other_ip_topics

[vast stump]

some arrangement like that was made I guess. I dont know the details of the deal

but BI gave the files

which is different from someone just taking them

[snow python]

more than what's published?

[vast stump]

no

dont think so

[zealous ore]

everything is published

[snow python]

im asking if cup potentially got more than what bi published on the link

[zealous ore]

there isn’t more. BI actually published everything up until A3

[snow python]

its not the full set

[zealous ore]

?

[snow python]

for instance for a1-a2 there are samples instead of all the content, samples implies a subset

[zealous ore]

ahm, there were modding samples for modding purposes for a1, a2 and a3, as well as reforger.

i don’t remember by heart but afaik BI published everything. Some stuff that might not be available is available anyways if you own the previous games

[vast stump]

the samples I recall contain the set of unbinarized stuff that were made available

[zealous ore]

first time i checked it some textures were missing for instance irc, but these might have been added since then

[zealous ore]

yes, that is what i remember as well

[vast stump]

most textures were I think 🤔 to save space?

owners were able to get them from the game data just like for retexturing

[zealous ore]

^^

[vast stump]

Id suppose theoretically BI could do same deal as with CUP with someone else too and for Arma3 data, but so far I think anyone asking has been denied.

we just got to wait

[snow python]

oh okay, fair enough

[abstract crest]

Samples for A2 are all the unbinarized assets minus textures that can be got from the LDPs or game

[snow python]

right, i see theres a a1 and a2 samples and then a whole arma series binarized package

[abstract crest]

Textures are not in the Sample packs. You get them from the LDPs

Only thing that matters for Reforger would be sample packs, since the LDPs (binarized) are unusable.

Afaik only the LDPs have been mentioned as coming.

[snow python]

same with a1 samples and ofp right?

[abstract crest]

But as soon as the sample packs are released you can be sure that there will be 10s of substandard ARMA 2 resources in Reforger and a ton of not good looking Chernarus and Takistan maps

[snow python]

you mean of arma 3

[abstract crest]

LOL, yeah, sorry mind fart, they are probably already happening. Not sure anyone wants to port Altis, but I can see really bad versions of Tanoa. Hopefully no one wants to port 2035 stuff 😛

Altis is a really nice map tbh, but I have been running a public server continuously on it for nine years now 😩

[vast stump]

Theres been people interested in doing that for sure.

so likely there will be few versions

😅

[abstract crest]

I like new maps. I think we all hope for a new setting for ARMA 4. That said, BI have missed a cash grab by not releasing a Chernarus Plus DLC

Just the map... They would bank a lot of cash on that one

[snow python]

¯_(ツ)_/¯

lol

i wonder why chernarus is quite unoptimized, but that's a question for another channel

[abstract crest]

Generally things have not been done to optimize the assets on it for ARMA 3

[normal pond]

Cherno is already in. And it's looking good very good

[abstract crest]

LOL, it's not Chernarus. Height map and I guess biome, but not Chernarus last I looked

Definitive Chernarus is Chernarus Plus without some of the debris

At least as a map that feels like it could be irl, even signs showing how close the northern border with Russia is

Maybe it's changed, don't play Refroger anymore

[vast stump]

anyways. this probably starts to steer towards #reforger_discussion

[abstract crest]

Or #offtopic_arma that I would have suggested with more responses 😉

[vast stump]

either way is good

[snow python]

yeah, i did hint its not for discussion here in my message

[mossy yarrow]

So it is confirmed sample packs from A3 gonna release ?

[vast stump]

well BI has said they intent to do it

beyond that, nothing is ever certain

[south remnant]

its been "in the works" for like 5 years atp

[analog sphinx]

its only logic to release after Arma 3 ceases to be or truly reaches EoL state. Right now, it even has official servers, so I won't expect that to happen soon.
The pack might as well have been ready 4 years ago but are just waiting on a release-frame due to legal situations, we can only ponder.

[inland sphinx]

It is WIP and would be released right now if there weren't technical issues. We are not waiting for A3 to reach "true EOL"

[mossy yarrow]

Cant wait to do some Ghosthawk Modifications when it releases

[snow python]

ah, what's wrong with it?

[stray rover]

Basically just waiting for the soundtracks. A3 has several themes that slap 😄

[abstract crest]

Most of the music can be freely used subject to our general rules, e.g. all music from Arma games

[stray rover]

Where do you have that from? At least the ones from A2 are licensed as APL-SA through the licensed data pack.

[abstract crest]

https://www.bohemia.net/community/game-content-usage-rules

[stray rover]

Mostly wondering about incorporating some into a Reforger mod.

[abstract crest]

Maybe Mario can answer the question of taking OST from the music pbos for Reforger specifically though

[stray rover]

I believe the answer will be wait for the licensed data pack again 😅

[abstract crest]

Music is an odd one because we have permission to extract the files. I've done so in many videos (using ARMA 2 OST in ARMA 3 videos)

[stray rover]

No need to extract if you own Arma 3 Soundtrack 😉

[stray rover]

Yeah, but creative content is a bit different than redistributing the actual file.

[abstract crest]

I do, but I mainly use ARMA 2 music. Prefer that, though really like most of ARMA 3's too

[dark tulip]

Doesn't this just mean you are allowed to have the music in your stream/recording? And not "allowed to be used elsewhere then the game itself"?

PS. sounds like the MS "content usage guidelines" where people claim it means they can just rip it for other games

[abstract crest]

Maybe, I reached out to Mario anyway

[abstract crest]

We claimed no such thing. Neither did we reach any conclusions. But that game content usage doc does talk about modding as well as other content creation. Anyway, waiting for BI to clarify

[dusk socket]

hey there,
what is the best practice regarding mentions while using imported open source models, in Reforger ?

Also, is it Ok to use brand names as is in a distributed mod ?

[abstract crest]

Don't use brand names...

Each is an individual case based on the trademark owner, but no need to

[crimson garden]

Additionally, the content you are filing against predates your content by 15 months. For these reasons, we cannot act on your complaint.

Filed a DMCA earlier today because a mod reuploaded my entire mod, but apparently Steam won't touch it because it was ripped in an update, and not an original upload. :P

[snow python]

obviously not since its copyrighted/trademarked

[meager bolt]

yeah sounds bout right

💀 steam being steam

[crimson garden]

They eventually did
Mod was taken down

[normal pond]

@raw orbit all obfuscation methods, be it mikero, or any other are already broken, you won't get the original names, but you can look into the files, edit functions, repack it. Aspecially as far as models go.
Models already have "obfuscation" with binarisation. Broken.
EBOs... No one just bothered enough to get them opened. The game has to open them somehow, so there's a key in the game itself. Someone experienced enough can find it after few hours in the exe and just repro it.
Or the mother of all, just extract them from the games memory.

The problem is. If the data ever reaches your PC and are loaded by the game, they can be extracted. No matter what you do

[grim sand]

Exactly. If I can see it, I can steal it. It's basically how piracy works.

[normal pond]

I did not say you can steal it, I am saying you have the ability to do so.

[prime pollen]

If it’s electronic it can be hacked

[normal pond]

WIth enough determination

[grim sand]

That's the very definition of the word "can"

[normal pond]

can can have two meaning no? The ability to and the permission to

or at least that's what I was taught at school

[prime pollen]

Reforger way better than a3/steam hosting

Bi does do a good job on reforger mod policing

[grim sand]

Right, but that doesn't make my definition incorrect. At least I thought that's what you were trying to correct. Perhaps you were just trying to state that you weren't instructing people to steal 😁

[raw orbit]

I know it could be broken, and EBOs have been broken in the past, but the point is that the only way modders can protect their content is through obfuscation. People have already seen that obfuscation can be easily removed with the right tools, so why would anyone want to create new content if it's just going to get ripped?

[grim sand]

Well the answer to your question is why do people make content in the first place?

[normal pond]

I have heard other things, but I don't have experience with Reforger yet

[prime pollen]

Guys just move to reforger/a4 no more pbos

[normal pond]

Because I want to provide for the community, expand the game I enjoy.
We do it in our free time and it hurts, seeing someone go yippity hoppity this is now my property

[dark tulip]

obfuscation is useless... only encryption would work, and even then it can be cracked...

still doesn't mean people should be allowed to do it, or should be ignored when done anyway

[inland sphinx]

My encryption is better than obfuscation or ebo's.
But with enough determination, everything can be hacked.
Most people who want to steal probably won't bother, they'll grab the models and textures right from the gpu

[prime pollen]

When a4 comes out all the a3 guys are gonna be years behind reforger modders

[normal pond]

Now the legal ways for us to enforce our copyright is bad. And that's the issue of the world we live in

[grim sand]

And ultimately this is the best deterrence to piracy, It's not worth the effort or the time - then piracy dies.

[normal pond]

Send it to me we plan on releasing a new one soon

[prime pollen]

Blockchain the mods

[dark tulip]

except that all the A3 guys are working on Enfusion already...

or already have the tools from the DayZ community

[raw orbit]

• to this the obfuscation services are paid services none are free

[prime pollen]

Dayz not the same

[grim sand]

Well it will never be their property, but they could loot it for sure.

[normal pond]

won't help, we are not discussing the "proof of ownership". You can always prove it. Be it pure blender files, substance or git commits.
The problem is the actual enforcement

And that won't change, because laws

[inland sphinx]

The benefit of my method is that scripts and configs are unencrypted. So if modders want to learn from your content. They can.
But there is nothing to learn from extracting a model (its binarized anyway), or textures.

[grim sand]

Well less to do with laws and more to do with countries and globalization

[normal pond]

It's the same issue with youtube and DMCA abuse

if youtube can't solve it, no one can

now, what if the guy sends fake info in counter notice? No one checks it

you can't go and sue someone who doesn't exist

how many laws did he break? Yes

but now... what? Get steam to give up his real data from card used?

[grim sand]

Or you can't sue somebody who's in rural China, that's using your face on one of their signs 😜

[prime pollen]

Should be the case if caught ripping

Or does liability fall on steam

[normal pond]

Now, the problem is especially the people

What if, listen, we stopped treating the symptoms

[grim sand]

If Steam is facilitating criminal activity, then they'll get in trouble. Since they operate in the United States. They would have to be fairly strict on copyright.

[normal pond]

And instead tried to change the way people think about mods

But that's not happening

[grim sand]

Or forget about policing the internet, and do what you got to do.

[prime pollen]

The only way would be to have a model hosting site, a program like blender, and game engine all use the same encrypted files

[grim sand]

No form of encryption is going to prevent anything

[prime pollen]

And the only way to use anything would be inside the engine/editor

[grim sand]

If it's rendered to the screen it can be stolen

[inland sphinx]

Unless of course, the bad guys cannot even get the content.
If they cannot get the game to load it, then they also cannot grab it from the gpu.

[normal pond]

the only "real" DRM for stuff like this is pure cloud gaming

where no data but frames get to your PC

[prime pollen]

Ai bad guy detectors now we’re on to something

Lol

[normal pond]

you and AI should be classified as a bad guy

to this day we don't know what your chatgpt comment meant

[prime pollen]

I mean there are ai’s that can prove the way that two people typing is coming from one user with 98% accuracy

[grim sand]

Less of course they use multiple robots to scramble their typing...

[normal pond]

another thing, why do you think that BI releases in EBO and later after "first sales" changes it into PBOs (cDLCs)?
So people are not motivated enough to actually break EBO

wtf did this turn into?

[grim sand]

One post doesn't make a derailment @normal pond

P ublic and E ncrypted?

[inland sphinx]

I think it's to encourage open-ness and modability

[normal pond]

yeah, also possible
(let's ignore I could just look through config viewer, but I get it)

[prime pollen]

If people had less incentive to monetize then maybe there would be less stealing?

Most of the time it’s the monetized servers stealing ip

The unauthorized monetized servers

[normal pond]

in that case https://www.bohemia.net/monetization and

[prime pollen]

I’ve reported a ton

[normal pond]

well, continue doing it

I've reported one

[old prawn]

Do you still think obfuscation is used by bad actors ?

[normal pond]

by everyone

[prime pollen]

Yes

I know someone doing it right now but no way to prove they took anything because nobody can see it

[normal pond]

everyone can see it

[prime pollen]

Kinda caught what you said earlier, how

[inland sphinx]

Every way to do it is crap, because its the same they are using to rip peoples stuff

[normal pond]

Obfuscation is broken, just open it, duh

just have to have the tools to do it, there are open sourced tools that can do it

[inland sphinx]

Man it would be awesome if there were a windows explorer integration that would just let you double click a obfuscated pbo to open it as if it were a zip

[normal pond]

It would be (if it ever worked for me, but it's skill issue on my part)

[minor cove]

Moves all code to from mpmission and mod to missionNamespace on the server.
Now only cheaters/hackers could steal it

[old prawn]

you already have this 😠

[abstract crest]

Maybe BI care about their own workshop, and some in BI have cared about Steam, but man, the DayZ SA space is sooooo much worse than any ARMA's at this point and BI really don't care about that

Also, I would note that I can distribute any APL, APL-SA or APL-ND mod (the latter without changes) anywhere other than Steam legally

Not sure on the APL-ND stuff on Steam - mainly whether the fact that the license gives permission for redistribution being okay for Steam?

Point is, do not use APL licenses... use your own custom ones, look at CUP or RHS for examples and hire a lawyer if you care that much

[barren tartan]

With respect to Steam (re)upload clause,

you represent and warrant that the Workshop Contribution was originally created by you (or, ..... in such case that you have the right to submit such Workshop Contribution ....)
that is basically for their Safe Harbor status.

So don't rely on that clause itself to prevent a reupload, and don't give people a license that allows redistribution if you don't want your users to redistribute.

[abstract crest]

I agree. But it seems to protect more than others - at least in the past, certainly more than mailing BI Legal 🤣

End of the day it seems at this point emailing infringements is far less useful than DMing Dwarden or Mario, who are not part of the legal department 🤷

And if you are in the DayZ modding space you are very unlikely to have success outside of hoping Valve help

Because in that space, BI seem not to care...

[south remnant]

will put it in our discord

thx

[snow python]

hm?

[woeful edge]

Hey everyone, I just have a question regarding something

I'm working on a Nuclear Option themed mod for Arma 3, and I plan on including the Nuclear Option OST in my files to use in custom menu scenes and missions. I reached out to Shockfront Studios about the matter, and the director/studio head Mitchell Sahl stated that I am allowed to distribute the files in my mod so long as I distribute them as part of the mod only, and I attribute the soundtrack to them. I also plan on obfuscating the pbo containing the music as a precautionary measure.

The mod is nowhere near ready for release at present, but I would like to know what license to distribute the mod under with the soundtrack, as Shockfront Studios does not have a standard licensing arrangement for the soundtrack, just as something to bear in mind when the mod is ready to release. Cheers

[minor cove]

I would put the sound files into a different pbo, so you can choose any license for your stuff and extra license for the pbo that includes the soundfiles.

[vast stump]

You can put the music in separate pbo with a tightly No derivate, no monetizing, etc restrictive license.

And the rest that is your own work you can use whatever license you like

[woeful edge]

I see, thank you

I've split my mod up into several pbo's depending on what they contain

should I put the soundtrack in an entirely separate mod and release it separately?

[minor cove]

Seperate PBO is enough, just add license files for the pbo.

[woeful edge]

that works, I'll drop a readme in the mod files, and when I release it to the workshop also state as such

thanks for the clarification guys

the main mod content I will distribute under APL-SA, whereas the soundtrack I will distribute under APL-ND

[woeful edge]

This look good to y'all?

License Information:
Licenses will be applied on a per-file basis. Unless specifically mentioned here, all files will be under APL-SA.

The following file(s) contain copyrighted material, and are under APL-ND with permission from the copyright holder.
Decryption, derivation, distribution and/or commercialisation of the file(s) is strictly and expressly forbidden, and
may incur legal action.

-NO_A3_Music.pbo

The full text of the licenses can be found here:
https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/arma-public-license-share-alike
https://www.bistudio.com/community/licenses/arma-public-license-nd

Nuclear Option Original Soundtrack by Jeremy and Justin Sahl. ℗ 2024 Shockfront Studios. © 2024 Shockfront Studios. All rights reserved.

[mossy yarrow]

np

[manic crystal]

Just out of curiosity, what here is suspicious or USP related? Checked the download page, just appears to be a patch replacement mod

[mossy yarrow]

the Shadow Company Patch is made by USP

[grim sand]

Breakpoint mod? Arma server?

[mossy yarrow]

One of the Patches is made by an Arma Mod and as i know USP have 0 Tolerance of stuff beeing ripped from them

[grim sand]

Ok, but still breakpoint and if its a "Clan" matter, find a "USP" person. This is likely the most obscure place to try to reach them.

[mossy yarrow]

2 usp persons already noticed it

[grim sand]

Well then, I stand corrected and your in luck.

[dark tulip]

Are you sure? Because Shadow Company is widely used in the Call of Duty series, with the exact same patch.

So if anything, USP "borrowed" it from the CoD series 😉

[mossy yarrow]

Not the blueish one, usp made their own version of it and they made it so its their IP

[manic crystal]

While I do appreciate the report, USP patches & insignias as well as USP flags & markers are the exceptions to our zero tolerance standpoint. The reason being a majority of that content was produced using publicly available images, edited to work with arma. Only a small percentage of those were created from scratch. Now its been a long time since I created those mods, and a ton of images that I went through, that I can't be certain if the patch you mention here was exclusive to USP. But even if so, its only a derivative of the original. In any case, we don't go after reuploads of those mods and have openly allowed others to take whatever they like from them and use however they wish. Of course that was never publicly stated so I can understand the concern or confusion.

[mossy yarrow]

alright then sorry for the false report, good to know its publicly available

[coral bluff]

If someone releases their mod, say a map, as APL and I create my own map based on their mod, what happens if they later decide to change the license to APL-ND? Do I have to take my mod down?

[south remnant]

Their previous releases are still APL

So no you do not

[hardy bone]

Keep trace of it being released as APL first

[coral bluff]

That’s what I would expect to be the case

It would just suck to work on it and then get the rights to my work thrown away

[abstract crest]

Which map?

[rugged prawn]

Your rights are intrinsically connected to their rights so its a risk you take. Indeed you can still use their old apl version however the workshop doesn't let you target a specific version of a dependency so as soon as they release an ND version yes you do need to take it down, as you are in essence depending on it as of that moment. KJW is wrong. If you could make a dependency link to a specific APL version then no you could keep targeting that version and stay up.

[south remnant]

RHS moment

[celest sundial]

You can choose which vesion to download and specify it in the server config as well so it is entirely possible.

[rugged prawn]

But not in the dependency setup when in workbench right?

[rugged prawn]

Okidoki. You just carry on with your shitty advice and attitude. Keep me out of it.

[woeful zinc]

yea, so it would be only solution for server owners. As a user, you wouldn't have such option (unless you manually turn on https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Arma_Reforger:Workshop#Debug_Mode and then try to download specific version from WS MANUALLY)

[coral bluff]

What if you don’t use it as a dependency and just copy their files over into your mod? Then there’s no version issue. Seems like APL allows for this as I don’t think it mentions “dependency”

[abstract crest]

I'd actually assumed that this was a question about mods pre-Reforger under APL, a situation not covered by the answers

To clarify, a mod for Reforger based on an APL ARMA 2 or 3 map

[abstract crest]

APL-ND map can be redistributed on the Reforger workshop, as long as it's not changed at all... APL-ND specifically allows redistribution

Couldn't put it in your mod, that would potentially be transformation, but you can just upload

[coral bluff]

Yeah that’s why i’m asking about APL mods. The specific question is if the mod is later changed from APL->APL-ND later down the line after it has been redistributed and changed.

And by changed I mean forked and not used as a dependency

[abstract crest]

If you are forking then, irrespective of the license, it is better to ask for permission. At that point you have permission for the fork. As folks have said, Reforger workshop has versioning so easier. Assume the map in question is ARMA 3/2/1/0?

[coral bluff]

I’m just using map as an example. But I don’t see anything in the licensing that makes a distinction for redistributing as a dependency vs a forked (duplicated) asset. Seems to me that unless the author has specified some other licensing constraints, APL means you are free to copy and do what you want, irrespective of permission. And from what people are saying (and my intuition) it seems that if the original owner of the content later decides to change the license to APL-ND, your redistribution will be protected as long as you aren’t using the current APL-ND version. Which won’t be the case if you forked it.

[abstract crest]

That would be how I would see it too. Only reason I asked about the map is the number of people who rip Taviana 😛 And Martin would never have APL licensed it if he'd forseen the future 🤣

All that said, debinarizing wrps and pbos is forbidden so don't do that

[coral bluff]

I wish he would allow someone to remake Taviana for reforger. That would be amazing.

I only recently learned about his protections over it when I was researching the possibility of an origins mod on reforger

[abstract crest]

Well, he can't permission Origins, is DML - ARMA 2 only. But we should respect his wishes. I agree though, in my opinion, one of the best and most immersive maps for ARMA

But he only used APL because Steam Workshop for ARMA wasn't a thing back in the ARMA 2 days. And he's spent sooooooo much time having to DMCA bloody DayZ rips that are not allowed under APL in the first place 😦

[celest sundial]

Ha well that would be allowed by the APL license as long as its for arma only, non commercial and you attribute who you got it from 🙂
But this of course is whack for you users who need to perhaps download the same mod in multiple reuploads for different servers.

[barren tartan]

Just do both. Keep downloading the original non ND versions. Store them somewhere, ensure you have a timestamped copy of the license.

But don't use it like this, just use a workshop dependency.

If the original author later makes their work ND then change your derivative to embed the older archived version.

[icy linden]

has the use of the red cross in reforger been discussed already?

[normal pond]

What is there to discuss?
It's a protected symbol that you can't use

[meager fractal]

cannot*, as per the Geneva convention
https://www.icrc.org/en/copyright-and-terms-use

[normal pond]

Sorry, on mobile and the 't got lost

[meager fractal]

Find it!!

[normal pond]

I did!

[meager fractal]

by the power of Ctrl+F, I compel you!

[icy linden]

okay so

ban reforger?

[grim sand]

head spin
Spits black oil like tar

[normal pond]

Why?

[icy linden]

wat do

[pliant oracle]

nah that's just Georgian flag, just missing few +

or just one of the +

[meager fractal]

I don't see the resemblance /s

[limber oak]

It's obviously an evil, messed up, color inverted Swiss flag

[meager fractal]

to be confirmed, but it seems we have ICRC's permission.

[icy linden]

assuming confirmed, this extends only to the content you create, and not content created by users for the workshop?

[meager fractal]

internally confirmed from dug up conversations

• BI can use the red cross in historically accurate context
• BI are also permitted to use the small red crosses where warring superpowers (illegally!) used them in vehicles or on gear to identify medical materiel

this does not apply to user-created content and each mod project should ask for permission to the ICRC

[icy linden]

oke doke

[meager fractal]

…glad we are not breaching the Geneva convention 😄

[icy linden]

thanks for clarifying

I guess I will label all my stuff swiss

[vast stump]

🟥

ez

[normal pond]

Letting that up to the players I see

[meager fractal]

always
can't blame BI for teaching peeps about Laws of War though

[abstract crest]

Conventions

[grim sand]

Realistically though, they're just a corporation and not a really good one anyways - So they can't really give you too much trouble on two red rectangles. As long as you're not looting their exact proportional red rectangles that they've probably trademarked.

[meager fractal]

perhaps, but to violate the convention would cross so many signatories
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_parties_to_the_Geneva_Conventions

let's be smart and respectful

[grim sand]

These are the issues of nation states, but whatever, at the end of the day - BI's position is the law of the land.

[plain sedge]

Oh yeh, no game company has ever had to worry about anything like this 🙄
https://youtu.be/LPnOVK1766E?si=rQp89fOS5rncc56b
https://theweekly.co.uk/ap2/dissent/poppy.html

[grim sand]

The RC and Legion both vigorously defend their IP - but that's their prerogative.

[meager fractal]

let's be smart and respectful

[stray rover]

What about the red diamond like in Arma 3?

[meager fractal]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Emblems_of_the_International_Red_Cross_and_Red_Crescent_Movement#Red_Crystal

[stray rover]

nvm

[grim sand]

FYI the "red lozenge" is also a common stand in for OPFOR. As it reflects the diamond shape of NATO. Looks like it was in use around '96/'98 in the US for Enemy and Tanks.

[dark tulip]

I don't think the enemy is putting NATO symbols on their assets to annotate what they are and how big the group is...

[meager fractal]

the enemies are stupid; they thinks we are the enemy, when they are!

[grim sand]

I read this a few times but I can't make any sense of what you're trying to convey.

[meager fractal]

I believe your "red lozenge = OPFOR" comment did the same to us 😄

[grim sand]

I thought it was pretty apopo, kex was talking about the red diamond (or more accurately lozenge) which comes with the cross/crescent issue.

But even though that's now an adopted protected symbol, It was used as marking for enemy.

I mean perhaps Grez was trying to make a joke that the enemy don't mark themselves with NATO symbols - but that's a bit of a pitch to the bleachers there.

I guess perhaps from the "enemy side", I guess I can sort of understand his statement. " The enemy knew not to shoot this protected symbol because why would they label themselves with NATO's enemy code?"

Yeah okay that makes sense, but the old US was labeling "all of the Red Cross" as enemy targets by inflection. Which was my statement 😁

Now I think I might have got what he was trying to say.

[meager fractal]

I mean perhaps Grez was trying to make a joke that the enemy don't mark themselves with NATO symbols - but that's a bit of a pitch to the bleachers there.
I think that was it, they don't paint themselves with NATO "enemy" symbol yeah :D

[south remnant]

im going to get a tattoo of company sized opfor nato symbology just for that now

[icy linden]

the red rhombus

I use red rhombus for my HUD does it mean I get a ban

[grim sand]

Right to the gulag 😂

[slender drum]

Another mod dev has setup a mod/mission which uses my communities logo (custom made for my community) in their display/scenario images. Is the only action to have it flagged using the workshop flag tool?

[inland sphinx]

If you actually have all the rights to your logo. You can DMCA thing the mod. It's a link in the window that the flag button opens

[slender drum]

Yes I have all rights. I paid for and organised the creation of the logo.

[mossy yarrow]

just because you paid for it dont mean you have the rights. Check if the creator kept the liscence

[grim sand]

Unless you're an employer. Then you're covered.

[south remnant]

No, you still have to have a license for that

[mossy yarrow]

I funded a 3d model and the modeler said he only makes it if he can keep the liscence. He sold the model on his store.

So the guy with the logo should absolutely be sure to check if he is the owner

[grim sand]

Yeah, I assume if you have agreed to a custom arrangement you're aware of said arrangement 😁

But if you have an employee employee relationship, default ownership goes to the employer. If not, which is most likely the case, immediate copyright is given to the producer of the object - and it's not fully transferred with payment by default.

[slender drum]

I hold Commercial Use - Exclusive Copyrights for my custom made logo.

[main sage]

For that blog post forthcoming concerning derivative works:
If I made a mod that overrides vanilla functionality, which another mod then overrides, that would not be derivative.
If I make a mod which overrides the functionality of another mod (let's say scripting), I'd believe it's not derivative as that work exists with/without the original. Just because it can be used to override another mod, it's probably not sufficient to say that it is derivative in practice.
My understanding of creating derivatives of other people's work is that if the code, textures, or configs are being copied and modified, it's derivative. If I am overriding functionality, the code itself is in a vacuum, but in the context of the game the game derives it's gameplay from a cohesion of all mods/assets. I guess my argument is that if you consider an override to be derivative, any mod which overrides similar functionality would also be derivative of each other considering they all use the same scripting/game engine to accomplish some type of ends.
Ultimately, guidance will be good - but it seems to me that if you don't want overrides to function - the way the game does dependencies would need to change. If you are adding/removing functionality from other people's mods through creation of original assets, but the game is combining them - that's not on the creator of the mod(s) imo.

[grim sand]

If you just made something that interacts with but exists in a vacuum on its own, I doubt they would come after you. You never touched the other person's code, and since it's a complex system, You're just interacting with the system which just happens to interact with their system.

Probably to the extent, That interaction will have to be hands off. As soon as you start referencing their functions and start putting in infrastructure to bridge, then you're coding with their stuff and it's no longer a vacuum.

[main sage]

It's a slippery slope for sure, and there could be a long debate about it, but really I'm concerned with what amounts to gatekeeping in which people want to maintain control of what they consider IP - but otherwise is a method of accomplishing a task in game. I'm worried that the fear of being banned/punished for extending functionality will lead to a few with the knowledge and power, with others who learn the capability being forced to create their own implementation - fragmenting the community of mod makers who will be essentially competing to accomplish the same things.

Claiming another's work as your own = bad
Enhancing your mod using another mod as a dependency = ?

[grim sand]

You're not going to get banned or punished out of the blue, there are some very retentive IP people - and it's best to just steer clear of that whole political squabble.

As Einstein said, The key to being intelligent is to hide your sources. All humans learn from copying somebody or something.

"Every thing must have a beginning… and that beginning must be linked to something that went before… Invention, it must be humbly admitted, does not consist in creating out of void, but out of chaos; the materials must, in the first place, be afforded: it can give form to dark, shapeless substances, but cannot bring into being the substance itself"

Dependencies exist for a reason. You just can't republish or modify the existing mod. But I really don't think they can hunt you down for making a mod that interfaces lightly with other mods.

It's like saying " I published this public mod but you're not allowed to use it "

But if you're running a top-of-the-line server with hundreds of people and somebody's getting jealous... Who knows.

If you're just modding and playing with friends, no one's ever going to know. Unless said gatekeepers are sitting there scrolling to see who's got their dependencies everyday.

[south remnant]

Also depends on the game - A3 vs AR both handle dependencies differently

[vast stump]

there is also the thing of talking with each other. people can be rather reasonable if they are asked for permission etc in case their licensing is not already clear on what you can do

[old jay]

Just wanted to point out that you're literally in a channel created by the "gatekeepers" (Moderators) for the purpose of educating users so that they don't tamper with the works of others (without consent/permission).

no one's ever going to know
When you do this, thats where you fall afoul of IP rights.

[vast stump]

Would appreciate if you did not encourage IP infringing in the future with this kind of talk.

And make this somehow some sort of "us vs them" situation and label people gatekeepers in such derogatory manner.

[grim sand]

Well, there is the law, then international law, then there is policy, and then there is individual contacts. So at some level (the lowest) it is a "them feelings" matter - but again, yee be the law of the land here.

[old jay]

It’s not so much that it’s “yee be the law of the land here” but more that of “you catch more flies with honey than with vinegar”

Asking politely goes a very long way in this community. You are more likely to get permission by just asking the authors.

See HorribleGoat’s response to another user earlier:

“there is also the thing of talking with each other. people can be rather reasonable if they are asked for permission etc in case their licensing is not already clear on what you can do”

[grim sand]

It definitely has everything to do with the powers vested to the mod makers from BI, who gets their powers from a State authority and international agreements. BI, and by extension its agents, are free to add or revoke rights when it comes to derivative (modding) works - So it's everything to do with them being the law of the land.

That's what my conversation was about, IP is a little more nuanced "you're not allowed to look at my stuff"

[main sage]

When adding fonts to a project in enfusion, it's correct to assume the original font is not included - and should be ok to use a font who's EULA specifies not to distribute the font software itself.

[grim sand]

Since nobody replied to you. I'm assuming you're talking about a piece of software that helps you create fonts? Generally, creation software lets you keep the "fruits of your creation" (although, in very rare cases, that's not always the case).

As per, what I know of BI's licensing. You keep ownership of everything you inject into the game. So the copyright that you get afforded to you by "law" depending where you are, which wasn't removed or limited by the font software, would carry over to your custom stuff, which then would not be stripped/relinquished to BI, when placed in the game.

Edit: I assume the EULA just speaks to not redistribution of the core generation software (I.e piracy)

[main sage]

Yeah basically distributing the TTF

[grim sand]

Yeah that's the font file I think? So you can read the EULA if you really want to be sure, but it would be odd if a creation tool basically stopped you from using a creation (then what's the point) - generally it's IBM or Adobe or somebody with a protected ecosystem that sort that does that kind of thing.

[barren tartan]

I would read carefully, to determine whether you can include the ttf or not.

At least in older font creation terminology font files themselves are sometimes referred to as software or code since they contain "instructions" on how to be processed.

[zealous moon]

So how exactly does APL work?

Not SA or ND, but just a regular APL license

[meager fractal]

as in, I allow modder + 1 to modify my mod, but they cannot release it under APL, only APL-ND (from what I understand)

[fiery egret]

I'm quite sure there's no part that says that, in regular APL 😅

I'd say it's meant to say "Do you want to [force] their adapted work to be available under the same terms"

So you can have a "chain" of APL mods (meaning mods being a modified earler APL mod) as long as a modder down the line doesn't decide that they release something as either APL-SA or APL-ND

Then you can't "go back" to regular APL

Basically this (with regards to modifying a mod and re-releasing it)

[meager fractal]

what I read from this flowchart 😄 hahaha

but you are most likely right, and I exhausted ^^

[abstract crest]

All the license says is you can share and adapt an APL licensed product, there are no additional constraints apart from attribution, non-commercial and ARMA only which is why it flows from the last NO. You can take an APL mod, adapt it and release it under any license that meets those three requirements

[grim sand]

Now what if the mount a flank and they skip the direct assault through The flowchart. Catching the IP police unawares. (This is rhetorical)

[abstract crest]

Morale of this thread: read the actual license not a silly flowchart 😉

[inland sphinx]

SA means share alike.
Share only allowed with a license that is alike.
The SA license text even explains that afaik

[zealous moon]

So... I'm confused

Can I or can I not edit a mod that is APL?

And could that edit then be made APL-SA?

[fiery egret]

If you are able start at "START HERE" and go along the arrows and end up in the "APL-SA" box, then yes. (so yes)

[grim sand]

APL as far as I can tell, allows you to modify and install and otherwise use, you just can't publish (or distribute) in some cases.

[zealous moon]

I'll be honest, the fact there isn't a solid consesus here is... concerning

I really think the licenses could do with an official reclarification

[grim sand]

The license is pretty clear. You can go and look it up.

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

But it doesn't say you can't touch it.

There was a huge problem with this when computers first came out. Copyright owners were arguing that if something gets put into RAM it constitutes copying - or if someone takes notes from a book - that's copying.

You end up getting what they call fair use laws, which obviously the developers have built into their stock licences.

If not, the whole concept of modding would fall apart. They would have a you can look at this but you can't use it license.

[fiery egret]

Since Foxtonnes is already confused about the graph and wants to go from APL to APL-SA, I'd suggest to discuss that part only, because explaining what other licenses do or that you can use other external licenses (in some cases) will make it even more confusing 😛

[grim sand]

Well SA is share alike, Nd is no derivatives. But they're both the same license fundamentally

[zealous moon]

Okay, so it's functionally APL-SA, without the requirement for a derivative to be SA

It can go either way

[grim sand]

SA Is the same as APL, with the stipulation that it is shared alike

[zealous moon]

APL-SA or APL-ND

[grim sand]

SA and ND are both children of APL, but they're not interchangeable. They both have their own stipulations

[zealous moon]

I mean you can make something out of an APL file, and then make it one or the other

[fiery egret]

There is APL, APL-SA and APL-ND. It this what you're confused about?

[zealous moon]

I'm confused about how APL fits between the two

[grim sand]

Apl just does not have the stipulation that you have to share alike or not. Make form of derivatives.

So it has the master content and it's the most permissive (public)

[fiery egret]

You can take APL and make it into any three licenses mentioned above (APL, APL-SA or APL-ND)
You can take APL-SA and make it only into APL-SA
You can't modify and share APL-ND

[grim sand]

The whole point of the APL licensing is just so that certain rights are applied so BI can function and the society around modding can function without crazy disputes.

[zealous moon]

Ahhhhhhhhh, right, okay

I thought that was how it worked, I just wanted to make sure

[grim sand]

I don't know if I would advise that you can modify the terms of somebody else's choice

If somebody distributes via APL, you can't go and turn their APL into an ND.

It just means their APL is not going to interfere with your personal choice

[fiery egret]

If somebody distributes via APL, you can't go and turn their APL into an ND.
But that's precisely what the graph above says, though

[zealous moon]

^

[grim sand]

No what the graph says is you can distribute your stuff under said license.

You can't modify someone else's license.

[zealous moon]

Which would make it effectively APL-SA

Making it irrelevant

[fiery egret]

With this licence you are free to adapt (...) and share (...) the material under the following conditions:
Attribution
Noncommercial
Arma Only
These are the requirements

[zealous moon]

If you can't change the terms of an APL mod, then it's stuck as an APL-SA equivalent

[grim sand]

Correct, The license is basic. But you can't go and say " this guy's mod is now this license because I said so" lol

[fiery egret]

So as long as these requirements are met, I can change the license to APL-SA

[grim sand]

You can change your license, yes. For your remix. But you can't just rebundle his stuff and slap a license on it

[zealous moon]

Of course, wouldn't ever consider doing such a thing

[grim sand]

Well actually you could. But it would be your stuff, not his stuff that has that license

[zealous moon]

See, this is why I was confused

[grim sand]

Anyways, it's all semantics, but I just wanted to point out, You're just dealing with other people's choices here - and all this licensing serves to do is just manage a dispute process and tell other people what you expect them to do with your content.

[zealous moon]

Ayup, cheers for the help

[grim sand]

Happy modding

[abstract crest]

You can change APL to any license you want so long as you attribute and specify ARMA only and non-commercial. As I said, ignore that flowchart and read the license

[zealous moon]

I did

[abstract crest]

As an aside, as I regularly point out APL-ND while not allowing adaptation does not prevent sharing, so so long as you don't change anything then you can redistribute

[zealous moon]

I was seeking clarification

So, wait

Are you saying that APL-ND content can be repackaged?

[abstract crest]

No, redistributed as is

[zealous moon]

What exactly do you mean by that? Could I get an example?

[abstract crest]

That one is a little confusing tbh. You can take an APL-ND mod at a point in time and redistribute that mod. Never got an answer whether you could take that mod and include in another mod as is, so being cagey on my answer to your "repackaged" question.

[zealous moon]

God these licenses need a rework

[abstract crest]

Basically APL-ND forbids adaptation or transformation but explicitely allows sharing

[vast stump]

it is possible to use your own license too

[zealous moon]

I am aware of CUP-L and other such licenses

[vast stump]

and whatever these would be updated to, anything already released would still follow what they were at the time

[zealous moon]

So for example, CUP

[abstract crest]

On ND or SA you can't change the license ofc. But yeah, those licenses were written in the times before Steam or BI mod sharing

[zealous moon]

They launched under APL originally, before they switched to CUP-L

You're saying that everything released before the switch to CUP-L is still considered APL?

[inland sphinx]

If you have it, it would be yeah

[zealous moon]

I assume there wouldn't be any obligation for someone in that scenario to actually provide old builds, would there

[inland sphinx]

no

[zealous moon]

Figured as much, makes sense

[abstract crest]

Parts of the CUP content are still APL-SA though, as indicated in Clause 4 (Exceptions) of the CUP License

I.e. stuff directly from ARMA 2

[zealous moon]

Really? I've always been told that was still effectively APL-ND

[abstract crest]

They can't take APL-SA stuff from BI and make it APL-ND 😉

Or APL depending on which license the source was under (there are APL and APL-SA versions of the samples iirc

[vast stump]

you still cant edit p3ds and such so if you want to do something with the models just use the datapacks

or use CUP as a dependency for retextures

[abstract crest]

Samples, LDPs are binarized

[vast stump]

those 👆

[zealous moon]

Basically a mod using A2 assets ported to A3 would have to be APL? Even if they're modified?

[abstract crest]

Yes

[zealous moon]

Hold on

[abstract crest]

Oh, no. If you use the APL ones they can change license, if the APL-SA ones then no you can't

[zealous moon]

Ah

[zealous moon]

So, the LDPs are binarized

The Samples only include a very limited amount of assets

Stuff I know I've seen ported to A3 before ain't in there

[abstract crest]

No, ARMA 2 Sample packs have everything other than textures

[inland sphinx]

https://www.bohemia.net/community/licenses/licensed-data-packages
Some are APL, some are APL-SA

CUP has a specific agreement with BI (which is always also an option, if the license doesn't work, you can ask the author directly if they can make an exception and give you files under different license)

[zealous moon]

Doesn't CUP use Arma 2 textures though?

[abstract crest]

Yeah, for anyone you get those from the LDPs 🙂

[zealous moon]

But aren't the LDPs binarized?

[abstract crest]

Textures are just paas

[zealous moon]

Ahhhhh

Okay

So, wait

Why are the LDP models binarized, but not the samples?

[abstract crest]

Ask BI that one lol

Or rather why have both when only one is actually useful

[zealous moon]

^

I was just about to say

Why are usable textures and models split between downloads

[abstract crest]

🤷

[inland sphinx]

They were probably released at different times.
And they are split, because the latter released one didn't want to duplicate files that are already available and waste space with it

[abstract crest]

Yeah, the 2 sample packs for data are substantially smaller in size than all the LDPs together

[zealous moon]

So in the (hopeful) eventuality that we get the A3 models available to edit, we'd be waiting for the Samples specifically, and not the LDPs?

[abstract crest]

You can also just drop an ARMA 2 map from the LDP in a ARMA 3 mod and run it fine with CUP Terrains Core for example

[inland sphinx]

Afaik the A3 LDPs will contain binarized p3d's yes

[zealous moon]

With all due respect, what the heck's the point?

We can't edit the models, we already have the textures

[inland sphinx]

That is a good question

[zealous moon]

We've been waiting so long for something that is going to be literally useless

[inland sphinx]

pong @tall kindle #other_ip_topics message and below?

[abstract crest]

Made more sense in A2 -> A3 since you can just alter configs, but for A3 -> A4 they will be unusable. Guess they will be handy for DZSA?

[zealous moon]

I really hope we haven't been holding out all this time for something we can't even use

[abstract crest]

Must admit, I had assumed that the Sample equivalents would be what would be released for ARMA 3 packs

[zealous moon]

I remember BI even hyped it up in one of the COMRADs, something something "Our next big release for Arma 3 will hopefully be the Licensed Data Packages"

[abstract crest]

Technically Sample Packs are LDPs but if Dedmen's right and the models are binarized then they are not useful for ARMA 4

Probably lots of time for the actual Sample Packs to be done though

[inland sphinx]

Depends on what you want to do.
Some modifications (like replacing a texture) can still be done, like many terrain makers want (tried) to do

[abstract crest]

But not in Enfusion

[zealous moon]

I want to do some turret swaps, make a version of the Combat Helmet that has a headset, but not the other tech stuff that the Combat Helmet (Enhanced) does

That sort of thing

[abstract crest]

Yeah, but how do you make it so your version overrides the vanilla version since the prefixes will have to be the same? Or is that only an issue with mod vs mod?

[inland sphinx]

prefixes? you can rename p3d files

[abstract crest]

But the textures' paths are mostly set inside the binarized model?

[inland sphinx]

Mikeros MoveObject can replace paths inside binarized p3d's

[abstract crest]

Oh, TIL. Thanks 🙂

[inland sphinx]

If path is same length or shorter(I think), you can also just use a hex editor

[abstract crest]

Did not know about MoveObject. That's incredibly useful

[zealous moon]

But as far as I can tell, this would be impossible with the LDPs

[inland sphinx]

If they are like all previous LDPs were, then yes

[zealous moon]

So beyond the very niche use cases of editing the textures of terrain objects, there's really not much of anything that can be done with the LDPs?

We can't edit the models, it's irrelevant as a way to know what licenses apply to what considering all of A3's assets are APL-ND anyway, it's not exactly a "big release" considering that even most of the modding community can't do anything with it

[abstract crest]

ARMA 3 assets are not under APL-ND - they are under the game EULA. But assume the LDPs will be ADPL-SA

[zealous moon]

Well, they might as well be APL-ND, we aren't allowed to edit the models

And the LDPs might as well be too, since they're binarized

[abstract crest]

No, I mean legally we are not really allowed to even open the PBOs

[zealous moon]

Right

[abstract crest]

But I agree. As I said, I assumed Samples would be released first this time because of Enfusion and DayZ (and the relicensing of the A2 Sample packs as ADPL). I do see opportunities for retextures but that is probably not why most people want the data packs

[zealous moon]

^

I really hope something is done about this, because as it stands now, the release of the LDPs will be effectively useless to modders

Either release the Samples instead, or just give the LDPs unbinarized models and related data

[abstract crest]

Exactly, especially given the newish sharing with DayZ Standalone and the migration to Enfusion-based ARMA

[zealous moon]

Heck, I want this stuff to expand on Arma 3

[abstract crest]

Absolutely, but those factors should have influenced the contents of the LDPs alone. For A2->A3 transition it mattered much, much less

[zealous moon]

Yeah true

[abstract crest]

As it was, it was pretty much two years after ARMA 3 released before you had CUP (and they had advanced access to the source, can't remember when AiA came out) so you assume two years at least before ARMA 4? Then add another couple of years or more for decent, stable ARMA 2 or 3 content in it maybe? I will be collecting a pension before I'll be moving to ARMA 4 at this rate lol. Not that that bothers me, I ❤️ ARMA 3 and the work of Live Ops

[zealous moon]

Me too, I frickin' love 2035

[zealous moon]

I gotta go pass out for the night, someone ping me when Yan shows up?

[rugged prawn]

🤣

[tall kindle]

I'm not sure what specifically is the question, but LDP is really just the game content released under one of our licenses (therefore binarized). Those are just the PBO files as you have them in your game installation, but with the big difference that: non-owners can legally use them within the confines of the licenses and they are specifically licensed for modding (rather than just under the game's EULA).

'Sample Packs' are more advanced and processed. These can contain actual sources of content where we have such sources available and, importantly, where we are legally able to release such sources. Consider tricky content where we may not be allowed to redistribute sources freely, such as fonts, terrain height data, or music. That investigation and the gathering / processing / sanitization of sources from various places make these samples far more work. The storing of sources has improved and became more structural at BI over the years though, so for A3 there is more available (which also means more work) than A2. I realize that modders would love as much as possible especially these packs, but please keep in mind it's quite rare for such sources to be released for any game. It's a lot of work and it needs to be done by people who typically are also needed for future Arma development. We are still interested in doing it eventually though.

A3 LDP for the base game is more likely to happen in the span of months than any full samples are.

[small hamlet]

That's an excellent overview of the situation, thank you Yoris. I imagine the issue with certain content not being able to be redistributed and so on would relate to some degree to being unable to allow more general modification of in-game meshes without the need for LDPs / Samples?

To quantify that, the Bethesda vs. Bohemia debate that tends to crop up in other servers; the former allowing existing in-game meshes to be extracted and edited before being added back into their respective games, whereas BI obviously doesn't allow that.

[pliant oracle]

@zealous moon Yoris answered

[small hamlet]

Realising I worded that a bit poorly.

Basically, at times it feels like BI is putting up barriers to modding the game (Arma 3) compared to other companies and their respective products. This isn't an entirely fair assessment of BI as the company has done a great deal to support modding and the community in that regard, however it does somewhat hinder what the community can give back in turn at times - I know the Aegis mod team would kill for circumstances to change regarding working with existing meshes and so on as an example, given LDPs are obviously quite a bit of work and don't seem (from an outside perspective) to be arriving anytime soon.

I should stress this isn't a dig at BI, but rather more of a request for greater clarity? It's an odd situation, and it's always fascinated me seeing BIs approach set slightly aside to some other companies approach to modding, particularly where comparisons can be drawn.

[tall kindle]

Basically, at times it feels like BI is putting up barriers to modding the game (Arma 3) compared to other companies and their respective products.
Do you have some more examples? I can only say that it's certainly not intended or any kind of anti-modding philosophy. We love modding. I'd argue we've tried to offer better support for modding over the years, but often times we do have to abide by business priorities and realities. Most often it's really just about resources and priorities I'm afraid.

[zealous moon]

For example, why are we forbidden from modifying base game meshes by the EULA?

[stone bridge]

I think the argument that is being made is that having binarized models doesn't change anything for the modding community as it still prevents modifying the 3d models themselves.

I can't think of any other companies that allow this as Arma is the only modding community i've ever known, but i can understand why some are puzzled by this decision.

I guess the idea people had of these LDPs was something like the A2 source files that were used by CUP and other modding teams for A3.

[lavish basalt]

Since I actually know what is the intention behind Fox or Joe or whoever's talkings, I'd like to crossfire you a bit to explain more straightforwardly.
The intention out there actually is, they just want a way to modify P3Ds legally and thing they don't (or I don't) understand is, how it is hard to put source P3Ds (unbinned) into a zip folder (or sort of something) leave it to the community (with APL of course) and call it a day

[small hamlet]

That's an excellent question - I the base game meshes point is a fair entry point.

Being able to tweak something like say, the vest used by AAF troops which comes stock with STANAG magazines modelled on it to instead have different pouches, such as pouches for G3 magazines or AK magazines. Or another example would be being able to edit the model for the Katiba (the vanilla CSAT rifle) to have proper magazine proxies, allowing for variant magazines (to my recollection it shares a proxy with the Type 115(?) which has historically prevented that?).

[zealous moon]

^

[small hamlet]

POL and Chair are honestly on point there.

[tall kindle]

Because we haven't yet released the data under appropriate licenses, and if we relax the game EULA itself, it probably opens up some less ideal use cases as well (I think, but just guessing now as I was not involved in those original decisions). It's something I can try to find out about with Legal or those who know this topic better than me.

[zealous moon]

People already rip stuff from the base game and port it to other games

All this is doing is hurting the actual Arma 3 community

[small hamlet]

That'd be excellent if possible. I entirely appreciate the concerns legal-wise, as it's something that's alarmed me elsewhere at times; see Bethesda's fairly hands-off approach to modding leading to games like Fallout 4 having way, way too many ripped assets from places like Modern warfare for example. In fact, without looking I can guarantee that the main page on Nexus has ripped assets on ti right now.

[lavish basalt]

I think people already do anyways is not a legit way to justify something, as, you know, I can't murder you

[tall kindle]

Just because they are already doing it is not an argument to remove legal protections of our content.

[lavish basalt]

Sorry not

[zealous moon]

Then how do other games manage it?

To bring up the topic of Bethesda again, for example

On day one of Fallout 4's mod tools releasing, I could edit and make variants of base game assets

I could take the pistol model and change it to my liking, then put it back in the game

[small hamlet]

POL, because I know you'll never be able to track me down you've always got explicit permission to murder me. 😆 But 100% agree - just because people have been doing it previously doesn't make it right.

[zealous moon]

I understand these sort of restrictions for DLCs, it'd potentially be taking money out of BI's pocket as it were

But not with base game hardware, you have to own the game to use it in the first place

[tall kindle]

Every company can make their own decisions about their content licensing (within appropriate laws). I don't know Bethesda's exact EULA or approach. They may simply accept more risks to their content being used with fewer obstacles. As always, a minority of malicious scenarios tends to impose more frustrating rules for the majority of good people. It's a tricky and complex line to navigate. But in any case, I'll try discuss and find out if there's some reasons I'm not aware of. Just realistically don't expect changes to the A3 situation at this stage, until we are able to get some LDPs or sample packs out.

[zealous moon]

Even if we did get the LDPs, by the EULA's current rules there really isn't much we can actually do with them

They don't offer anything over the base game files or tools to Arma 3

[small hamlet]

Thank you Yoris. \o I appreciate this can be a bit of a difficult subject, and we've all piled in a bit here, however this all is out of love for the game and everything that comes with it.

[zealous moon]

^

[lavish basalt]

Which is, I know you can't tell yeah we're releasing it now and you really need to sort everything up properly. But things are really not so complicated to me. I know EULA can't really be updated when somebody asks so, so I'm more interested with LDP's situation. Since I've been observed this question a lot of times and long time.
As far as I know, A2 LDP is actually just “unbinned/source P3Ds which you normally can't get, and here it is, so go for mod, dudes” without much updates on these sources out of ingame PBOs. Hence the question

[small hamlet]

We're all angling for that "still playing and modding Arma 3 in 2050" vibe.

[zealous moon]

I love 2035, I really do, it's one of the most unique and actually enjoyable settings I've come across in any FPS

[lavish basalt]

For serious sidenote, I am still seriously waiting for Community Involvement

[small hamlet]

Community Involvement?

[lavish basalt]

https://dev.arma3.com/post/sitrep-00240

[zealous moon]

Honestly just the allowance for us to debinarize the LDPs ourselves would be enough

[fiery egret]

I'm screenshotting this. Precisely because...

We're all angling for that "still playing and modding Arma 3 in 2050" vibe.
Fast-forward 15 years, to the Bohemia's 40th anniversary in Prague, where all the modders gathered...

[normal pond]

Nah, I am not going all the way to Prague

[grim sand]

Will hold an Arma North America in Toronto.

[zealous moon]

So what exactly could we do with the LDPs?

Those are just the PBO files as you have them in your game installation, but with the big difference that: non-owners can legally use them within the confines of the licenses and they are specifically licensed for modding (rather than just under the game's EULA).

Am I to understand that this means people could make DLC assets into free mod items?

[abstract crest]

Yeah, but he was ofc talking about ARMA 2 DLCs ofc

But presumably the same will be true in the ARMA 3 LDPs

Don't actually remember anyone doing that for ARMA 2 oddly 🤔

[austere fog]

Are there restrictions to what is and isnt allowed to be put in a Custom Liscense for Reforger Workshop Mods?

[zealous moon]

BI letting the community legally pirate DLCs before they let us edit models

[grim sand]

Of course. The big one being you can't supersede BI's workshop TOS. Which basically also includes the second part, which is you can't supersede local and international law regarding copyrights and trademarks - or otherwise drag BI into a mess. Even though they clearly write that their hands off, they also write that they will intercede as required by law or as they feel it.

So your custom TOS, is limited to the leftover rights granted to you by BI, and you got to choose what you want to do with them within that spectrum.

[austere fog]

Well obviously but this just partly makes sense since the other liscenses are in theory breaking TOS themselves....

since the TOS in theroy states that you have to let other people modify it even though the ND says they cant ....

Or am I missunderstanding something

[grim sand]

TOS says you have to let them remix it. ND says that "remix" can't be redistributed.

[old jay]

You won't get your gift bags then either.

[fiery egret]

You mean loot from Polpox' body?

[old jay]

Nah, from BI. We didn't get our giftbags from the 20th anniversary. Its kind of an inside joke now.

[austere fog]

Well essentially though noone will remix it if they cant distribute it

[grim sand]

Well it doesn't stop you from remixing it and playing with the remix locally. The terms of service could be so, you're not even allowed to touch it or look at it if they wanted to - but then that defeats the whole point of modding and the workbench - hence the terms of service to keep that pathway open.

[austere fog]

Its good to know because my though was that they can still distirbute it after remixing I guess I misinterpreted the TOS wrong

[grim sand]

ND blocks sending out the remix. But the original TOS, allows remixing - and I assume you can't write a terms of service that supersedes BI/the original.

I'm pretty sure it says that but I am not going to go look at it again 😄

Suffice to say do your thing, become a good modder, and no looting word for word on ND's - or at least not on stuff you're ever going to publish.

[abstract crest]

BI addressed the mistaken idea of being allowed to remix mods in their EULA FAQ btw https://reforger.armaplatform.com/news/eula-faq ```Does this Game EULA allow any user to take, modify, and own mods or content without the permission of the owner?
No, regardless of the content created (e.g. videos, screenshots, addons, etc), the EULA does not grant users the right to take, modify, and own mods without the explicit permission of the owner. Users retain control over what they have created, within the rights granted by the Game or Tools EULA.

As a content creator, do I give my right to ownership by using my mods in your game, using the Tools, or uploading to the Workshop?
No, content creators do not relinquish ownership rights by using mods in the game, utilizing tools, or uploading to the Workshop. Your rights as a creator are preserved.```

[grim sand]

That still doesn't say what I think you think it says.

Users retain control over what they have created,

That's a big part of everything they say but the follow-up is...

within the rights granted by the Game or Tools EULA.

And if you share it on the workshop, workshop TOS.

This only covers the EULA from a "I installed the game, are you going to steal all my stuff? Is somebody else going to steal all my stuff?"

I'm not able to post images but if you look at the workshop TOS you'll see.

Any Content You upload to ARMA REFORGER Workshop has to be licensed to other Users who download it under one of the following license terms: APL license, APL-SA license, APL-ND license, ADPL-SA license or any other custom license of your choice. The custom license of your choice must be in compliance with all applicable documents regulating the use of this ARMA REFORGER Workshop and the use of the content you used for creating the Content.

And we look at the most restrictive license:

ARMA PUBLIC LICENSE NO DERIVATIVES (APL-ND)

With this licence you are free to adapt (i.e. modify, rework or update) and share (i.e. copy, distribute or transmit) the material under the following conditions:

• Attribution - You must attribute the material in the manner specified by the author or licensor (but not in any way that suggests that they endorse you or your use of the material).
• Noncommercial - You may not use this material for any commercial purposes.
• Arma Only - You may not convert or adapt this material to be used in other games than Arma.
• No Derivatives - If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute the modified material.

[abstract crest]

or any other custom license of your choice

Workshop EULA says nothing about allowing others to open your files or allow someone to remix

[grim sand]

Except the custom license has to being compliance with the workshop... And the workshop requires the license to be APL of some sort.

[abstract crest]

No, it VERY MUCH does not

It has to be BI product only and no monetization

[grim sand]

You can't have a license that's supersedes BI's intentions. You could write a license that allows you to do commercial work and charge $50 for every download...

[abstract crest]

Again, the only condition on the custom license is "The custom license shall explicitly prohibit the use of the Content for any commercial purposes, shall explicitly prohibit any direct or indirect monetization of the Content and shall explicitly prohibit the use of the Content outside Our own products"

[grim sand]

The TOS stipulates that within ARMA REFORGER Workshop the Users may:

Download, use, alter and further develop the Content uploaded to ARMA REFORGER Workshop.

That's just describing a feature versus a right then?

[abstract crest]

Note on Downloads from the workshop "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"

See section 4 for that...

Most ARMA 3 modders would not mod Reforger otherwise

[grim sand]

I think the " further develop " implies remixing and publishing which is why noted as optional.

[abstract crest]

Only if the license does not forbid it

Also APL-ND restricts remixing it does not restrict sharing btw, which is the opposite of what was suggested earlier

[grim sand]

It definitely has a restriction on sharing with the stipulation,

If you remix, transform, or build upon the material, you may not distribute (see: sharing) the modified material.

But anyways, until a legal moderator comes in and sets the law down, I'll bow out. It's irrelevant to me at the moment. And neither of us are the lawmakers.

[abstract crest]

Which means if you do not remix, transform or build upon then you can share it

I've pointed this out many times

[grim sand]

I didn't say otherwise? Because if not, you would be in violation of your own TOS putting it on the workshop...

[abstract crest]

What?

[grim sand]

Never mind man. It doesn't matter. Enjoy your afternoon 😂

[abstract crest]

I mean, you can take an APL-ND mod and redistribute if you make no changes. One reason I always recommend custom licenses tbh. All the APL licenses were written before Steam or BI workshops and sort of reflect that environment of ARMAsync, etc.

[meager bolt]

mmm

i have been pointed out something by a friend

https://www.activision.com/legal/terms-of-use

"Activision grants you a personal, limited, non-exclusive license to use the Product for your non-commercial use."

this explains the nexus mods being filled with fo4 mods that havent been taken down

so ig u could port these to arma and be fine in terms of licenses

[inland sphinx]

Continue reading.

You may not copy (except as expressly permitted by this license and any other applicable terms, conditions, or usage rules), decompile, reverse engineer, disassemble, attempt to derive the source code of, modify, or create derivative works of the Product
The product, is the game.
Not decompiled/reverse engineered/ripped parts of the game, that are being turned into derivative works such as games for other mods

You agree that you will not, under any circumstances:
use, develop, host or distribute cheats, automation software (bots), modded lobbies, hacks, mods or any other unauthorized third-party software in connection with the Product, or engage in any form of cheating, boosting, or booting;
reproduce, distribute, display, transfer or use any part of the Product except as expressly authorized by Activision

No making of mods "in connection with the product"
I'd argue that making a mod (for a different game) using ripped parts of "the product", has a "connection" with "the product".

And not being allowed to reproduce, distribute or display "any part of the product" would also be a problem for ripping parts of "the product" and redistributing and displaying them as a mod for another game

[meager bolt]

https://www.nexusmods.com/fallout4/mods/72877

[inland sphinx]

I don't doubt that people rip models from popular games

[meager bolt]

no but like

this hasnt been taken down

and it's popular

and nexus is stringent on copyright usually too

so im trying to figure that out

[inland sphinx]

popular on nexusmods

how popular in the office of Activisions copyright lawyer? not much probably

[meager bolt]

ig he went and got extra perms from support

[inland sphinx]

Well if he got explicit permission from Activision, then there is your answer why it stays up

Asking for permission is always an option with everything

[meager bolt]

if they gave it for fo4 no reason they wouldnt give it for another game tbh

ill go ask im curious

[south remnant]

no they arent lol

people cant even take their own content down

[vast stump]

nexus says it is

but they dont really do stuff about it

they take action if stuff is dmcad

people mark all kinds of ripped content as "their own"

[south remnant]

theyve refused action when dmcas have been issued previously

people have had to go to their service provider

[vast stump]

😄

figures

Unfortunately the service lives off users who in turn enjoy the ripped stuff

[mossy yarrow]

is @chrome plinth here and open for a dm ?

[vast stump]

you can DM him yes. if he dont answer in few days, try again

[mossy yarrow]

alright thank you Goat

[chrome plinth]

note that i doubt that Activision gave any rights for data / IP usage by random 3rd party, via common support (that's something what shall go thru lawyers with legal documents involved)

seen cases of games where random staff gave approval to use assets to 'friends' in >insert social media or/and forums / emails< without the actual legal department even aware of ...

[meager bolt]

sucks for the legal department there then ig 💀 random staff be wildin

[grim sand]

It keeps them employed. It must be pretty awesome being a lawyer and hunting down a long-term criminal with the long arm of the law and finally nailing the person after 20 plus years of court 😂

[zealous moon]

No they're not lmao

[icy linden]

when is the reforger modding licensing faq post thingamabob coming out?

[abstract crest]

Six months ago 😉 https://reforger.armaplatform.com/news/eula-faq

[icy linden]

dont think this is the one that was being hyped up

there was supposed to be one about modding licenses, stuff about APL-ND

[celest sundial]

Hyped up is the wrong term, its pretty boring information and nothing you personally do not already know. Its mainly clarification in simple words to send people as reference instead of explaining it for the 50th time on this discord. I did not finish writing it yet, other things that are more important require my attention. So it will get published once I am done and it went through some more people to check and make nicer to read 🙂

[dark tulip]

Arma License
Question: Can I...?
Answer: No

Took me 30 seconds 😅

[grim sand]

Gold statue award

[dark tulip]

But all jokes aside, I think the article will not help much; those who care either know or will ask (or at least use common sense).
Those who don't care won't be bothered reading it anyway.

[icy linden]

it's supposed to be a source of truth of some sort

[old jay]

The source of truth has almost always been “No”.

[icy linden]

then I'd appreciate it documented

[formal blaze]

Question regarding map making. I've read before that a3 assets wasn't released to the public yet like a2 assets. does this mean we can't even recreate the maps present in a3, or does it only mean that we can't port it/copy paste assets?

[vast stump]

Can't use any data from existing maps correct. You can take same real life inspiration things and work out something similar.

But at that point might be more interesting to make something unseen

[formal blaze]

"You can take same real life inspiration"

Will taking the inspiration from the a3 maps themselves cause a problem (not real life). Like for example if I fully remake the map but I don't copy code or anything else. I just eye it and remake it 80% the same.

The question is less about a3 maps, and more about maps from other games in general. I just wanted to give a cear example to know what is cool and what is not.

[grim sand]

If you eyeball it, is not a copy. If you fill out the island and name everything the same and cause "confusion" then your treading closer to IP issues, but regardless BI can execute any form of punishment they wish for whatever reason, so really it all boils down to if BI is ok with you making a "close copy"

Copying other games, they can't really stop you, it will be BI stopping you if you get to close of a copy.

[formal blaze]

im using vanilla assets only, so it won't be anywhere near a copy. still, I don't want to spend 1k hours making a map then get told it;s not okay to do that

[grim sand]

Just call it Bevron and you'll be fine

General Tuba

[hardy bone]

If you take the height map IRL of the locations used for inspiration to make your map it's ok (as long as you obtain said height map legally), if you make a height map using an already existing map you would be making a copy. And if you eyeball it Justin gave you a good answer

[grim sand]

IP protects copys, not ideas or concepts.

"Making a island map for a FPS videogame" can't be protected 😛

[formal blaze]

I'm sculpting by hand. no hightmap at all.

[grim sand]

So its not even going to be remotely close to a copy. I wouldn't worry. BI isn't an arse about things like this. As long as your not doing bad stuff with their IP

[formal blaze]

im making it much better so they will be jealous af

[grim sand]

Banoa island is gonna rock

[dark tulip]

tbf... all vanilla terrains are based on real locations anyway, so relatively easy to get the heightmaps and stuff (as with any terrain from a real location).

[south remnant]

Just to triple check, if assets are purchased with no 3D license specified, the exact same as regular no license free stuff applies, correct?

[celest sundial]

If you purchased something that specifies no license you are not allowed to do ANYTHING with it that is not strictly private personal use. No sharing it with others, no remixing and uploading etc. Because by default the copyright does not allow you to do so.

[languid spindle]

We would like to seek your input on a matter from your team. We have been working on several mods that are almost complete.

We intend to release two versions of these mods to ensure appropriate attribution to our mod team. Essentially, one version will represent an older or lower quality iteration of the mod, while we will retain the newer or higher quality work. This arrangement would enable the community to retain access to the modifications, while allowing us to preserve a degree of distinctiveness within our servers.

We acknowledge the potential frustration that server owners may experience when their access to these mods is restricted by a "server check". This feedback has been consistently communicated by our customers. We aim to adopt a more lighthearted approach to address this matter.

We intend to superimpose a watermark onto the HUD bearing the message "This server is not authorized." Additionally, we seek to incorporate the specified GIF (below) and synchronize it with an accompanying sound upon respawn. "AH AH AH! YOU DIDN'T SAY THE MAGIC WORD!"

Questions:
How often would we be allowed to display and play the GIF?
How encumbrance can the watermark be?

https://tenor.com/view/you-didnt-say-the-magic-word-ah-ah-nope-wagging-finger-gif-17646607

We will change the face and wording just to be sure.

[grim sand]

Interesting. Not really a question of IP, but more a question of the EULA and terms of workshop. Which do prohibit troublesome or broken mods. Although without reading the legal again, I wonder what level of playable protectionism is allowed.

That said, anyone that plays on the server would download the HQ mod, and can reverse engineer it. Theres no need for a low grade copy for any reason then you want others to have your mod.

[barren tartan]

You use the word customer. I thought any product developed for Arma would have to be noncommercial unless no BI tool has been used. Is that the case or has BI changed their stance?

[sacred plank]

No BI tool has been used in relation to the customers, we run a server hosting business and our customers have expressed concerns about addons that use server checks and limit functionality was where that reference came in

[analog sphinx]

As far as it goes, you CAN key (but not sell said access) a mod to a specific server. What you can't do is prevent the game from executing when the mod is loaded/running in an unauthorized stance/server/machine as that break EULA for BI products.

[sacred plank]

That's where the questions comes in to what level can we cause effects within our own mod based on said unauthorized stance without it being considered malicious as it would only effect the functionality of our mod and not ability for the server to run

[analog sphinx]

as long as base game runs and you dont maliciously prevent other mods from running you are ok.

The ideal persons to ask about this would be Akensor or MarioE

[sacred plank]

Kind of where I sat but wanted to get clarification, appreciate the notes definitely don't want to affect other mods or the server itself

[analog sphinx]

now, with that said, it is considered petty by the general community and other mod creators to do this, as it looks like you are trying to hide some sort of monetization scheme for your content.

[old jay]

Also, it appears that you are trying to find a solution to a problem you've created. If you want to keep your mod private, do so (as many others do). There are many legal instruments that can be used to protect your content.

[sacred plank]

There is no attempts to monetize anything, we are working on a project that will have dedicated servers and the plan is to be able to protect the content as much as possible as with the arma reforger workshop as we have spent months on this project

Just the same as Elan Life and many other projects that are also dealing with similar issues of content theft or the risk of it we are just trying to minimize the risk and make it easy to identify when someone has stolen the content as it will all be ND regardless

[analog sphinx]

eh, lifers gonna life

[old jay]

And in the end, the vast majority lose.

[grim sand]

Then as others suggested. Just keep the add-on private. Since you're hosting the servers anyways. As soon as you make anything public, you're going to have to interact with the public - as per the EULA and terms of workshop.

[sacred plank]

There is no way to keep it "private" like you are suggesting, to run any addons on a server you need to be able to download them to the client and such you need to use the workshop even marking an addon as unlisted or testing still doesn't fully hide it and has been proven before to be fruitless at preventing people from using or taking from others work. Again the question wasn't around keeping anything private as we are well aware our goals make that impossible, it was clearly about what we can do within the realm of the Eula and terms to restrict our property from being used outside of our own servers without fully affecting servers trying to use our assets.

[grim sand]

You can't deposit files in the addon folder like the good ol days?

That said, I understand what you want, and already replied to such - if its accessible it can be looted, locking it down, doesn't do much of anything but cause headaches for everyone.

But you do you (up to the EULA / workshop) restrictions 🙂

[crimson garden]

You can add "local mods" to the Arma 3 launcher. You do not need to use the Steam Workshop.

Granted you then need to distribute the mod yourself through some other platform. Whether that be Discord, Google Drive, etc.

All steam workshop does is download the mod to a specific directory, and then when you launch the game you pass -mod=path\to\mod\on\your\system

[sacred plank]

Again like before it's not steam workshop it's Arma Reforger which uses Bohemia's Workshop system

[vast stump]

if you have anykind of business plan/model related to the mod and access to it, I would recommend running that by BI legal to make sure its alright.

[crimson garden]

Didn't see reforger anywhere, just "workshop". Fair enough though

[sacred plank]

That would definitely be against EULA I believe, our goal is just to run a few servers with the addons for people to play on, there isn't any plans to sell or distribute access

[vast stump]

👍

[vast stump]

but there is some sort of business going on? so if you want to play it safe you should probably run it through BI legal or your own legal counsel who can compare your business plan/practice against the game TOS/EULA

[copper crescent]

There is definitely some sort of business/commercial entity afoot here; they state a few times they are utilizing their "server hosting business" and the word "customer" also arises. They want to bar their content behind a specific server and also alter game properties to put a "watermark" on their content almost akin to the Arma 3 system with the DLCs.

Are server providers effectly allowed to "advertise" in this manner in a server? It seems it almost falls under commercial gains instead of Donation.

[old jay]

A bit of advice, don't try to make a business out of Arma/Reforger, it never ends well.

[rapid escarp]

Yeah, this just sounds like making in-game ads

Don't know why BI would agree to that when they could make $$$ themselves selling in-game ad space to third parties

[meager bolt]

real

[copper crescent]

You inquired here, which in turn had the conclusions drawn because your questions/inquiries were not as straight forward as you try to portray above.

1. We do not have any idea what your company is, where your discord link is; or what servers you even host.

2. You are asking to watermark your content with what I assume to be your company logo; etc. (This wasn't exactly clear by your wording.) Which is indirectly advertising your commercial entity - if this is what you are looking to do; again a breach of EULA.

3. Are you supporting these games and commissioning your employees to "support" these IPs/Games by creating assets for them? If so; that's a ToS Break aswell atleast for Reforger.

4. I don't think there was any notion that anyone would be taking donations from your work to begin with; you've said a few times this is unreleased content. So how is anyone taking donations from the content that has yet to be released?

We are trying to be of assistance and provide guidance to you; and in no way was anyone disperaging your work. We are simply stating; you seem to be treading a fine line.

[abstract crest]

Interested in whether using a high quality version of the mod that is only available on the servers that you're selling is a form of monetization too? Because essentially it's basically saying "pay money and you get access to this version of the mod"...? Or am I missing something?

[fiery egret]

#other_ip_topics message
Not taking sides, just pointing this out

[abstract crest]

Except Skippy runs a game hosting company and said "This arrangement would enable the community to retain access to the modifications, while allowing us to preserve a degree of distinctiveness within our servers"

[grim sand]

"I apologise if this decision disappoints individuals who intended to generate revenue through "donations" using our content."
is a weird comment

[abstract crest]

Not taking sides either but that would definitely something that I would get verified before doing it with BI because as a company you don't want to have access removed if you breach their monetization rules

And not verified with us randos in discord chat 😉

Heh 🙂 I would reach out to MarioE and/or email [e-mail] with a detailed description of what you'd like to do. Tbh, they are the only people who can give a definitive answer, the rest of us (and BI employees) will give you a "best guess" based on what has come before...

[vast stump]

BI developer?

then @coral juniper is the contact point

[abstract crest]

BI developers can not give legal opinions for BI... only MarioE, Dwarden and their Legal Department can...

And really, only their Legal Department is canonical

[vast stump]

👍

[coral juniper]

Hey. Just for information. I am on vacations until the 4th of November 😅

[vast stump]

5th of November:

[pliant oracle]

why does this reminds me of A2, buy the DLC and you'll get the HD texture of the vehicle already ingame

[dark tulip]

That is/was different; the core game contained the low res textures, while the DLC contained the high res variants.

Similar to how A3 allows you to see and "use" DLC gear/vehicles, but requires to buy it to fully use it without the "buy now" popup.

And although it's possible to do the same with Reforger, I've got the feeling it will be very easy to bypass.
Either by sharing the "premium" mod around (with high res textures) or by an override mod to change the lowrea to high res textures on the models (since both will be available in the "client-side" mod)

[limber oak]

This, uh, feels like a shady company just using this channel to advertise. Legal questions get asked by lawyers to lawyers, not the "CEO" to a channel of Randoms.

[normal pond]

Not really when "company" is few friends that decided to do something together

[hardy bone]

"few friends that decided to do something together" wouldn't use the terms "customers", "business", "leverage our business to support projects", "community/communities", etc.

From what I could read:
-Either they are trying to make money from it while stating the opposite (in the same way some Life server/communities did/do)
-Or they are genuine in their words, and might be doing "abuse of corporate assets" by using their business tools to run the servers, which can be a crime in multiple country

If it's the later one, try to dissociate properly what is and what isn't part of the business

[rancid stone]

Hello! Hope this is the correct place to ask this. If a mod is licensed APL-SA but one of it's dependencies is APL-ND, are we allowed to mod the APL-SA mod as long as we don't change anything in the APL-ND mod?

[grim sand]

ND means no modding that mod. I don't think it limits "bundling" as long as you comply with any custom license. I can't remember if having ND, forces you to be ND as well - I would have to relook.

[rugged prawn]

this sounds like a contradictory scenario. Because upstream is ND the SA one should not really exist, or at the very least not be SA but be ND as well (in case they got special permission)

[rancid stone]

it seems like the SA mod is just using assets in the ND mod, not actually changing anything in the ND mod?

On another note, maybe the workshop should not allow an author to choose the ND license when it uses a dependency that is licensed SA, which requires you to use SA. I need to talk to an author about that, not that its a huge deal to me, just gotta educate them that they cant modify my SA scripts and stuff and make it ND for themselves.

[grim sand]

I read the license in full again, it doesn't say ND forces ND downstream, just no modifications and attribution as per the authors wishes. Which I guess is because you can't modify it, so there's no license change.

If they modify your scripts and make it ND thats one thing, bundling it with extra stuff and making it ND is another. But as is, if they are expanding on it - it looks like SA forces SA downstream.

[dark tulip]

But the downstream only applies to the original content, not the new/modified content. That can have a different license.

[rugged prawn]

what do you mean? If i release something APL-SA i grant you the right to derive from/modify it ONLY if the modification is also APL-SA. It cannot have a different license. That is what SA stands for.

[dark tulip]

If feature A is derived from APL-SA, than feature A must be APL-SA.
If I add (new) feature B, than this does not need to be APL-SA as well.

[rugged prawn]

yes only if B is completely dsconnected, but then the licesnse has to clearely state which part is which then. For example in A3 RHS mods, a number of pbos contained modifications of vanilla APL-SA models, so in the EULA it was clearely stated which rhs pbos fall under this

[grim sand]

Yea, thats my take on SA as well. As well, thats how you get around ND as well - the clear disconnect.

[torn nebula]

nd implies you can choose to tolerate any modifications I believe

While SA doesnt grant the same. if im correct.

[rugged prawn]

well technically, this is what I've heard from an IP lawyer, as the IP holder, since it is up to me to file any claim against anyone going against my EULA, I can also choose to tolerate at will any violation. At RHS we also operate on this principle and tolerate many derivatives despite our ND license as long as they stick to some rule. However by stating that its ND we always reserve the right to strike with DMCA if the derivative is deemed to be violating our rules.

BI will not DMCA anyone on the workshop without the original author's claim to it. Probably majority of everything on the workshop has bad licensing

people take APL-ND and -SA and derive from them, publishing in APL

and if the upstream author doesnt complain it just stays this way

[zealous ore]

correct ^^

[grim sand]

Yea, because no "crime" is committed in civil problems until the owner crys foul - that's why you have to defend your IP rights or you lose them to the commons.

That said, IP crimes (at least in Canada) also have a criminal element (state enforcement) so technically the state could go and enforce your rights without your permission - although I don't really know in what case that would ever happen.

[rugged prawn]

I guess theoretically yeah.

[grim sand]

Giving it more thought. It's likely the criminal element is the state's equivalency of civil rights. So that the country can protect its trademarks like the flag, seals and strategic patents and all that sort of stuff.

I'm not a lawyer but that's my best guess.

[rancid stone]

Yeah, this is why ND sketches me out and I dont even want to think about modifying a mod licensed as such. The author could decide at any moment they want to report me after allowing/tolerating it for any period of time, and there's nothing I can do about it. Pretty sure even if they gave me some sort of exception document to prove they allowed me to modify their mod, that wouldn't matter if they simply changed their mind and decided to report me. Anytime an author tells me I have permission to modify their ND mod it feels like a dangerous trap!

[fiery egret]

I'm not a lawyer, but it seems wrong to me that if someone gave you explicit permission to use their [specific version of the] mod on custom terms, and that you have proof of it, that they could be allowed to revoke it, whatever you do later, including insulting their mother.

I always thought that that's why licenses have that part where they say "if you do this, this license is void".

[grim sand]

You can always add wording that this is irrevocable.

[fiery egret]

I don't see how getting a free permission to use a mod differs from buying something (besides the fact that in case of Arma, you're not allowed to sell mods, but that's not the point). It's just that in the second case, you have monetary compensation.

And yet, there are no cases where people sell things and then revoke permission (if there have been no revocation clauses in the agreement)

[grim sand]

When it comes to IP rights, You have all the rights in the world until you give them away.

A contract, which is what we're talking about here, is an formal civil agreement to give away the rights for X, y and z.

If you don't specify for how long, or you don't specify the conditions, or the limitations. Anything not specified, results in your full rights being retained.

You're only giving away what's on that piece of paper that you agreed upon. So if it's poorly written, and you're just "allowing the person", You can revoke that. If you're legally binding yourself, with a written agreement, that's a little harder to revoke.

[fiery egret]

I'm not sure if I follow. In case of a written agreement is "irrevocable" implied or not? Because, to me, intuitively, it should be and lawyers include it just to it be clear (and have it explicitly stated)

[grim sand]

Everything has to be explicit. No such thing as implied in law (for all intents and purposes).

[fiery egret]

So your revocation right should as well be made explicit, don't you think? 🙃

[grim sand]

Absolutely. It would be clearly outlined up front, and have both parties agree. A good contract protects both sides. It's not about screwing each other. It's about making sure each side respects each other.

[fiery egret]

Yeah, so that's why I'm asking: if there is no mention of "irrevocability" nor "revocation", then... what's the default?

[grim sand]

The default is always the IP owner. Retains all rights and all control to choose who and what uses their assets/works.

In most countries this is default. The second the work is created. (However, there are certain things like employee employer and some other stuff like when you're a contract mercenary - So it's not always cut and dry. Who owns the IP. Although whoever owns it, the rights are completely theirs)

[fiery egret]

So in plain english: does that mean that they can revoke the right? (even if there have been monetary compensation)

Assuming a badly worded contract, as stated above

[grim sand]

Yeah. If there's no stipulation that the rights are fully or in part, transferred for an indefinite or defined, period. Or worse there's no statement about why you got the money. Then you just paid somebody for nothing 😁

[fiery egret]

Then you just paid somebody for nothing 😁
I want my VAT back! 😉

[grim sand]

Lol.

There is such thing as services not rendered. So if you did pay for something and it got revoked, The service that you paid for wasn't rendered.

But that's outside of the scope of IP, that's verbal contract which is I'll give you money for object, and you violated that verbal (or potentially written) contract.

Now of course I'm only speaking of Canadian law, which is similar to American law, but European law I have no clue. Such as the case internationally. Committing crimes internationally is relatively easy and punishment, and restitution from the criminals is not so easy.

[fiery egret]

It's just a pity that asking "may I get permission to use your mod?" sounds okay, but "may I get irrevocable permission to use your mod?" sounds like "I'm about to screw you, so I need to ensure that you can't screw me back"

Even though you should always be asking for the latter, as I see from this discussion

[grim sand]

Well if the mod is integral to what you're doing. You should be up front saying "Hey can I use your mod, and obviously no takey backsies, unless I do something horribly wrong with it"

Although using a mod is granted by BI via the terms of of workshop. Although RHS has a custom license, that bars specific use - I don't know the specifics of how that works.

BI can do whatever it wants within their realm, but because they do not assume your IP. The worst you can do is pack up your stuff and go home 😂 - although because you're modding - that might include barring you from using your content within the context of ARMA.

[abstract crest]

In the US you may not be able to terminate the license unless you had termination clauses in the license

Or grant of permission to use

[grim sand]

Yea, generally if "a contract does not have a termination clause, the involved parties may then defer to common law to find grounds for termination."

A license, a subset of a contract, but this all hinges that you've had a contractable agreement.

But I mean who in their right mind would hand over money for "sure, you can use my mod" - and then you're going to have to go to court to argue "can use" time specifications 😂

[abstract crest]

Also: A derivative work prepared under authority of the grant before its termination may continue to be utilized under the terms of the grant after its termination, but this privilege does not extend to the preparation after the termination of other derivative works based upon the copyrighted work covered by the terminated grant. 😰 Really glad I am not a lawyer lol

[grim sand]

Well that's kind of cool. That I didn't know.

That's literally a no take backs law

So if you listen to music and get inspired and make music based on what you were previously granted and allowed to do so, they can't retroactively come back and say we also own your inspired work.

[abstract crest]

I guess that's why many licenses specify the specific country's laws under which they are issued too

[grim sand]

Well, licensing only exists as far as the authorities of Nations can throw them. Because realistically it's just what the nation grants you. And at the end of the day that's only backed up by military and wars.

[abstract crest]

Though if a mod that is legally derived from is on Steam then I assume that unless specified otherwise it will be covered by US law

[grim sand]

I'd have to read the terms of use again, I think it's within CZ law as per your overarching EULA and terms of workshop. If we're talking about reforger here.

[abstract crest]

Yeah, was more thinking ARMA 3 😉

[grim sand]

I don't know if Steam workshop can have BI Additional added.

Generally, any good legalese will specify that any disagreement has to be settled in home court. Which again is only as enforceable as they can throw it.

But there's a lot of international agreements, because corporations are now multinational and criminals are even more elusive.

[abstract crest]

Yeah, Steam workshop EULA states: You and Valve agree that this Agreement shall be deemed to have been made and executed in the State of Washington, U.S.A., and Washington law, but has many country specific, specific exemptions

[abstract crest]

But anyway, US law (in the case that either party is in the US and the country of origin was not specified) makes that recent spat between RHS and that "DevGRU adjacent" group where permission was granted then revoked more interesting

If I am remembering right and permission was revoked after the derivative mod was released

Given that the Reforger Workshop nor the RHS EULA specifies the country's law under which they are issued... 🤷

[rapid escarp]

So far as legal jurisdiction of BI's workshop EULA These ARMA REFORGER Workshop Terms of Use (hereinafter referred to as the “Terms of Use”) amend Bohemia Terms and Conditions... Definitions set forth in Bohemia Terms and Conditions shall have the same meaning in these Terms of Use.

Said Bohemia T&Cs: https://accounts.bistudio.com/terms-and-conditions These Terms and Conditions are governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the Czech Republic and both You and Us hereby submit to the exclusive jurisdiction of the Courts of the Czech Republic.

[abstract crest]

Ah, cool. I shall finally buy a new pair of glasses 😭

[grim sand]

Yeah that's what I keep referring to as the workshop terms of use 😁 - You jumped from Steam A3 back to refrigerator 😄

You're bound by both of those anyways. So there's no getting around it even without the direct tie-in,

[rugged prawn]

our EULA is very clear on these points

 Please note that the above-mentioned agreement gives Red Hammer Studios the right to waive any of the conditions at our discretion.

Derivative content refers to any and all modifications based on RHS content. It includes any dependency mods that make use of, or make changes to, our existing files, including re-textures.

 In general, we choose to tolerate derivative mods based on our original content, as long as these mods do not negatively impact the image of RHS, promote terrorism, extremism, pornography, nudity, or any other immoral acts or behaviors.

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.

For any derivative content to be tolerated, a set of rules needs to be followed strictly:

Any commercial modding avenues based on RHS content are strictly prohibited.

All derivative/dependency mods based on RHS must be published publicly (unlisted derivative/dependency mods are NOT allowed).

All derivative content must be published under a similar non-derivative license (BI's APL-ND, for instance).

All derivative content must have a link in its description to this EULA page

Any breach of the above rules will automatically lead to enforcement of our non-derivative clause in our license and removal of the derivative mod from Bohemia's Interactive Workbench.

[abstract crest]

Fair, you might want to add "If we find out you are in any way associated with xyz people after issuing" because that is not covered in your clauses of revocation. Just a suggestion in good faith

[rugged prawn]

Due to repeated infringements of the existing Red Hammer Studios EULA and/or Bohemia's Interactive Terms of Service and/or other reasons, the following groups/persons are STRICTLY PROHIBITED from using RHS mods and creating any derivative content based on RHS Status Quo or any other past, present, or future RHS mods:

Dark Raider Group / DarkGRU server(s) and its modgroup

Sierra Golf and / or any affiliated persons

Joint Task Force Miller and / or any affiliated persons

This list will be constantly updated

[abstract crest]

Named groups. As I say, just may want to add a new clause simply because the previous thing that happened seemed grey to many neutrals.

[dusk slate]

Can I ask here, if a mod is under APL-SA license, can I modify it and than repack it into a unit "modpack" mod for internal use?
From my understanding as long as I dont sell it (commercial use) and I keep credits in the files to the original than its ok?

[lavish basalt]

Technically yes. But there is no pros but full of cons to do

[dusk slate]

wdym

[lavish basalt]

Literally. There seriously no profit but amount of issues

Not legality. But technically

[dusk slate]

well I want to add a line of code to the mod, since I don't think the author will do so. You mean I might have issiues with the mod not working or something else?

[lavish basalt]

Correct

Usually adding a line can be done by a proper and nice way, especially if it is just a config work

[rugged prawn]

if you would ever make your derivative mod available to the public it would also need to be under APL-SA and other would be able to modify your work

[dusk slate]

its in a script, would it still be possible?

[limber oak]

Can do a override usually

[zealous ore]

in the same EULA it clearly states that there will be no individual permission(s) outside the existing EULA, and that is for a good reason. No one from RHS can actually grant permission(s)…we can choose to (or not) enforce the EULA, that is the extent of the permissions allowed

[grim sand]

Yea, thats always been my take - glad to hear it in the open.

[autumn brook]

just curious with no purchasing involved if one makes a mod for a3 and uses inspiration directly from the contact dlc (not stealing models scripts etc just inspiration) is that allowed per eula?

[pliant oracle]

What contact mod?

[lavish basalt]

Arma 3 Contact I suppose?

[autumn brook]

yes

[lavish basalt]

Inspire is not something somebody can claim

[autumn brook]

bet

[grim sand]

That said. If your inspiration is a near copy of the location and the script and the story, you can get yourself in trouble but it takes a little more work.

General rule of thumb, is that you should be distinct enough not to cause confusion between yourself and the original.

[mossy yarrow]

can someone give me an insight of workshop crawler cause im talking to a guy who according to workshop crawler ripped something from me but he claims otherwise. even tho the hashes leads to his server pack

[grim sand]

I see what your talking about (For Ref: https://forums.bohemia.net/forums/topic/204650-arma-3-workshop-crawler-find-reuploads-of-your-workshop-submissions-within-minutes/)

[mossy yarrow]

the model in question is one you can buy, does workshop crawler compare the uv layout ?

[grim sand]

So reading up, it looks like it hashes the file, thus, no two files should ever have similarity. It is possible, but ultra extremely low. Although all you would need to do is slighly mod the file to beat the system, this means a direct copy, no edit - which is a open and shut case.

Now A3 allows for people to use your mod, they just can or can't mod it and relable it, based on your terms.

I'm not 100% BI's policy on "bundling", I haven't been around for that long.

[mossy yarrow]

thanks but im still curious does the workshop crawler compare uvs or something

[grim sand]

Without seeing the code, I couldn't tell you but it says it hashes the file, so it takes "yourcode.exe.pbo.jpg" and does math on it to make "12dbajakfsjqnhbasdkb238323nbadkfbsfks"

and only if the file is the dead same, will you get the same text.

It says it looks at the workshop file, so I'm guessing the bundle is just a direct whole loot, not a sub loot of content.

So I was wrong. It does deep scanning. Which means the "files" are stolen 1:1

Someone copy pasta'ed the file into their bundle.

Yea, it checks well for theivery

[mossy yarrow]

but its interesting because the textures are not 1:1 the same i didnt retexured it yet but the accused ripper did so it must have something to do with the uv

[grim sand]

Its picking up the model not the texture?

Whats your url

Them globals look like they looted you hard, and two others stole the leg holster.

Or its you 😛

[mossy yarrow]

yeah i took models from my other mod 😄

[grim sand]

lol well it caught you red handed you theeeif ;p

[mossy yarrow]

😦

[grim sand]

So these are identical meaning they are copied,

[mossy yarrow]

alright those 2 stole the model but its actually one you can buy, its just they took my p3d i guess

[mossy yarrow]

i talked to one of them

[grim sand]

You nuked one it seems

[mossy yarrow]

yeah i feel bad for him

[grim sand]

Meh. I'm all for looting and the high seas, but you play the game, you get the consequences.

Don't feel bad enforcing your rights.

[mossy yarrow]

i feel bad because its for a model you can buy

[grim sand]

Well, then it isn't your rights to enforce then?

[mossy yarrow]

but the guy really convicned me the model is not from my p3d

but since you said it hashes the models he lied to me

[grim sand]

I'm not a A3 modder, what is a .paa file made of?

[mossy yarrow]

its the texture

[grim sand]

Yea, so that "texture" would be identical if you downloaded the mod and looked at the texture - it all depends on how the hash is done, but a good hash would use the "file" body, and at the very least filesize to make its code.

Bad hashes use file name, so so, use a timestamp and name.

You could do a hex dump and see it matches, or just use eyeballs

[mossy yarrow]

uhh thats too high for me lol

[grim sand]

Well if the hash matches, it should look identical so just DL the mod and look 😛

[mossy yarrow]

the textures dont look the same the uv does

[grim sand]

Weird. Without knowing how they do the hash, I can't speak to it. You could prob DM PuFu about it for more info since he been a expert since 2017. I would assume UV layout would match because the model is bought? Unless you hand UV'ed it.

[fiery egret]

@grim sand @mossy yarrow I just checked on my own mod so that I don't mislead you and the hashes are SHA1 hashes of the file.
That means that file X has literally the same contents as a file in your mod. It is the same file (save for extremely unlikely hash collisions, so much that you're more likely to win the lotto than witness one in the wild)

[grim sand]

Good info. Thats that the "dev" said and 2017 PuFu said as well 😛

[zealous ore]

?

[fiery egret]

You 2017 said it! 🙃

[mossy yarrow]

so basically that guy ripped my imported model ?

[fiery egret]

All I know is that that guy has the same file as you have inside his mod. 1:1
Now it's up to you to figure out if that file could exist as such naturally or if that means someone ripped it from you

You know, you can always just subscribe to his mod and double-check

[mossy yarrow]

alright so to keep it very simple workshow crawler looks for pbo/p3d matches ?

[mossy yarrow]

there is the problem i dont have DayZ and its just a holster model that he retextured but propaply took my p3d

[fiery egret]

As far as I know, the crawler looks for files. It searches for the same files in other mods. It can also look inside PBO files as well, so it should be able to find exactly the same files inside some PBOs belonging to other mods

So it doesn't matter if it's a p3d or something completely different. My mod has .py files and they are being found as well

If the SHA1 matches, that means that that mod contains that very file, period

i dont have DayZ
Maybe you can give a link here and some people who own DayZ would be able to fetch the files for you

But again, if the SHA1 matches it means that the exact same files that you own are inside that other person's mod

Now, if that file is something that could be bought (again, we're talking of a 1:1 file), then who knows.
Otherwise, if that file's SHA1 matches yours and yours has any changes done by you and you only, then it's 100% ripped
@mossy yarrow

If you're not a programmer, you can check the SHA1 of your files by following this, probably: https://stackoverflow.com/questions/478722/what-is-the-best-way-to-calculate-a-checksum-for-a-file-that-is-on-my-machine

(otherwise, I'm doing it by right clicking in explorer and "open git bash here" (as i have git installed) and just doing sha1sum.exe <filename>)

[mossy yarrow]

alright thank you @fiery egret i take a look

[fiery egret]

So to be 120% clear on what the workshop crawler does, what is does is:
Ok, so this is your mod.
Your mod has all these files.
I found another mod that has the SAME file as one of the files inside your mod. It's this file, with the SHA1=...
Maybe it's inside a PBO or it's not, it doesn't matter, it's there, and it's the same file as yours.

Now it's up to you to figure out if it's normal that someone has uploaded the same file as you.

Fun fact: for some time, the crawler kept notifying me that a lot of mods had the same file as me when, in fact, it was... an empty file 😄 (zero bytes)
[in python, you're using a lot of empty __init__.py files inside directories to denote packages, so that's what it kept detecting]

[vast stump]

If 2 people buy same model that has same texture and both convert that same downloaded file without alterations into pbo, is the result same file?

or do they have different SHA?

[fiery egret]

Does the pbo contain ONLY that texture? Nothing else? How do you embed a texture into a PBO? Same software? Is any other metadata embedded when storing the texture inside the PBO? Maybe a timestamp? Etc...

Or actually, maybe that doesn't matter, since the crawler is looking at particular files inside the PBO

So it's more like: how did you convert the texture, to what format and could it be that someone else did the same thing as you resulting in the same 1:1 file as yours, on disk

(note: I'm not proficient with p3d files in Arma; I just know how other stuff works, and I'm trying to help with my limited knowledge, as much as I can)

If there is something that's setting up a timestamp like "creation time", then having the same SHA1 would be a dead giveaway of someone ripping your stuff

[grim sand]

In 2017 you gave a big speech about how this works, and your daily crackdown on all the offenders.

[icy linden]

paid bug bounty program for scripts in reforger would break the terms of service right? ie. solve a bug to get money

[celest sundial]

Depends on if our tools are being used right now. At least right now you will not get any official green light for commercial use of tools. But this is also subject to change in the near future

[flat owl]

Arma 4 in 2027?

[meager fractal]

perhaps 🐮

and offtopic.

[earnest patio]

Hey guys

I have a question

[grim sand]

Hey Rossi,
We may have an answer.

[earnest patio]

So, essentially, Ive came across some of the “private mod” type stuff

Well, I got sent some of it from one of the owners.

Ive essentially got a google drive full of pbos.

How do I go about taking the stuff I like, and making it into a shortened version of the Main mod.

I have received permission to modify it, just not to make money etc off the files

[grim sand]

I'll have to let someone else take this, I know nothing about rebundling.

[earnest patio]

Rgr many thanks

Thats essentially all it is. A big 20gb file. Im just looking to extract a select few items from it in order to have a 2-3 gb version.

[fiery egret]

You've written in a channel related to Intellectual Property and Copyright and you seem to be asking a technical question, not one about the legality of what you want to do

Unless I misread what you've written?

[earnest patio]

Ive been given permission by the owner to modify the existing mods.

All im looking to do is shorten the mod. (Make it a smaller package)

I was told to ask the question in this channel

[fiery egret]

I don't know where to redirect you to, but I'm quite sure this channel deals with the legality of stuff and not how to do repacks 🙂

Another thing is that I don't want to assume anything, because it may very well be as you said, but just make sure that the person who gave you permission to do a modification of their mod actually holds any rights to give you the permission.
For example, if I ripped a car from GTA and put it in Arma, in my Private Mod, I cannot give others permission to modify and release my mod.
And, just for the record, a lot of so called Private Mods are private precisely because they contain stolen stuff (and people don't want others to find out)

I'm not saying that yours does, but there's a non-zero chance that you've been given "permission" to repackage stolen stuff and you may not be aware of it. Make sure that you know where the things that you're repackaging come from, because YOU'll be then responsible for whatever you uploaded.

[earnest patio]

Happy days.
Apologies for the confusion. And the posting of the topic in the wrong channel.

I really appreciate the advice. But the mods were given to me by the creators. Im aware of the copyright / legality of things.

Was just trying to figure out the re-packing

[vast stump]

are these the kind of banned mods made out of stolen assets?

since private mods is nearly always that

[earnest patio]

The Z Squadron UKSF guys gave me access to their mods.

As im currently serving in the uk military

[vast stump]

is it pbos or source files?

[earnest patio]

Their PBO files, not sure the difference 👀

[vast stump]

pbo is packed mod

this is bit of problematic situation as you might have anything there

[earnest patio]

What do you mean?

[vast stump]

mods that are made out of stolen assets, mods that are not allowed to be redistributed (hence it being private)

and we cant help with such things

[earnest patio]

Okay. I mean, im pretty sure they arent stolen. I spoke with the leader of their clan and he sent me the links for his drives which contained the mods. I just wanted to make it smaller…

Thats really all… I dont have a massive understanding. Im just a military guy who plays arma in his free time

[vast stump]

can you DM me the names of the PBOs perhaps?

like screenshot of the file list

[old jay]

I second what HorribleGoat has asked.

You are currently treading in very treacherous waters.

You state that "I got sent some of it from one of the owners". This implies that there are more than one. Care to name them?

You also state "Ive been given permission by the owner to modify the existing mods". Who created the mods?
An "owner" is not the same thing as the creator. It is the creator who holds the rights.

Logic states that if the Owner is the Creator, it would be a relatively simple task for them to reduce the size of the modpack without the need of sending you a 20gb file.

[icy linden]

what options are there for enforcement of restrictions of usage of my content on servers?

[zealous ore]

restrictions -> any
enforcement -> on your side, but nothing that can break the game.

[rugged prawn]

legally practically none I think. Yo can specify in your EULA restrictions, but enforcing it would be impossible probably, but at least they would technically be in violation of your EULA so if any system does come later it would be easily justifiable. Other than that I guess you can script something like searial key checker, making the mod communicate with some database and quietly disable the functionality if the key check fails

[icy linden]

in what ways can I enforce it such that attempts at bypassing enforcement infringe on ND licenses? that would be the easiest way as the infringing mod that bypasses it could then be reported

one way I was thinking of doing it is creating a script that adds a component to say, a vehicle, that once the vehicle is spawned will despawn it and/or display a small message that it is not allowed on this particular server

however, I was told that someone creating a mod that overrides said component to disable the "DRM" would not void the ND license in this case so this is not a useful approach

I know that license enforcement for servers is not a thing so I am interested in some relatively good ways to protect content from inside

[zealous ore]

legally it allowed as long as long as it doesn’t break the game

[rugged prawn]

and break the game == ctd?

[south remnant]

Make unplayable was the result of previous discussions here

[icy linden]

yes, there have been cases where a mod crashes a server or workbench when opened without a license

[zealous ore]

lock / ctg / break gameplay

[rugged prawn]

well gameplay would certainly be broken if the mod doesnt work

[icy linden]

game still works you just cant drive the vehicle or shoot my gun

[rugged prawn]

game works, gameplay doesn't right? just trying to undestand

[icy linden]

or maybe even dont go that far but just display a subtle message on the HUD

[zealous ore]

if it is your own made component m, disabling it would most likely require a dependency mod and that goes under ND

[icy linden]

#other_ip_topics message

[zealous ore]

vanilla gameplay

[zealous ore]

if mod doesn’t work - it does not spawn assets/ the assets have no textures etc then it is fine

[icy linden]

before I put time into development of something I need a list of things that are relatively safe, otherwise I put work into a component script and then a month later someone tells me oh it's useless

I don't want it to give people a false sense of security

I've also personally reported mods that override/modify my APL-ND mods and got ghosted (using the in-game workshop report button)

[zealous ore]

link that to an asset. problem solved

[zealous ore]

send me a dm next time after you report these

and will make sure these are taken care off

[icy linden]

I appreciate it but I shouldn't have to, that button should work

maybe my report was not correct but someone could just tell me lol

[zealous ore]

afaik the reason is lack of resorces to check all the reports

people use that report button like it gives them free candy for all the most retarded reasons

next time dm mario after you made the report then

[icy linden]

oke doke

[normal pond]

Not necessarily. Any license checks, asset removals etc will need to be done inside a script.
All a drm removal addon would need to do is to override the same function, be alphabetically lower in load order (just name it zzzzzzzbdrmremover) and never call super as not tu execute the original function

[icy linden]

It wont compile without the dependency, since the compiler doesn't know the class you are trying to override

But this is kinda offtopic

All I need is methods for enforcement that are allowed and circumventing them to be license infringement 100% of the time

[normal pond]

It won't be. Me creating the same classes and same methods, name wise, does not create a derivative.

[icy linden]

if you create a class called Bacon_SomeClass then the server doesnt start with both of our mods because it cannot have duplicate classes, and to do modded Bacon_SomeClass requires a dependency

[normal pond]

Well, do it, add drm, wait a bit, see if someone manages to go around it without breaking ND.

With this, we will soon return to good old days with local mods and A3Sync. Can't wait.

[grim sand]

If people go a little too hard on protectionism, I think you'll find the mods will just get dropped.

Sure. They'll be people that want to download the hottest stuff, but we're already seeing it with certain mods that people refuse to touch them.

[icy linden]

I see no problem with giving server owners access to mods, what I want to reduce is bad actors

but this is also offtopic

[normal pond]

Bad actors as in?

[meager fractal]

offtopic

[zealous moon]

Hey, so my friends and I were having a discussion about some of the rules regarding mods for A3 and I got to thinking that it'd be really helpful for the community (and possibly even save BI potential legal trouble in the future) if we could actually get a full list of the rules and restrictions for 3rd party content instead of having to rely on word of mouth

There's a few rules I've seen that are unwritten as far as I can tell, with plenty of stuff missing from the EULAs, and it'd be really nice to have them formally listed

[grim sand]

BI is "working on it" for Enfusion but for reasons unknown its taking forever.

[meager fractal]

1. Respect the law
2. Respect the EULA
3. Respect the content's license
4. Follow Wheaton's Law

[zealous moon]

Yeah, that uh, that doesn't cover everything

And it's not exactly a publicly accessible, official listing

[grim sand]

Well if its not in the EULA, and the Content Lice, or TOU of workshops - then its not covered.

[zealous moon]

Well, the EULA states we aren't allowed to make mods that contain edited vanilla content (including textures), but that's not actually an enforced rule

[grim sand]

If we are talking about A3 it likely refers to ripped vanilla content which is still banned.

[zealous moon]

No

It's explicitly in reference to edits of vanilla game textures, as well as models

It's been discussed in here before

"Data that is NOT listed in Arma Licensed Data Pack CANNOT be modified nor used in any way."

Textures aren't in the LDPs

[grim sand]

I thought goat was talking about regular mods, guess not.

[zealous moon]

Yeah

[meager fractal]

that covers 100%, unless you don't know
5. if there is no license, the strictest license must be assumed (aka do nothing with it)

so, uh, what was the question again? 😄

[zealous moon]

I mean, look, I get it, I know Arma 3 is in EOL, the staff still assigned to it probably do have more important things to do, I just feel like it'd be good to have some stuff clarified

[zealous moon]

It doesn't cover the exceptions, like the aforementioned texture thing

[meager fractal]

enforced or not, a rule is a rule

so to clarify; on paper, technically:

• you can retexture a vanilla object, provided you do so using hidden selections (and don't rip the model to texture it, of course)
• you cannot take a vanilla texture and edit it to publish it - that's taking BI work and editing it

[meager fractal]

what exception? taking and editing a vanilla texture may eventually be tolerated, but that is not an exception to be documented, otherwise it is not tolerated, it is permitted

[zealous moon]

It's always been tolerated though, from day 1

[meager fractal]

→ tolerated ←

[zealous moon]

And if it's always tolerated

[meager fractal]

not accepted, not validated, not allowed, no nothing

so there is no exception here

[zealous moon]

Has BI not tolerated them in the past for Arma 3?

[lavish basalt]

Seriously I'd think you should to ask it more straightforwardly

[zealous moon]

How so?

[lavish basalt]

Because I've seen your question in the server we have in common but not here

[zealous moon]

The thing about the difference?

[lavish basalt]

Yes

[zealous moon]

Right

Okay, so what exactly is the difference between tolerated and permitted here?

[grim sand]

Accepted implies permitted which has been pointed out is not the case.

Tolerated implies permitted, but in this case, It's a false tolerating. It's action through in action which is not for the most part legal

[zealous moon]

So TL;DR

It's not technically allowed, they just don't care about enforcing it?

[grim sand]

Not allowed. BI will nail you if and when they feel like it

[meager fractal]

^

[zealous moon]

Oof

[meager fractal]

if you want in this case, "tolerated" = " unofficially 'accepted' " (or can also be "not acting unless big offense")

usually, it's """fine""" if it is using BI content in BI games
however, if BI wants to slam you down for it one day, they can

[grim sand]

That's the whole thing about rights reserved. They reserve their right to do whatever they please.

But the lack of enforcement of their right, does not imply them giving away their right.

(Although in trademark law, this actually is the pathway for disuse)

[meager fractal]

hence my earlier remark

enforced or not, a rule is a rule
😉

[zealous moon]

Example for that last bit, the Argo textures being removed from the A3 workshop, right?

[lavish basalt]

Not true if you mean my Mod

[meager fractal]

all I said only applies to permission-less usage; if you ask Bohemia for the right to do so, they may allow you (see e.g CUP having access to A2 models iirc)

[lavish basalt]

It was removed due to having unaccepted file to have (no, I didn't breached the FBO encryption though)

[grim sand]

(I should also add, The likely reason bi is hesitant to give you any more or any more explicit details - Is because the more they narrow the scope, the more it makes them difficult to enforce their rights. Every narrowing of the scope is basically a restriction upon them)

[meager fractal]

all in all, see https://community.bistudio.com/wiki/Intellectual_Property 🙂

[lavish basalt]

The publicly distributed sample textures was not in the question in my old Project Argo Rearmed

[grim sand]

It was all the softcore pron. Tisk tisk 😜

[zealous moon]

lmao

Okay I am curious about one more thing

The restriction on Editorial models in light of the Activision-GM lawsuit ruling

The ruling basically (at least as far as my non-legalese brain can grasp) put video games on the same level as movies, TV, books, ect. as far as being classed as "Art"

Now I might be wrong here, and please tell me if I am

[meager fractal]

so, huh, still not sure what the question is

[zealous moon]

But since Arma 3 would pass the Rogers Test https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rogers_v._Grimaldi

[meager fractal]

what do you want to do? let's talk about concrete cases here

[zealous moon]

Wouldn't that entitle A3 mods to use editorial licensed content under the grounds of "Artistic Relevance"?

[meager fractal]

"editorial licensed content" what

again, let's talk about a real case please, no theorisation in this channel 😄

[zealous moon]

I am

If I had a 3d model that had an editorial license, wouldn't this finding allow me to use it in a game?

[grim sand]

That's also trademarks, not IP or assets. Rogers was trying to defend his name from being used. Except people were trying to use it to reference his work.