while explaining differences. If people pick it up, great. If not, then not. And how do you know what if any, license assets are released under? The same way as with any other publicly available application or other type of asset. It is announced on the website of the asset(s) in question as well as any read-me or equivalent.
Think of HLP as SourceForge and hosted projects as any of the projects hosted on SourceForge. The only requirement of SourceForge is that projects are under open-source license of some kind, they do not enforce use of any particular license. What HLP lacks is properly laid out terms of use, but it has not been necessary in the past and I doubt it will be necessary in the future. But which also means that HLP has no authority over how developers want to do things, even if it means not adopting any license. Of course lack of terms of use is also potential loophole for ill use of provided services and means your response to such can only go so far. Now that said, it wouldn't be too much work to examine terms of use from several hosting sites and adapt them for use in HLP. If for nothing else, then just in case. No lawyers needed, just common sense, peer review and grammar inquisition.
-
I think before anything else it needs to be clear on where the reach of HLP extends, as for example anything hosted on any HLP organised space would probably be subject to any enforced/default Licence but I would say realistically that would be as far as it goes.
On the subject of enforcing or defaulting to a community endorsed licence, I think this would be a poor choice given the voluntary nature of the community. Having said that I would certainly go with the idea of a sticky in the modding boards with a short explanation about licences, recommending a few from the likes of Creative Commons along with perhaps a few others and why HLP "strongly" recommends people using them. Also this information might be useful if there is a welcome email/pm sent to the admins of newly hosted projects.
just for reference I generally go with a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)
-
I think the problem karajorma particularly wants to address is the case where
It is announced on the website of the asset(s) in question as well as any read-me or equivalent.
doesn't hold true, since then the asset is effectively unusable.
I don't think it's so much about forcing anyone to pick any specific license, rather just to pick something, so that we know how the asset can be used. Setting aside the question of whether HLP can even do this, it would also help ensure that developers are aware of the licensing issue and that they take the time to pick the license that they want to use for their work, whatever that license may be.
I think the discussion about hosted projects in particular was just to examine a specific case where HLP might actually have some authority to set a default license.
Think of HLP as SourceForge and hosted projects as any of the projects hosted on SourceForge. The only requirement of SourceForge is that projects are under open-source license of some kind, they do not enforce use of any particular license.
True, but the important aspect here is that IIRC SourceForge requires hosted projects to select a license; no project can be hosted without some license. In their case, they have restrictions on what licenses are acceptable, but that doesn't have to be the case here.
What HLP lacks is properly laid out terms of use, but it has not been necessary in the past and I doubt it will be necessary in the future. But which also means that HLP has no authority over how developers want to do things, even if it means not adopting any license. Of course lack of terms of use is also potential loophole for ill use of provided services and means your response to such can only go so far. Now that said, it wouldn't be too much work to examine terms of use from several hosting sites and adapt them for use in HLP. If for nothing else, then just in case. No lawyers needed, just common sense, peer review and grammar inquisition.
Terms of use might not be a bad idea. The question of whether to ask a lawyer for help depends on how much we care about the legal enforceability of the terms. If we decide that borrowing TOS excerpts from elsewhere and tweaking them to our taste is "good enough" legal-wise, then all right.
I think before anything else it needs to be clear on where the reach of HLP extends, as for example anything hosted on any HLP organised space would probably be subject to any enforced/default Licence but I would say realistically that would be as far as it goes.
That could well be about the limits of HLP's reach, even if it would mean that the fundamental problem (assets accessible on HLP having no license and thus being unusable) is effectively unsolvable.
On the subject of enforcing or defaulting to a community endorsed licence, I think this would be a poor choice given the voluntary nature of the community.
Why is having a default or "strongly recommended" license a problem if people can pick a different one?
Having said that I would certainly go with the idea of a sticky in the modding boards with a short explanation about licences, recommending a few from the likes of Creative Commons along with perhaps a few others and why HLP "strongly" recommends people using them. Also this information might be useful if there is a welcome email/pm sent to the admins of newly hosted projects.
Sounds good to me.
just for reference I generally go with a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)
Just wondering, why do you prefer ShareAlike over karajorma's proposed choice in the OP of the non-ShareAlike version of the same license?
-
On the subject of enforcing or defaulting to a community endorsed licence, I think this would be a poor choice given the voluntary nature of the community.
Why is having a default or "strongly recommended" license a problem if people can pick a different one?
Because as has been stated before, people dont always read the things they should and in the case of an enforced/default licence while I acknowledge that ignorance is no defence it could still lead to unpleasant situations regarding terms of use.
just for reference I generally go with a Attribution-NonCommercial-ShareAlike 3.0 Unported (CC BY-NC-SA 3.0) (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/3.0/)
Just wondering, why do you prefer ShareAlike over karajorma's proposed choice in the OP of the non-ShareAlike version of the same license?
The SA adds
Share Alike — If you alter, transform, or build upon this work, you may distribute the resulting work only under the same or similar license to this one.
Call it paranoia
e:
removed the random D from acknowledge
-
Well, since people don't always read the things they should, how about we just make selecting a license part of the hosted project registration process?
That is, along with getting a board, badge, SVN, etc., you must also pick upfront a license for your project's work. There might be some recommended choices, but presumably you could pick any license you wanted -- although could you use something ultra-restrictive like "all rights reserved"?
As for ShareAlike, I'd forgotten that it's a form of copyleft (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyleft#Share-alike) and that non-ShareAlike is more permissive. I have no doubt that the license's legal code defines very precisely what "similar license to this one" means.
-
I actually usually use Sharealike myself (That's what we used for Diaspora). I was just giving an example above.
HLP does not and should not have any authority over what license if any, assets are released under. That is and should remain at discretion of developers.
Nowhere have I said that it shouldn't. This is about cases where the developers have failed to give any answer. A big part of any change would be encouraging people to explicitly state what licence things are released under. Basically, I think we want to get developers into the habit of adding a "Released under licence X" in their releases and users into the habit of reminding them if they don't.
What HLP can do, is encourage use of a recommended license based on valid arguments. Post a topic in hosted support board which thoroughly explains what and why and leave it at that. You could even give more than one option while explaining differences.
I agree with everything you said except leaving it at that. At the very least we'll need to get people into the habit of asking what licence things are under.
And how do you know what if any, license assets are released under? The same way as with any other publicly available application or other type of asset. It is announced on the website of the asset(s) in question as well as any read-me or equivalent.
Let me give you an example. User X releases a mod on Mediafire. I download it. A year later I want to use it in a campaign. Mediafire has already deleted the download and there is no readme. In these situations we get some users who use the mod, some who use it but don't feel comfortable altering it, and some who won't touch it at all in case User X returns to scream like a banshee at them.
The sad thing is that this situation is really really common. Even if we say that any mod which doesn't have a licence is assumed to not be usable it would be an improvement. It would basically mean that users must clarify who can use their mods when they release them.
Think of HLP as SourceForge and hosted projects as any of the projects hosted on SourceForge. The only requirement of SourceForge is that projects are under open-source license of some kind, they do not enforce use of any particular license.
But they enforce the use of a licence which furthermore must be open source. That's actually much more restrictive than what I suggested, where the default licence could easily be changed to anything the modder wishes. If a modder wants to say "Use my ship but don't alter it in any way" they can. Hell, if a modder wants to release ships and say "Don't use them. I'm only releasing stuff in case I go inactive" they still can say that.
What HLP lacks is properly laid out terms of use, but it has not been necessary in the past and I doubt it will be necessary in the future.
Actually we've had several messy situations in the past because of this fuzziness. The whole TBP nonsense basically devolved into one user screaming at the admins to delete the entire project from HLP so no one could play it. And the admins basically having to say no despite having no authority to do so. Another example is TAP being unable to release Asprin's music since they can't reach him.
Well, since people don't always read the things they should, how about we just make selecting a license part of the hosted project registration process?
I've already amended the HLP Hosting Policy thread to say that we won't accept any projects in the future unless they have a clear idea who owns what and what happens if the mod can't be released. I strongly suggest the other projects which are already hosted put something in place. Frankly we should have been doing that years ago.
-
doesn't hold true, since then the asset is effectively unusable.
I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss here trying to figure out what you mean.
I think the discussion about hosted projects in particular was just to examine a specific case where HLP might actually have some authority to set a default license.
HLP has no such authority because these assets are not usually physically hosted in HLP. What HLP does is provide a place to have a website and discussion forums. HLP doesn't even have its own SVN or equivalent. When it comes to the "Hosting policy", I'm not sure whether it is as binding as proper terms of service would be. Mostly it's probably closer to a gentleman's agreement than something people will have to agree upon in order to get hosting in HLP. And again, the problem is that no assets are actually hosted in HLP. Do you really believe HLP should have control over licensing of assets that are hosted in mediafire or who knows where? Legally, that'd be up to the party who provides the hosting.
At the very least we'll need to get people into the habit of asking what licence things are under.
That falls under encouragement from the community at large, you cannot enforce it as an authority. Not without proper TOS.
Let me give you an example. User X releases a mod on Mediafire. I download it. A year later I want to use it in a campaign. Mediafire has already deleted the download and there is no readme. In these situations we get some users who use the mod, some who use it but don't feel comfortable altering it, and some who won't touch it at all in case User X returns to scream like a banshee at them.
Even if people adopt a license now, it does not mean that any previously released assets are suddenly under that license. That would require original author or team explicitly announcing these assets are from now on under license X. If they do not, no license can be applied to previously released assets.
What to do with old assets?
- By default they can be used as released. For any other use of assets, permission should be asked from author.
- Authors are encouraged to publicly announce a license their assets are under and preferably add a notice to project's website of such, if website exists and any existing release announcements.
What to do with to-be-released assets?
- Authors are encouraged to select a fitting license and have that information provided in read-me, website and release announcements.
- If no license is selected, same old permission must be requested from author rule should apply.
And why? Because not a single one of us has any authority whatsoever to decide what license someone else's work is under, regardless of whether we can reach that person or not. Only they themselves can make that decision. A good example of this is the music from Asprin. Nobody else but Asprin can give a permission to release them to public or to give them a license. Only exception to this would be if TAP had explicitly stated rules for asset release and public use during time of development when Asprin was present and had agreed to those rules.
-
Well, since people don't always read the things they should, how about we just make selecting a license part of the hosted project registration process?
I've already amended the HLP Hosting Policy thread to say that we won't accept any projects in the future unless they have a clear idea who owns what and what happens if the mod can't be released. I strongly suggest the other projects which are already hosted put something in place. Frankly we should have been doing that years ago.
Does clear idea include in writing somewhere, such as in a post on the forums or, even better, in a text file committed to SVN, where it can't be lost?
And different components of a mod can be under different licenses? Sounds confusing, but apparently necessary. I guess I'm just used to software dev, where a project's code is generally all under one license. But maybe assets follow different rules.
EDIT: Well, a project's code that was written by the project's contributors would presumably all be under one license. Code used from external projects might be under a different one.
doesn't hold true, since then the asset is effectively unusable.
I'm sorry, but I'm at a loss here trying to figure out what you mean.
I just meant the sort of example that kara just described, about someone releasing assets without an accompanying license and then disappearing. My understanding was that using such assets was strictly prohibited, but based on the example kara gave, it sounds like they're used sometimes anyway.
I think the discussion about hosted projects in particular was just to examine a specific case where HLP might actually have some authority to set a default license.
HLP has no such authority because these assets are not usually physically hosted in HLP. What HLP does is provide a place to have a website and discussion forums. HLP doesn't even have its own SVN or equivalent. When it comes to the "Hosting policy", I'm not sure whether it is as binding as proper terms of service would be. Mostly it's probably closer to a gentleman's agreement than something people will have to agree upon in order to get hosting in HLP. And again, the problem is that no assets are actually hosted in HLP. Do you really believe HLP should have control over licensing of assets that are hosted in mediafire or who knows where? Legally, that'd be up to the party who provides the hosting.
I misinterpreted "hosted". Never mind.
At the very least we'll need to get people into the habit of asking what licence things are under.
That falls under encouragement from the community at large, you cannot enforce it as an authority. Not without proper TOS.
Based on this and what kara just said, it really sounds like the lack of TOS is a serious problem.
Let me give you an example. User X releases a mod on Mediafire. I download it. A year later I want to use it in a campaign. Mediafire has already deleted the download and there is no readme. In these situations we get some users who use the mod, some who use it but don't feel comfortable altering it, and some who won't touch it at all in case User X returns to scream like a banshee at them.
Even if people adopt a license now, it does not mean that any previously released assets are suddenly under that license. That would require original author or team explicitly announcing these assets are from now on under license X. If they do not, no license can be applied to previously released assets.
True, but this seems like a non sequitur. I can't connect it to kara's example.
What to do with old assets?
- By default they can be used as released. For any other use of assets, permission should be asked from author.
Now I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. Does "as released" presume that a license was included? And if no license was included and the author cannot be reached, then based on what you've said, no one should use the asset, correct?
And why? Because not a single one of us has any authority whatsoever to decide what license someone else's work is under, regardless of whether we can reach that person or not. Only they themselves can make that decision.
No disagreement there.
-
What to do with old assets?
- By default they can be used as released. For any other use of assets, permission should be asked from author.
Now I'm having trouble understanding what you mean. Does "as released" presume that a license was included? And if no license was included and the author cannot be reached, then based on what you've said, no one should use the asset, correct?
The example assumed no license was provided because old releases don't have any licenses. Maybe Diaspora is an exception, I don't know. "As released" I mean to use them as they were originally released. If a model with textures was part of a mod, it is fine to download and play that mod. But to use that model or textures in another mod would require asking for permission of author. If said author can't be reached, then of course that means you can't use them. Unless knowledge to indicate otherwise is public.
-
Even if people adopt a license now, it does not mean that any previously released assets are suddenly under that license.
I'm not suggesting that anything we decide upon now is applied retroactively without permission of the person involved.
I'm giving examples of cases where we wouldn't have had this problem if we'd been smart enough to do something about this earlier.
-
Thanks for identifying the problem, karajorma. I'm sure a lot of us saw something wrong with HLP having unreleased mods that can't give away its assets because a modder disappeared years ago. TAP is not the only example but is the most recent one. SoL (albiet not HLP) almost suffered the same fate until Axem eventually released the assets.
I think projects that are hosted on HLP should have something, so that there would be no questioning of what will happen to an asset if the creator disappears. It might not even have to be uniform within a particular project if the said project doesn't want it to be, but it should have something in place so that nothing is in the gray.
It could be as simple as "Nothing in this project can be used outside of this project" to "Everything in this project can be modded once the assets are released" to "All of these models can be used and modded once the project is complete, but this particular asset cannot be used for any reason outside of this project".
In TAP's case, there were some clearly defined usage for a lot of the assets, but some of the assets in the mod didn't have any information on what would happen if the project was scrapped, and several of the members of the project were long gone. With little in the way of communication, the default "scrap asset because modder cannot be reached" is a total waste if the aforementioned modder would have wanted the asset to be publicly released. If it was defined early on, there would be no problems even if the aforementioned modder would not want his assets touched.
So yes, we have a problem and karajorma pointed out the issue very clearly. Many of us likely know about it but assumed it was something inherent in the system. If it can be fixed, that would be a boon to HLP. Diaspora having its own gentleman's agreement is great. BP is known for using publicly available assets and releasing them for the community, too.
And even before we need to have something official, all projects on HLP right now can easily have a discussion within their own mods and deciding on what to do now. If we can get a lot of the projects to do so anyway, that would make establishing this "rule" easier just because everyone else is doing it, and it's a way of ensuring that the assets are released the way that they want to be.
-
I'm on team Incentivize, Educate, Mainstream it, not on the team Enforce it by raw dictatorship.
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.
-
The practical side of me is of the opinion that, in the case where a member of a team is long gone, and there's a question about the use of their assets if the project winds up shutting down, everything should by default be up for grabs to whoever wants to use it themselves, provided proper credit is given. That's just me talking, though, and I realize that it kind of tramples on the rights of the original creator to determine how their work should have been used. In any case, I agree that setting up a definitive license is something that should probably be actively encouraged from here on out, and that some sort of licensing agreement should probably be a requirement for hosted projects, but I don't know that we should, or even can, go any further than that.
-
I'm on team Incentivize, Educate, Mainstream it, not on the team Enforce it by raw dictatorship.
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.
And if I'm reading karajorma correctly, this is the same position he's pushing for as well. He specifically mentions that he won't force projects to do so, at least not for past projects. Rather, if we encourage doing such a thing now so that it becomes part of our culture, it would be something akin to "Best Practices".
... That's just me talking, though, and I realize that it kind of tramples on the rights of the original creator to determine how their work should have been used.
I think that realizing the ethical gray area of the status quo is more important than forcing projects to adopt a policy, so this is a great start. :)
-
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.
I should point out that HLP has already crossed that line once. TBP should have been removed from download if you subscribe to that interpretation.
Besides, as I've continually pointed out, this isn't about enforcing any kind of licence. This is about telling people that when they release something, they must say what they mean by "I'm releasing this" as the phrase is ridiculously ambiguous. Having a default licence means that the content creator needs to think about what that phrase means.
It might not even have to be uniform within a particular project if the said project doesn't want it to be, but it should have something in place so that nothing is in the gray.
That's already the case in Diaspora. For instance although the team can use the high-poly Theseus model, we can't release it.
Basically I'm stressing that hosted projects should put something in place now. It's very much in their interests to do so. Every time I've been involved in a project on HLP that hasn't done it, I've ended up regretting it at some point.
-
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.
I should point out that HLP has already crossed that line once. TBP should have been removed from download if you subscribe to that interpretation.
This comes back to TOS, then, doesn't it? HLP wouldn't have had to cross that line if there had been TOS in place that included both (a) the restrictions you previously mentioned that a hosted project must have a clear idea of who owns what etc. and (b) restrictions that effectively prevent a single user from unilaterally demanding that a mod be removed.
Besides, as I've continually pointed out, this isn't about enforcing any kind of licence. This is about telling people that when they release something, they must say what they mean by "I'm releasing this" as the phrase is ridiculously ambiguous. Having a default licence means that the content creator needs to think about what that phrase means.
I'm coming to agree with Fury and Luis Dias that having a default license is effectively imposing a license and that HLP can't do it. If there's a "default license", then if I release an asset with no license specified and disappear, then suddenly a license has been applied to my work without my consent!
What I think HLP could do with TOS is, for example, starting at some specified future date, disallow the release of assets on HLP if said assets aren't accompanied by a license governing their use. But as Fury said, without TOS, HLP probably can't even tell people that they must specify a license for their released work.
EDIT: Mind you, a rule of that sort would be the "stick" aspect of the changes. The "carrot" aspect would just be an informal encouragement for content creators to be clear about restrictions on how they want their work to be used.
At the very least we'll need to get people into the habit of asking what licence things are under.
That falls under encouragement from the community at large, you cannot enforce it as an authority. Not without proper TOS.
-
What I think HLP could do with TOS is, for example, starting at some specified future date, disallow the release of assets on HLP if said assets aren't accompanied by a license governing their use. But as Fury said, without TOS, HLP probably can't even tell people that they must specify a license for their released work.
Again, if this is the road we decide to go down, I would want to emphasize that the precise definition of "Released on HLP" would need to be defined pretty clearly, since HLP doesn't provide any hosting. Consider: I upload a campaign with three brand new exclusive ships to FSMods and then disappear. Someone then finds the campaign, posts a review on the wiki, it gets well known, and someone decides they want to use one of the ships. The problem remains, even if HLP disallowed my release thread because I didn't provide a clear license.
-
What I think HLP could do with TOS is, for example, starting at some specified future date, disallow the release of assets on HLP if said assets aren't accompanied by a license governing their use. But as Fury said, without TOS, HLP probably can't even tell people that they must specify a license for their released work.
Again, if this is the road we decide to go down, I would want to emphasize that the precise definition of "Released on HLP" would need to be defined pretty clearly, since HLP doesn't provide any hosting. Consider: I upload a campaign with three brand new exclusive ships to FSMods and then disappear. Someone then finds the campaign, posts a review on the wiki, it gets well known, and someone decides they want to use one of the ships. The problem remains, even if HLP disallowed my release thread because I didn't provide a clear license.
Well, HLP's TOS could only govern HLP, not FSMods or anywhere else. But yes, precise definitions are important.
In the scenario you described, I'd think it's no different from someone discovering FS mod assets anywhere else on the Internet and making them known to the community. Based on the discussion in this thread, it sounds like "no license" should mean "off-limits".
EDIT: Speaking of FSMods, do you think this issue can be partially addressed there? For example, achtung/Swantz could ask/remind people uploading new content to include a license.
-
I've already said that we can decide that the default licence is simply "You may not use anything in this release" and let the user decide if he wants something less restrictive.
The point is that we do need a default even if that is it. Suppose someone posts a link to a ship, doesn't include any licence and then disappears? Without a default position we still don't know who can use that ship.
-
Well I see a lot of issues with any type of default. For instance the one you just mentioned of someone showing up and posing a ship and disappearing. How do we know it is even their work and they have the right to give any kind of license for it? This could apply to all or part of the asset. For instance the mesh may be theirs but the texture stolen. It's happened before. Then you have the area of do they even have the right to license the stuff or does that right belong to someone else? Someone makes the Galactica or a Nova do they have the right to even license that or does that right belong to the IP holder? Then there is always Interplay. According to the license agreement the file formats are owned by them an anything in them they have the rights to. While this is pretty clear for things like .fs2 and .fc2 files becoming their property what about models converted to pof format or any files packed in a VP. Do they then have a say on the licensing?
It can become a legal nightmare.
-
Yup, which is why I said
taking action without seeking competent legal advice could result in more problems than the ones we already have.
Also: anything in an FS2-type file format (.fc2, .pof, .vp, etc.) is the property of Interplay? Huh? If someone puts their C:\Windows\ folder in a VP, are its contents then the property of Interplay? Makes me wonder about the legality (strictly speaking) of the various community software tools for manipulating data in these formats, e.g., Maja Express, PCS2, etc.
-
Well I see a lot of issues with any type of default.
Even the default that nothing can be used without a licence? I fail to see the logic there.
For instance the one you just mentioned of someone showing up and posing a ship and disappearing. How do we know it is even their work and they have the right to give any kind of license for it? This could apply to all or part of the asset. For instance the mesh may be theirs but the texture stolen. It's happened before.
Yes but there is absolutely no solution to this issue. If someone is going to lie about having made a ship, they're going to lie about what conditions they release it under. That can happen now, and it can still happen no matter what we decide after considering this matter.
There's no solution that can solve every single problem.
-
Licensing is something I've actually been thinking about a bit lately - most of my releases in the past have said essentially this "You can do what you want with it, just let me know beforehand. Not for permission, but just because I like to know when my stuff is used." But lately I've been thinking about that, and I've decided I need to tighten it up a little for various reasons on future releases. If you look at the Comet station me and mjn just put out, the usage rules are alread a little more complex than that.
Might want to put your terms of use in the release post/download site description in the future. It's more upfront than a readme file. I'm sure there are plenty of people that have a blindspot for readme files.
-
Although you're right, I feel I have to point out that if people don't read readmes, it's their problem, and it doesn't invalidate the content of the readme in any way.
It also has the advantage that the readme will most likely follow the modpack if it gets hosted elsewhere, or is linked elsewhere by someone else.
But yes, saying it directly in your release thread is the best way to have people notice it, yet having it in the readme also has its advantages. Probably better to have it in both.
-
I continue to say that HLP does not have the right to "standartize" any kind of licence any given modder publicizes here. Kara, you continue to be wrong here. The fact that TBP was "completely lost" if people just didn't assume they could borrow the assets, etc., should not serve as example. I'm sure many things would be lost to the void if people started to respect other people's rights, but that is also the price of "doing things the right way".
-
Is an -NC licence really the best choice? I've heard there are a lot of complications that can come up based on interpretation on what counts as 'commercial' (e.g. if fsmods asks for donations, does that count as commercial use of NC assets they're hosting?).
-
I thought no FS mods could *ever* apply for donations, since they are all dependent on a game engine whose licence pretty much denies this possibility, IIRC.
-
In TAP's case, there were some clearly defined usage for a lot of the assets, but some of the assets in the mod didn't have any information on what would happen if the project was scrapped, and several of the members of the project were long gone. With little in the way of communication, the default "scrap asset because modder cannot be reached" is a total waste if the aforementioned modder would have wanted the asset to be publicly released. If it was defined early on, there would be no problems even if the aforementioned modder would not want his assets touched.
You speak as if you were actually in TAP at any point during its existence and/or did something for the project.
The agreement with everyone present at the time i took over was that anything they produce for the project can be released once the project itself is released, under whichever license i decided, but otherwise cant release it unless the person specifies that we can.
everything we had at that point that wasnt from anyone in contact at that time got removed.
I also had the verbal agreement with DarkKnight with regards to story rights and them falling back to him in case of project death.
pretty much everything else that could've been released was released.
-
I continue to say that HLP does not have the right to "standartize" any kind of licence any given modder publicizes here. Kara, you continue to be wrong here.
I continue to say that you might want to read my responses again given that I've said several times that "You can't use anything unless the user includes a licence" is a possible option, and yet you've failed to notice.
-
Although you're right, I feel I have to point out that if people don't read readmes, it's their problem, and it doesn't invalidate the content of the readme in any way.
It also has the advantage that the readme will most likely follow the modpack if it gets hosted elsewhere, or is linked elsewhere by someone else.
But yes, saying it directly in your release thread is the best way to have people notice it, yet having it in the readme also has its advantages. Probably better to have it in both.
Yes.
-
I continue to say that HLP does not have the right to "standartize" any kind of licence any given modder publicizes here. Kara, you continue to be wrong here.
I continue to say that you might want to read my responses again given that I've said several times that "You can't use anything unless the user includes a licence" is a possible option, and yet you've failed to notice.
That's not a licence, you are the one confusing things here. That's a policy of what should be advised for the common behavior of modders. A "standard fall back licence" would *always* be something wrongfully enforced. Notice here something: although HLP can vehemently advise (and socially "oblige" so to speak) for modders to not use anything "unless the user includes a licence", it has zero authority to enforce that law - except if you are going to say that anyone doing that will be banned from HLP and so on - nevertheless if someone decides to do so he will be no under obligation to do so other than legal action (outside of the scope of HLP).
I'm not misreading here. You weren't advocating a policy of educating and incentivizing people to use licences. You were advocating that any work published here should have a licence, and if not, it is automatically "given" one (even if that auto licence is an extremely defensive one).
-
Yada, yada, yada. Let's not turn this into some Karajorma vs Luis Dias thing. Just chill, k?
This is a worthwhile discussion.. so discuss it and stop making it personal by pointing fingers.
-
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.
-
To be honest, I'd rather hear from the people this actually affects.
-
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...
-
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 (http://www.hard-light.net/forums/index.php?topic=83006.0). 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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
Hey, i released what i knew i could and what MatthTheGeek reminded me i had an could release :D
-
Seriously? I post something people can't argue with and the thread goes dead? :p
-
What would you like as a reply? All hail Karajorma!! Master of Licensing!! :p
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 :p
(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)
-
I pick "whatever benefits the community the most."
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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