#other_ip_topics

1 messages · Page 5 of 1

frigid bay
#

But what speaks against it?
It's not like no one could rebuild it.
It would just take time.

And as I said. Monatization is already not allowed, therefore a server doesn't benefit from it.
The only benefit is, that players stay on your server. Because you have this feature, while others don't.
Maybe because it's an extremely large system which took hundreds of hours alone.

#

But making it public and easy to access.
To see how some things have been done.
Will just take them maybe 20-30 hours to make a simillar system.
Which is way more attractive then being the first one, because of a lot of time wasting by going trough documentation, testing, etc.

teal pecan
#

Don't get me wrong, I see where you are coming from.
But I believe a system to maybe automatically find potential fraudulent mods etc. would be better than making the process harder.
A system to more effectively find the bad players to then weed them out is taking care of the root of the problem.
Your approach is more like putting up a fence to make it harder for people.

edgy rover
#

I think a lot more than these two things have been mixed up in this discourse.

At its core, it's about being able to take a preventative approach to protect someone's own work so that you can save yourself the rat's tail of the reactive approach (finding, documenting, reporting, verifying, acting on violations).

frigid bay
rugged prawn
#

Btw also open means that community can self police against theft easier

teal pecan
frigid bay
# rugged prawn Btw also open means that community can self police against theft easier

So it's "easier" to go trough hundreds of servers.
Check everything they have done to see something that they "maybe" stole from you?
You still have to prove it, that it was stolen.

While just simply protecting it with obfuscation. (Already possible for scripts with own tools - but it's a big mess)

For me it's easier to know, that only a few servers (maybe) had access to some of the code / content.
Then every server that exists on AR

frigid bay
teal pecan
#

My approach, at least in theory, could be implemented easier and faster.

frigid bay
#

What... I would like to know how you come to this conclusion?
What if I bought some models from a markte place and use them on the server?
And another server also bought the exactly same models and uses them?

A crawler couldn't distinct if it's stolen or not.
The same with code - Some approaches will be exactly the same, because it is how it is.

It would be much easier to implement an obfuscator when uploading something on the workshop.
Since it's already possible - but as I said. It's a mess to always obfuscate every single script by hand. (Or even worse, when you just forgett it)

teal pecan
#

I will not go further into details as it's, as stated, only theoretical und there are things I will have to check with others in terms of feasibility, responsibility, workload etc.
Hence at least I will leave it at that for now.

meager fractal
#

I believe the approach is backward: state your need (protecting your creation), we come up with a solution
not "we need that system to make servers fight through mods"

teal pecan
#

But I come from the community and I am for the community, so I'll follow it up. Even if not openly communicated but only internal.

sacred wagon
meager fractal
#

as I said, point 1 OK, point 2 nope 🙂
so let's raise the question, wait & see

teal pecan
#

I must have missed it.
Where was it stated that there are plans to forbid obfuscation?
I honestly don't know.
Thank you in advance.

frigid bay
old jay
#

Don't confuse obfuscation with Encryption.

teal pecan
frigid bay
frigid bay
old jay
#

Unless something has changed that I'm not aware, obfuscation is (or at least was ) tolerated.

teal pecan
#

Unless there really is a statement saying that there indeed ARE plans against it, nobody should state it as such, as that is misinformation.

Don't guess what people might mean but go off of the facts.

hardy bone
#

Preventing code exploits/injection is not done by obfuscation, but by making your code and the way you code resistant to such attacks. This applies to professional coding as well as leisure coding (which is the case for mod making)

frigid bay
#

And its not only coming from me but also others. Maybe it‘s just very unclear.

Since no one, not even to my request, made an clear statement on what is planned, what is okay and what not

edgy rover
#

Incidentally, this is an example of the behaviour of a user after our mod was opened in the workbench. I don't know if this is the kind of collaboration the modding community is looking for, but unfortunately this has been the reality for us for a long time. There are many more people like this. But as you said - voice the concern and wait for it 🙂
https://imgur.com/a/LdmhVsS

Imgur
Untitled Album
frigid bay
#

Making it harder to find these

old jay
#

This is nothing new, its been the case since Arma was released. (12 September 2013)

frigid bay
#

But this isn‘t even my point
I don’t want to start to obfuscate my self. Since this is also limited to scripts, not models, textures etc.

What I would like to see, an System from BI which automatically does it.
Which would help much more.
Since this would be also saver for all players. Since BI still can access the source if needed.
But not any other people

meager fractal
#

so, if BI

  • provides a tool that scans for reuploads
  • actively moderates its workshop
  • permban repeating offenders from uploading anything
    would that be OK?
teal pecan
#

But only if the rumors of Lou Montana Life are fake news!
What is that supposed to mean?

sour mirage
teal pecan
#

🇩🇪

slow haven
#

🧃

frigid bay
#

@meager fractal
Integrating obfuscation directly into the workshop upload process is exactly the kind of support server owners need from BI.
This isn't just about preventing complete reuploads of mods but protecting the content from being easily accessible and modified. When content is obfuscated upon upload, it shields the work from being directly downloaded and inspected, addressing a significant concern for creators who invest time and resources into their projects.

Here also an message that i already sent in this discussion:
"It's true that anything obfuscated can eventually be cracked by someone with enough time and malicious intent.

However, taking a page from FiveM's playbook shows that a middle ground is possible. In FiveM, when players join a server, the content downloaded to their hard drive is obfuscated. This doesn't make it impossible to access or steal the content, but it significantly increases the effort and skill required to do so, compared to simply joining a server and downloading all resources directly.

Years ago, FiveM faced similar issues with content theft among server owners, leading them to implement obfuscation. This move has, to a certain extent, mitigated the problem by adding a layer of difficulty for those intent on stealing content.

I believe a similar approach could be beneficial for the Arma community. If BI provided an option for modders to choose whether their mods should be obfuscated upon upload to the workshop, it could alleviate many concerns without requiring BI to manually check each mod. This would be a tool in the hands of the creators, giving them the choice to protect their work if they wish.

Of course, for those who prefer to share their work openly or under specific licenses, the current system of licenses and reporting would still apply. This isn't about restricting the sharing of content or learning from each other but about giving creators more control over the distribution and protection of their work.
"

teal pecan
frigid bay
#

Correct

meager fractal
#

@frigid bay please write that instead of a WoT c/p.

frigid bay
#

Sorry it was just a really long discussion and I'm kinda repeating myself.

teal pecan
#

Good thing I didn't read the whole text because from skimming it it seems like copy-pasting arguments from before.

frigid bay
#

I just wanted to describe you what the request is.
Since your suggestion doesn't even has todo anything with what I and also others wrote.

teal pecan
#

Known. Two different approaches.

edgy rover
#

If you don't mind me asking, are there specific reasons why you want to take a reactive approach at BI rather than a proactive one?

south remnant
#

There was a conversation in here about it a short while ago

teal pecan
teal pecan
south remnant
sour mirage
#

@rugged prawn

#other_ip_topics message

In an ideal world, our creative endeavors would be shared freely, enhancing the community without fear of misuse. The challenge lies in balancing this openness with the protection of creators' rights. While reporting theft is an option, it's reactive and often comes after harm has been done. We must strive for a community ethos that prevents such situations proactively, respecting both the spirit of collaboration and the individual's hard work.

#other_ip_topics message

It's disheartening to hear about the extent of theft and the measures you've had to take with your company. While it might seem that locking up content is a counter to innovation, it's also a call for a more robust framework that enables sharing and innovation while safeguarding creators' rights. The challenge is to foster an environment where protection and innovation coexist.

#other_ip_topics message

The reputation of Life servers, painted by past instances of disregard for intellectual property, understandably breeds skepticism. However, painting all with the same brush risks overshadowing the genuine, creative efforts within this space. It's essential to critique and address specific malpractices without letting those define the entire genre. An unbiased approach will help keep a more inclusive and respectful modding community.

#other_ip_topics message

Obfuscation often stems from a place of preservation rather than exclusivity. It's about protecting one's creative investment from being undervalued or misappropriated. This issue goes well beyond monetary gain; it's about respecting the time, effort, and passion that creators invest in their work. Encouraging a community that values these contributions equally, if not more than the financial aspect, is crucial for keeping a healthy, competitive, and innovative environment.

teal pecan
south remnant
#

same, trying to find it now

#

think discord mobile search is broken

teal pecan
#

I'm on laptop, so it ain't that

old jay
#

Also no results when searching "enfusion, obfuscation"

south remnant
#

not mario my bad

#

misremembered

edgy rover
#

This is what we got told by Mario the last time

image.png
#

So obfuscation in general is allowed, but its disallowed when its hiding something malicious

south remnant
#

read the message

#

quite clearly a blanket no

sour mirage
#

@frigid bay #other_ip_topics message
I hope this kind of elaborates on your points too, I had a blessed time reading through your elaborations 🙏

frigid bay
frigid bay
#

And content is still protected, so it can't be just looked up

#

(And as I said this approach has already been done by FiveM. And it works actually pretty good)

edgy rover
south remnant
#

that also says its not allowed

#

Hello.

Obfuscation and any sort of malicious DRM that crashes, breaks the game or does harm in any way or form are not allowed in the Arma Reforger Workshop.
If you have found any mods that are doing these things then feel free to report it here.

edgy rover
#

He specifically told us that its allowed when its not hiding malicious code .D

south remnant
#

keyword being and

teal pecan
# frigid bay And actually this is also the reason why I would love to see something from BI. ...

One thing to keep in mind, when BI would hypothetically do it, it might change things in terms of legal accountability as having it going through a BI pipeline and then technically BI publishing to the workshop could make BI at least partially responsible.

Also, and this statement should be taken with a grain of salt because I am neither a lawyer nor able to give legal advice or guidance, it might not even be possible for BI to do what you are asking for.

rugged prawn
teal pecan
#

No, this is Patrick!

meager fractal
sour mirage
rugged prawn
#

what do you mean? I geniunly elieve based on that text that you generated it in a chatgpt type ai

frigid bay
# teal pecan One thing to keep in mind, when BI would hypothetically do it, it might change t...

But wouldn't this already apply yet?
The only thing that would need to change is that everything gets obfuscated.
No more or less.

Reporting, etc. stays the same.

Right now people upload obfuscated mods.
And if I would report it because I think it stole code from my project, BI couldn't check it.
Because there is no way for them to see the source code.

While me idea give only BI the option to see the source code.

sour mirage
teal pecan
south remnant
#

given how long it took for them to change like two lines in the eula before i dont think that the eula will be changed to make any of what is needed work properly lmao

abstract crest
#

give only BI the option to see the source code LOL, they can't even effectively police the ARMA 3 and DayZ workshops on Steam themselves, no way that they are taking on the responsibility, liabilty and effort to manually police every item in a potential ARMA 4 workshop. At least that is what I believe

south remnant
frigid bay
south remnant
#
  • are limited in how much enforcement action can be taken
abstract crest
#

Because if they miss something and allow stolen IP to be obfuscated (by them) and distribute it then they are liable

frigid bay
#

Well I kinda doubt it since FiveM goes with that approach - And now Rockstar Games / Take Two is backing them.
So I would say it's possible. No way Rockstar Games / Take Two just don't care.

#

It's not something new

abstract crest
#

What was that phrase that KJW used the other day? Oh yeah I get responses back from my exes faster than from BI Legal 🤣

south remnant
#

i may be misremembering

frigid bay
#

It has been done by other games like Garrys Mod

abstract crest
#

Aren't FiveM and Garry's Mod hives of intellectual property theft?

frigid bay
#

Garrys Mod als obfuscates your Addons in the Workshop

south remnant
#

fivem not so much

#

regular gta modding generally is

frigid bay
abstract crest
#

Comparitively, especially compared to DayZ and other games, the ARMA 3 workshop is relatively calm - primarily that's down to the community though, not BI

frigid bay
#

I never said BI.
It's just that this argument doesn't help at all in this discussion

#

Since Obfuscation doesn't have to do anything with that

#

And games already do it, so why can't BI do it?

teal pecan
#

So to sum it up (from my personal understanding and not an official company view):

  • obfuscation on players end
    --> con - BI can not check it
    --> pro - could protect creators
    --> con - could also protect thiefs

  • obfuscation on BIs end
    --> pro - same protection for everybodies content
    --> con - possible liability issues when some stolen IP goes through

Also, it doesn't matter at all what other companies do.
Different countries, different laws etc.

abstract crest
#

I mean, it's a fun discussion, but I doubt BI will say anything until they do it or never if they aren't gonna do it. At this point we've reached the point where all that's being said has been said before

south remnant
#

i would argue liability issues are a good reason for bi legal to get their act together

frigid bay
teal pecan
abstract crest
#

Also though, raises the question of whether BI can obfuscate APL-SA derived content?

#

That would be a bit of an interesting one

south remnant
#

if license == "apl_sa" then {continue}

#

easy

frigid bay
#

hahaha

south remnant
#

oh no wait theres no more sqf

abstract crest
#

And what about ACE with its GNU license

south remnant
#

i think id get banned for spam writing that in enscript

abstract crest
#

So now only some mods are being obfuscated...

south remnant
#

i dont think any of those licenses require the hosted content to be in an unobscured format?

south remnant
frigid bay
# abstract crest And what about ACE with its GNU license

I would say if the author who uploads it agrees with obfuscation.
it will be fine (Since he gives consent to it)

As I said, people should be able to decide if they want to obfuscate it or not.
There are also enough modders which just want to publish under MIT

abstract crest
south remnant
#

fair

sacred wagon
south remnant
#

ive never really bothered looking into those licenses given reuploads are daft

abstract crest
#

If I were BI then I would be spending quite a while checking any mod requesting obfuscation...

#

So pipeline slows too

south remnant
#

i dont think it can get much slower

teal pecan
south remnant
#

ill stop bashing bi legal now

#

...maybe

frigid bay
#

And I just wan't to mention.
The GPL License also prohibits reuploading content.
And if we look at the Arma Reforger Workshop. BI does exactly that.
But it works because the Author gives the consent for it when he presses on "upload to workshop".

abstract crest
#

Well luckily I'm gonna just be worrying about ARMA 3 and Steam for the forseeable future anyway so plenty of time for further discussions 😛

frigid bay
south remnant
#

you give permission for reuploads when you upload to the AR Workshop? huh?

frigid bay
#

"Reuploads"
Bi just uploads your content into their workshop.

#

And the content is downloaded from their servers.
Not yours

south remnant
#

right thats not a reupload then

#

thats just the initial upload

teal pecan
abstract crest
#

No different from the Steam Workshop EULA from Valve tbh

south remnant
#

APL-ND for example would mean it also couldn't be obfuscated as the obfuscation on BI's end would be a derivative (i think)

frigid bay
abstract crest
#

Thing is, I still think that ARMA 4 will have a Steam workshop...

frigid bay
teal pecan
#

It still has very different legal imprication, no matter what the license is.
The license doesn't even matter in this case.

inland sphinx
#

IMO that is also THE solution to the problem.
If you don't want people to see your code, then DON'T give it to them!
The issue with obfuscation, why BI doesn't want it, stems mostly from malicious code. If you do not give code to people, then that also isn't an problem.

And Enfusion's more server-side control approach makes this model even more feasible than it had been in Arma 3 (Atleast if the game would allow you server-side only code to exist)

abstract crest
#

Fair

frigid bay
#

they need to be on the client

abstract crest
#

My biggest bug bear with Enfusion is the lack of server side addon support...

inland sphinx
#

and they also cannot be obfuscated more than they already are

frigid bay
south remnant
#

not effectively

inland sphinx
#

Whatever BI does, to protect models and textures, it won't protect you against thieves that pull them directly from the GPU

#

as has been done for about a decade atleast

abstract crest
#

Case in point: obfuscators in DayZ... don't know of one that's not been cracked

old jay
inland sphinx
#

If you have a solution to that then please tell. Because other huge AAA development studios still have that problem and cannot solve it

frigid bay
inland sphinx
#

I don't think there is a feasible way to protect models and textures

abstract crest
#

Can't they can grab the models from the workshop without joining the server

hardy bone
frigid bay
#

Even a simple AES encryption would work.
Only the game while it's running could encrypt it with aes.
(Never encrypted on the harddisk)

inland sphinx
#

You can make it harder, sure. Until someone then makes a tool to make it easier

meager fractal
#

A n y w a y - I believe everything has been said and done (multiple times) on the topic
raising a concern is fine, forcing it down others's throat isn't - so let's drop the topic if no new elements arise and wait & see what comes out of it

south remnant
#

platinum arising rn

abstract crest
#

Talking of DayZ? Any news on changing the game EULA and releasing a Reforger like forum post on EULA and content theft?

teal pecan
#

Small excurs into basic example why there are differences in supplying/distributing and repacking and then distributing:
When you in Germany buy and sell food on a B2B level, you just need a trading license.
When you want to buy, repack and then sell food on a B2B level, you also have to be certified after BRC (BRCGS Global Standard for Food Safety) because you are touching the food.

This can be more or less compared to why there are other legal implications when BI would potentially obfuscate on their end.

meager fractal
#

I hate flying motorcycles.

abstract crest
old jay
#

I hate flying *off * of motorcycles

meager fractal
#

that too

chrome plinth
#

obfuscation is waste of resources as long as the engine translates it, someone will sooner or later figure it out and reverse ... it's like with any DRM

#

it may gets slightly more 'secure' with encrypted enclaves (hardware wise directly on cpu level)

frigid bay
#

I understand that someone will somehow find out how to decrypt it.
But still better than having nothing.

Instead of having to worry about that anyone can just grab it.
And currently it works also fine for the already mentioned games and methods.

chrome plinth
#

or simply to have everyone to adhere to APL SA/ND license with all code published

south remnant
#

one thing i may add is given the existence of software like the workshop trawler for the steam workshop, could this not be done in the upload process for both engines and block reuploads outright?

#

obviously things would likely still slip through the cracks but i would imagine it would save a lot of time, no?

frigid bay
#

Its still not about reuploads, but about stealing parts that exist in a system.

frigid bay
#

It would be just stolen by anyone.
Because this is how people and other servers are. (And I‘m talking about a lot of experience)
This will never change, therefore such a protection would be nice.

Nobody just access code to see what vulnerabilities there are. Or how a custom medic system has been done, etc.

meager fractal
#

the gain
now that's the issue.

#

Nobody just access code to see (…) how a custom medic system has been done, etc.
you have no idea how many OFP script files I opened to understand the language, and learnt from them

frigid bay
#

Again, yes there are some people that would learn from it. And this is for me completely fine.
I share a lot of work publicly on GitHub, but still not everything.
But I‘m ready to help.

#

But there are more people that would just skid your mods

#

And call it theirs

meager fractal
#

I do not share this idea. the majority of viewers would be silent ones

#

(and of course, thieves are the ones gathering interest, good or bad)

frigid bay
meager fractal
#

and still a lot of users on this discord server agree with me.

south remnant
#

if somebody's code isnt on github its probably not worth learning from

meager fractal
#

are we having a pissing contest now?

hardy bone
frigid bay
#

No, but to just say everyone should do open source for the community is just not something I can agree.

I already wrote so many messages to this topic.
And told all my concerns and reasons.

meager fractal
#

good, so let's not repeat it

sacred wagon
#

I just wonder why this is becoming such a big issue now. It wasn't a problem in previous games either. They even sold tools for obfuscating and nobody cared. Was there a specific trigger?

teal pecan
#

I guess that one of the triggers is that the system used is under BIs control and hence the people ask for more. Don't think that people are stealing more or less than in the past

frigid bay
#

And this alone is just the reason why people wont start to work on servers, because they don’t want that their stuff is just ripped by others

turbid hatch
# teal pecan I guess that one of the triggers is that the system used is under BIs control an...

But why not applying these rules for other titles like Arma 3 or DayZ then? Especially in Arma 3 you have at least the same possibilities to execute malicious code.
I simply dont understand why BI is making it so hard to simply develop more complex mods and host it with a larger community.
In Arma 3 and DayZ you have the possibility to apply for the monetization list if you concept is okay and dont need to pay most of it by your own. In addition to that you also are free to obfuscate whatever you want. There also exists tools that you can buy to do so.

In my opinion all these limitations leads to the point that there are almost no large communities or more complex custom gamemods. Almost everybody is hosting the conflict mode in a slightly modified way with some new guns and assets...

teal pecan
#

Nevertheless, I'm in a meeting so I leave you guys to it.

south remnant
#

i am part of one team which isnt swapping because of the IP topic 🙂

frigid bay
#

Our team is working on it, but wont release until the IP topic is solved

#

Also the Elan team is not a fan of this approach and thats why they obfuscated themselves

#

And I would say currently Elan is the „successor“ of Arma Reforger if we look at the player count

#

Thats what I‘m saying.
And I think obfuscation is just important.

The fact alone that you are not allowed to monetize is okay.
But not able to keep own projects / work private is just concerning.

If there is no solution from BI we probably also have to go with Obfuscate manually, but as I said. I don’t like this approach

vast stump
#

I would like to point out that hosting a server and keeping up a community is your choice. You are not forced to do so and its not a business/job either. It is a hobby.

sacred wagon
frigid bay
celest sundial
#

Obfuscation never worked. It keeps low skilled people out of your code for a short while, but people who are hindered by it are unable to use any complex mod and adapt them to their needs. Once they are skilled enough to make use of your data they will know how to extract back what they need. Scripts are the only content that can be effectively obfuscated and a lot of it interacts with vanilla code. So you still learn about about the contents.

I am very well aware of the usages. After all I employed Obfuscation as well for my Arma 3 Servers. But looking back I must say we wasted so much time worrying about other people stealing our work. We should have just pushed onward and take down any blatant copycats if they seem to gain any traction.

The vision for the arma community is one that is sharing and caring for each other. Respect for other creators, but also the ability to learn. All of us are standing in the shoulders of giants. Even those of us who are amongst the most skilled mod makers started out learning from and adapting content from the BI forums, Killzonekids Blog or in the case of RP mods Tonics framework and it's many contributors.
Tonic and thus altis live would have never succeeded if it was not taking an open and cooperation approach. Without it Team Elan would likely not exist now and I would be doing something else entirely too.

I understand if you want to build something for your community only. Or if you want to stay in control over your fancy new feature you publish as mod for everyone. I have been there and wanted to do that. I don't see it that way anymore and my open source projects I shared without a worry in the world have been much more successful than any of my closed source ones, but if you think it's the right thing for you I can at least follow the thoughts.

There are efforts being made to minimise concerns over theft and making running communities more sustainable. More will be shared on it very very soon. We are very well aware of the different arguments. It's not worth discussing any further at the moment however.

south remnant
#

The vision for the arma community is one that is sharing and caring for each other.
bohemia dictating every single inch of content creation to modders is NOT how you do this

#

🚪🚶

vast stump
teal pecan
#

Anarchy? blobdoggoshruggoogly

sacred wagon
#

Bob since Lou didn't want to. do you want to look for some honey?

teal pecan
#

Too much sugar is unhealthy. I stick with my black coffee. But thank you for asking I guess.

hardy bone
#

I have to dump like 200€ of my own money every month into the project, because of missing monetization, I dont think we would have switched over from Arma 3.
So now it's about making money.....

celest sundial
#

Not making money, but paying for the operating costs of your community I suppose. Dedicated servers can get expensive

edgy rover
frigid bay
#

Tnak 🥸

slow haven
abstract crest
#

Ah, so we've gone from forced obfuscation to monetization lol... How we ARMA 2 and 3 modders built the community without them is a mystery?

vast stump
#

it may be we conclude this matter for now

#

before we spin off too far from topic

hardy bone
frigid bay
teal pecan
#

Just saying, works perfectly fine without monetization and obfuscation with Antistasi which is open source.
And yes, we have servers running 24/7.

#

Oh, and the profits from the merch we sell goes directly to an NGO. 😎

south remnant
#

who

meager fractal
#

Antistasi

teal pecan
#

Doesn't matter, does it?

abstract crest
#

And? Donations for covering costs for the servers and development (whatever development happens - and I'd point out groups like RHS and CUP that do massive amounts of development without monetization) should be fine with that number of players without further monetization

teal pecan
#

No real clue whatever you are looking at there.
But whatever that is seems to be an Combat Ops server called Antistasi I guess?!?
Certainly not ours.

abstract crest
#

Monetization is a sore subject here, especially when concerning Life. You might not know but ARMA 3 modding almost died because of Life IP theft and monetization...

#

That's why there is a monetization policy btw

#

That I would note can be cancelled whenever BI decides that it is too much trouble and is renewed for one year only each time for ARMA 3 and DayZ

#

ARMA 2 forbids any monetization...

unreal scaffold
#

I do hope BI never ever allows any monetization for Reforger, Arma 4 and all related tools.
Or if they do, at least they should take 50% of the revenue.
There are people hosting live servers for a living and do nothing else.

abstract crest
#

And illicit monetization is a serious problem in DayZ together with DDOS attacks on competing servers...

#

Just this afternoon a popular DayZ server was DDOSed

unreal scaffold
abstract crest
#

🤣

#

But this is something that happens when money gets involved (that's my only point on noting it 😉 )

unreal scaffold
#

It has a name. Cancer.

abstract crest
#

Difference is that BI doesn't care what happens in the DayZ space but does at least seem to care about ARMA

unreal scaffold
#

So what?
You pay for others to play on servers you WANT to host and you try to make it an issue for Bohemia?
If you can't afford it, stop paying.
If they can't afford it or don't want to pay, stop hosting.
This clearly is a YOU issue, not a BI issue, man.

#

Tombo writing....
Man, I at least get your point with the obfuscation.
But his is entitled much!

#

Monetized servers are cancerous in Arma 3.
Monetized servers certainly are cancerous in DayZ.
Good riddance if you ask me. (yeah, nobody asked me, don't care, still state it)

frigid bay
# unreal scaffold So what? You pay for others to play on servers you WANT to host and you try to m...

I will say nothing about monetization itself.
But just one thing.

Right now, Arma Reforger lives from Server Owners who host these kinds of servers.
When we look at Elan, it's 300 players concurrently.
Arma Reforger needs these servers; without them, the game is actually dead. (Without being mean)
I really like Arma Reforger, but that is a fact - And that's not a problem.
But to say it's a "You" problem is completely wrong.

If Elon, and more servers just stop hosting, because they can't afford it,
Then it's actually a BI problem.

hardy bone
#

Does BI profit from those servers running? (apart from the licence sold to players)

unreal scaffold
#

If people want to play it and there is no server, they will start donating to continue playing it.
They are used to play on servers other players pay for.

unreal scaffold
#

no profit share, lol

abstract crest
#

The people keeping ARMA 3 in the Top 100 of games played are NOT the monetized servers... MILSIM keeps ARMA 3 alive, not Exile, not Life, not Epoch...

unreal scaffold
#

Also, didn't AR player numbers peak after the 1.1 update?
That certainly wasn't because of any life servers but because combat ops or what it's called and new features

abstract crest
frigid bay
# hardy bone Does BI profit from those servers running? (apart from the licence sold to playe...

I would say yes.
Since appart from sales, a game needs a player base which also plays the game.
Else the game will be discontinued. (Like a lot of other games)
Not saying that BI would just discontinue their game but they have shareholders to satisfy.

When a game has a player base it's pretty usual that they also sell more game copies, therefore make more money.
And it's not only about Elan right now, but servers in generall.

Nearly all servers except of I think 2 or 3 are hosted by players.
Which pay with their money so other can have fun.
If they stop it because it's a: "you" problem.
Then this "you" problem changes into a "BI" problem.

unreal scaffold
#

Stop generalizing, that doesn't look good on you.
You sound like stopping some life brats will stop all people stop paying for servers.

frigid bay
unreal scaffold
#

Then maybe use less text and write more comprehensible.

frigid bay
#

I'm just saying that your answer: "So what?
You pay for others to play on servers you WANT to host and you try to make it an issue for Bohemia?
If you can't afford it, stop paying.
If they can't afford it or don't want to pay, stop hosting.
This clearly is a YOU issue, not a BI issue, man."

Is completely wrong

unreal scaffold
#

Kindly disagree.

frigid bay
unreal scaffold
#

Write in 15 and maybe I will.

#

It's late

frigid bay
#

Ye it is.
I didn't want to disrespect you or anything.
I just disagree with this statement and I hope you understand why I disagree.
I don't care if a server / I can monetize or not. Those who currently wan't a server, should accept the current rules.

unreal scaffold
#

I still don't understand why you disagree but whatever.
I also agree, people who want server should accept and obey (and maybe stop crying).
Seems like we good.

strong dirge
sacred wagon
strong dirge
#

👍

unreal scaffold
#

Team Elan right now, as it seems

8l5r82.png
sacred wagon
#

We have explained and mentioned enough of our points, and not just in the discussions of the last few days. It's the big picture that counts for us. Even in the screenshot you marked, it's not just about the money and it's still reduced to that.

We'll just wait and see what BI makes of the discussion and won't continue to argue with people here.

unreal scaffold
#

Once more.
If you don't want it to be reduced to money, why the hell do you first bring it up and then complain about it being reduced to that?
That's purely idiotic.
YOU guys started the topic and then complain about us following it up.
Get lost.

sacred wagon
#

Take what you want from it, there is no reason to continue writing with you 👍

woven dagger
#

"300 players concurrently"
"without servers, reforger dead"
"2,873 24 hour peak"

#

get real

unreal scaffold
dark tulip
#

And that's PC only, XBox is not counted and those numbers are way bigger

woven dagger
#

^

#

dudes saying reforger is dead need to get real

#

Arma 3 is literally top 50 most played games

#

with decade of modding support and BI Updates.

#

Reforger is on its way to that as well it'll be the same in a decade

#

Shrug aka A4

#

people forgetting A2 -> A3 was rough too

dark tulip
#

So to recap;

  • people think RP servers are the only thing keeping BI afloat
  • and therefore can demand things (like monetization)

Did a new type of crazy virus got released or something?

woven dagger
#

best gamemodes are the ones nobody plays for

#

pays*

frozen jackal
woven dagger
#

i.e, Liberation & Antistasi KEKW

#

@dark tulip my mans typing an essay on how actually RP Servers are the blood of Arma

#

🤓

south remnant
#

i swear ive seen this conversation end like 9 times now

frozen jackal
south remnant
#

april fools

teal pecan
#

I would appreciate if we could stop the regurgitation of that topic.

meager fractal
#

while a point of view can definitely be funny to one side, leeet's please remain courteous, polite and non-repeating, thank you all

dark tulip
#

I'll be honest and real here; the whole RP scene (which came from GTA, but kids wanted to do it themselves and were unable to lean anything than SQF), did give a boost in sales for Arma 3.
Similar to how the DayZ mod in Arma 2 gave a sales boost.

But would it hurt BI if those mods never existed? Not a bit, and we would still have Reforger and Arma 4. 🤷‍♂️

So let's go back on topic, and talk about IP stuff instead of things no one cares about except the CFO of BI 😉

frozen jackal
woven dagger
#

xD

frigid bay
# woven dagger "300 players concurrently" "without servers, reforger dead" "2,873 24 hour pea...

Don't just focus on one number. March is the best month for the game. In February, the average number of players was 800. And 300 of them are only on elans server.

Also, we shouldn't forget that Elan has 4 servers, each can hold 128 people. Most of the time, these servers are full. But to be fair, I mentioned only 300.

If we look beyond March and february, things look different.

To be clear, I'm not saying that Arma Reforger wouldn't exist without Elan. What I mean is that Arma Reforger relies heavily on people willing to pay for servers. Currently, 99% of the servers are private and paid for by individuals. Running a server for 100 players is not cheap. It costs between 50 to 100 Euros a month. So just be thankfull that these people are ready to pay for it, without gaining anything from it.

woven dagger
#

Honestly, the only people who can talk about single handily keeping Arma Reforger alive is RHS.

#

and even that's a stretch cause the game updates are actually good.

woven dagger
#

Arma is about sharing and caring especially in modding community.

#

without that A3 wouldnt be what it is today

south remnant
#

its definitely about sharing given the number of people who reupload even my shittiest mods 💀💀

shell scaffold
#

I think BI should think about making Reforger Free2Play and putting the whole project under the great APL. I think the Arma community and mod-makers could benefit a lot from this, because it's all about sharing and caring. Also, various bugs that are still in the game since release could be fixed faster that way. Just upload it to GIT. 😉

And when it comes to the BI expenses for employees or infrastructure, they have to be simply covered by donations. All the communitys and mod developers have to manage like this. I think that's fair, after all its not about making money right?

woven dagger
south remnant
woven dagger
#

true

flat sentinel
#

For arma 3 -> If an author provided unbinarized rtms, is it ok for me to import these rtms, make some modification and reupload them as part of another mod?

serene stirrup
#

Depends on the license they have released it with, and if there is no license it is automatically no because that means the strictest possible license applies. Best to ask the creator what their policy is.

flat sentinel
#

Alright, cool. I have acquired permission from the author, was just wondering on the general case of an unreachable author and the like

serene stirrup
#

If the author can't be reached, you are out of luck and won't be able to get permission.

chilly bloom
abstract crest
#

Unless some of us here knew the author, whether contactable or not, and raised the issue with BI, as has happened in the past

trim peak
chilly bloom
rugged prawn
mossy yarrow
#

Whats the issue with GCAM if i may ask ?

vast stump
mighty yacht
#

Does anyone know if the Monster verse or Godzilla can be modded? I know some IPs dont allow it but where would I even begin to look into that itself?

meager fractal
mighty yacht
pliant oracle
wispy iron
mighty yacht
wispy iron
#

No problem word of warning if your looking to profit off the project it’s highly likely it’s a no. Just from others past dealings

mighty yacht
#

😎

austere fog
#

I have a Question regarding Custom Licenses for Reforger Mods. Am I allowed to prohibit third parties from creating servers with the mod I created?

rugged prawn
#

No

frigid bay
#

You can just use an Licenses which doesn't allow it lol

frigid bay
#

Ez

#

No one will ever find out why mod doesn't work. (No crashes in workbench)
and script won't load because the content inside the file is missing.

#

If it's about a model/car.
Then just make a mod where the car modelle, etc. is.
And then a script that just does random things like flip the car.

They are not allowed to edit the mod without permissions, and those who are allowed to access it, can just disable the script.
This way no one will ever have a reason to use it. If you find the model still, then you know they ripped it from you

austere fog
#

Iam quite sure that is against the EULA

rugged prawn
#

Obfuscation is not allowed and the scripts you describe neither

#

It's ez but your mod will be taken off workshop

austere fog
frigid bay
#

Look at elan

#

Its obfuscatet, and all know it

#

But it‘s okay as long it doesn’t crash any games

austere fog
frigid bay
#

But that‘s obv. Since without db it just won‘t work

frigid bay
#

It‘s not malicious

rugged prawn
#

I need to download this elan to take a deeper look at what the fuss is all about

#

It can be malicious that's the point. Obfuscation can hide malice

frigid bay
#

Everything will lead to crashes because of missing db connection/tables

rugged prawn
#

Bad design?

frigid bay
rugged prawn
austere fog
frigid bay
frigid bay
#

Since it‘s also a big security concern just sharing the code of the server

rugged prawn
#

Urgh, this again

frigid bay
#

People will find exploites in the code

austere fog
frigid bay
#

It‘s a preventing feature, not the solution

austere fog
hardy bone
frigid bay
#

Game breaking bugs like knowing how to trick the system when selling stuff, etc. Will lead to a lot of problems

#

Then having to load a backup etc. Will just make the players unhappy

#

Because of one mistake

hardy bone
#

Since once you've made your quality testing system, you just need to rerun it again when doing an update to see what's done wrong

austere fog
frigid bay
hardy bone
austere fog
frigid bay
# hardy bone Since once you've made your quality testing system, you just need to rerun it ag...

Look, i have gone trough a lot of code, QA, Testing, etc.
(Working with a code base with probably 3m or more lines of code)

There are always some mistakes, which causes bugs. Having a program without one single potential bug is probably impossible.

Even if you have unit tests which run automatically when updating the code. If your unit tests didn’t test a very specific use case, then it’s not covered and can lead to special behaviors.

90% of tests will always just test the general use how it’s planned to be used. Not testing how it shouldn’t behave.

frigid bay
austere fog
frigid bay
#

But then why does BI make http methods which allows to use own APIs, etc?

These APIs will be never accessible for other users, and only the server.

#

If that causes crashes, then Http request should be prohibited

#

But they are not

austere fog
#

well its the way you use it if you use it in a way that is malicious ... checking if you are allowed to use the mod in the workbench that is in my mind considered malicious....

hardy bone
# frigid bay Look, i have gone trough a lot of code, QA, Testing, etc. (Working with a code b...

Look, i have gone trough a lot of code, QA, Testing, etc.
[...] 90% of tests will always just test the general use how it’s planned to be used. Not testing how it shouldn’t behave.
You might want to go back to school then, most of the testing time when done properly is about wrong inputs going in your program.

There are always some mistakes, which causes bugs. Having a program without one single potential bug is probably impossible.
Even if you have unit tests which run automatically when updating the code. If your unit tests didn’t test a very specific use case, then it’s not covered and can lead to special behaviors.
True

frigid bay
#

Lets say your HTTP request is just save the player to the database and then spawn him.

The save will never happen since the API will refuse your connection, therefore the game never can save, and therefore it just load forever until timeout and then crashes

frigid bay
#

But thats the reason why it crashes

#

When you load Elan mods

#

In the world editor

#

Or anywhere else

#

It tries to make http requests which fail

hardy bone
frigid bay
#

Then just deactivate „load scripts on start“ look there, you can start the world editor with the mods

#

But if you activate it, it will instantly try to connect to the db

#

Which just fails

#

And a db is just needed for such servers

#

Will be hard without it

#

And yes there is a way to save on files (I know that very well)
But files are very unreliable.

#

I don’t know how it was back then. I‘m talking about right now

#

Since you are saying it’s still against BIs rules

hardy bone
frigid bay
#

Maybe they saved everything on files and switched to a proper db?

#

And therefore it needs the connection?

#

Since this was usual when armar reforger came out

#

But now there are ways to use proper DBs like mongodb

#

What… normally when you have a server. The first thing is to check if the server can create a db connection. (Even if it’s not needed) to know if the server is ready to run.

This also will lead workbench to try to connect, and if it can’t it will just load forever.

hardy bone
#

And I'm not talking mods here, so most of my testing time was for hardware, where you can do more damages

frigid bay
#

Well everyone has their processes.

frigid bay
hardy bone
frigid bay
#

But it doesn’t matter, since this is just a different approach for everyone. Just said that to make clear it doesn’t matter how critical it is.
Companies/People handle things different. Therefore it’s not nice to say: „Go again to school“

hardy bone
frigid bay
#

Why doesn’t every company just go open source? Or why even signing ndas so you don’t talk about it.

Because this leads to security problems.

#

Maybe you fix it before they find it

#

So making it harder is always good

#

And currently it’s good enough.

hardy bone
hardy bone
hardy bone
abstract crest
#

JFC, are we just gonna be rehashing this shit forever? I thought the mods said end the discussion here? But no, again and again. Some of us here do not give a damn about your Reforger frenemies 😉

#

This is why Life is considered by many to be a cancer in our games, despite the fact that there are many decent people who play and even mod it

#

If this doesn't stop soon, maybe the mods could give us ARMA 3 IP channels so we don't need to see your drama 👿

analog sphinx
# rugged prawn Bad design?

sounds more like that the actual design intent, I know another couple of mods in A3 that do exactly that on purpose.

dark tulip
#

Our community mod is also useless without a DB connection and the correct data returned; in that case you just get an error message and can continue playing (without the benefits of the mod)

#

Which is intended behavior, so people can also use it locally while building missions with mod specific modules and stuff

meager fractal
dark tulip
#

Uhm... Yup fixed it 😅

frigid bay
# dark tulip Our community mod is also useless with*out* a DB connection and the correct data...

But once again, if it's a root script.
There is no: "Just skip it".

Guys I don't know what this is about.
I love Open Source and right now also work on open source projects (For Arma Reforger).
I love to help and love how many people create mods which just can be used.

But I would never be angry if a modder decides that he doesn't want to share his mod with every server but his.
It's a decision that should be respected. Since he does it for him, not for you.
And if he just tries to protect the work from being read, then accept it.

Yes they could hide something (Thats why I suggest that instead of Players obfuscate or encrypt their stuff, BI should do it)
But this is such a small part of those people, who are not stealing anything.

What are you losing, if someone does create private mods only for his server and doesn't allow to use it in the world editor/reading the code?
Nearly nothing, except of: "I could have learned from that" but then just ask them to share some specific information.

I just hate to discuss something where the only one that should decide would be the user that creates the content.
Not someone that just wants the code lol

south remnant
#

once again i swear this conversation has been told to end 20 times now

#

you are going round in circles

frigid bay
south remnant
#

damn they added echos to discord channels

abstract crest
#

Damn, when will this end here... No one cares anymore, the point was made...

#

At this point I think all Life mods should be auto-banned for the future health of the Reforger and ARMA 4 communities

old jay
#

Tombo, two BI staff members have already said "enough".

image.png
frigid bay
frigid bay
abstract crest
#

You have been necroing this thread for a week now with no new contributions... You have been told to leave it. Given I have seen many threads like this over the last decade where the most passionate were in fact also doing the same thing on the side and were simply trying to take out a competing infractor you may understand why we are losing patience

frigid bay
# abstract crest You have been necroing this thread for a week now with no new contributions... Y...

Doesn't mean you can just drop those kind of comments.
And also, doesn't this show that it's not only a need for one person, but a dozen?
Especially those who currently affect it? (Server owners who try to build a server)

And never wanted to start the discussion again, since I'm patiently waiting for the changes from BI. (Since Arkenson wrote that there will be coming something). I just comment on things where people talk things that are just untrue for me. And just talking about "Obfuscation" shouldn't be in any way wrong.

frigid bay
abstract crest
#

I can drop any sort of comment I like as long as it's within the rules. And given that the entire ARMA modding community almost imploded because of Life in 2015 I don't think my comments on it would be regarded in a negative way by most...

frigid bay
#

Sorry, you can drop those comments. But they are not nice*

abstract crest
#

🤣

frigid bay
abstract crest
#

Not in ARMA 3 it ain't, not anymore

#

And it was a "wretched hive of scum and villainy"

meager fractal
#

!mute 361543267327672340 2d drop - the - topic.

bright brambleBOT
wispy iron
icy pawn
#

I've bought some 3D models from TurboSquid for my server and I'm looking to restrict their usage.
Since I need to ensure that these models aren't used on other servers.
Is there a method to prevent this and maintain exclusive rights?
So they are not used on other servers

zealous ore
icy pawn
#

only an open source github project currently

#

why?

zealous ore
#

just out of curiosity.

#

Once these models are packed and published as a mod to the workbench, you cannot restrict their usage to just your own server, nope

icy pawn
#

Are there any plans for it? I've seen a message from BI where a person said there could be a "whitelist" option in the workshop.
Where you can whitelist servers for the mod.
Since I can't just distrobute the license to everyone. I had to pay for it and if someone else also wants to use it, they need the license first before using.
Or how are all other mods handled that use 3d models from shops like Sketchfab, etc.
Since 90% of the license don't allow this kind of distribution.

teal pecan
icy pawn
teal pecan
#

Also, even if something like that would be worked on, potentially it could/would not be stated publicly for various reasons.
Nevertheless, I legit don't know anything.

old jay
#

You would also need to know the type of license those particular assets were sold under. If it is a restrictive license, Bob's comment applies. I've seen people shell out loads of money only to find out that the asset they purchased could not be used in the manner that they wanted.

https://blog.turbosquid.com/turbosquid-3d-model-license/

TurboSquid Blog
Christell Gause
The TurboSquid 3D Model License - TurboSquid Blog
  1. Entire Agreement. This agreement constitutes the entire agreement between you and TurboSquid relating to your Purchase, unless you have a corporate license agreement with TurboSquid. Corporate licenses are available with additional protections for additional fees. Please contact enterprise@turbosquid.com if your organization requires a corpor...
icy pawn
#

I know that, thats why I asked the author of the model and he said.
As long as only my server is using the model it would be fine.

old jay
#

What was the specific license type?

icy pawn
#

i got it with a custom license

old jay
#

...and what did the text of the custom license state?

icy pawn
old jay
#

Sounds fishy as their custom licenses are pretty specific. But, if thats all you have to show for it, you've essentially wasted your money.

trim peak
# icy pawn this in short

Ask for a refund and delete the models(doubt he will refund you). You wasted your money. Stay away from this type of licensing in the future if you intend to use it in Reforger(most modable games tbh).

barren tartan
#

I just glanced at the Turbosquid license; I assume you are transforming it to a p3d or like and thus satisfying the "Creation" requirements, so basically you are allowed to distribute it as you want as long as you don't give the original easily editable file you received out (they mention simple usage in Unreal and Unity was valid examples).

Your problem seems to be you want to distribute it to only some for some reason. Well first, don't use the Workshop then. Second, distribute your "mod" using a license that does not allow redistribution (though here there might be some restrictions from Arma - I don't know).

teal pecan
#

Limiting redistribution doesn't limit usage though.

barren tartan
#

it does if he is the only one distributing it ? (I guess you are technically correct, that one of the users could use to host a server, for the same set of users unless there is a no hosting clause in the license - which I don't know if such a clause would actually be considered valid, in say, Germany).

dark tulip
#

But models need to be present on the client side as well, so distribution (even if it's a private mod) is still a thing, so if distribution is not allowed, it won't be allowed even when it's "locked" to a single server.

That said;

... In general, to prevent your end-users from obtaining TurboSquid 3D Models, you should use proprietary formats that cannot be extracted, exported, or decompiled without reverse engineering.
(obviously depends on the specific license, ) it's usually allowed by the TurboSquid license to redistribute IF the model is not the original and it's not possible to extract it from the (proprietary) format used by the game.

barren tartan
#

Can be distributed to the players without giving them license to distribute (that's how most commercial software/games) work.. (if you meant of the Turbosquid 3d model; then yes I am assuming that 'user' has the rights to distribute that to players , e.g. in the form of a .p3d)

teal pecan
#

These are two different things though.

#

  1. One thing is distribution.
    As the seller stated it can be on a server, he technically agreed to (partial) distribution as of course the stuff need to get on the server and to the players.
    The distribution usually is only via the workshop, unless somebody steals it and reuploads it or whatever.
    Even when the mod is on a server and requiring players to have it, also they will go through the workshop and the same distribution point to get it. So having it on a server in itself in theory is not distribution.

  2. Limiting the USE to one server, is a very much different thing.
    2.1. Limiting the use of something to one server is only possible with having a server-side mod only. Nevertheless, this is not possible when you are talking about models etc.
    2.2. Theoretically every person with access to the mod could simply local host it with a few clicks. This can not be prevented.

At least I come to the following conclusion:

  • license bad and unusable for Reforger stuff
  • don't buy stuff on "custom" licenses but only buy whatever has a license which permits redistribution and usage of whatever is created from what you bought without monetization
  • if unsure, don't waste money but inform yourself before you spend it
barren tartan
#

Distribution: I don't know the custom license in particular. But going from the skimming the general Turbosquid license linked above:

  • Modifying the 3d model to adapt it for Arma, packaging as a p3d file (and distributing that, not the original file), read to me as no problem to distribute.
  • Yes, most mods are distributed via. the workshop, but you don't have to use it.

Usage: It is true usage and distribution are two different things. By preventing recipients of the mod from distributing themselves you certainly limit usage, but they could run their own server (for the same users that have been distributed the mod - because they are the only ones that have it). Of course you could just write in your license that the mod may only be used to play on a specific server (detailing how to determine that in the license).

Yes all of this can be circumvented by technical means. But not legally, which is why copyright and license texts exists.

frigid bay
#

I think the key problem is that when someone gets the right to a 3d model.
He/the server is allowed to distribute it to the players.
But as soon as other servers start to use that mod too, they distribute the 3d model.

The server which bought the license had to add the mod to the workshop. Since there is no other way to distribute mods to a client. (Which is not a problem in it self. But I think it's a problem when other servers also start to use it. (But idk. if I understand the license from Turbosquid correct)

old jay
#

A lot of “if, and, or buts”. Most of these can be clarified prior to purchase.

barren tartan
#

Unless something changed very recently you don't have to add mods to the workshop to distribute. Is it convenient? Yes. Required? No, not at all.

rigid oracle
#

I think this is just confusion on the part of the the user. When you purchase a model, you purchase a license for you, or a group (size usually stipulated in the license) to edit and work with that model. But you usually do not get the rights to distribute that model in a usable format. Usable in this case meaning editable source. You can't just redistribute as fbx/blend/obj/stl. It must be in a packaged form, ie P3D/XOB. Those formats are considered non usable as source. When you package and upload to workshop, you are not uploading and sharing a source asset. You are uploading assets in a format that should only be readable using Reforger.

Now this is only in the instance where you are allowed to use an asset for games. Editorial license only does not permit the use of packaging for games.

old jay
#

Best answer yet!

frigid bay
trim peak
#

Thing that gets me is that no you do not need to upload it to the workshop to use it but he also states that he can not redistribute it. So how are other players going to use it even if it is just used for that one specific server.. In the end he would have to send the mod to everyone who wants to use it privately which is still distributing it to others which he is apparently not allowed to do. This is just a weird situation lol

frigid bay
old jay
#

Based on what you are stating, I call "BS" on that as that is not how things are done (legally).

#

Considering that you are now on the "not exactly truthful list" I recommend that you stick to the facts. (my personal opinion)

zealous ore
frigid bay
zealous ore
#

as such, i find it very hard to believe that you can distribute the packed model, but just internally. You can either do it, or you cannot, there are no inbetweens

fiery egret
#

This is pure speculation, since we don't know the details, but it may have been seen by both sides as an "exception to the license" given by the author, in addition to what TurboSquid license said, in the same way as modders here sometimes let other people use their content in ways contradicting the original license.
Now the problem with such ad-hoc exceptions is they may not always be well thought through and may not even make sense in the context of the Workshop distribution model (but none of the sides actually knew how that worked prior to giving the agreement).

But again: I'm just speculating

crimson garden
celest sundial
crimson garden
#

👍

lyric light
#

If someone asked me to make the me GUI in return payment and I do it, does that break eula?
2 cases:

  1. I use the arma 3 gui editor (i assume the answer is: UH DUR)
  2. I code it from scratch in VSCode
    Also would different methods change this:
  3. Making it with configs
  4. Making with sqf gui scripts
south remnant
#

cannot pay for anything produced with arma tools

#

so do you use arma tools is the question there

analog sphinx
#

it doesnt use arma tools, BUT an arma feature

celest sundial
vast stump
#

The game itself is non commercial too

lyric light
#

Alright, cool. Thanks for the clarification.
This is about exactly as I understood it.

inland sphinx
# lyric light If someone asked me to make the me GUI in return payment and I do it, does that ...

using Arma 3 game itself not allowed.
VSCode would be fine, but will you be using the game to test it and make sure that what you're making actually works? Using the game again, again not allowed.

But maybe you are a never before seen magician who can do it all in their head perfectly without having to test, and then is so brazen to sell a untested thing to someone else.
Which.. I guess is possible, I've just never seen it before. And knowing Arma 3 GUI chores, I don't think its possible.

There are other 3rd party GUI editors, that might allow commercial license, and may let you also test view your UI outside of the game.
But you would have to fully trust them, and again sell something that you didn't test in the actual game. Which the customer is probably not gonna be happy with.

You could make most of the UI without testing, and produce a bunch of documentation like "When that is to far left, adjust line N by so and so"
So that you can sell the untested version, and let the customer fix it up themselves. Most people that want to buy stuff usually want to buy something finished though

hardy bone
#

You could make most of the UI without testing, and produce a bunch of documentation like "When that is to far left, adjust line N by so and so"
So that you can sell the untested version, and let the customer fix it up themselves. Most people that want to buy stuff usually want to buy something finished though
At that point might as well sell them a course on how to program.....

south remnant
#

good idea i should do that

crimson garden
#

Sell a book about arma modding and then have a small note at the bottom:

"*None of this code has been tested in Arma, it's up to you to fix any errors"

south remnant
#

i am a professional at not testing my cdode

#

not a single bit of medical expansions netcode was tested and it works perfectly

dark tulip
#

Testing in production is the best way of testing 😅

#

But to be sure, just don't buy/sell anything which is specific for Arma.
Getting a 3d model or textures are probably the only things that can 100% be made outside of Arma tools, the rest is is an extremely dark grey up to black area.

abstract crest
#

Well, you could have people beta test your code and then sell it I guess... You yourself would not have touched BI programs 😉

#

Given we are only talking scripts/configs here

#

I assume that's what Mikero did with his tools too 😜

south remnant
#

i still wouldnt get textures that havent been put into arma to see

#

my model guy no longer bothers with textures because they just end up being redone

abstract crest
south remnant
#

precisely

#

nobody can produce commission worthy textures without putting them in arma to check first

chrome hearth
#

I'd say one could definitely make commission worthy textures for Reforger without testing them in game.

#

As far as games on RV, I wouldn't say so.

south remnant
#

ive repressed all knowledge of reforger from my mind

#

anyway this is off otpic

zealous ore
zealous ore
dark tulip
#

True, there's a lot which can be done without the tools.
But the moment you touch animations and sounds (among other things) it's probably a slightly more advanced mid than just a reskin or "yet another rp" mod

#

And those people usually know how it works

mossy yarrow
#

There are people who sells Ripped Assets for 500 Bucks, if these people get caught by BIS will they ever get sentenced for it or nah ?

rugged prawn
frigid bay
old jay
#

"Thinking" can be dangerous. Individuals, teams and communities have already been banned for it. Don't be like them.

mossy yarrow
#

just a question for the future am i allowed to model guns after the A3 guns ?

vast stump
mossy yarrow
#

or expanding on the future setting of arma 3

vast stump
#

how would you go about doing that?

mossy yarrow
vast stump
#

remastering the guns

#

thats the thing you are asking about

mossy yarrow
#

take a screenshot of it from different perspectives, send it to my artist and model it after the reference

vast stump
#

if you involve external paid artist that might step to commercial use zone

#

Id probably ask this from BI legal.

mossy yarrow
#

i see

vast stump
#

to my understanding it would be a no. but BI legal should be able to give you definite answer

meager fractal
#

it could be a no indeed, but if you ask and get permission it becomes a yes
see e.g CUP 🙂

mossy yarrow
vast stump
#

then the weapon would look like the real life gun without the BIs changes

mossy yarrow
#

yes but as i said its a thing i might do in the future was just curious

old jay
#

It is an absolute minefield out there. You've also got to consider Trade Dress:
Trade dress refers to the visual appearance or overall image of a product, its packaging, or even the design of a building. It encompasses elements such as color, shape, texture, and arrangement.
Unlike traditional trade marks, trade dress extends beyond words or symbols. It protects the overall look and feel associated with a product or service.
Example: The distinctive red color and curvy bottle shape of a Coca-Cola bottle constitute its trade dress.

abstract crest
#

H&K are particularly enthusiastic at enforcing their trade dress ownership - though not in games so far

analog sphinx
#

On February 1, 2007, representatives of the SEDENA (Secretaría de la Defensa Nacional) and Heckler & Koch met in Mexico City to address accusations of patent infringement from the German firm. They claimed that the Army "replicated" the design of the HK G36 assault rifle. After an exhibition of detailed models of the FX-05, the HK representatives were convinced that, despite the similarities between the two rifles, there was not a patent infringement, therefore bringing an end to the disagreement. In the end, the German firm stated that they would not sue on the basis that even though the rifle looks similar it is internally different with a different mechanism.

unkempt sorrel
analog sphinx
wild copper
#

Regarding the discussion about Fallout and Bethesda IP, I emailed Bethesda because I was curious.

I sent:


With the acquisition of Zenimax Studios by Microsoft, I've noticed that there is a contradiction in the licenses regarding creating derivative content. I am wanting to know what license to follow if I were to create and freely distribute a modification based on the Fallout universe for another game, using original assets that are made by me, but derived from the Fallout universe.

The Zenimax Media Terms of Service states:

"You acknowledge that You do not have the right to create, publish, distribute, or create derivative works from or use any software programs, utilities, applications, emulators, or tools derived from or created for certain Content (such as Game(s)), except as authorized in writing by an authorized ZeniMax representative"

However, the Game Content Usage Rules published by Microsoft, states:

"Microsoft grants you a personal, non-exclusive, non-sublicenseable, non-transferable, revocable, limited license for you to use and display Game Content and to create derivative works based upon Game Content, strictly for your personal, noncommercial (except as specifically provided below) use"

"These Rules apply to all games and Game Content published and owned by Microsoft Studios and for which Microsoft owns the copyright, trademark or other intellectual property."

As Microsoft now owns Fallout, is the above excerpt from the Zenimax ToS superceded by the Game Content Usage Rules from Microsoft?

Any guidance would be appreciated.

Thank you.```

They said:

```Greetings,
 
Thank you for contacting the general information email address for Bethesda Softworks.
 
In response to your inquiry, please be advised that all of the content including the names appearing in our games are the copyrighted property of Bethesda Softworks LLC and any use thereof is unauthorized. We are not looking to license the rights to any of our copyrighted material at this time.
 
Thank you for your interest in Bethesda Softworks.
 
Kind Regards,
Bethesda Softworks```

Which doesn't really answer the question, at least I don't think so. I emailed back specifically asking whether or not the Game Content Usage Rules override the Zenimax Terms of Service specifically, but I'm not hopeful for clear answer
vast stump
wild copper
#

Yeah, it seems like they interpreted that as me asking if I could license the Fallout IP as well

old jay
#

Thats why any question asked should be extremely specific. State explicitly what it will be used for (and not used for). However, the most restrictive policy applies and in this case, I would say the final answer you receive will (most likely) be a NO.

vast stump
#

there is slight chance to get permissions in cases like this

#

it is rare though

oak hare
#

Modder ranting on BBC News. love it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L71cZvASvAE

YouTube
BBC News
Fallout London: 'Bethesda didn't tell us about Fallout 4 update' | ...

The lead developer for Fallout London has revealed his team had "zero correspondence with Bethesda" over the update of Fallout 4.

Fallout London, an unofficial mod which runs off Fallout 4, has now been postponed due an update heading to consoles and PC on April 25.

Dean Carter spoke to BBC Newsbeat to talk about the frustration and lack of ...

▶ Play video
dark tulip
#

I don't understand the rant, you can't expect a company to give modders the release date of a surprise update (no matter how big or small).

It's annoying and frustrating, but as a modder you know (breaking) updates can happen at any time, even when your mod is "bigger" than the game itself.

limber oak
#

Bethesda does have a tendency to keep a game "dead" and easy to keep mods update for yeaaaaars and then suddenly break everything, like what happened with Skyrim

#

Which is... Frustrating.

pliant oracle
north orchid
#

I never thought that FO: London will ever come because it was announced like 5 or 6 years ago. And suddenly they want to release it and suddenly a FO 4 update will come and suddenly they cannot release it anymore. Sounds more like a excuse to me.

vast stump
#

#other_games_chat would be the place to continue in case there is more to discuss about Fallout 4

vast stump
wild copper
hushed gyro
#

How do IP rights for real life vehicles in the vanilla arma series work? For example in Arma 2 with the A10/C130/F35. A10 the company is defunct, so perhaps that doesn't matter, but the C-130/F35 trademark and copyright is owned and maintained by Lockheed Martin. Is that something BI would have gotten permission to use, or is something like that just allowed to be used without permission?

south remnant
#

military designations are not trademarked

hushed gyro
willow crane
# hushed gyro https://tsdr.uspto.gov/#caseNumber=78762204&caseSearchType=US_APPLICATION&caseTy...

Only applies to "scale model aircraft, toy aircraft"

look under "Goods and Services". This applies to Trademark law which uses categories to define and scope the use of a trademark. You can trademark a name for one use and it still be legal for other applications.

Have a read of this https://arma3practicalipguide.blogspot.com/p/trademark.html

Using Trademarks

Let's just say it first and move on. DO NOT USE TRADEMARKS AND BRANDING! This is only my suggestion but Trademarks are registered and pr...

hushed gyro
willow crane
# hushed gyro Ah i must have grabbed the wrong one. There is also this one that specifically s...

Still the same issues for our use case. Its not a breach of IP Law to call a C-130 a C-130 Hercules. Now if Lockheed has a special logo that represents that trademark and you use that. They can that take legal action.

Now if you make your own look alike aircraft and call it a C-130 you are competing in the same market as them using their established brand to sell your product. That is illegal.

#

Much like you cannot use the Coke Logo to promote your own brand of cola.

#

But you can paint the coke logo on your wall.

#

You arent profiting from it and you arent misrepresenting or misusing their branding and trademarks. The moment you do they can take action.

mossy yarrow
#

How can i force a takedown of a reupload of my mod on a website called Skymods ?

vast stump
mossy yarrow
#

I see, thanks for the fast reply. Appreciate it

#

@chrome plinth can i dm you ?

mighty plaza
#

Are we able to use reforgers music files in youtube videos on Reforger, assuming it is unmonetized? "Happy Monday in a factory" needs to be set loose

inland sphinx
abstract crest
#

Oof, I specifically use ARMA 2/3 OST in my ARMA 2/3 videos... Then again, only like 10 people watch any of them 🙂

celest sundial
mighty plaza
#

Right makes sense. I was going to use it in my mod trailer

south remnant
strong dirge
#

Fair use no?

south remnant
mighty plaza
dark tulip
#

So because it's easy to do, it becomes legal?

#

I know how to murder someone, so it's fair use to use that skill and can't be illegal with that logic 🤷🤦‍♂️

pliant oracle
#

what is the correct way to credit BI in the (Arma related) video?

inland sphinx
floral echo
#

If i use a template such as this https://github.com/liamcannon/Hemtt-Template/ as a base for making a mod, do i have to use the templates MIT license for the rest of my mod aswell or can i switch to a more restrictive license?

celest sundial
brave summit
#

Is LGPL or MPL a suitable license for a small Arma 3 mod (sqf scripts)?

eager ether
# brave summit Is LGPL or MPL a suitable license for a small Arma 3 mod (sqf scripts)?

Could be. What is your intention? Are your scripts available for proprietary or commercial use? That seems to be what LGPL/MPL is primarily used for. Scripts are typically an IP of the creator and typically not subject to BI tool usage if you are not using BI tools, e.g. VS code or notepad++. It is your code. You can assign any license you want assuming it's not modified by creating a Pbo or sqfc file from it. Text is text and yours do with what you wish. Just be careful you don't open any unwanted doors with the license you choose.

brave summit
# eager ether Could be. What is your intention? Are your scripts available for proprietary or ...

I want people to be able to use, modify, distribute and combine the code with their works (scenarios or addons..), but they should make the modified version available to other people under the same or similar conditions, except for the parts of their own code independent of my work. Standard GPL seems a bit too restrictive. LGPL is focused on libraries, but it somewhat fits my requirements. And MPL does too, but I am not completely sure. From checking some GitHub repos, I can find mostly GPL or MIT projects. I also don´t want to deviate from the common practise too much.

hardy bone
eager ether
# brave summit I want people to be able to use, modify, distribute and combine the code with th...

So if your mod of scripts will be intended to be modified and repackaged (e.g. as a PBO), but you don't care if it is used in combination with non-open source or non-LGPL software, then LGPL is probably more likely the way you want to go. However, GPL itself only requires compatible licensing - not strictly ONLY GPL licensing. Which I would say I haven't run into a non-compatible GPL license within the community personally so far. Additionally, you can modify the license to suit your needs. But as Hollowbrian has mentioned, there are alternatives. https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses

Bohemia Interactive
Licenses | Bohemia Interactive

Bohemia Interactive is an independent game development studio, known for the Arma series, DayZ, Take On Mars, Ylands, and more.

lavish basalt
#

Which model you talk about, maybe is one considerable point

#

That's more of Arma EULA thing then. You can't unbinarize model to export

#

Convert encripted (not really, sort of) into readable

#

No

#

It's P3D thing

#

Pretty much

south remnant
#

binarized p3ds are a format in which only arma can read them, you cannot convert them out of it whilst complying with arma eula

old jay
zealous moon
#

IIRC, even RHS' APL-SA files are binarised

#

Although it has been a while since I used them so I'm not 100%

south remnant
#

if a p3d isnt binarised the mod isnt worth using

zealous ore
#

nope. and that is answering specifically about RHS

zealous moon
#

"i wouldn't claim ownership of the assets and credit the authors as long im allowed to open the pbo."

#

Is this a threat?

#

Or just poorly worded?

#

Also, I'm trying to find the EULA that makes mention of the limitations for remixing of base content, could anyone direct me to it?

#

Because community.bistudio manages to imply that we aren't even allowed to edit textures, so I'd love to take a peek at the source

south remnant
zealous moon
#

Wait, seriously?

south remnant
#

yes

zealous moon
#

Not that I don't believe you, but an official weigh-in on this would be very appreciated

vast stump
#

retexturing is allowed in Arma context

#

touching models. no

#

but technically EULA prohibits all reverese engineering

zealous moon
#

Unless "Data" doesn't mean Data

vast stump
#

licenced datapacks are different thing

#

they are separate packages that are shared with such license

zealous moon
#

Right, but this implies that without LDPs for Arma 3 being released, we can't even edit textures

vast stump
#

they are separate entity from game data

#

but we can. BI could remove anyones work if they wanted to though

#

retexturing technically does not need original texture files either

#

it can be done by just painting colors on empty canvas

south remnant
#

giving people free reign over retextures is also a pretty silly idea

zealous moon
#

Right, but most if not all retextures derive from existing textures used as templates, keeping elements of the original in some way shape or form

#

Which the incredibly vague wording on the community page could be said to imply is not allowed

vast stump
#

btw the LDPs dont contain textures anyway

zealous moon
#

All I’m saying is that the page could use clearer language

#

I’m not sure exactly who would be in charge of that, but like I said, the vagueness of the word “data” isn’t helpful for anyone

vast stump
#

it covers everything in the game files

zealous moon
#

Including textures, which aren’t in the LDPs at all, which means that about 90% of the actual mods on the workshop violate the EULA

#

Unless they don’t, in which case the community page is inaccurate and needs to be rewritten

south remnant
zealous moon
#

God

#

Anyway

zealous moon
zealous moon
abstract crest
#

I guess as a rule of thumb it could be okay if the texture is used in a hidden selection? 🤔 At least specifically for ARMA 3, pre-ARMA 3 if it's in an LDP or Samples pack then it has an APL-derived license ofc

zealous moon
#

Shrugs

zealous moon
meager fractal
#

it's not "open bar by default", you have to provide evidence you can, not the other way around

zealous moon
#

I'm not saying that

#

I genuinely want to read it

meager fractal
#

game's EULA would be it

zealous moon
#

This one?

meager fractal
#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

zealous moon
#

That ain't it, nothing in there that isn't a blanket ban on modding, unless it applies directly to the game's codebase and not the assets

#

If I'm interpreting this section correctly, at least

#

As a Subject to the Grant of License herein above, you may not, in whole or in part, copy, duplicate, reproduce, translate, reverse-engineer, modify, disassemble, decompile, derive source code, create derivative works based on the Program, remove any proprietary notices or labels from the Program or otherwise modify the Program without the prior written consent of the Licensor.

south remnant
#

there is a blanket ban on everything

#

you can only do what is permitted in the eula

zealous moon
#

The EULA doesn't permit modding at all, if that line up there is anything to go by

south remnant
#

damn its almost as if ive been saying that the entire time

#

you cannot use base arma content in creating modding, bohemia choose to tolerate it and only enforce it selectively

zealous moon
#

I suppose the question then, is why enforce it against models but basically nothing else?

#

It's just a weird decision to me

south remnant
#

¯_(ツ)_/¯

abstract crest
#

Because they provide tools to convert paas to a standard image format and back but do not provide tools to debinarize models? But KJW's point is the best... they ban everything and enforce some things

zealous moon
#

Yeah, I think I got that figured now

#

At this point I'm just curious as to the reasoning behind the choice

rapid escarp
zealous moon
#

Okay, but I'm referring to in the context of A3 modding specifically

#

I've seen A3 models in other games in the past, so it's not keeping them out of anyone's hands but the actual A3 modding community

rapid escarp
#

No, but it reduces it and provides a legal framework for enforcing the EULA. It's like your insurance company wont pay out if you leave your door open

zealous moon
#

There alread is one though, you can still specify in the EULA that people aren't allowed to sell parts of your product, or use them in other games/media

#

In fact, it does specify that

abstract crest
abstract crest
zealous moon
#

So why aren't we allowed to do it for the game they come from?

#

They're going back where they came from

rapid escarp
#

Because it weakens the EULA in cases where they need it

abstract crest
#

Because they say so and enforce it. That is the end of the story really. A small limitation given all the stuff they do allow, and, no, they are not going backwards lol, in fact in some aspects they are more permissive now

zealous moon
#

I mean the assets are going back where they came from

rapid escarp
#

BI do release their models for editing eventually

abstract crest
#

We already know that there will be ARMA 3 Licensed Data Packages, just not when... soon™️

rapid escarp
#

Just be patient

zealous moon
#

Not that BI are regressing or anything like that

vast stump
#

it is what it is.

#

and nothing will change it

zealous moon
#

I know that, I'm just curious

#

I'm allowed to be, aren't I?

vast stump
#

sure

#

but you wont get any real answers

#

the way you want

zealous moon
#

And what might that be?

abstract crest
#

I mean, the question was answered days ago. In general BI allow retextures as an exception to the things that they disallow...

vast stump
rapid escarp
#

There's also the case that BI work with external artists and the contracts they make with those people do not extent to releasing their work in editable formats. For example, the CDLC models will not be released as licenced data

zealous moon
#

I mean, there's every chance someone could answer

vast stump
#

so best to steer the energy from this to making stuff

abstract crest
#

Honestly not sure whether BI have ever specifically commented on this in the entire history of the franchise, probably prefer it that way

zealous moon
abstract crest
rapid escarp
#

Yes by their own choice to release those templates. They can also choose to release the model files if they want. But BI cannot AFAIK make that decision for them

zealous moon
#

Yeah I remember that from the 10th anniversary Q&A stream

#

I gotta catch the next one, 11th already happened this year, right?

abstract crest
#

September... unlikely to be specific celebration until the 15th anniversary. Maybe they'll announce the date for ARMA 4 in that one 🤣

zealous moon
#

Hah, if only

#

Welp, cheers for the discussion either way

pale sphinx
#

What license does the steam achievement images for arma3 fall under?

dark tulip
#

I assume proprietary (aka not allowed to use) as there is no license attached to it.
But you could ask BI for permission if you would like to use them.

pale sphinx
#

Only thing I can find is the wiki mentioning fair use under US law but that doesn't go far, messaging BI it is it seems

vast stump
#

MarioE might be the best contact point for modding related questions like that

mossy yarrow
#

uhhh ... is this true ? i enabled deep scanning

gw_reuploads.png
south remnant
#

deep scanning finds matches in everything ime

mossy yarrow
celest sundial
#

We also look inside pbos there and if you have a file in common with those mods then it will report back. Could he a shared texture etc. Check what files it found and add those to your exclude list if they are not your own creation but a common include

placid swift
#

on the topic of purchased models;
I know the license dont allow for sharing of source files, obviously, but many allow to be used in as many of own projects as possible;

Is it allowed to share let's say a built .pbo or a .p3d to another mod, if they dont get access to source files?

I'd wager it's either a no or depending on license, but im just curious.

celest sundial
# placid swift on the topic of purchased models; I know the license dont allow for sharing of s...

If you talk about sites like CGTrader etc, then for thier typical licenses it would be enough if the model is binarized (for A3) and inside the pbo. That is the same as if somebody put it into their unity or unreal project. the the purpose is so you do not put the source version up on your website and anybody can not download it there for free or less money than the trading platform. They want to avoid loosing money - for themselves and the authors of course. For Arma Reforger models are published only in our own format, so there no manual steps are needed.

placid swift
#

hmm very interesting, thank you!

vast stump
#

If a vehicle like that is wanted to be "shared" between projects, Best approach would be publish that vehicle as independent addon with retexture capability so any projects can use it as dependency and apply their retexture on it.

placid swift
#

Yeah that is propably best.
Not planning to so stuff like that, the logistics of it just interest me

stoic lake
#

What are the licenses regarding music / sounds mods?

#

Are they allowed to be done or is it a dmca

vast stump
#

Usually music is not allowed to be distributed but there are also some free music around

stoic lake
#

Ok and if its from other games?

vast stump
#

Music and sounds taken from say games is nono

#

Unless the games licensing specifically allows it. Which they usually do not

stoic lake
#

Okay , so why are those mods not being taken off the workshop if the IP rights are so strict then?

vast stump
#

Nobody checks everything in workshop.

stoic lake
#

🤷‍♂️ No wonder we can't have nice things

vast stump
#

What is nice about stealing?

stoic lake
#

I'm not going to get into this here because I already know an admin will say something

vast stump
stoic lake
#

🤣 🤣

#

Whatever you say bud 👍

zealous ore
# stoic lake Whatever you say bud 👍

the TOS for the workbench clearly states you need to own/have permission over all files being uploaded to the workshop. If you don’t, then you shouldn’t upload it. Pretty straightforward

stoic lake
zealous ore
old jay
stoic lake
mossy yarrow
#

Question, how does BI handle Movies made within Arma 3 that uses voicelines from other Games like Call of Duty, Warthunder, Escape from Tarkov, Battlefield 4 etc ?

celest sundial
mossy yarrow
dark tulip
#

That sounds like a problem between the IP holders and YouTube.

Since video recordings usually fall under Fan Generated Content, this shouldn't be an issue.
However the audio may be copyrighted.

old jay
#

Also, what's not being said, is that if you choose to do something like this on your own, you must take full responsibility for your actions. Always err on the side of caution.

What the average user doesn't see is just how much content is removed daily:

"in the first half of 2023, there were approximately 729 million copyright claims submitted via automatic detection systems.
Of these claims, about 2.2 million videos were reinstated due to false copyright claims, representing about 1% of the total claims"

mossy yarrow
#

I meant "there are several Videos that uses Arma 3 for Machinimas with Soundfiles of CoD and other Games"

meager fractal
#

report to Activision

abstract crest
#

Not sure what that has to do with BI... Now if people were uploading CoD videos with Miller voicelines then that *would^, I am sure, be an issue for BI

mossy yarrow
abstract crest
#

The video isn't made by BI and their assets are not being appropriated. Then again, BI's statement on video content allows them to do what they want as far as taking stuff down...

analog sphinx
#

Hi fellas, it looks like GSC (the studio that made the og STALKER trilogy and the new STALKER 2) no longer permits the use of their assets in 3rd party engines as well as the direct portrayal of the STALKER games in other games/engines.

Apparently quite recently they were asked about the DayZ stalker server situation and it's still in evaluation. Idk if any BI member could shed some light in what's allowed to be made regarding those things in A3, AR and DayZ since there are maps that are straight up ports or use a lot of assets from the original games back when they were permissive enough in those regards.

7wj0hcpkgq8d1.png
vast stump
#

👆 perhaps something @coral juniper could comment on?

abstract crest
vast stump
#

Id suppose its more about asking properly

#

most people dont

celest sundial
# analog sphinx Hi fellas, it looks like GSC (the studio that made the og STALKER trilogy and th...

Yes I can comment on it both both perspectives. The rules on the screenshot (without having confirmed this source, but no reason to doubt it either) are absoletly making sense and are not a betrayal of any kind. Their studio tries to be as open and fair as possible to their community to allow mod making and porting between their games. They have exactly 0 interest in stalker content being taken and put into other games they have 0 affiliation with. Why would they? The works there used by modders remain their IP, they are not under an open license. The company is free to decide how the assets are being used in their and their communities best interest.
We have the same rules for BI games. We have licenses like APL or ADPL which allow porting of Arma/DayZ mod branded content between our games. So "nostalgia" projects like CUP are possible. We also do not permit you to take arma 3 vehicles and weapons, maps etc and mod them into a stalker game.
It is as simple as that.

Given the increase of requests on the subject matter they likely wanted to clarify it once so they do not get the same inquery many times. The woring is pretty clear. Unless you have explicit permission (like Sumrak for example obtained) you can not use Stalker assets in ANY of our games. We can not give you permission over things we did not create - obviously. Any stalker content that was not produced under a license that permits the current use or has explict permission - AND is reported by the IP owner (GSC in this case) would be taken down from the workshops.

abstract crest
celest sundial
#

Thank you for linking the source 🙂 @meager fractal we can update the BIKI IP page with known no permission unless manually issued.

abstract crest
#

In addition, the allowing of the use was never an official statement by GSC. Was a forum post by a senior employee only iirc

analog sphinx
#

yeah, for the longest time that was actually the go to since they went almost radio silent for like, 7 or 8 years i believe?

abstract crest
#

It's also nice that it seems like they will allow Anomaly going forward so long as they add a disclaimer and links to buy the original games, though I guess there would be a decline in good will if they hadn't 😉

#

But they are an exception since they use a very modified XRay engine (mods must run under their engine or a derivative, which seems to preclude DayZ or ARMA mods)

celest sundial
#

I read the website further, they even explain how e.g. an dayz stalker mod should handle it and how they are allowed to keep their work. pretty fair rules. But this of course only applies to those who already created something. No new "infringements" should be produced that knowingly violate their license. Misread.

abstract crest
celest sundial
#

oh so they refer to only modded x-ray engine stuff, not other games entirely. okay i see. my bad.

abstract crest
#

Does not preclude mod creators from requesting to be grand fathered in ofc. But without explicit permission they could be targeted fairly by GSC

#

Heh 🙂 5. FOR THOSE OF YOU WHO HAVE NOT FOUND YOUR ANSWERS IN THESE GUIDELINES If you have read until this part, then you probably want to do something prohibited or not specifically mentioned by these guidelines. On a general note, you really should not, but everything has exceptions. Contact our legal team via legal@gsc-game.com and have a chat before you engage in such activity (we really do not want to waste hours of your creativity). There is a great chance something can be done about your situation. Response may take some time, but remember – not receiving any answer does not entitle you to do the thing you have in mind. Lawyers are busy and lazy at the same time, but they do care about the games and community, give them time ;)

meager fractal
abstract crest
#

One further data point. From GSC's Community Manager in this thread https://www.reddit.com/r/stalker/comments/1do88uq/comment/laca4r7/?utm_source=share&utm_medium=web3x&utm_name=web3xcss&utm_term=1&utm_content=share_button ```With DayZ it's a bit complicated. I don't have the answer for now.

P.S.: That's funny, I've got 1K hours in DayZ and still didn't find the time to visit such servers.```

Reddit
Kenny_PropheT's comment on "New GSC fan content guidelines prohibit...

Explore this conversation and more from the stalker community

analog sphinx
misty bramble
#

Question, Is there anything baring a Modder from using a custom license that states his mods can only be hosted by his server and no other server?

south remnant
#

for which platform

rugged prawn
misty bramble
rugged prawn
#

Read though the thread

dark tulip
#

For the benefit of the entire User community, You give us an irrevocable permission to use, copy, modify and adapt the game content and share it with other Users of Our game in multiplayer or as an online download.
Source: https://reforger.armaplatform.com/eula

So basically, if you made content for Reforger and upload it to the workshop, BI has the right to share it and have it being used by everyone who downloads it.

Arma Reforger
EULA | Arma Reforger
old jay
#

Another reason (to prohibit) is due to intent. In the past, users would try to restrict content to a specific server in an attempt to secretly monetise "unique" (ripped/stolen mods, etc) content.

misty bramble
#

I'm not seeing anything that actually clearly states you can't limit your mods to your own servers.

Those lines are just saying by uploading you give BI the right to distribute your content via the workshop.

misty bramble
inland sphinx
#

Limiting is complex.
You cannot have malicious code in your mod, and killing the game because a server isn't allowed to use it, is malicious

#

You also cannot obfuscate. So it would be easy to make a sub-mod that just patches out your check

south remnant
#

It just relies on goodwill

#

for a3 i have my mod just uploaded locally to my server because it can break servers if used wrong

dark tulip
#

For A3 we have a mod which requires a database connection to work as intended.
If no DB is available, the core feature just doesn't work but won't break the game in any way.

inland sphinx
#

I actually don't remember hearing about someone making a license to limit use to specific server.
The EULA talks about how your license has to be compatible.
Like you cannot allow commercial use.
But I don't see how it would forbid you from limiting who can use it.
It even specifically mentions that you can put restrictions on how your content can be used

dark tulip
#

So there are many ways to make it only work on your server, but with a bit of knowledge can be reverse engineered.

Obviously with AR it's a bit harder since we don't have server-side mods or (private) repositories for mods outside the workshop.
But even then... My A3 mod is open source and is still useless when not running on our server 🤷

south remnant
#

You can restrict it legally but the enforcement of such is basically impossible and relies solely on goodwill

#

Which a good 95% of the arma community does not have

abstract crest
#

The wording of the original clause that did not include the second clause is to this day still a pain in the arse in the DayZ modding community...

dark tulip
#

Till you read the EULA/TOS of the workshop, which includes the exact same thing 🤷

celest sundial
ornate patrol
#

This sample data pack from Arma 2 is missing

image.png
#

as well as several others

pliant oracle
#

probably server just down

inland sphinx
ornate patrol
#

Weird, might be location then?

crimson garden
#

Quick question about a part of the APL-ND license:

"No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

Would taking a p3d out of addon and re-uploading it without modification count as remixing or transforming?

vast stump
#

you can not take someone elses models

#

that is a big no no

crimson garden
#

Oh yeah 100%, just had someone ask me about it (about our own models) since we didn't have an official license picked

vast stump
#

then most restrictive rules apply to the unlicensed material

#

can use in game, not really anything else

crimson garden
#

Yeah that's what I assumed, just wanted to get a better answer than "I think".

abstract crest
#

APL-ND does allow resharing though just not on Steam, but removing something would be transforming so the whole mod would have to be shared instead

#

The not on Steam bit is because of the Steam Workshop EULA that prevents reuploads of any APL licensed material without explicit permission

zenith turret
#

is it allowed to override a prefab in a mod that has a APL-ND license, if the original author is credited?

#

say i make a object like a gate, and put it up as APL-ND, can someone else use the mod and override the prefab so they can change things, like put a texture on it? as long as i am credited?

#

@vast stump

#

on reforger*

abstract crest
#

They cannot

#

That's the ND part: No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material. Overriding a prefab would be transforming

zenith turret
#

can i get a green name to chime in on this

#

to confirm

vast stump
meager fractal
#

PS: green = dev, not lawyer 🙃

zenith turret
#

cool thank you

icy linden
#

if I make a "license script" that immediately removes my vehicle once spawned on a server that is "not licensed", but does not cause any crashes, is this allowed?

celest sundial
#

From the pure IP rights standpoint you could impose downstream restrictions in Arma Reforger (we will explain more on the topic in the upcoming blog post - we got the final information we needed this week so now we are in the process of putting it together). If you target specific players to exclude them from possible gameplay we would for sure make us of our reserved moderation rights and ban the mod. Can you perhaps elaborate your specific need more so we can give you a fitting answer for your situation? The topic is rather slippery

icy linden
celest sundial
icy linden
celest sundial
#

Overriding a prefab does not modify your source and reupload it so its perfectly fine and can not be forbidden by any type of license.

south remnant
#

Overriding =/= modification

#

You can just override your script with whatever the enscript equivalent of systemChat "lol :D" is

abstract crest
#

Better to simply use a custom license that forbids use of the mod with derivatives. RHS license is a decent example

#

BI have to honor the terms of custom licenses on their workshop I assume?

abstract crest
south remnant
#

same but apl-nd likely defines things differently

abstract crest
#

Certainly if we're talking scripts that are unique to the primary mod

abstract crest
#

Seems pretty clear

south remnant
#

oh yeah

#

true

abstract crest
#

So if you have a custom script that does not exist in Reforger and someone overrides it then it seems like a clear case of transformation or building upon

normal pond
#

On the other hand, I'll time how long it will take me to find a way around it dogeKek

abstract crest
#

The issue is can someone produce a mod that overrides your function that does that...

normal pond
#

OR

abstract crest
#

If you are APL-ND

normal pond
#

You can call your mod ZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

#

Why not? I am not deriving from your work

abstract crest
#

You are "building upon" if you take my function and change it!

normal pond
#

I am not taking your function, I am skipping it

abstract crest
#

That's transforming my mod... 😉

normal pond
#

if you change any base game function and then release your mod as apl-nd, other mods then changes the same base function...

abstract crest
#

Again though, as I started with, use a custom license like RHS's or CUP's and don't bother with the APL licenses that were created for different times when workshops did not exist

normal pond
#

again, not a lawyer, but don't think any license can prevent you from writing your own mod, that just has the same function name in it shrunk

abstract crest
#

License can say anything it wants... "You cannot use this mod on a server where another mod alters the functionality within this mod"

#

Otherwise RHS could not prevent certain retextures for example...

normal pond
#

that is true, but in that case you can just slap in "you can't use this mod unless you have written permission by author" in there and no need to deal with drms

abstract crest
#

True, but I would add "on a server" to save work for myself...

normal pond
#

the problem comes with enforcing that rtzW
I am just saying, that if a mod get's popular enough, which as bacon is asking, it will, there will be a DRM removers

abstract crest
#

Worse, if you are vanilla APL-ND they can even redistribute your mod on the Reforger Workshop themselves and then override that mod lol...

icy linden
#

Since it would be building upon my content by creating content that requires and modifies mine

hardy bone
#

Though, why would you restrict your content to your server only?

celest sundial
#

If you make a mod and you feel entitled to micro manage who can use it, perhaps publishing it on the workshop for everyone to use is not the best place. You can also sideload mods you share only with a few people.

normal pond
#

^^

celest sundial
#

If you make a "Arkensors Server Mod" that is full of my name and logo etc - its pretty clear what community it is, and its rather unattractive for anybody else to use. or they advertise for me if they use it regardless. if they would be ripping out my content, remove all the watermarks and reupload it, they would be banned due to license violation. if they somehow mange to replace all obvious giveaways of the original author through overrides alone - without having a dertivative (e.g. editing my texture and reuploading it) then they still list me in the dependencies and they will still see my class names in the code etc. the player ingame might then not see it, buts its clear from where it comes from. Any if any allegations of "this server copied that server" arises, a user will open the files, show on reddit how its clearly using another communities work - trying to copy cat - and they will likely close down in shame. This topic is not new. We handled it the same way in Arma 3 and in the end it was not a big issue. People knew balataned copies. Some choose to play regardless, but those are not stopped by rules or licenses. They ignore it anyway, so your DRM has no value to them at all.

south remnant
#

and you feel entitled to micro manage who can use it
what frankly disgusting wording of "i just wanted to make a mod for me and my friends"

#

it is the right of a content creator to dictate who can or cannot use the content they author, regardless of your personal feelings or views on the matter

#

there is no "feeling" entitled to "micro manage" - there is a right of a creator to do so

celest sundial
#

If its just you and your friends choose unlisted item. Only your friends joining your private password protected server will even know this mod exists and download it

normal pond
#

well, "license" sure does sound like "pay me for it" tbh
That would be the number 1 usecase for a DRM

celest sundial
#

What we do not want is mod creators making something and then you have to obtain permission externally to be able to actually use it. Even though its there for you to start, some abitrary rules prevent certain people from using it. This leads to discrimination by what ever criterion the mod author might choose. If you make a public mod, everyone will use it as is, maybe tweak it to their liking by overriding configs in sub mods etc. You are simply not entitled to choose how other people might enjoy your content. You can not decide if and how other people can have fun with it. There are more valid use cases like community trying to stand out and having "their specific content" and I explained how that would work regardless. But a generic mod that one community e.g. pays to get license usage rights and another random communities request for it is ignored, or they fight and as punishment they are no longer allowed to use it ... that will just create even more toxicity. And in AR we want less toxic server owners and modders than in A3 and DZ. Its no secret that it has not been going well there. Its not many but enough to turn away others.

south remnant
#

Yikes

#

Definitely not moving to AR

celest sundial
#

If you think that your mod should only be played in one certain way and insist nobody is allowed to ever so slightly change the experience then yes probably our game community is not for you. Not only AR but also any other future title from us.

normal pond
#

Even making mods unobfuscable is a step in the right direction. Clapping for that (while hating mikero)

celest sundial
#

Do not hate Mikero for it. Hate the toxic environment that created the need for people to attempt and protect their work against plain theft that way.

normal pond
#

Well, stealing the pbo itself is not that hard. Stealing content from inside the pbo is harder at that point. Unfortunately was a big pia when we were starting and wanted to look at how some things are done.

celest sundial
#

Some people simply get so frustrated that people never asked for permission that they do not want to share any source with anybody anymore. In Arma 2 people were much nicer to each other and were on a gentlemans agreement that if you take code you simply credit it right there in code or mission credits etc. That faded away when A3 became mainstream and attracted many casual server owners and modders.

south remnant
#

It's not up to Bohemia to decide if creators can or can't use the rights they have in creating their own content, regardless of how much their tools were used in the creation or where it's being hosted (which, by the way, seems to be incredibly difficult to pin down, wonder why) -- ESPECIALLY when the reasoning for that is that you're able to just ban the individuals for license violation... when BI legal not responding or acting is one of the most frequent topics in this channel as well as the main ip violations channel. The only time I've seen action from BI legal has been when content from other A3 games has been ported - it's clear that either the team just don't care for content creators' rights (which is being very heavily implied here) or has a backlog extending years... At which point the move OFF of the steam workshop where DMCA notifications are handled by a third party legal team (thus alleviating work for your own to do, which seems to be sorely needed) is even more of a stupid idea if your own legal team is incapable of handling the notifications - which most certainly seems to be the case.

I have not seen even a shred of official support for content creators from Bohemia for years at this point. You're all perfectly happy to showcase what content creators produce once they do so and yet when said creators need assistance in ensuring their content remains theirs (i.e when Bohemia legal is notified of reuploaded content/repeat offenders) there is none given unless it is taking out of Bohemia's pocket with content from other BI titles being used.

You can remove obfuscation and claim that you're trying to stop the "toxic server owners and modders" from A3 and DZ from having a leg to stand on, but when you are doing NOTHING when creators come forward with infringements of their content, sorry but it's just hot air and nonsense.

#

Combined with a move in entirely the wrong direction for content protection and making it more difficult for people to write even the most basic code, it is clear that there is very little thought being put into the content creators that you so desperately rely on to finish your titles. For a game that would've died about 8 years ago if not supported by modders, the lack of support provided to them should be at best an embarrassment. You can continue to give hypocritical hot air about how you're going to somehow miraculously reform your community in one where IP theft is not even thought of (which, by the way, how many people have actually paid for Adobe Substance Painter or other Adobe products they use in creating the content for your platform) and make very little movements towards doing so and just continuing to strip away what people can/can't do to protect their content themselves, or you can do what is actually supposed to be happening and get a legal team that actually enforces the rights of creators.

#

tl;dr BI legal is disgracefully poor at enforcing the rights of creators and the view that you should just report the reuploaders and not protect your own content is one that originates from some magical fairy land where legal do their job

hardy bone
abstract crest
#

I would suspect more DZSA modders work with Reforger than ARMA 3 ones, but that's just a perception...

celest sundial
#

It's not up to Bohemia to decide if creators can or can't use the rights they have in creating their own content, regardless of how much their tools were used in the creation or where it's being hosted
If you publish it on our workshop - and use public visiblity - yes it is very much our decision how to handle it. We give as much freedom as we can, while installing guide rails for things we know are troublesome otherwise.

I have not seen even a shred of official support for content creators from Bohemia for years at this point. ...
If another party infringes your rights we are not your mediator. If we became part of every little dispute over who stole stole what from whom we would need a large team which does nothing else each day than chatting with people saying "no uh, I made it ... oh actually we once worked together but now we split" etc... No game publisher does it. Steam does not do it either for their workshop. You claim and resolve it directly with other parties.
We very much provide official support by answering questions around the topic, giving those who ask necessary info if they have been violated or something was filed against them.

I understand you are not satisfied with the speed or any action at all taken by the BI legal department and this concern is known. We are working on policy changes and easier processing pipelines to be able to handle valid reports and avoid them being drowned in useless nonsese spam level reports. I know you already have your opinion and are unlikely to change it or put any merit to my words, but it the truth. It is a very slow process, involving many people and dealing with many complications due to the international aspect of our community. Timezones, language barriers and many mis-conceptions about how IP rights even work are not helpful so we try to eliminate all these factors one by one.

First is the blog post mentioned a few times before that will have very clear black and white rules with many examples of what can be done and what not. With reasons why, citing the relevant references in the legal texts for them. So no guessing or interpretation, it will be a plain fact that can be pointed to and relied upon.

abstract crest
#

Also, while right now with Reforger's Workshop the workload of legal is perhaps manageable, what happens if everyone moves to ARMA 4 when it comes out in a few years. Is legal being expanded to deal with an ARMA 3/DZSA sized workshop run by BI?

south remnant
#

yes it is very much our decision how to handle it
no its not, you cannot take away creators' rights by whims. they are not rights in that case.

we are not your mediator.
it is hosted on your workshop, so either provide content creators with legal addresses of other content creators infringing upon their work so we can send lawyers over, or act as a mediator as steam does. willing to bet which one you'll get told to do.

I'm fully aware that legal process takes a while, but it does NOT take years to simply validate the creator when provided with the evidence laid plain and bare before you. I thought you weren't a mediator? I don't care how long or how poorly equipped your legal team is or is not. Your move away from the steam workshop is causing these issues to become even more prevalent by moving players away from a legal team who are capable of actually enforcing the IP laws that a workshop requires to be enforced. Your words may be good but they are entirely meaningless until anything is done to actually alleviate things.

The "international aspect of our community" is also complete bullshit given only the laws to where it is being hosted apply, as has been very clearly established here with discussion about the Steam Workshop. It's not up to you for your players to be informed, it's up to you to ensure the content hosted on your platform is not infringing on the IP rights of others, which has had very little done. Pretty easy for people to ask a lawyer if they need to inform themselves about IP rights.

analog sphinx
abstract crest
south remnant
celest sundial
#

We initially discussed how it's not possible to give away free lemonade and forbid people to mix it with other drinks. That was the main subject I wanted to comment on. Not sure why it's now a thing about legal department enforcement. There is nothing more to be said there

abstract crest
analog sphinx
abstract crest
#

Right now we rely both on Valve's legal department and sensible EULA

#

I mean, we're gonna be sending DMCAs to BI... not the infringer

#

Like we do with Valve right now

#

As an example, why does the Reforger Workshop EULA not say: You represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, with respect to a Workshop Contribution to which others contributed besides you, by you and the other contributors, and in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution on behalf of those other contributors)

celest sundial
#

Valve only forwards the DMCA to what ever pseudonym email address the uploaded was registered with. They don't know their details either. They don't get involved in the process.

I agree that the ingame report functionality is not sufficient to issue a properly concise takedown notice. You can technically send them via email but it's also then a manual job to process. That's why we are working on the process so this is as automated as it is on steam workshop. Beyond that there is not much we can do

#

You will never get a person's real contact info from us. We don't have it. We only have the data you also gave us. Anything filled out on the BI account can be gibberish in the worst case. Intentional thiefs will not register with a real name.

But we do want to take down infringements, especially those where you can not go any other legal way to have somebody else decide if it's a violation or not. Again a matter if introducing processes for it.

But all of this will not stop a dedicated thief. Only the community can banish them and not use stolen things to make it unattractive to even attempt.

abstract crest
#

I honestly pity the folks in BI Legal, cause you know that BI are gonna be blamed for everything with their own workshop

normal pond
celest sundial
#

Precisely

south remnant
#

Counter notice = hard time for me, as the IP owner, but doable.
as well as a felony in a lot of jurisdictions

normal pond
#

Ah for sure

#

Now why does it not follow the same procedure, when it somewhat works?

celest sundial
#

But irrelevant if e.g. in a country that does not care. Russia for example.

abstract crest
#

Is it a felony in Czechia?

normal pond
#

The moment the notices stop coming through the workshop but as emails to legal, you are required by law to do something

celest sundial
#

It is a civil liability in the EU not a felony

normal pond
#

And the moment there's enough angry mod creators... They might unite and actually get a lawyer here

abstract crest
#

Ah... more legal costs for legit modders then

normal pond
abstract crest
#

End of the day, ARMA modding almost died in 2015... lost some great ARMA modders that year and took the threat of a modders' strike to get changes done... I doubt BI would want that but how many people at BI are still around from then? The DayZ situation would imply that there are not many...

#

Add to that large content creators promoting IP theft (so they can make an extra buck) that modders will have to deal with and you have a not ideal situation

#

I mean, one DayZ/Reforger streamer who promoted the IP theft of Taviana was invited to the special Frostline streamer event

#

And made money off the 100K+ views of the Frostline gameplay after getting 30K+ views promoting a DayZ Taviana server!!! 😡

celest sundial
#

Pardon, but to my knowledge by now there are rebuilds of the map who are not ripping anything from the original A2 mod?

abstract crest
#

Hahahahahahahahahaha, no...

celest sundial
#

And you can say that with certain why?

abstract crest
#

At least that one was not

#

And I don't know of one that is not a rip

#

And the five Taviana mods on the Workshop right now are all rips

celest sundial
#

I don't think what you are saying makes much sense. How do you know the person knew it was a rip (if it even was one). They perhaps only wanted to make content on what ever map is popular on the workshop. It's not to be expected for video makers etc to double check all the things they use from what appears to be a publicly well established source. They would need to have reason to doubt it and do it regardless. If you can proof that go ahead. If not please don't accuse people.

abstract crest
# celest sundial I don't think what you are saying makes much sense. How do you know the person k...

`!!! ATTENTION !!!!
!!! ALL FRAUDULENT / FALSE DMCA CLAIMS WILL BE LEGALLY COUNTERED EXPOSING YOU TO FURTHER PROSECUTION!!!
SEE BELOW FOR MORE INFORMATION!

Bohemia Interactive Studio TERMS!

Автор сообщения: Bohemia
Workshop Contributions are Subscriptions,
and therefore you agree that any Subscriber receiving distribution of your Workshop Contribution will have the same rights to use your Workshop Contribution
(and will be subject to the same restrictions) as are set out in this Agreement for any other Subscriptions.` https://steamcommunity.com/sharedfiles/filedetails/?id=3173523188

Steam Workshop::Taviana Map
#

That text is always a giveaway

celest sundial
#

It has less than 400 subscribers. Are you sure this one was used? I am not. My bottom line is that I don't like what-about-ism if you can't solidify your claims. You have not said who you mean so it's fine in that regard, but it hardly has any merit in the discussion if you just want to post some "BI bad" with some loose ends.

abstract crest
#

Also that streamer admits in the video that he knew he was on a ripped map and told people how to find the server (in a roundabout) way. Can DM the video if you want. Is YTer with 500K subs

celest sundial
#

Sure please do. I will speak with the team then to see. But you can assume they did not know about such wrongdoing if it was true. There were enough candidates to be invited. Any flaw would have eliminated them

abstract crest
icy linden
#

but also the clarification post for reforger modding is taking so long omg

zealous ore
celest sundial
#

A lot of things. Yes it took time bacon because it does not help if you get half baked answers and are left with more questions again 🙂

icy linden
#

ouch

#

just surprised the legal team hasnt done so yet since its a community content driven game, and its been out for over two years now

zealous ore
frosty sphinx
#

hello, I've got a question

so I was reading and I saw this "No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material." and something popped in my mind

so you CAN modify something that has APL-ND, but you CANNOT distribute it

so, how do you use it? shouldn't you have to upload it to the workshop to use it?

#

maybe its like a super common question, idk

inland sphinx
#

You can also load mods from a local folder using start parameters.
It doesn't need to come from the workshop.

#

But that makes server usage hard, but you cannot redistribute it for other players to use anyway

hardy bone
abstract crest
#

As I have noted before, the wording does allow you to redistribute if you make no changes too... Which is something I am not sure that people who choose that license may know

frosty sphinx
#

so the only modifications you can make to it is for solo playing?

inland sphinx
#

Well you cannot redistribute your changes so.. yes.

frosty sphinx
#

I find APL-ND kinda funny, but thanks for answering my questions❤️

eager ether
# frosty sphinx so the only modifications you can make to it is for solo playing?

It also, oddly, reinforces and protects the ability for you to make changes to something you wish to submit to the original team/author as a contribution without first asking for permission to make said changes. Sounds weird but, does protect you in case they reject your submission/changes from any retaliation. Like, if they get angry you modified their stuff. Assuming you don't just go and publicize the changes afterword of course.

frosty sphinx
#

but you could do the same with the others licenses, right?

eager ether
# frosty sphinx but you could do the same with the others licenses, right?

Yes, but having it explicitly stated is helpful. "If you do A, you cannot do B" sort of implies that there isn't a restriction to doing A if not stated elsewhere, only B in case of A. Whereas, there are licenses that may restrict the reverse engineering, remixing, modifying, etc... that do in fact restrict doing A at all. Even if it's by default legal in a country/region. (a crappy restriction IMO)

frosty sphinx
#

I get why it's usefull, but then by logic the previous 2 allow you to do that

eager ether
#

Correct, I'm just suggesting that if APL-ND didn't exist as an option, things would be more confusing. I.e. picking APL-ND is easier on the community than "I don't want anyone distributing changes of my work so, I will pick neither APL or APL-SA license and maybe have to explicitly state somewhere changes are allowed privately so as not to confuse anyone."

#

I just realized I replied initially to the wrong post: I meant to reply to the "I find APL-ND kinda funny" - sorry if I confused you.

frosty sphinx
dark tulip
#

The ND license makes a lot of sense in development; since in a lot of cases you are required to make wrappers or make slight alterations to how existing code works for your own project.
And since this is never shared (made public) an ND license will work just fine.

With mods it gets weird, because you want to share your modifications. And this isn't allowed, even when shared in private with friends or within your community.

#

So technically if someone makes an uniform, weapon or vehicle, and you want to create a faction mod with it, it's already protected by ND and is not allowed to be shared.

gloomy spindle
#

Is it permissible to index and publish the Reforger scripting API with a documentation tool, like Doxygen, then host the resulting documentation pages for the general public? I remember someone did this with the DayZ scripting API awhile back. No idea if it was technically allowed.

normal pond
#

afaik it already is done, officialy

normal pond
meager fractal
gloomy spindle
#

Oh! Had no idea. Thanks.

icy linden
#

so is obfuscation in reforger allowed or not

fading linden
# icy linden so is obfuscation in reforger allowed or not

No, any mod that is found to use obfuscation will be removed. If you want to limit usage of your mod then do so on a custom license for it, and provide reports if misused.

Usage of DRM-like systems is also not allowed if they interfere with any other gameplay features or systems in the game, basically if it deteriorates the game in any form then the mod will be removed. Usage of malicious practices like removing the profiles folder, creating files over and over, spamming the script console, etc. will also warrant a removal action on the mod. Disabling your mod additions and changes is fine as long as it does not interfere with the game's.

celest sundial
#

Currently no legally binding public rule against it exists, but it will be introduced soon so you might as well not use it in the mean time as you need to have the source available then anyway.

dark tulip
#

Not sure how you would obfuscate in Enfusion anyway, since the method to do it needs to be part of the code and would be plain text, otherwise the engine can't run it.

So unless BI implements a publicly available method for it, handled by the engine, it would be pretty hard to keep stuff hidden.

normal pond
#

Crazy solution - workbench won't open projects where "obduscate" flag is set

main marsh
#

If no obfuscation, what if one want to log when someone open/run their project ? Like: when you open my project it triggers a call to a service that will notify me 🤔

If I can't prevent usage, can I monitor it ?

Another one: What if my mod relies on some services outside of the game (Databases, APIs, ...) to work properly and only allow my own server to access said services ? I don't really want anyone to access my api/whatever, so what do ?

fiery egret
# normal pond Crazy solution - workbench won't open projects where "obduscate" flag is set

That's called the Evil Bit and it's been proposed 20 years ago, already!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Evil_bit

Evil bit

The evil bit is a fictional IPv4 packet header field proposed in a humorous April Fools' Day RFC from 2003, authored by Steve Bellovin. The Request for Comments recommended that the last remaining unused bit, the "Reserved Bit" in the IPv4 packet header, be used to indicate whether a packet had been sent with malicious intent, thus making comput...

icy linden
normal pond
#

True that. I would have a lot of fun with that

normal pond
maiden trout
meager bolt
# 
# NIArms

Interim README
------------
===================
IF YOU ARE READING THIS THEN YOU'VE STUMBLED INTO THE NIARMS GITHUB.
===================


If you create your own derivative of the code, whether it's a contribution or independent, I politely ask that you link it up to the repo as a fork.

Licensing
==========
All content under the Github, currently retains the licenses of their child releases. I.e, The licenses of respective NIarms public releases apply to their source content within.

Content Ownership
==========
All content contained here is the property of the respective content creators. For more detailed attribution, please refer to the readme files in the respective public releases of NIArms

Contribution
==========
If you'd like to make a contribution to the Git, don't be dork-use a fork! Fork the trunk, make your changes and request a push.
#

does

#

this mean if i make a fork on the github

#

that i can use the stuff in my own mod?

#

or am i misunderstanding it