[karajorma]

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 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.

[BrotherBryon]

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.

[jg18]

Agreed, we should make this legally airtight if at all possible.

[CommanderDJ]

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.

[karajorma]

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?

[Black Wolf]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[jg18]

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.

[Fury]

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.

[headdie]

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)

[jg18]

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)

Just wondering, why do you prefer ShareAlike over karajorma's proposed choice in the OP of the non-ShareAlike version of the same license?

[headdie]

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)

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

[jg18]

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 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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Fury]

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.

[jg18]

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.

[Fury]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[SypheDMar]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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.