other_ip_topics

[abstract crest]

Reforger mod is not APL-ND

[coral juniper]

If their license allows and states it, then you agreed to that

Just read the licenses before using a mod

and before using any platform or game

[tepid lion]

I have to put my mods as APL ND in threats others will pack it

How are we supposed to function as a community

[wild copper]

Just going off this #other_ip_topics message

[tepid lion]

Like everyone’s gate keeping scripts we have no community movement or motivation

This literally sucks

[calm swan]

If the mod was created and uploaded, and the eula at the time allowed it, Then the eula was changed, and now would not. Could you continue to use and have this mod uploaded or no?

[tepid lion]

There is no share alike or anything just gate keeping

[stuck panther]

Gatekeeping free content is wild

[coral juniper]

only up to the last version that had the old license

[inland sphinx]

We will not officially give them permission to make claims.
And we don't need to either.

[abstract crest]

Only ARMA 3, the RHS Refroger mod is Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 Unported License.

[tepid lion]

If workbench is “Non Commercial Use” why are development teams using it commercially in a way that is privatized

[wild copper]

But doesn't that mean the mod creator now has a claim on their account going forward? What if someone has made 10+ different mods in the past and RHS suddenly make claims against all of them? Do they get banned due to the high amount of claims?

[coral juniper]

no

[wild copper]

Ahh the CCANCND 4.0. Rolls off the tongue nicely

[coral juniper]

It does not work per claim

[calm swan]

So the mod got removed for nothing, and therefore breached nothing 💀

[timid fulcrum]

I'm still waiting on a response from someone about telling RHS they can say we broke TOS without proof and make that statement on behalf of BIn

[vapid orchid]

Ive noticed this too. Seems like the Reforger community is slowly tearing itself apart over things like this, not to say these aren't legitimate issues

[jolly jewel]

It’s just sort of strange that they categorized us by having various infringements and such when we were not aware or contacted for any said thing and it’s clearly just a personal issue at this point. But it does make us look bad. I mean RHS reputation isn’t already great either since the reforger merge.

But a studio that is so coveted by BI should generally have a more grown method of handling things rather then this guy we don’t like we’re gonna make a custom statement and license against them. Which again is fine I guess cuz we don’t use them

[coral juniper]

If it was using current RHS then it did

[tepid lion]

Can we all as a community legitimately speak to the development team as a whole

Were the ones putting in the work for the community to strive

[stuck panther]

I understand the hard work that goes into it, but unless people are backdooring money in, then it’s already understood the content is free

[tepid lion]

Let us be heard

[jolly jewel]

Not likely

[vast stump]

I dont want you to speak for me

as a modder

[wild copper]

How will BI handle repeat offenders then?

[stuck panther]

Misspelled survive king

[tepid lion]

Who?

[vast stump]

you

[native shell]

So if I understand correctly:
Bob (RHS) made a bench (mod) and put it in local park (workshop) with a sign that says "John (some grups) can't sit on that bench".
John calls the Police (BI) because he feels excluded.
Isn't it that simple?

[tepid lion]

Asked

[coral juniper]

But it must have been bad, we only do straight up bans when it's bad

[inland sphinx]

Indeed. You should vote with your.. uh.. mod subscription? And not support mods that are gate keeping information, scripts, knowledge.
Don't support mods that you don't like

[coral juniper]

Otherwise people get contacted first

[jolly jewel]

You have mods on reforger?

[coral juniper]

unless it was not possible (No means at the time)

[calm swan]

It would not have. as we havent even used RHS in over 2 months

[vast stump]

have not released anything. why does that matter?

does releasing only mean you are a modder?

[tepid lion]

So what are you contributing

[timid fulcrum]

It was not

[coral juniper]

if the claim was not proved, then it falls flat

[jolly jewel]

I mean I guess you could be a modder that doesn’t release mods sure…… I guess but why would you care if your represented when you don’t contribute?

[tepid lion]

Sounds like you don’t see our struggle

[coral juniper]

Like it never happened

Only proven claims count

[timid fulcrum]

As I said we haven't used RHS gear in over 4 months

[inland sphinx]

Generally both BI workshop and steam workshop, and also our discord moderation don't work on "number of infractions". Its always a look at context and what actually happened. Not just some counter going up.

[timid fulcrum]

So why have they been told they can continue to blanket us with TOS infringement on BI's behalf

[calm swan]

Bud, there was no ban. We removed it ourselves, to show we was willing to rectify these issues. The mod merely allowed RHS NVGs to be used on our helmets. Nothing of theres altered.

[wild copper]

I appreciate that, thanks for the clarification

[tepid lion]

This mess is caused by Bohemia as a whole who actually thought this was going to work?

Like who sat in a chair and said yes the community will love this

Look at what we’re doing

This whole argument

Everything

[wild copper]

I also just want to highlight that this is the summary of the issue that brought us all together

[vast stump]

if I would be misrepresented to run some agenda I dont want

[coral juniper]

I think things are being mixed up

[timid fulcrum]

So much for public domain eh?

[wild copper]

It's not about the precedent, it's about the friends we make along the way

[timid fulcrum]

This is literally it

[tepid lion]

Public domain Creative Commons

[timid fulcrum]

Basil literally sees it

[stuck panther]

If there was a ability to monetize in a meaningful and not cash grab way then the game as a whole would have a net benefit

[coral juniper]

People talking about removed mods, confusing others to think it was banned by us, etc

[tepid lion]

Nobody should be using this as a private means

Yes I’m gonna pay for a $200 model when I can’t script for the life of me and not be able to find a resource to work with

This makes sense

[stuck panther]

He gets it

[timid fulcrum]

@coral juniper this is the sequence of events:

We agreed to EULA by using their content

They updated EULA and we haven't used their content in about 4 months.

That statement is slanderous in saying that we have broken BI TOS and or their EULA when we used their stuff previously on a previous version of the EULA.

We have not broken any EULA for RHS in a minimum of 4 months if we have because we haven't used their content

[lethal cape]

So a large part of the issue is that Pufu is holding these claims against us yet Bohemia ruled these claims baseless what can be done to deal with this?

[calm swan]

no one said it was banned.

"Bud, there was no ban. We removed it ourselves, to show we was willing to rectify these issues. The mod merely allowed RHS NVGs to be used on our helmets. Nothing of theres altered"

[inland sphinx]

says "John (some grups) can't sit on that bench because they violated the license".

And the "violated the license" being potentially false and seen as slander.
that sums it up

[abstract crest]

I mean, there is a simple solution for folks. Don't use or depend on RHS Status Quo. They might (allegedly) slander you and/or remove permission for you or your group to be able to use/mod their mod at their discretion. Use your better judgement and use other mods...

[inland sphinx]

on BI's behalf
Where did you get that part from?

[timid fulcrum]

Then one of your actual staff members recommended they add to the EULA against us whilst still saying we broke TOS for BI, so I will ask again, IS BI SAYING THAT WE BROKE TOS BY GIVING RHS PERMISSION TO SAY THAT WE HAVE

Simple

[barren tartan]

No-one understood any RHS member as saying that as a BI representative

[jolly jewel]

But you as a Clear minority? You could also show up to voice said opinions as well. In theory

[wild copper]

But at the same time, RHS can just choose to say you can't create derivatives and make a claim against your mod at any point they choose. They reserve that right in their EULA

However, under the RHS Non-Derivatives End User Agreement, we reserve the right to enforce our non-derivatives clause to protect our intellectual property, without prior notice or explanations, at our discretion, in accordance with but not limited to, the present EULA and/or individual RHS members/author's requests.

[inland sphinx]

BI is not saying you broke the TOS. Currently.
And BI is not giving RHS permission to say anything. We don't have control over what they say. And I have already answered that before.

[calm swan]

One of the mains reasons we chose to removed it 2 months back. That and the fact they openely hate the console community with the 22.5gb mod limit, and wont package there mods seperately to compensate them

[vast stump]

then talk about group of darkgru modders or something specific like that

[tepid lion]

“Currently”

[vast stump]

not all modders

[coral juniper]

"We have not broken any EULA for RHS in a minimum of 4 months if we have because we haven't used their content"

So it happened in the past?, then the statement from RHS is true as it's in past tense

[barren tartan]

Is the NVG thing not derivative content? Then they literally were few hours ago

[coral juniper]

But I see what is happening now, there was a lot to read. Got lost.

[timid fulcrum]

With your recommendation for a change of their EULA still offers the interpretation that we have done any of those things

[jolly jewel]

Vape isn’t a DarkGru modder

[inland sphinx]

and the fact they openely hate the console community
One could interpret that as slander.
The reason why they didn't split the mod are technical in nature. Not out of hate

[coral juniper]

What recommendation?

[vast stump]

then something specific that sums up your agenda and group

[native shell]

A solution that satisfies everyone then is RHS removing the "slanderous" part of their EULA yet still excluding those groups?

[coral juniper]

Dedmen is not an official representative of BI

[timid fulcrum]

It's implying we could have done none or any of those things

[coral juniper]

What he says are his opinions

[calm swan]

Its not slander, when it was openly admitted directly by a acting member of them.

[coral juniper]

and respect it as such

[tepid lion]

I don’t work for an agenda I work against the Bull S——-

[zealous ore]

here you go, done

[timid fulcrum]

The badges on his profile are misleading, I apologize

[inland sphinx]

I recommended to RHS to clarify their EULA as to not be interpreted by people as "slanderous".
Nothing to do with you

Yes, after the change of the EULA, it would imply that you have done atleast "other reason"

Clearly RHS had some reason to put you on there.
Currently your whole "beef" is that it is slander because it implies that you infringed the RHS EULA or BI ToS.

If that wording is your problem, it is easy to change it and alleviate your issue.

[stuck panther]

I have a SS of a message from tactical toxic stating RHS wants to have their mod be larger than Xbox reserved space so console players cannot use it

[inland sphinx]

I remember one RHS member saying something similar, as a joke/making fun of it because of the repeated questions.

[inland sphinx]

Ah yeah that's what I remember.
That was obviously not serious if you read the whole context

[calm swan]

Under their old EULA we wouldnt have broken the rules of the licensing otherwise we would have been hit by BI legal. We ceased to use RHS on our servers over 2 months ago when 1.2 stability hit. So even with this new EULA they have made we would not have breached anything either. and the mod be stagnant

[coral juniper]

From having been caught in the crossfire of disputes between parties, contacting a party first politely does wonders first. Preferably privately before doing something publicly

[abstract crest]

LOL, I've suggested the same thing re: mod sizes 🤣

[zealous ore]

i was sent this image after all this particular rukus. You don't see me yelling slander despite the fact that it is all of it bs. We have no agreement with BI, we are not making money out of the mod we provide for free (with a license and conditions)

i do not speak for BI in any capacity or form

[stuck panther]

I invited two representatives from RHS to have a private discussion so we can fix any other violations and got nowhere.

[novel sand]

They have also time after time again clarifying it was meant as a joke. Their stance is not that they want to bar XBOX users from using the mod, but that they have no particular care if the mod ends up exceeding the max size and will not split the mod for whatever reason.

[coral juniper]

How much did you wait?

Sometimes it takes a week to reach someone

[tepid lion]

And it’s gone

Bro it’s a gif relax

[jolly jewel]

How are you so sure? We don’t just care about ourselves and our own agendas. Our mods are fully public and based on community input, unlike others.

I’ve been in reforger since day one and have seen several modders come and go and I’m also in almost every major reforger community server and see and hear a lot. I vary rarely advocate for DarkGru specifically.

[zealous ore]

how is that relevant to RHS EULA?

[timid fulcrum]

Do you see me commenting there at all? What you see is a discussion between members. None of it is posted in a contract required to use anything.

[stuck panther]

We’re going on 2 hours now, and I was immediately denied the request

[timid fulcrum]

So why are they putting us in an EULA update and expecting us to not get upset when they haven't contacted us?

[inland sphinx]

Its not, parallel conversation

[stuck panther]

It isn’t in regards to the RHS EULA, it was a separate tangent

But thank you for inquiring

[coral juniper]

So you waited less than a day for a reply?

[calm swan]

Ill post this again, just incase it was missed....

Under their old EULA we wouldnt have broken the rules of the licensing otherwise we would have been hit by BI legal. We ceased to use RHS on our servers over 2 months ago when 1.2 stability hit. So even with this new EULA they have made we would not have breached anything either. and the mod be stagnant

[inland sphinx]

Frankly that's something you need to ask the RHS team, and not a third party.
And it seems the RHS team currently does not want to comment further on it. Might need some time to cool down the situation before they are willing to do so.

[jolly jewel]

I’m just curious why there so heated all of a sudden especially after we haven’t used it for long

Unless that’s why

I know not alot of major servers do

[timid fulcrum]

It started just fine and devolved to this when they refused to give a straight answer about what we needed to do to fix it

[jolly jewel]

But that’s more semantics

[inland sphinx]

Maybe the EULA update was planned since long ago, but was forgotten on a todo list and only just now taken care of?

[jolly jewel]

I doubt it

[stuck panther]

Given the fact that both people I asked to speak with are fully capable of still communicating here, it stands to reason that I’ll just drop it because they’re unwilling to communicate

[timid fulcrum]

That's not our problem

That's their problem

[tepid lion]

I just find it funny when I put a report in for someone using my mod nothing happens

[timid fulcrum]

If it wasn't updated it doesn't apply

[coral juniper]

They could have been waiting for something?.

2 hours seems so little

[wild copper]

He did say his request was denied

[jolly jewel]

Well again the only issue I see is it’s clearly personal over actual an issue. They also state they don’t want there stuff representing real life wars but there’s conflicts up every night that are based off of Ukraine war and they even match RHS’s gear on both sides to represent that but Ofcourse crickets.

So I would just rather prefer it was a more accurate statement and not one that makes it look worse then it is

[coral juniper]

Also even I can take a while to even answer a DM. And I am not available 24/7

Same as everyone else.

[zealous ore]

actually it has been a WIP for the past month or so (or in fact after the fact that paying for mods is up for discussion internally within BI)

[coral juniper]

Best is to wait a few days

[inland sphinx]

Its also a Sunday evening.
I for example am trying to play Fallout, and not deal with any of this.

[coral juniper]

and do it multiple times to bump it

[jolly jewel]

He was denied tho

They didn’t even reply lmao

[coral juniper]

There has been people that had sent me DMs with claims and got lost in the void of unread dms

[abstract crest]

How's that going? LOL

[coral juniper]

Then they send another message and get answered

[wild copper]

How was it denied if they didn't reply?

[timid fulcrum]

They were in the conversation when we asked multiple times what to do Mario, even when it was just me talking to Pufu politely I was met with redirection and deflection because respectfully they don't have shit, they made a ruling on something we used under a previous EULA and haven't used in over 4 months

[frigid zenith]

Ohhh which fallout u playing?

[calm swan]

I wouldnt bother on this, i tried and was ignored because those in question was not DarkGru.

[timid fulcrum]

As I said before, it's a publicity stunt

There's no point entertaining it further because RHS has shown what they think of communities who are willing to work to rectify situations

[stuck panther]

I was denied the ability to even have discourse with them. I offered to speak to them and get the list of alleged offending mods and was told no we will not speak to you about this

[jolly jewel]

I mean it doesn’t really matter

[timid fulcrum]

Not really

[jolly jewel]

We don’t plan on using there stuff anyway

Was just more about not a chill thing to do I guess

[timid fulcrum]

Quite literally, I just asked a question, and never got an answer

Didn't realize I was gonna spark a war because RHS is so secretive and discriminatory against groups they don't support

[coral juniper]

Everyone is free to update their EULAs

[timid fulcrum]

Copy that

[tepid lion]

#bringbackcreativecommons

[timid fulcrum]

@lethal cape

Do with this as you will

[coral juniper]

Again, any grief with that should be handled third party, we BI have nothing to do with that.

[tepid lion]

#bringbackcreativecommons

Literally the issue

If this is the way for arma 4 we are screwed lmao

[coral juniper]

Just know that our EULA, and ToU also get taken into account for mods

[calm swan]

They did, and said no.

[abstract crest]

Tbf, the EULA as worded brought BI into it

[coral juniper]

So if you break anything there, then you also get in the red

[calm swan]

Under their old EULA we wouldnt have broken the rules of the licensing otherwise we would have been hit by BI legal. We ceased to use RHS on our servers over 2 months ago when 1.2 stability hit. So even with this new EULA they have made we would not have breached anything either we havent used RHS. and the mod be stagnant

Again because it seems to be missed

[coral juniper]

You need to take into account Workshop ToS + Tools EULA + Mod License

[tepid lion]

Or or

#bringbackcreativecommons

https://tenor.com/view/fixed-gif-14953349

[coral juniper]

Modders can license their mods to be as open as possible still

If the modder does not allow for much, then do not use it

As simple as that

[tepid lion]

The fact they can privatize it and gate keep community progression

Is what ruins this

This is what’s causing all this

How many times does this need to happen

[lethal cape]

Arky said they won't enforce it.

[tepid lion]

Like literally does anyone at Bohemia actually hear any of this

[coral juniper]

Someone can make a similar mod and make it open

[tepid lion]

They won’t

[timid fulcrum]

That's true

[tepid lion]

Because you gave them the platform to refuse to

That’s why

[lethal cape]

According to what ark said we could just trample that EULA. It holds 0 weight.

[frigid zenith]

https://tenor.com/view/ice-age-crash-ha-only-a-million-times-a-million-times-gif-23931636

[barren tartan]

RHS has been around for along time. Gonna take some convincing that they are the one gatekeeping community progression

[coral juniper]

wdym?

[tepid lion]

So if I use RHS scripts I’ll be fine?

The answer is obvious

[coral juniper]

I said this before as well

It means

[barren tartan]

Well until recently, unless you are part of those listed in their new EULA, then yes, why wouldn't you?

[lethal cape]

So essentially this addition from RHS is useless. You aren't going to enforce it. They won't seek legal ramifications. So it serves no purpose but to slander

[tepid lion]

Alright let me go tear apart RHS for my own mod and then see how long it takes for someone to call Mario

[barren tartan]

You said use.

[tepid lion]

Yes

[timid fulcrum]

It's a shame that so many people are against the furthering of Arma and the modding scene and more about furthering their publicity " I made that mod" "these people can't use my mod" like toddlers, it's a mod workshop, if y'all allow people to have licences outside of your own you are asking for shit like this to happen

[barren tartan]

Well if you rip it apart and modify you are not just using.

[coral juniper]

#ip_rights_violations message

[timid fulcrum]

This community is going to break well before A4 catches any traction

Because everyone is out for themselves

[novel sand]

Dunno, Arma 3 survived well enough

[tepid lion]

Because of #bringbackcreativecommons

[jolly jewel]

They have em on speed dial

[novel sand]

Wouldn't be concerned tbf

[jolly jewel]

Didn’t get popular tho for a long time

[timid fulcrum]

I still love A3, but the new Arma's is what I'm talking about

[coral juniper]

RHS only condemns hateful content, etc from what I understand

Otherwise they just allow for stuff

[timid fulcrum]

How is NVG compatibility hateful?

[jolly jewel]

Definitely don’t.

[coral juniper]

And these things like hateful content and such are also against our ToU

[timid fulcrum]

That statement is untrue

[novel sand]

Oh it had quite the traction within its niche for long. DayZ spiralled it into mainstream. But for milsim communities it was the same.

[coral juniper]

Ukraine/Russia stuff is also bannable by us if it's promoting hate

[timid fulcrum]

They condemn anyone they dislike

[calm swan]

Second this.

[jolly jewel]

Maybe use to be true but not since reforger atleast

They literally were boasting back then excited for when they can decide who and can’t use there mod

[coral juniper]

If your mod that god banned because of that

then it was for Workshop ToU breach

[timid fulcrum]

None of our mods have been banned Mario

Where are you getting this notion

[coral juniper]

I am talking in general

[jolly jewel]

They were claiming that was the mod that breached it

[calm swan]

No no no, their license states depicting current world conflicts, which their mod is openly used with others on multiple servers to depict an active conflict rn

[jolly jewel]

But that unproved there allowance of said things if it’s not hateful

Which it isn’t

[rigid oracle]

Didn't take off right away because there wasn't much content at first It's been popular longer than many in this discussion have been modding arma.

[jolly jewel]

Which reforger and 4 will have even less at start so the inner bickering of mod groups is so dumb

[inland sphinx]

It is not missed, I don't understand what you are trying to say with that statement besides "We are not in breach of their EULA" which.. okey fine, but now what? What does that statement do?

[rigid oracle]

The argument people have been posting here about protected mods destroying the modding scene, have obviously not been modding long. It's been a thing since A2, and hasn't destroyed the modding scene. Modding and Arma are not going to stop being popular, A4 is proably going to go through the same arc A3 went through, with more people paying once content ramps up. It's just the cycle of these games.

[timid fulcrum]

We have been more than willing to extend an olive branch and sort it, as Mittens and Texan were both told no by Pufu and Toxic respectfully. We've put the ball in their court, and they took it and went home

[inland sphinx]

How does it harm community progression, if some people cannot use the free mod they develop in their free time?
Their other option would be to just not make the mod, would that be any better?

[inland sphinx]

Okey, but why is that RHS's or BI's problem when someone else doesn't want to make a mod?

[tepid lion]

I’m sorry but the staff behind dayz when they did what they did to .JSON with custom structures and caused a 100 servers to have the customs duplicate every restart and the mess that caused that was 100 intentional because of spawn walls that’s more then enough said

[inland sphinx]

Some poeple just love to take everything anyone says out of context for their own narrative..

[calm swan]

This was directed to Mario as I was directly in conversation with him. Thank you for your input tho.

[tepid lion]

I have 10000 hours in dayz and as someone who grew up inspired by Frankie to play it, personally I had enough and put the game down because of the repetitive aggression towards the community

[novel sand]

I am not sure what the relevance here is. There is no denying that when the original DayZ mod for A2 went viral it brought a lot of players to A2 and A3.

[tepid lion]

Dayz stand alone

[lethal cape]

So you told them they can write it and clarified it would not be enforced yet they still did it meaning they knew damn well what they were doing 💀

[tepid lion]

2016-present

[lethal cape]

This entire thing is childish

[inland sphinx]

I don't understand how giving people the possibility for doing what they want to do with their free time.
Is causing harm to the community...

[novel sand]

And?

[coral juniper]

Did we issue a ban?

[tepid lion]

The and is yes it grew traction but what it is now sucks

[coral juniper]

If not then we did not enforce anything

[lethal cape]

You did not.

[coral juniper]

Then why do you bring us into this?

[tepid lion]

Should see the donations for loot over in dayz if there’s such an issue over here for that type of stuff

[lethal cape]

I'm not

Someone else is

[inland sphinx]

RHS for Arma 3 had that same kind of license for atleast 7 years (that's as far as archive.org has proof for it, I'm sure its been longer than that). And you can see how it absolutely obliterated the Arma 3 community. (not)

[lethal cape]

I just want Pufu to stop spewing lies to the community about me

[novel sand]

Not sure why that matters in the end. That is irrelevant to the fact the DayZ mod brought a lot of mainstream attention to A2, and then BR to A3

[coral juniper]

I told them they can write downstream restrictions but handling that is up to them

[jolly jewel]

How would they?

[lethal cape]

I think it's fucking abhorrent someone in his position is running around hinting to the fact I'm a scoundrel that breaks Bohemia's EULA and I think it's abhorrent Bohemia as a company allows their community moderators to behave as such

[novel sand]

Exactly! Doooooom I say! Arma will fall!

[coral juniper]

They can disable the mod on specific servers, as long as they do not break the game.

The game has to be like if the mod was not loaded

That is okay, breaking it is not

[tepid lion]

Bringing up the gene pool of what dayz is now

[timid fulcrum]

@lethal cape quick make sure you put in the EULA that any mods can't be used to render mods on the list inoperable

[coral juniper]

#ip_rights_violations message

[timid fulcrum]

Like it's not hard to find ways around this if you guys are gonna look the other way

[lethal cape]

As stated by you if any of this was true you would have acted upon it.

[novel sand]

Ironically RHS was the foundation (among many other mods) for many milsim communities using that as a basis for modern equipment and was a pillar among the mods my own community used for one. And most other communities we interacted with. Without then the milsim scene would be worse off.

[novel sand]

Ok?

[tepid lion]

Ok

[novel sand]

Would we be better off they didn't make DayZ then...?

[lethal cape]

This is not entirely true. But I respect your opinion

[tepid lion]

Pointless argument carry on doesn’t involve you unless you understand what I’m saying

[novel sand]

Ok... I just don't get your derailing fun facts and their relevance to whether mods brought lots of attention and players to the Arma games... but you do you

[hardy bone]

I guess "ACDC fans" are not people either then?

[inland sphinx]

That topic has long since ended, but you're probably just catching up 🫡

[abstract crest]

CUP was the foundation for my servers and community. We've never used RHS...

[jolly jewel]

How? Just curious myself?

[normal pond]

by scripting it to work like that

[inland sphinx]

The "how" is up to the mod, probably multiple ways.

[jolly jewel]

Sounds neat

[calm swan]

Topic has gone, also the ACDC bit was an edit, but thank you for the input.

[novel sand]

We used CUP in tandem, but for us RHS had higher quality and lots of features that CUP just didn't provide the same quality of. CUP was nice for AI factions, maps and structures though, used them both ourselves.

[inland sphinx]

But how is that even relevant.
What is the argument there.
"I use CUP, so RHS is irrelevant and doesn't matter" ?

[abstract crest]

Not from me... Just noting that no one mod made ARMA 3 successful

[jolly jewel]

Well apparently soon there will be servers that just won’t be allowed to use there stuff anyway so I mean idk

[abstract crest]

Apart from CBA_A3 😉

[inland sphinx]

Yeah good argument.
Same you also shouldn't put any weight on "RHS availability being required to make Arma successful"
One mod doing bad stuff cannot mess up the whole game, there are many other mods.

[novel sand]

My point is either way, that the modding scene has been budding for a long time, and only grown since before my time when I joined around O:AH in A2. I do not foresee the death of modding just because some people get their nickers in a twist over a single mod, that they even admit to not using anyway.

[inland sphinx]

This exchange here, shows that there are not enough RHS alternatives, and that they are direly needed. But that's not RHS' fault, nor BI's

[abstract crest]

I did note earlier that the solution for folks that don't agree with what a modder does is to simply not use their mod

[timid fulcrum]

It's certainly something that is being worked on

[abstract crest]

BI keeps bloody hiring the modders that might make alternatives 😜

[jolly jewel]

RHS let alone BI, there have been some competent modders come around but most of them get scooped up to work with RHS

But we already have our replacement being worked on and out so it’s not that bad just more annoying I guess

But curious to see what system there gonna use to disable the mod

There obviously competent to do it just curious which method

[coral juniper]

Established project, competent people usually prefer to go to stable avenues, as those people usually have jobs and such limited time

[calm swan]

That wasnt the kick up that caused this here. We have happily been absent of RHS on our servers since 1.2 Stability update. The issues that brought us was the accusations and slander in the Eula update which RHS was entitled to change. We came here for clarity from the BI side, and offered our hand to resolve the accusations thrown at us. Has nothing to do with "Not enough RHS alternatives".

[barren tartan]

Think it is called the legal system. AFAIK they are not strangers to it.

[rigid oracle]

We are at a bit of a crossroads content wise, but BI has begun addressing that. Gone are the days of anyone being able to make quality 3D assets that match or exceed the quality of the base game. It takes skill, skill that requires years of practice. RHS has those skills in spades.

[jolly jewel]

I could just post the screenshot of there one higher dev saying like you piece of shit people and stuff like that on a billboard and ThIs iS wHy dArKgRU wIlL nOt eNdoRse or aLlOW rHesss oN sErVer

Same thing I suppose

[coral juniper]

Well there are many. As long as they do not affect the game, or other mods then it is allowed

[jolly jewel]

Yea I’m seriously just curious! I know they have the talent to do so just wondering which way they’ll do it

[timid fulcrum]

And I know many ways to get around it 🤷

[coral juniper]

We discussed briefly about allowing mods to have a blacklist or whitelist mechanism officially but I have not brought it back to discussion

[timid fulcrum]

If you aren't able to do anything about it that shouldn't trouble you

[calm swan]

[rugged prawn]

That was me probably. I took the infraction

[calm swan]

atleast you own it

[rugged prawn]

People were seriously getting under my skin in that instance

Saying they are free to rip what I make

[calm swan]

idk if it was you I don't recall seeing said art piece

But if it was, glad you own it

[timid fulcrum]

Hey Soul, would you mind sending one of us a list of the things we've made to be disallowed from RHS so we can rectify it?

Or is that still not an option, 2 other members have turned down our request to rectify

[tepid lion]

That’s the argument I was making

See we aren’t allowed to

But are told to

There’s no way this works

They think we should y’all think we shouldn’t

The divide between community and a game development team has never been higher

[minor cove]

"The amount of people trying to steal/use others peoples work without permit has never been higher"

Corrected that for you.

[stuck panther]

If it renders a paid service unusable aka disabled the ability for a server under a provider to be used for the express purpose the server is there for, then good luck

[lethal cape]

Sup @minor cove

[vast stump]

is there some service provider who sells explcicitly RHS mod servers?

[icy linden]

no way that's real

[timid fulcrum]

How ya been my friend?

[barren tartan]

But is technical "lockouts" actually something that is starting to gain traction? I've only heard it used with "bad actors" mostly in the Life communities

[timid fulcrum]

Haven't talked to you in a while

[calm swan]

Hey buddy 🤘

[stuck panther]

No. What I am saying is that if you have a server and you get blacklisted from running a mod, and via the blacklisting it renders your server un-useable till the mod is deleted then that’s a interruption in a paid service

[vast stump]

well isnt that just on you

you dont pay for the server to run mods on it

you pay to run the game

mods are your options

if you dont have option to use some mod, then you need to fix that by removing it

same as with any other mod that breaks up

[stuck panther]

I forgot when dealing with the chronically online you have to be specific

[icy linden]

what if I create a license that Frying Pan cannot be used on Nitrado servers

[timid fulcrum]

@rugged prawn is that a no? I know you've seen it, and I know you've been around to reply because you were typing for a hot minute and then disappeared

[calm swan]

Theoretically no. That is then grounds for intentional disruption of service which is caused by a third party and punishable as such

[timid fulcrum]

By the ISP, the SP and the user

[vast stump]

so if mod maker dont update mod when some game update breaks it thats intentional disruption of service too?

[timid fulcrum]

Clearly you misunderstand intentional

[calm swan]

No, beacuase that is not intentionally impacting a service which is otherwise running fine without fault.

[vast stump]

but the maker chooses to not fix the mod

[timid fulcrum]

If you want to get into semantics that's fine, but nobody here is gonna bite

[rigid oracle]

Correct, which is why that form of whitelisting is explicitly not permitted by BI. Pretty sure they have stated that a few times here over the years.

[timid fulcrum]

BI delists it

[calm swan]

But the whole game is broken via the update and all servers will be reverted to vanilla when they are reloaded.

[timid fulcrum]

If it becomes unusable on the current version after so much time and a report it will be delisted

That argument is moot

Grasping at straws isn't going to draw attention away from the issue

[vast stump]

its same thing though

you dont pay to use the mods

and anything can happen to mods which is not part of the service you pay for

[timid fulcrum]

Wrong, I don't pay Arma for the mods, I pay for a server with space allocated to run mods

[main marsh]

aren't mods provided "as is" anyway ?

[wild copper]

I hope dedmen is enjoying his fallout playthrough

[timid fulcrum]

If you want to get into it

[vast stump]

I do since you guys brought it up

[chrome plinth]

glanced on dozens of pages of history ... fried some neural banks ... replaced and moved on

[timid fulcrum]

Truth 😂😂

[icy linden]

I wish I could replace my neural banks

[chrome plinth]

also to that person who claimed if someone applies part of theirs eula/license terms they must apply the rest ... no, they apply whatever portion of it they want as it's theirs IP/rights/content ...

that's the 'point' of being the one who owns the rights

[rigid oracle]

I feel like you just got an idea for a mod...

[timid fulcrum]

Elon Musk brain chip

Trust

[stuck panther]

No because it isn’t done out in a tortious manner. A mod maker knowingly creating a pathway to render a server unplayable is a tortious act

[chrome plinth]

so when some people were taking my scripting decades ago w/o even asking i just closed eyes and wished someone somewhere sometime will not BUTCHER it

[icy linden]

my scripts come pre-butchered out of the box so I'm safe

[timid fulcrum]

I refuse to believe that

Bacon scripts are the gold standard

Full stop

😂😂

(love you bacon)

[icy linden]

more like plastic coated in gold

[timid fulcrum]

Still got a little gold in it

[calm swan]

still gold tho right? 😂

[calm swan]

snap, get out my brain dog

[timid fulcrum]

The Almighty Ginger lives in many brains, rent free

[calm swan]

As do some communities 😂

[timid fulcrum]

Clearly 😂

[calm swan]

[timid fulcrum]

Excuse me sir, how much for 1 share of BI 🥹

If I become a shareholder you bet Imma be this guy

[stuck panther]

Correct

[main marsh]

Who's doing that ?

[calm swan]

While your here could you shed some clarity, If a MOD developer states in their own personal EULA that a entity cannot use a mod developed by them on their servers, would BI enforce it if it doesn't breach the typical laws BI EULA/TOS ?

[stuck panther]

Nobody yet to my knowledge, but it stemmed from here #other_ip_topics message

[inland sphinx]

It wasn't really needed by most legit modders in the past.
But it seems times are changing.

[inland sphinx]

Its not.
The server is fine, just your choice on using a mod that you can't use makes it not work. That's on you, not the service provider. Same thing as you wanting to use a mod that was broken by a game update.

Its not bohemia's nor the service providers fault that a mod you want to use doesn't work.

[inland sphinx]

It would be punishable, if it were the fault of the provider of the service. Is it?

[main marsh]

So they could, as he said/implied in another message, make the mod just not "work" (as in "load in"). Server won't break, game still usabled.
This is what happens to anyone trying to use some of my community content atm as it relies on a specific backend and services that are not provided (databases, api, ...).

[calm swan]

I mean if the server is running fine with the respective mod, and then gets blacklisted, that is disrupting the service provided till it is rectified?

[inland sphinx]

If your kettle fails and blows the fuse.
You don't blame the kettle company for your PC not having electricity, if all you need to do is flip the fuse...

mh actually, I guess Americans might do that..

[timid fulcrum]

Hey if it's not explicitly stated in the TOU of the kettle 🤷 (I'm just poking fun)

[stuck panther]

But if the kettle is sold by the kettle maker with a inherent defect created by the maker to short the fuse then there lies the issue

[inland sphinx]

In the US maybe yeah

[stuck panther]

But I guess when you’re the kettle maker that the stove maker uses then that’ll be allowed

[inland sphinx]

The US might even have a court crazy enough to wave it through, despite all you needed to do to fix it was flick one switch in the fuseboard

[vast stump]

the mod and right to use it is not part of any paid service though

[inland sphinx]

Just trying to say the argument of a mod not working disrupting a paid service is bullcrap

[timid fulcrum]

BI operates in many jurisdictions and as such must follow the laws for each jurisdiction it renders services in

[barren tartan]

Isn't the assumption here not that the entity that wishes to use the mods doesn't have the right (e.g. explicitly banned). And since the server operator does not have right to override that no service was interrupted because the service was never legal to provide for that entity

[timid fulcrum]

Saying in the US is a moot point

[calm swan]

No different in the UK, If a product is sold with an inherent defect that causes issues, whether just with the product or it burns the house down, and is directly correlated to the product in question there is grounds for a action

[inland sphinx]

BI is not RHS.
If RHS blacklists you, you are free to try to sue them in the US. Good luck

[timid fulcrum]

Im not refering to RHS

[inland sphinx]

RHS just an example

[timid fulcrum]

But if you want to get technical

I can

[inland sphinx]

Any mod.

Yeah you can. Good luck.
Everyone knows its ridiculous though.

[calm swan]

https://tenor.com/view/spin-buddy-will-ferrell-elf-run-gif-19521047

[novel sand]

A mod is not a sold product, and you have no rights as a consumer when using a mod, as such have no means of taking action if the product does not work as intended, either willingly or not.

[timid fulcrum]

A mod on the workshop is licenced by BI to operate in an official capacity on their servers, which are hosted by an outside party. Guilty by association is a thing in North America, so as it sits in NA if a mod maliciously targets the function of a server by extension BI could catch flak (not saying it's happening or anything like that, just putting the background info behind what I said)

[vast stump]

where is it licensed to operate in an official capacity?

[stuck panther]

It’s the same grey area as how you explicitly cannot commission a mod but you can “donate” and maybe 😉 the mod is a part of a content release down the road

[timid fulcrum]

When the mod is uploaded it's uploaded to the workshop under Armas mod licensing

[vast stump]

is what you wrote the exact wording?

[calm swan]

No but this being a base game supported workshop, on a game that is a paid product gains ground as such. Content is restricted on a paid service (the game)

[inland sphinx]

is licenced by BI
I don't think that is true

[vast stump]

me neither

[inland sphinx]

if a mod maliciously targets the function of a server
Pretty sure the EULA forbids such malicious actions.
Thus the mod would already be violating BI's rules.

BI would only catch flak for not taking action against something violating the rules.

[inland sphinx]

Its pretty black and white.

The only gray part is people doing wrong things, knowing they are doing wrong things, and trying to skirt past the rules.

[vast stump]

could you highlight the part you refer to?

[abstract crest]

We are not responsible for and We cannot influence the Content uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop by other Users. We expressly refuse to take any liability for eventual damages the Content may cause to Your device or to You.

[timid fulcrum]

My apologies for the confusion, licensing was the wrong word

[timid fulcrum]

Thank you for clarifying that for me

[novel sand]

#other_ip_topics message

An EULA which all players of Reforger accept upon using the product.

[vast stump]

is alright. It was a bit confusing statement

[coral juniper]

Also important. You have AGREED to this

[timid fulcrum]

Sooo funny thing

They cant target specific groups in the EULA of their mods

As that would impede on the function of the workshop would it not? Especially if said mod was to target these groups

Maybe I'm misunderstanding what I'm reading

So I don't wanna say that I'm 100% certain

[barren tartan]

Can't violate your use rights (license) if you explicitly were not granted them.

[coral juniper]

No if it's part of their license

[timid fulcrum]

Not according to the workshop TOS

[coral juniper]

In Arma Reforger**

[stuck panther]

specific groups like

People, and **********

[coral juniper]

Where? Because this was clarified by our legal department.

Officially, you can.

As long as you do not break the EULA or ToU

For example, do not break the game

or tools

[timid fulcrum]

Can you tell me what the purpose of the Arma workshop is?

[coral juniper]

You can make the mod be disabled in full

[calm swan]

But if you held the right to use it prior, and then they decided you are now not allowed, that would impede them no?

[coral juniper]

As long as you do not break anything external to the mod

[timid fulcrum]

What is the purpose of the Arma Workshop

[barren tartan]

No. You had the right to the previous version. And may continue to use that.

[timid fulcrum]

Is it not to upload mods for public usage?

[abstract crest]

ARMA REFORGER Workshop enables the User to download, use, and (if the license under which the Content was uploaded to this ARMA REFORGER Workshop allows) alter and further develop the Content other Users uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop all in compliance with these Terms of Use and other applicable documents RHS are prohibiting them from using the mod too... The way this condition is written implys that the license only affects altering and further developing...

[coral juniper]

It is to upload mods, not for public usage

We have private mods as well

(Not shown in the workshop)

[calm swan]

So to speak, If I make a mod, that is dependant on another makers mod, and he choses to then blaclist/remove my ability to use it and it then breaks mine, does that fall into this category?

[timid fulcrum]

It says at the start the main purpose is to connect users to enable them to share and develop mods correct?

[coral juniper]

you can share publicly or privately

[calm swan]

That was the point i was making

[timid fulcrum]

So if RHS is disallowing usage from 3 groups in specific that would be considered private? Correct?

[abstract crest]

Then again, Mario said that what RHS are doing is fine, since the question here seems related... (#ip_rights_violations message)

[coral juniper]

The mod is public, the license is restrictive

Please we have told you the official stance, it won't change

Stop it now as you are just cluttering this

[timid fulcrum]

I'm just asking questions my friend

[calm swan]

@coral juniper please can you clarify on my question here

[timid fulcrum]

The fact that you are combative shows alot to me already so I'll drop it

[rose cypress]

I think a lot of people are just looking for clarification on this.

[main marsh]

I think some people are grasping at straws...
MarioE answers are quite clear. Reading the licenses, tos and whatnot would clearly explain things.
Maybe reading them again, perhaps with some people more versed into that matter, would help.

[coral juniper]

I am just confused, if you want a clear answer then ask in a single message with full context.

[coral juniper]

Depends really on the license

And the type of targeting when it comes to that

[timid fulcrum]

Sharing publicly under restrictive license in NA is not considered public, it's considered private, so why in NA would the mod be allowed to be listed as public when in the places BI provides service and must abide by their rules is it considered still public and allowed to be publicly listed?

That's all I'm asking

[coral juniper]

But you can argue that is part of the functioning o the mod

[timid fulcrum]

Not that anything be done because I know it won't be

[coral juniper]

You need to remember this btw
You acknowledge that We may in Our sole discretion decide to remove any Content uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop particularly if it is in breach of these Terms of Use or in any other way violates the rights of third parties.

This is talking about the mod being hosted by us

under our terms a bit outside of IP rights

[timid fulcrum]

Copy that

[coral juniper]

It's where (Enforcing within reason comes from)

[calm swan]

This is my point, if i create a mod thats dependant on another and then my availability to use the respective dependant mod then breaks mine. Which in what you said would not be allowed

[coral juniper]

For our sake, given that mods conflicts all the time that will not be enforceable. Unless the license stated otherwise (Like RHS does right now)

Again, within reason...

[calm swan]

So if I used a mod locked to the prior version before the license changes that have been made, nothing can be enforced if there is nothing malicious done in my mod?

[coral juniper]

The Content is provided 'as is', which means that We give You absolutely no warranties of any kind regarding the Content.

By downloading any Content from ARMA REFORGER Workshop You establish a relationship between You and the User who uploaded such Content to ARMA REFORGER Workshop which is regulated by these Terms of Use. We are not part of such relationship but We can influence it as it is described in these Terms of Use.

We are not responsible for and We cannot influence the Content uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop by other Users. We expressly refuse to take any liability for eventual damages the Content may cause to Your device or to You.

Key wording in damages on that last one

[coral juniper]

If that version was released under a license that allowed whatever you want, then you are alright.

as long as you use that version

[stuck panther]

There it is

[barren tartan]

Of course distribution to newer users (players) of your mod might be a problem if only the latest version of mod you depend on is available and they don't have the older version.

[calm swan]

Thank you for your input. Greatly appreciated🫡

[coral juniper]

Also sorry if I looked combative, just wanted to stop the insane amount of messages and gather context. That is all.

[main marsh]

While it is possible to access older versions of mods, imagine having to upgrade/downgrade a multi-GB mod everytime you wan't to join a server...

[stuck panther]

Sadly that’s already a thing with workshop bugs sometimes

[barren tartan]

Don't know about REFORGER Workshop, but I think on Steams you can use command line to manually download "depots" and stuff.

[stuck panther]

It was one of the reasons we removed RHS because of workshop errors that would falsely have people downgrade at times even though we were on the newest mod version. And that issue is not inherent only to RHS

[barren tartan]

Of course if the older version was under generous licensing, like GPL you can distribute it yourself on other channels.. Still introduces another distribution source for players though

[coral juniper]

basically

[stuck panther]

You can set the mod version within the JSON file for a server config and the game will up/down however you see fit

[coral juniper]

Just respect other people wills of their mod

And workshop is not a hub for open source and open licensed mods only

[midnight holly]

i’ve noticed the bigger the mod the more likely it acts up in the reforger workshop, not too different than steam with its depositories if you try to download a 100+gb game it’ll sometimes disc write error

[abstract crest]

Hmm. The new EULA says that they can't use old versions...

[main marsh]

The longer something is going, the higher the chances are for something to f'up 😅

[midnight holly]

very true

[stuck panther]

Mfw I would be at 98% mod download and boom failed to download

Or the dreaded rdb mismatch and you did a mass install/update on console

[midnight holly]

rdb mismatch would kill my mood for the day when I was still on console, thank god PC isn’t limited with its download speed

[coral juniper]

Also, if your mod got banned because of some license breach. You can contact us, remove the offending content and be unblocked.

We give second chances.

Unless your account is banned, then there are second chances.

Or if the ban was for a very strong reason then not.

[abstract crest]

Missing a "no" there I think 😉

[coral juniper]

In general, unless we are forced by IP rights laws we will give some time to rectify situation before a ban

[calm swan]

@coral juniper can you confirm this EULA of not using old versions would mean nothing, as the eula at the time aloud for it?

[coral juniper]

There are second chances

I have given to some

[abstract crest]

Oh, my bad, assumed that was an "if account banned, then bye"

[coral juniper]

I think @jolly jewel was one at some point

unless I confuse him with someone else

[abstract crest]

Better not have confused them tbh... 👀

[coral juniper]

It was either him or some other Ares

[jolly jewel]

Different ares

Sierra gulf

I’ve never been banned

[coral juniper]

Apologies then

[calm swan]

this should theoretically mean we could not create a new mod like right now using the old versions which previously did allow it. atleast that would be my understanding

[timid fulcrum]

Using the logic set forth this is entirely unenforceable

[coral juniper]

Which EULA?

Ours?

[timid fulcrum]

They are just putting stuff in there to try and get a rise and recover some of the negative PR they've gotten from this encounter

[timid fulcrum]

No no, RHS is trying to get a rise and keeps changing theirs

[calm swan]

negative, RHS's states old/new versions, althought the old versions would have allowed

[low crag]

darkgru refused RHS, I don’t understand why they are unhappy?

[calm swan]

My understanding would be that i could not create a mod now as we speak using old content and upload it. But if i already made a mod and locked the version to one when the EULA did, that is fine because the EULA allowed it

[barren tartan]

I mean, isn't entire RHS non-derivative so you never could?

[coral juniper]

If you did a derivative from RHS then you breached it anyway

And if you did not get issues is because RHS decided not to file a claim

[novel sand]

Would a mod maker be allowed to specifically restrict their mod to PC users only (barring Xbox and PS5 users), if stated in their EULA?

[coral juniper]

That is allowed, there is the option to do so as well

[calm swan]

Im not talking about altering their mods

[novel sand]

Nice

[stuck panther]

The division between pc and console grows again 😭

[timid fulcrum]

My laptop can run A3 with 156mb of VRAM, have I achieved godhood?

[stuck panther]

At this point why even do cross platform if you won’t allow parity between the systems

[coral juniper]

We have killed god.

[barren tartan]

They do allow "parity", but they don't force it.

[timid fulcrum]

My laptop should not be able to run A3 at all but it does, I have an old ThinkPad E570 and I can hit about 45fps 😂😂

[inland sphinx]

The amount of people just twisting words trying to get them into something negative today is astonishing

[timid fulcrum]

I am the new god

[stuck panther]

Gods not real

[timid fulcrum]

That's right, I am an enigma

[heady cloud]

[tepid lion]

Oh my god this is still going

[stuck panther]

No I know, but man it sucks that it’s even a option to exclude a platform

[timid fulcrum]

I stopped a lil bit ago

[stuck panther]

I think we just kinda moved in

[coral juniper]

Because not all modders have the means to develop and test on consoles

[inland sphinx]

console computing power is limited.
There will someday be mods that simply don't work properly on consoles.
Having the option is amazing, to prevent console users from getting confused or even getting angry at the game maker or modder, while the modder perfectly well knows it doesn't work

[coral juniper]

and some mods might just be too ambitious for consoles

or just choice

[timid fulcrum]

Pft just rip an emulator (I'm kidding)

[abstract crest]

Also there is that mod size total restriction

[novel sand]

And seeing how certain console users be demanding things from mod makers I would have given up catering to them.

[tepid lion]

He’s not

[calm swan]

we are merely conversating now

[tepid lion]

wrong

[timid fulcrum]

Pls don't ban me

Modded pokemon goes hard

[tepid lion]

Everyone owns pirated discs

I don’t want to hear anything about piracy

I know people had the towers of blank CDs 15 years ago

[timid fulcrum]

What is limewire

[tepid lion]

No idea

[timid fulcrum]

Idk what you are talking about

[barren tartan]

They weren't blank. There were imbued with sharpie based text

[tepid lion]

Pirating VHS was something else

That was next level

To actually do that was more difficult

[timid fulcrum]

I had a ghetto blaster and I used to record songs on cassette off the radio 😭😭

IM GOING TO HELL

[inland sphinx]

If you don't want to get banned for doing something illegal.
Then why publicly state right here that you are doing something illegal.

[tepid lion]

But you’ve done it

It’s a lie to say you haven’t

[inland sphinx]

My brother had CD's and gave them to me. But what happened decades ago doesn't mean its fine to endorse that stuff in here now. I would think we've all grown up

[abstract crest]

Just to clarify (maybe again) BI's position, if I did a mod and had an APL-ND pbo that rejected logins from some Steam accounts and won't load for some servers, that would be okay and anyone who tries to override that protection would be violating APL-ND?

[vast stump]

since this is veering fully offtopic now I'll encourage change of channel #general_chat_arma or other that fits it

[calm swan]

If it does not alter the mod directly you can use it as a dependancy?

[timid fulcrum]

GBA emulators arent illegal, there are plenty of free ones on the app store my man, who shit in your cornflakes today?

[abstract crest]

Er, it transforms their content

[coral juniper]

I specifically stated that it was Arma Reforger related

[tepid lion]

You’re in possession of pirated discs which is the same equivalent

I now hold leverage over you

[inland sphinx]

I was almost two decades ago..

[tepid lion]

And this conversation

[abstract crest]

But it would also apply to ARMA 3 ofc

[coral juniper]

Steam Workshop has their own

[inland sphinx]

Today I am working for a game development studio who get's hurt by piracy

[tepid lion]

Kanye

[inland sphinx]

Don't try to blackmail a moderator, for your own good

[abstract crest]

Yeah, pretty much seems like that's okay on Steam already

[tepid lion]

Lol

[barren tartan]

Whether it is explicitly listed as a dependency matter not. The question is it derivative.. The only thing I know so far, is that it seems retextures with unencrypted/unobfuscated files are not. That is the only exception I know of (which may not actually be an exception).

[timid fulcrum]

Homie, take a joke

And a chill pill

[minor cove]

Is it me or are this guys asking for a ban now for a few hours ?

[abstract crest]

Surely a retexture is a derivative...

[tepid lion]

The music industry wouldn’t exist without pirated music

Original samples

[stuck panther]

Respec Mai authoriata

[tepid lion]

Actually funny enough this does fall under ip topics

[barren tartan]

That would also be my guess. But have seen some discussions before where it way not clear.. Most larger mods then just allow it (don't persecute it), I guess.

[tepid lion]

So this is now relevant

We talk about pirated music in here from now on

So if I own a pair of Oakley thumps and the only way to get music on them is to pirate music to them Oakley is something else

[abstract crest]

Um, runs close to rule 6...

[coral juniper]

It's late here. I will leave 👋 . If you have questions then just send me a DM. If I do not answer after a while then send another one to bump it.

[abstract crest]

And be prepared to wait two weeks as per above messages 😜

[coral juniper]

just send another DM

I joined a lot of community discords

[coral juniper]

So much that I am targeted by bots

So the DMs get buried

[abstract crest]

That's why I regularly clean my discord server list...

[timid fulcrum]

Boys

Whatever you do

Don't tell them you have a GBA emulator

[vast stump]

again, since offtopic -> other channels where it fits

[calm swan]

Surely would be no different from say, being able to use a peice of equipment(which is from the dependancy mod) from someones mod and make it compatible with say a weapon youve made? it doesnt alter or change the dependacy mod itself

[vast stump]

the other mod is still needed -> derivative

[abstract crest]

It transforms their product

[barren tartan]

Are scenarios (missions) derivative of all the mods it loads, either by placing them in the editor, or loaded on demand by scripting functions?

[vast stump]

they use the content, not alter it

[abstract crest]

Though RHS prohibit some missions with their mods...

[vast stump]

specific cases though

[abstract crest]

Not sure how enforceable that is though

[abstract crest]

Any ongoing conflict actually

[vast stump]

yes it is a specific case

[barren tartan]

But I can see why people are confused though. A mission is not derivative. Presumable a "composition" which is just a config referencing other addons objects in a relative positioning is also presumably just a "use". A mod that the inherits a vehicle from another and applies another texture is considered derivative. Has a general "line in the sand" been well established?

[abstract crest]

Still, not sure how enforceable that is

[barren tartan]

Normally using scripting functions is derivative. But CBA offers many scripting functions for the express use as an API. Does calling those make a work derivative, or is it just "using" the mod?

[abstract crest]

CBA is GPLv2 iirc

And CBA/ACE folks are very friendly...

[barren tartan]

They have this specific sentence "Any addon which calls CBA-defined functions need not be licensed under the GPLv2 or released under a free software license." . So I don't have to use GPLv2 for my work, but is my work derivative of CBA?

[abstract crest]

Yeah, but they don't care or limit that

All down to the license used by the mod in question. Each is different and you decide what you want to use based on that

I mean, if I wanted to do a Milsim based on UKR vs RU I would use CUP that has a nice UKR faction and new RU gear/vics now

And no restrictions on doing so

[tepid lion]

Chats finally dead

[stuck panther]

Thank god

[normal pond]

It's not a derivative. You don't include, anything from CBA.

Now the question is - if I were to override one of the CBA functions with my own, or change the weight of something with a config patch, is that a derivative? I myself would say no. RHS would say yes. There's not a single "if you do this it's a derivative" list out there as far as I know.
Would be cool if we had it.

[fluid garnet]

You are using one of their function as a base, therefore it is derivative

You require their mod for yours to work, that is derivative in any case

[normal pond]

Another thing is. Are you forced to agree to EULA when you're actually not using the content, but let's say you're just overwriting one of the functions and it happens that the names match? You're not the end user after all.

[fluid garnet]

if you are overriding one of their functions you are using their content, you said it yourself lmao

[normal pond]

I fully changed it. It just system chats hello now. All I did is match the name. Nothing from CBA in there

[fluid garnet]

how can you override something without loading it first?

if you are creating a function that has the same name but does something different that's not derivative no, but if you are using someone's work as a base, no matter how miniscule it is what you keep, it's nonetheless derivative work

idk how people seem to misunderstand this

[barren tartan]

Think he is saying if he makes a mod that uses another mod that other mods EULA = end user license agreement does not matter because he is not the end user

[fluid garnet]

it matters because he needs to be a user of it to be able to use it as a base

how can you not be a user if you have downloaded and USED the content to create yours

[normal pond]

At least for A3, you don't need to have it during dev.
Now depends on reforger. Workbench might throw an error, but none of RHS code is actually in your mod.

Let's say RHS adds a license check into OnInit function and from there call their own license check.
I'll come, and match the license check function name. Name my mod alphabetically lower than RHS, so something like RHSDRMRemover. Now Arma Will come, start loading mods alphabetically and my function will override RHSes one.
Or if it does not work like that, when the functions are not set as override, I could make it alphabetically higher. So mine is added to the game first

[normal pond]

I don't need the base. Function names is all you really need in this case.

[fluid garnet]

Cool, so you can load it, the fact that someone can work around something doesn't mean it's allowed

[normal pond]

I am saying that this mod would not be a derivative. This fully legal

Of course this goes only for script based mods. You can't do anything about prefabs

[fluid garnet]

It would be a derivative because you are modifying the end product
You require their content for yours to make sense/work

[normal pond]

Mine would add the function regardless of RHS is loaded or not. It might also add a nice hello print.

[fluid garnet]

This conversation is somewhat pointless though because RHS has allowed quite a bit of modification just by asking nicely and respecting them
The issue is with a community or other that decide to use RHS systems to include stuff that they clearly prohibit, like ongoing conflict stuff

[fluid garnet]

Your mod working by itself doesn't mean it's clear

In your own example you would be modifying how RHS works ON PURPOSE

Overriding the script is a derivative

Even if the script works by itself

[normal pond]

How can it be?

So if I now come and randomly choose the same name for a function that other mod did before me, I am deriving from it?

[fluid garnet]

Your argument is not valid, because that is not the scenario we're talking about, if it's done on purpose to override RHS content it's not allowed

and in your own example, the purpose of the mod is to modify RHS content

you can release a mod and then argument that that is not the purpose of the mod

but that's a different conversation

the fact remains, if the mod's purpose is to override/modify their content, it is derivative
if it is done accidentally, it might also be derivative but it'd only be by accident and would only happen when the two mods are loaded together

I'm going to stop this conversation now because you seem intentionally misleading about this topic to try to push your argument

[normal pond]

Man. Please. You can't go around saying that function name match would result in derivative

[fluid garnet]

I can if the purpose of the mod is to override said function

PURPOSE

intention

take note of the meaning of those words

[normal pond]

Prove that it was the intention

It just adds a nice hello in the chat when you join. That's all

[fluid garnet]

AS I SAID, that's a different conversation

quite clear to prove if the name of the function is incredibly specific though

[normal pond]

And it would not be a derivative.
I am sorry that my mod RUPET_HAS_SEX prefix collides with RHSes.

[fluid garnet]

lmao as if

your argument is laughable

Just ask before overriding someone's content, I've done it for RHS and other mods and it's been fine, just behave as a human being

I'm out

[normal pond]

I am not saying that I would do it to RHS. I did it to another mod that was breaking the TOS with their game shutdowns anyway.
The only thing I want to showcase is that any DRM could be cracked without being a derivative. Or even by accident, just by wrongly overriding OnStar function and never calling super.

A3 (russian/life communities especially) and any DayZ communities showcased that there are super smart way to obfuscation PBOs and code. All of the ways were broken with enough time.

[fluid garnet]

Okay, I might have been misunderstanding you

If you are specifically talking about DRM, isn't that straight up against BI terms anyway?

[normal pond]

Reforger just made it way easier, if it's a good thing or a bad one. That's up to everyone's own opinion. All our mods are publicly available under CUPs license.

[normal pond]

DRM that crashes/closes/somewhat fucks with the game, yes.
DRM that would just stop your mod from working, like guns disappearing etc, no.

If the game continues like the mod is not loaded, that's fine.

[fluid garnet]

I think the conversation just boils down to being able to prove the overriding is on purpose, which I still believe would be derivative.
But yeah you would have to prove it's done on purpose

I'll clarify my position basically, if an override is made on purpose to modify a specific mod, I think it's derivative
Proving is a different conversation

[normal pond]

You and RHS have very different opinions on what a derivative work would be.
If I go and do config changes to balance the OP RHS vehicles to play nicely with others, i would not call that derivative.

[fluid garnet]

I would call it derivative

[normal pond]

Exactly. Different opinions on that matter.

[fluid garnet]

Because you rely on their work for yours to make sense/work

I've always understood the license that way, same with CC-ND

[normal pond]

It will work even without them. Creating somewhat empty classes that is.

[zealous ore]

If you modify any of the content provided in one mod with another mod then that is derivative

[fluid garnet]

That's why when I modified some vests, I asked them first

[normal pond]

Well isn't RHS under cc-nd anyway?

[fluid garnet]

APL-ND for Reforger afaik, and their own license too

[zealous ore]

it has always been yes

[fluid garnet]

that too then yeah

How Pufu said it is how I've always understood it

and I don't think it's that up to interpretation

[normal pond]

That's probably up to a lawyer to determine, unfortunately I am not one.

[zealous ore]

just a note here, our license and our other clauses have always been vetted by a lawyer.

[fluid garnet]

makes sense, you guys with RHS have been around and dealing with licenses for 20 years

[zealous ore]

the purpose for the current changes have been to set a clear set of rules (similar to a3) regards to what is tolerated (despite our nd license) so we reduce / remove the amount of dms and other permission type questions

We are actually quite happy that people are making mods based on rhs, despite how some people wanna portray us. What we don’t like is people who take advantage (monetary or otherwise) of our content

[normal pond]

Now let me ask a question.

So let's say for A3, I want to change the hit value of ammo with a config patch, that is a derivative from what you're saying, right?

[zealous ore]

yes, even if that mod is not rhs dependent (as in it functions) without rhs being loaded

[normal pond]

That very interesting take.

[fluid garnet]

I think it would be
Basically, they can have an issue with it or not but it still derivative

not a take

again, you rely on their work for yours to make sense

what do you think something derivative is then?

https://gyazo.com/3dd5acab3c65c29d5d20c92f2eb1f8f1

[normal pond]

I would assume that a derivative would need to contain some of the original material that it is building upon

[fluid garnet]

your config would be based on the existance of that ammo, that was created by RHS, therefore it's derivative

[fluid garnet]

incorrect

[normal pond]

My mod contains none of the original material. Nor anything close to it

[fluid garnet]

but you modify their content, your own content doesn't make sense unless you load theirs

I don't know what's so hard to understand

[zealous ore]

i’ll give you an example of stuff that is not derivative : using say one script rhs has (say duke system) if rhs is loaded

[normal pond]

Ok

[zealous ore]

so basically you make use of something that exists without making any modifications to it, but you apply a system to your own content

[normal pond]

Now what if my content fully depends on your duke system?

[zealous ore]

the moment you make modifications then that is derivative

[normal pond]

And does nothing without it

[fluid garnet]

anyway, we're going in circles a little bit, I'm now definitely out, good night

bit late and I work tomorrow hehe

[zealous ore]

have a good one

[fluid garnet]

same

[normal pond]

Also will just add this
Which is something I strongly feel about.

[zealous ore]

that is a bit of a grey zone. I personally would say it is derivative in nature because you are dependent on another thing or it won’t work at all

[normal pond]

According to your EULA it is a derivative, even if it depends a little

[zealous ore]

when i asked my lawyer he said it is dependent on content. In reforger for instance afaik you cannot really have the system you can have in a3 where if mod is present then more features, if not, nothing happens

what i mean by dependent on content is - prefabs that uses parts of rhs, even if they use say a certain part of a model (turret for example) then that is derivative in nature

another example - if you have a nvg mod that uses an existing system, that is also derivative because without it you don’t have a working function whatsoever. All mods are by design derivative of the game that they mod. Even if say they don’t modify any of the base content, but just make use of functions present and all content is their own

without the base game the mod doesn’t function at all.

so it is not just dependent, but it is derivative as well. If in theory you have a mod that works on its own without being directly dependent but can take advantage of another mod if present then that might just be non derivative

[normal pond]

That I can see.
Imo the big misunderstanding here is that I am mainly A3, haven't touched reforger a lot (only did one quick DRM remover as a proof of concept)
The option to "use" parts like turrets, models and everything and combine them to create new vehicles is indeed something I would call derivative, as I directly use your stuff.

Now, let's say I want to fix kornet BRDM in A3, which will require one function replacement to fix locality or whatnow is the issue there, haven't looked deeply enough yet. My mod will just replace an RHS function with my own code. I myself fail to see how that would a be derivative. Nothing from RHS is in there.

[zealous ore]

I am trying to portray what i was told by a legal counsel. I have already asked bi legal and there are several clarifications bound to be present in the near future with regards to reforger

[normal pond]

That's the thing what I said. There needs to be a single "source of truth" that will exactly say what is and what isn't a derivative

As the views on this are somewhat diverse.

Because in the end, it will be BI who will be removing reported content from the workshop.

(funny thing for people that know. Let's hope BI Legal didn't get their diplomas from Pilsner )

[zealous ore]

the views are not all that diverse tbh. in your example, the issues is that your mod (the code being am your very own) has no purpose (unless part of something bigger) without the original mod being present. And by definition that is derivative

[normal pond]

Could you point me to the "definition" you mention?
Honestly couldn't find it anywhere

[zealous ore]

sure some things cannot be copyrighted (for a3, configs for instance, or dunno, bones and their animations)

[normal pond]

I would say that you can hold IP over an animation

[zealous ore]

you do, but not over how it is setup in the model.cfg

[normal pond]

And if I used your animation, I could see that as a derivative.
But if I made my own animation and replaced yours with mine, I wouldn't call the derivative

[zealous ore]

since you can only set it up in just a few ways (talking about weapons model.cfg)

[zealous ore]

it is derivative. that doesn’t mean you don’t own your own derivative content, it just has not purpose without the base that you animate

i’ll dm/ post it here tmrw (the definition link pertaining this kind if stuff) since i am on phone and already a couple of hours past my time since i work tmrw and would ideal to arrive before my employees which i have a weekly meeting with :))

[normal pond]

Sure thing.
Just an example of what I meant with my message.

We got M119 with a custom animation + pose. Set in config with gunnerAction = M119Pose

If another mod comes and uses our pose, I see that as a derivative. They used something of ours

If someone else comes and replaces ours (config patch into our class) with gunnerAction = M119PoseCustom
I do not see that as a derivative of our work.

But again, for that a single source of truth that will exactly state it is needed.

[abstract crest]

Your example is why a statement is needed from BI, because I would see creating a new animation for a model provided elsewhere under an ND license as transforming the original model in game, thus breaking the transform prohibition of most ND licenses

[surreal yacht]

And me being a software dev, I don't really see mods being a derivative unless you fork the original source, simply modding a mod feels like using a linked library to me

[dark tulip]

Using it as a library, for example making a faction mod or a scenario which uses a faction, should be fine. And I don't think that RHS (or any other modder) would be against that.

However replacing textures of existing assets (which means copying a prefab and modify it) is IMHO a valid definition of derivative work.

[meager bolt]

so uhh
can i have a summary and are blacklists allowed in mods or is that against tos, or does it depend on how it's executed and all that
dont plan on making one im really just curious bc i remember a reason SWOP got taken down was bc of a black list

[crimson garden]

It was said at some point during that conversation that you can have one, but it cannot affect gameplay. The game essentially has to act like the mod is not loaded.

Not sure if that was specific to reforger/a3, across all arma titles, etc.

[meager bolt]

hm
so writing an actual blacklist script is out of the question rn prolly

[crimson garden]

If it would close the game, hurt performance, etc. Yes

[meager bolt]

would sending someone back to the role select screen in mp count as that

hm

im thinking

[crimson garden]

If you only did it for your own server, and not every server, maybe?

¯_(ツ)_/¯

[south remnant]

__has_include__ for other mods loaded is about the most you can feasibly do

[dark tulip]

There will a blog article about the subject soon™️ by BI (with help of their legal department).

But as been said before, it's "allowed" to white/blacklist, as long as it does not interfere with the game/server.

So if it crashes the game/server, or prevents people from playing, it's definitely not allowed.
Simply not having your features available is fine.

[pliant oracle]

you can see which IP is not allowed in the pinned comment link

[minor cove]

What about shutting a server down or doing endMission ?
It's a intended function, doesn't crash game or server.

[inland sphinx]

But makes the game unplayable, counted as malicious.
Force killing it or crashing it, same end result. Except that the second one gives bohemia some bugs to fix.

[snow python]

:D

welll, it depends how you exploit that however

former can be prevented, maybe

[minor cove]

It just to save the player from problems since it wouldn't run anyway.
It's just a additional check, otherwise the user will have a broken game anyway.

Don't see how that would be malicious. It's just stopping the mission/mods he is not intended to run.
With the same reasoning you could say, a public client mod on the workshop without the accessibility to the server mod (even tho it's private) makes the game unplayable and is "malicious".
Since mods are optional he can just unload it and problem solved.
Incase of a mission, he stole it and shouldn't be able to run it anyway.
Developers shouldn't be forced to have a DMCA as their only way to protect their work.

if(DependencyMissing) then {endMission "end1"};

One could argue this is just a check to ensure it works properly

[normal pond]

given this is SQF, I will assume that you're talking about A3
As far as I know you can do anything in A3. Don't remember anything about it being in any TOS.

However, the best/funniest DRM I've seen is checking if you're a dedicated server, if so wait 15 minutes and then randomly select one player/vehicle and kill it every minute
Didn't happen to me, but it was funny af from the video

[inland sphinx]

If you're being a bad guy and attracting too much attention, the workshop item might be marked as incompatible even on A3. Though that's super rare.

Don't make it crash because I don't like to see crashes 😡

[fiery egret]

Don't make it crash because I don't like to see crashes 😡
Play a joke on him and fix the bug so that he can't make it crash anymore 🙃
||Yes, all of them||

[normal pond]

Tbh when you put a mod on workshop, at least in A3, I think it's save to say you mean for everyone to use it
However for private mods, that's another story

[meager bolt]

I cast memory leak

[abstract crest]

Thought this series of tweets by Karel Mořický on copywrite and real world assets for BI may prove interesting to those who've not seen it: https://fixvx.com/KarelMoricky/status/1828769695706525884

[dark tulip]

Question: how to handle DMCA Counter Notices?

I've sent a DMCA on the Steam Workshop for reuploading my mod, and the person has now sent a counter notice.
However Valve states that I now have to sue this person in the US (we're both from the EU) otherwise the mod gets activated again...

Is there something else I can do other than following US law and spending money on something relatively small?

[normal pond]

as far as I know, unfortunately no

[celest sundial]

Nothing, that is the fun with DMCAs ... Valve has done everything they are legally obliged to do, now you need to sue with the info obtained through the DMCA counter claim. AKA it will simply stay up since nobody in their right mind is going to sue in the US. Way too expensive for a workshop item to be taken down.
It miight be enough to scare the poster by sending some self written C&D to his IRL address. if that is unknown you are out of luck entirely anyway

Valve would follow a EU court ruling also, it does not have to be in the US. They are not necessarily forced to but its simply accepted. Valve has no EU branch.

[dark tulip]

I do have his information (part of the counter notice), although he intentionally published it because he thinks he's in the right (aka "it's open source so I can do whatever I want"), already had that discussion in my support discord channel...

And it's not that I really care about it, but it's just a principle thing...

Guess I'll start start writing some legal letters to his address, and keep sending DMCA's every time it gets public 🤷

PS. I'm well aware that BI is not able to support here, and Valve is hiding behind their US stupidity...
So let's start annoying this guy till he stops 😏

[meager fractal]

if it is a recurrent offender however, BI can (through Dwarden) prevent them from uploading to the A3 workshop

[dark tulip]

Not that I know/can see, and I've never seen the person before on any of the Arma related Discord servers I'm on.

[molten delta]

Hey Mr. J. J. de J., I would really urge to not be that rash and do something legally actionable, that wouldn‘t be wise

Harassment is not the right step :)

[vast stump]

Are you the other party whose being a douche?

or what is the context of your message

[molten delta]

Douche is a bit harsh but yes

[vast stump]

douche it is then

its easy to not be on though

[molten delta]

¯_(ツ)_/¯

I used the rights and restrictions of the APL-SA and Valve agreed with me

[vast stump]

they dont check the validity of your counter claim

so you are not clear of anything

and more likely to be in violation than being right

[molten delta]

He should sue me then instead advocating for harassment ¯_(ツ)_/¯

[vast stump]

I kinda hope he will

[molten delta]

Oh but they do, they initially denied it but talking with them and pointing them to the license reversed that decision

[barren tartan]

Unless it is a modified license, doesn't APL-SA give the right to redistribute? Literally the Share-Alike part?

[dark tulip]

stealing from 2 modders (Raspu and me), uploading to the workshop without being the creator (against Valve EULA), and even after telling him that there are additional rules (no reupload, no repack, no monitization) he did it anyweay...

so yeah, reason enough to have a talk with both Steam and my lawyer (especially after ranting here how I'm the wrong party)

[barren tartan]

• What do you mean steal? Did you distribute it under - a perhaps modified APL-SA license or not?
• I don't think Valve's platforms terms of service is for uploaders is DMCA-related. But if that specific part is, is not your terms on that manner that has been violated, but Steam Workshops.
• But yeah, if you did distribute it with a modified license that prevents upload, then it's no bueno.

[molten delta]

The last part would be against the APL-SAs section about additional or different terms

[barren tartan]

Well obviously not if license is modified properly

[barren tartan]

Yes, you the licensee, cannot further make further downstream restrictions

[molten delta]

And he licensed material from Raspu, which means he can’t impose his terms

[barren tartan]

Depends on the license he received from Raspu

[molten delta]

Only the plain APL-SA was specified on his workshop page

That is for Raspus content

[barren tartan]

I don't know the pages. But doesn't matter could have gotten a separate license outside

Just because Raspu distribute on Steam Workshop using vanilla APL-SA does not mean has not received a separate license to work on.

Just focus on the license you got instead.

[molten delta]

The APL-SA specifies that the same or a equal alternative license has to be applied to the modified content

[barren tartan]

But if he did not get it under APL-SA it does not matter what APL-SA says. This is for downstream not upstream

[molten delta]

Literally from his page, the upstream license was already the apl-sa

[barren tartan]

Yes. If that is where he got his license from. Which it may or may not be.

[dark tulip]

I know reading is hard 🤷

[molten delta]

Again, those terms are non-binding if you are a downstream licensee, you offered different terms, which are against the apl-sa

[vast stump]

only on raspus content

not on the other stuff

unless raspu also has similar additional clauses

[barren tartan]

Very simple example how you cannot assume which license a creator uses:

• I make a mod and distribute it under APL-ND (no-derivative) . You can't do stuff with it.
• My buddy, named Buddy, gets a copy I give him under MIT license. Which basically means you can do whatever including sublicense etc.
• My buddy can then upload his mod of my mod under APL-SA for example.

You can them adapt my Buddy's material, but not mine.

[dark tulip]

Not to mention I have explicit permission from Raspu to modify and reupload his content

[molten delta]

Cool, still, did he give you the material under the APL-SA or not?

[dark tulip]

his material yes, my own material is my own

[barren tartan]

No, the question did you get APL-SA with further restrictions or not?

[vast stump]

he took the stuff with further restrictions

[barren tartan]

Even if Grezvany13 violated raspu's right does not give you right to violate Grezvaby13

Worst case, it would make the entire licensing "chain" invalid.

Which means no license and no rights

[dark tulip]

it's like saying "Windows is open source, because it contains packages under open source licenses"...

[molten delta]

Not to mention, the license is non-exclusive, which means you‘d need a license entirely different from the APL-SA

[barren tartan]

Non-exclusive just means the Licensor retains the right to give rights to other on the IP too.

[dark tulip]

a. the licenced material is still under APL-SA (as written on the workshop page)
b. the mod is for Arma only

My code is not part of the licensed material I got from Raspu (you can find that on GitHub as well)

so it does not fall under the terms that license as is being claimed

[barren tartan]

But I will say this is highly confusing and unspecific... It is under APL-SA with the listed changes that explains I can make a mod based on it. But also I can't repack or reupload parts of it. So I can make a mod but not put the mod on workshop.

[molten delta]

Which would literally be the APL-ND btw

[barren tartan]

No you can't repack or reupload it. Reupload is ambigious, thought and make it seems like you can't put in on steam workshop only. But it is not ND since it explicitly restates in addtion to SA that you may mod it.

[molten delta]

That‘s not what ArmaOnly means btw

[dark tulip]

There's literally a reskin mod on the workshop, which is completely fine.
I even have a wiki page explaining how to make the configs fot that...

[molten delta]

Or in the short form

[dark tulip]

dude... I know the license and I know what I'm writing...
just remove the mod and use the other one (reskin only), which is completely fine (as written and told)

[barren tartan]

Actually is more unclear than I thought. You explicitly write it contains content released under APL-SA and then make downstream restrictions. That license seems invalid

If you have separate permission to use the content like this, don't write that parts of it are distributed as APL-SA.

[dark tulip]

good to know we have some lawyers in this Discord 🤷

[rugged prawn]

SA only applies to the material that is derived or edited from the original

Anything in the same package that has nothing to do with the SA material does not need to be SA

[barren tartan]

Yes, but licensee have to know their rights.. AKA: they have to know what SA parts they can then distribute.

But there is even addition that you cannot repackage or reupload parts, but you have those rights for some of from the SA parts.

[dark tulip]

if it's unclear: ask
if it's told how it is: respect that
don''t asume...

[rugged prawn]

Yeah I agree it's not super clear.

[barren tartan]

The whole point of a license is to know your rights.

Who will they ask if you for any reason or not available anymore?

[dark tulip]

in that case: assume the worst aka no license aka nothing allowed

[rugged prawn]

Well the way it works is indeed if unclear assume restrictive

[molten delta]

That‘s why you can’t impose different terms as a downstream license, it makes the license ambiguous

[rugged prawn]

Not permissive. But can't always claim unclear, as could also be 'misinterpretation' all in all I can see why steam backed this Giant_Cockie fella. Although if he re-upload Gezvany stuff that's not Raspu releated he's clearly wrong

[molten delta]

Due to the SA part, the exact same rights should be granted to anyone modifying a derivative of the original, the SA part need to be applied to each downstream derivative

[barren tartan]

I mean the Share Alike sure does look similar the related clause in the GPL. If the work doesn't "build upon this" then why is it included?

[molten delta]

That‘s where the „in part or whole“ part comes in

[dark tulip]

original stuff must keep the same license, new code may have different (or no) license

[molten delta]

Yes but it has to be the same or equal with no additional or different terms

And no license is wrong, you need to apply one as per the apl-sa

[molten delta]

Here‘s the shorted version of that clause

The full text explains the equal license part

[dark tulip]

you MAY 😉

not you MUST

[barren tartan]

only under the same license.

Yeah, you don't have to distribute

But you are

[molten delta]

Meep, wrong

[molten delta]

Also the may is in reference to the distribution part

[barren tartan]

Anyway, I'm gonna bow out out. I personally see it similar to GPL "infection". The resulting work should have been distributed under APL-SA compatible license, and it is invalid.

But I will say that doesn't help Giant_Cookie. Either the license is taken as written, or it is invalid. It being invalid doesn't mean the distribution then actually licenses it under "whatever someone thinks it should have been" - it simply hasn't been distributed with those rights!

[molten delta]

Alright, I appreciate your differentiated input, have a good one

[stray rover]

Even though it's not cool to go against the author's wishes, the APL-SA license allows him to redistribute it as long as it's under APL-SA too and he attributes your work. I think the lesson here is that you should go with a custom license if you want to enforce additional terms, but that is only possible if you can get a different license from Raspu that doesn't have APL-SA's copyleft.

[minor cove]

That's why it's nice to make your stuff alone without any help/contributors.
Then you can just change the license anytime and as often as you want and the thiefs can cry as much as they want
Also good to add: "This license only covers the current version, any update will come with a new license"

[stray rover]

To each their own. I'm a proponent of licenses that allow derivatives, as I think it's important for a healthy modding community to be able to build on each others work. The only DMCA we ever had to file was due to someone refusing to attribute our work.

[minor cove]

Some people work for their own servers/mod/projects, not for everyone. Gotta respect that imho.....
Personally I don't wanna invest hundreds of hours for stuff so other people can just steal it.

[stray rover]

Isn't really stealing when they follow the license and attribute your work. It's like plagiarism vs citing a quote.

[minor cove]

It's stealing, when you copy code, functions, assets from a mod that has no "open source license".

[stray rover]

I understand it in the context of servers though, especially when they are competing.

[dark tulip]

source: https://store.steampowered.com/eula/387990_eula_0

need to say more?

[minor cove]

For Arma 4 we need a way to publish mods "private", but players who join the server can still download it.
Maybe via password/user uid whitelist or so
Add a file/content check in the backend so people don't abuse it to hide stolen content and everyone is happy.

[stray rover]

Ah yeah, I forgot about the Steam Workshop EULA. I guess you could make a case based on that.

[stray rover]

You can already create unlisted mods on Reforger's workshop. They can't be found on the workshop, but players can still download it by joining the server. The latter seems unnecessary, as you could just make the server pw protected to begin with.

[minor cove]

Oh nice, didn't know that. Hope we also get that for Arma 4 then.

[stray rover]

It is still possible for a player that downloaded it to leak its GUID and that way anyone can host it, since that's all you need.

[latent stream]

You can do that now I think

In reforger

I'm 90% certain there's an option to 'unlist' a mod so you can make it only downloadable by joining a passworded server

[celest sundial]

Yes it would not be found via workshop but once a user knows about the mod the cat is out of the bag of course and the guid could be shared to others. But a user could also post private mod files on google drive soooo yeah its sufficient

[snow python]

rip :(

[fluid copper]

Lmao "its a conspiracy"
I just read through this @vast stump

😆

[vast stump]

how you put it is a conspiracy yes.

[fluid copper]

But that's exactly what they're doing or at least attempting to?
That's not a conspiracy at all

[quick wigeon]

Is the ADR-97/P90 including in Arma 3 still licensed under APL-SA with .p3d available for editing?
It was originally released as a mod under APL-SA and later incorporated into the base game

[inland sphinx]

If the old mod was licensed like that, you would need to grab the old mod.
Arma 3 game files are not licensed

[vast stump]

the old model was never released to be edited

[keen zealot]

Would using an assets from A3 DLCs in Arma Reforger mod get it banned?

[vast stump]

yes

[keen zealot]

Thought that wouldn't apply on Bohemia's products

sucks to hear that

[vast stump]

Arma 3 data has not been released in such manner it could be used

[snow python]

are the a3 assets ported to reforger? will they ever be?

[south remnant]

no, maybe

[zealous ore]

if there are any, please report it, because they are 100% ripped.
BI has said they have plans to release a3 as a content pack like they did with their previous games.

[snow python]

hmm interesting, how come for previous arma to a3 has been deferred to cup project instead? and how come tkoh and tkom hasnt been ported and whatnot? and ofp stuff that is bi ip?

[south remnant]

a2 and such has those content packs

[snow python]

oh? wdym, im not really familiar with those as far as i recall, one thing is the dlcs another is the base game and stuff

[zealous ore]

a1, a2, tkoh and i think the og ofp have data files packed and released publicly

https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages

[snow python]

ah but that's not the same as porting/shipping as playable material for the games

[zealous ore]

i provided you with the proper link

[snow python]

okay

so basically CUP took this and reauthored it for a3?

[zealous ore]

originally the purpose of CUP was that, yes. They have improved most of the content and added new ones made from scratch. CUP also had special permission from BI

[vast stump]

if I recall right CUP got the data before hand by asking

[zealous ore]

yes

[snow python]

oh okay, so it was directly licensed to cup?