[Mongoose]

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.

[SypheDMar]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[jg18]

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.

[Black Wolf]

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.

[jg18]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[FUBAR-BDHR]

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. 

[jg18]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Spoon]

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.

[MatthTheGeek]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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".

[Phantom Hoover]

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?).

[Luis Dias]

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.

[pecenipicek]

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.

[karajorma]

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.

[Spoon]

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.

[Luis Dias]

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).

[mjn.mixael]

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.